case digest midterm (incomplete)

8/18/2019 Case Digest Midterm (Incomplete)

1/33

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURING UNITED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (SMTFM-UWP), its

offices !"# $e$%es, petitioners,

vs.

NLRC, HON& 'OSE G& DE ERA !"# TOP FORM MANUFACTURING PHIL&, INC&

F!cts

Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United Workers of the Philippines SMTFM! was the certified

collective "argaining representative of all regular rank and file emplo#ees of private respondent Top Form Manufacturing Philippines,

$nc. %t the collective "argaining negotiation on Fe"ruar# &', ())*

, the parties agreed to discuss unresolved economic issues.

%ccording to the minutes of the meeting, %rticle +$$ of the collective "argaining agreement was discussed. The following appear in

said Minutes

%rt. +$$, Wages

Sect. (. — -efer —

Sect. &. Status quo

Sec. . Union proposed that an# future wage increase given "# the government should "e implemented "# the

compan# across/the/"oard or non/conditional.

Management re0uested the union to retain this provision since their sincerit# was alread# proven when the P&1.**

wage increase was granted across/the/"oard. The union acknowledges management2s sincerit# "ut the# are worried

that in case there is a new set of management, the# can 3ust show their 45%. The union decided to DEFER this

provision.

The union insisted on the incorporation in the 45% of the union proposal on 6automatic across/the/"oard wage increase.6

7n 7cto"er (1, ())*

, the 8TWP5/948 issued W!*e O#e No& + granting an increase of P('.** per da# in the salar# of workers.

This was followed "# W!*e O#e No& + dated -ecem"er &*, ())*

providing for a P(&.** dail# increase in salar#.

%s e:pected, the union re0uested the implementation of said wage orders. ;owever, the# demanded that the increase "e on an across/

the/"oard "asis. The compan# refused to accede to that demand. $nstead, it implemented a scheme of increases purportedl# to avoid

wage distortion. Thus, the compan# granted

(. the P('.** increase under Wage 7rder 9o. *( to workers


2/33

collective "argaining negotiation on Fe"ruar# &', ())* regarding wages, arguing additionall# that said Minutes forms part of the

entire agreement "etween the parties.

T0e %!sic 1e$ise of t0is !*.$e"t is #efi"ite/2 ."te"!%/e. To start with, if there was indeed a promise or undertaking on the part

of private respondent to o"ligate itself to grant an automatic across/the/"oard wage increase, 1etitio"e ."io" s0o./# 0!3e e4.este#

o #e$!"#e# t0!t s.c0 51o$ise o ."#et!6i"*5 %e i"co1o!te# i" t0e C7A& %fter all, petitioner union has the means under the

law to compel private respondent to incorporate this specific economic proposal in the 45%. $t could have invoked %rticle &1& of the

?a"or 4ode defining 6dut# to "argain,6 thus, the dut# includes 6e:ecuting a contract incorporating such agreements if re0uested "#

either part#.6

Petitioner union2s assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the same proposal ma# have a factual "asisconsidering the allegations in the aforementioned 3oint affidavit of its mem"ers. ;owever, %rticle &1& also states that the dut# to

"argain 6does not compel an# part# to agree to a proposal or make an# concession.6

Thus, petitioner union ma# not validl# claim that

the proposal em"odied in the Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the 45% that it finall# entered into with private respondent.

The 45% is the law "etween the contracting parties. $n the same vein, 45% provisions should "e 6construed li"erall#. Ho8e3e, it

*oes 8it0o.t s!2i"*, t0!t o"/2 1o3isio"s e$%o#ie# i" t0e C7A s0o./# %e so i"te1ete# !"# co$1/ie# 8it0& W0ee ! 1o1os!/

!ise# %2 ! co"t!cti"* 1!t2 #oes "ot fi"# 1i"t i" t0e C7A, it is "ot ! 1!t t0eeof !"# t0e 1o1o"e"t 0!s "o c/!i$

80!tsoe3e to its i$1/e$e"t!tio"&

;ence, petitioner union2s contention that the Minutes of the collective "argaining negotiation meeting forms part of the entire

agreement is pointless. The Minutes reflects the proceedings and discussions undertaken in the process of "argaining for worker

"enefits in the same wa# that the minutes of court proceedings show what transpired therein.

%t the negotiations, it is "ut natural for

"oth management and la"or to adopt positions or make demands and offer proposals and counter/proposals. ;owever, nothing is

considered final until the parties have reached an agreement. $n fact, one of management2s usual negotiation strategies is to 6. . . agree

tentativel# as #ou go along with the understanding that nothing is "inding until the entire agreement is reached.6

$f indeed private

respondent

promised to continue with the practice of granting across/the/"oard salar# increases ordered "# the government,

such promise

could onl# "e demanda"le in law if incorporated in the 45%.

Respondent Company NOT in Bad Faith

Moreover, "# making such promise, private respondent ma# not "e considered in "ad faith or at the ver# least, resorting to the scheme

of feigning to undertake the negotiation proceedings through empt# promises. %s earlier stated, petitioner union had, under the law,

the right and the opportunit# to insist on the foreseeable fulfillment of the private respondent2s promise "# demanding its incorporationin the 45%. 7ec!.se t0e 1o1os!/ 8!s "e3e e$%o#ie# i" t0e C7A, t0e 1o$ise 0!s e$!i"e# 9.st t0!t, ! 1o$ise, t0e

i$1/e$e"t!tio" of 80ic0 c!""ot %e 3!/i#/2 #e$!"#e# ."#e t0e /!8&

The Union’s Reliance in Kiok Loy v. NLRC is misplaced

Petitioner2s reliance on this 4ourt2s pronouncements in Kiok Loy v. NLRC

: is, therefore, misplaced. $n that case, the emplo#er refused

to "argain with the collective "argaining representative, ignoring all notices for negotiations and re0uests for counter proposals that the

union had to resort to conciliation proceedings. $n that case, the 4ourt opined that 6a! 4ompan#2s refusal to make counter/proposal, if

considered in relation to the entire "argaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is speciall# true where the Union2s re0uest for a

counter/proposal is left unanswered.6 4onsidering the facts of that case, the 4ourt concluded that the compan# was 6unwilling to

negotiate and reach an agreement with the Union.6 ;

$n the instant case, however, petitioner union does not den# that discussion on its proposal that all government/mandated salar#

increases should "e on an across/the/"oard "asis was 6DEFERRED,6 purportedl# "ecause it relied upon the 6undertaking6 of the

negotiating panel of private respondent. + 9either does petitioner union den# the fact that 6there is no provision of the ())* 45%

containing a stipulation that the compan# will grant across/the/"oard to its emplo#ees the mandated wage increase.6 The# simpl#

assert that private respondent committed 6acts of unfair la"or practices "# virtue of its contractual commitment made during the

collective bargaining process.6 The mere fact, however, that the proposal in 0uestion was not included in the 45% indicates that

no contractual commitment thereon was ever made "# private respondent as no agreement had "een arrived at "# the parties.

With the e:ecution of the 45%, "ad faith "argaining can no longer "e imputed upon an# of the parties thereto. %ll provisions in the

45% are supposed to have "een 3ointl# and voluntaril# incorporated therein "# the parties. This is not a case where private respondent

e:hi"ited an indifferent attitude towards collective "argaining "ecause the negotiations were not the unilateral activit# of petitioner union. T0e C7A is 1oof e"o.*0 t0!t 1i3!te es1o"#e"t e


3/33

relentlessl# pursued the incorporation in the 45% of its proposal. The inevita"le conclusion is that private respondent did not commit

the unfair la"or practices of "argaining in "ad faith and discriminating against its emplo#ees for implementing the wage orders

pursuant to law.

G.R. No. 76989 September 29, 1987

MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioer!,

"!.

NA#IONAL LA$OR RELA#IONS %OMMISSION, &' MEL$A %. $ELON%IO, re!po'et!.

FACTS: Herein Private respondent Beloncio, employee and assistant head waitress at Manila

Mandarin Hotel was expelled from the petitioner Manila Mandarin mployees !nion for acts

alle"edly inimical to the interests of the #nion on the $asis of the #nion sec#rity cla#se of their

collective $ar"ainin" a"reement and the Hotel acceded $y placin" Beloncio on forced leave%

Two days $efore the e&ective date of her forced leave, Beloncio 'led a complaint for #nfair la$orpractice and ille"al dismissal a"ainst the #nion and Hotel $efore the ()*C%

The )a$or Ar$iter held that the #nion was "#ilty of #nfair la$or practice when it demanded the

separation of Beloncio% The #nion was then ordered to pay all the wa"es and frin"e $ene'ts d#e

to Beloncio from the time she was on forced leave #ntil act#al reinstatement, and to pay

exemplary dama"es and attorney+s fee which was armed with modi'cations $y the ()*C%

Hence this petition%

-SS!: .HTH* /* (/T TH ()*C **0 -( (/T 0C)A*-(1 THAT TH P*S(T

C/(T*/2*S3 -(2/)20 -(T*A4!(-/( C/(F)-CTS A(0 TH*F/* -T HAS (/ 5!*-S0-CT-/(

/2* TH S!B5CT4MATT* TH*/F

H)0: (o, the ()*C has 6#risdiction over the case%

!nder the )a$or Code, Art% 789% !nfair la$or practices of la$or or"aniations% ; -t shall $e #nfair

la$or practice for a la$or or"aniation, its ocers, a"ents or representatives:


4/33

dismissal% !nder the CBA, mem$ership in the #nion may $e lost thro#"h exp#lsion only if there is

non4payment of d#es or a mem$er or"anies, 6oins, or forms another la$or or"aniation% The

char"e of disloyalty a"ainst Beloncio arose from her emotional remar@ to a waitress who

happened to $e a #nion steward, .ala a@on" tiwala sa !nion ninyo% The remar@ was made in

the co#rse of a heated disc#ssion re"ardin" Beloncio+s e&orts to ma@e a lay and recalcitrant

waiter adopt a $etter attit#de towards his wor@%

-f the only #estion is the le"ality of the exp#lsion of Beloncio from the !nion #ndo#$tedly, the

#estion is one co"nia$le $y the B)*% B#t, the #estion extended to the dismissal of Beloncio orsteps leadin" thereto% (ecessarily, when the hotel decides the recommended dismissal, its acts

wo#ld $e s#$6ect to scr#tiny% Partic#larly, it will $e as@ed whether it violates or not the existin"

CBA% Certainly, violations of the CBA wo#ld $e #nfair la$or practice%

Anent the #estion on the award of dama"es and attorney+s fees, the collective $ar"ainin"

a"reement $etween the petitioner4the !nion and the Manila Mandarin Hotel provides the !nion

shall hold the Company free and $lameless from any and all lia$ilities that may arise sho#ld the

employee #estion the dismissal%

LI$ER#Y (LOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES )S. LI$ER#Y (LOUR MILLS

/n Fe$r#ary D, >E?, respondent Philippine )a$or Alliance Co#ncil E?8, petitioners Biascan and varisto 'led similar complaint as re"ards C/)A% At this pont petitioners

are veerin" away from P)AC%

/n the same year, petitioners or"anied new #nion for ran@ and 'le employees of )i$erty% They 'led PC as

the #nion amon" the ran@ and 'le% P)AC then expelled petitioners d#e to disloyalty%

The matter of dismissal was s#$mitted to comp#lsory ar$itration as well as the demand for C/)A%

Meanwhile, the claims for emer"ency allowance were referred for vol#ntary ar$itration to dm#ndo Ca$al,

who event#ally dismissed the same on the "ro#nd that the allowances were already a$sor$ed $y the wa"e

increases% This latter case was #ltimately also certi'ed for comp#lsory ar$itration and consolidated with

the termination case $ein" heard $y )oma$ao% His decision was, on appeal, dealt with $y the ()*C as

a$ove stated, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on A#"#st 7D, >EI>%

At the o#tset, we note that the petitioners are ta@in" an am$ivalent position concernin" the CBA concl#ded

in >E?% .hile claimin" that this was entered into in $ad faith and to forestall the payment of the

emer"ency allowances expected to $e decreed, they nonetheless invo@e the same a"reement to s#pport

their contention that their complaint for emer"ency allowances was invalidly referred to vol#ntary

ar$itrator Ca$al rather than Froilan M% Bac#n"an%

The position of the company is that the emer"ency allowance re#ired $y P%0% (o% 878 is already covered

$y the wa"e increases prescri$ed in the said CBA% F#rthermore, p#rs#ant to its Article 2---, s#ch allowances

also incl#de all other stat#tory minim#m wa"e increases that mi"ht $e decreed d#rin" the lifetime of thesaid a"reement%

That a"reement provided in Section 7 thereof as follows:

Section 7% The wa"e increase in the amo#nts and d#rin" the period a$ove set forth shall, in

the event of any stat#tory increase of the minim#m wa"e, either as allowance or as $asic

wa"e, d#rin" the life of this A"reement, $e considered compliance and payment of s#ch

re#ired stat#tory increase as far as it will "o and #nder no circ#mstances will it $e


5/33

c#m#lative nor d#plication to the di&erential amo#nt involved conse#ent to s#ch stat#tory

wa"e increase%

The petitioners maintains that the a$ove4#oted Section 7 of CBA is invalid $eca#se it constit#tes a waiver

$y the la$orers of f#t#re $ene'ts that may $e "ranted them $y law% They contend this cannot $e done

$eca#se it is contrary to p#$lic policy%

ISSUE* ./( the CBA is invalid $eca#se it contrary to p#$lic policyJ

RULING* (/%

.hile the principle is correct, the application is not, for there are no $ene'ts $ein" waived #nder the

provision% The $ene'ts are already incl#ded in the wa"e increases% -t is the law itself that considers these

increases, #nder the conditions prescri$ed in )/- (o% >?, as e#ivalent to, or in lie# of, the emer"ency

allowance "ranted $y P%0% (o% 878%

-n fact, the company a"reed to "rant the emer"ency allowance even $efore the o$li"ation was imposed $y

the "overnment% .hat the petitioners claim they are $ein" made to waive is the additional P89%99

allowance $#t the tr#th is that they are not entitled to this $eca#se they are already en6oyin" the

stip#lated increases% There is no waiver of these increases%

Moreover, Section 7 provides that the wa"e increase shall $e considered payment of any stat#tory

increase of the minim#m wa"e as far as it will "o, which means that any amo#nt not covered $y s#ch

wa"e increase will have to $e made "ood $y the company% -n short, the di&erence $etween the stip#lated

wa"e increase and the stat#tory minim#m wa"e will have to $e paid $y the company notwithstandin" and,

indeed, p#rs#ant to the said article% There is no waiver as to this%

C#rio#sly, Article 7 was prod#ced ver$atim in the collective $ar"ainin" a"reement concl#ded $y the

petitioners with the company in >E?? after P)AC had $een replaced $y the new la$or #nion formed $y

petitioners varisto and Biascan% 11

-t is dic#lt to #nderstand the petitioners+ position when they $low hot

and cold li@e this%

(PCE CASE)

ME-SHURN CORPORATION AND SAMM= CHOU, petitioners,vs.ME-SHURN WORKERS UNION-FSM AND ROSALINAB CRU>, respondents.

FACTS

The 8CF emplo#ees of Me/Shurn 4orporation organi@ed Me/Shurn Workers Union/FSM Union (!, an affiliate of the Fe"ruar# Si: MovementFSM!. Union ( had a pending application for registration with the 5?8.

Petitioner corporation started placing on forced leave all the 8CF emplo#ees who were mem"ers of the unionDs "argaining unit.

Union ( filed a P4E with the Med/%r"itration.The corporation a comment stating that it would temporaril# la# off emplo#ees and cease operations,

on account of its alleged ina"ilit# to meet the e:port 0uota re0uired "# the 5oard of $nvestment.

While the Petition was pending, (= union mem"ers allegedl# su"mitted a withdrawal. %s a conse0uence, the the petition was dismissed. -7?E

Undersecretar# granted the unionDs appeal and ordered the holding of a certification election.

Union ( filed a 9otice of Strike against petitioner corporation on the ground of unfair la"or practice illegal lockout and union "usting!.

Samm# 4hou the other petitioner herein! allegedl# re0uired the remaining union officers to sign an %greement containing a guarantee that upon their return to work, no union or la"or organi@ation would "e organi@ed. $nstead, the union officers were to serve as mediators "etween la"or and

management. %fter it, the operations of the corporation resumed.

The union reorgani@ed and elected a new set of officers. 8espondent 8osalina 4ru@ was elected president. Thereafter, it filed two 4omplaintscharging petitioner corporation with unfair la"or practice.!

Petitioner corporation 0uestioned the legalit# of the representation of respondent union. %llegedl#, it was not the latter, "ut the Me/Shurn $ndependent

Emplo#eesD Union Union &!/with 4hristopher Malit as president different president! // that was recogni@ed as the e:isting e:clusive "argainingagent of the 8CF emplo#ees and as the one that had concluded a 45% with the corporation. ;ence, the corporation asserted that the -ecision

ordering the holding of a certification election had "ecome moot and academic.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_156292_2005.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_156292_2005.html#fnta


6/33

Union ( contested the legalit# of the formation of the Union & and petitionersD recognition of it as the e:clusive "argaining agent of the emplo#ees.

8espondents argued that the pendenc# of the representation issue "efore the -7?E had "arred the alleged recognition of the aforementioned union.

ISSUE W?N U"io" 0!s /e*!/ 1eso"!/it2 to $!i"t!i" ! s.it !*!i"st 1etitio"e Co1o!tio"&

HELD =ES&

Legal Personality of Respondent nion

9either are we prepared to "elieve petitionersD argument that respondent union was not legitimate. $t should "e pointed out that on Gune &), ()), itfiled a Petition for 4ertification Election. While this Petition was initiall# dismissed "# the med/ar"iter on the "asis of a supposed withdrawal, note

that the appeal was granted and that the Undersecretar# ordered the holding of a certification election.

The -7?E would not have entertained the Petition if the union were not a legitimate la"or organi@ation within the meaning of the ?a"or 4ode. Under

this 4ode, in an unorgani@ed esta"lishment, onl# a legitimate union ma# file a petition for certification election. ;ence, while it is not clear from the

record whether respondent union is a legitimate organi@ation, we are not readil# inclined to "elieve otherwise, especiall# in the light of the pro/la"or policies enshrined in the 4onstitution and the ?a"or 4ode.

+eril#, the union has the re0uisite personalit# to sue in its own name in order to challenge the unfair la"or practice committed "# petitioners against it

and its mem"ers. 6$t would "e an unwarranted impairment of the right to self/organi@ation through formation of la"or associations if thereafter suchcollective entities would "e "arred from instituting action in their representative capacit#.6

Finall#, in view of the discriminator# acts committed "# petitioners against respondent union prior to the holding of the certification election onSeptem"er &', &*** // acts that included their immediate grant of e:clusive recognition to another union as a "argaining agent despite the pending

Petition for certification election // the results of that election cannot "e said to constitute a repudiation "# the affected emplo#ees of the unionDs right

to represent them in the present case.

(Notwithstanding the Petition for Certification Election filed by respondents and despite knowledge of the pendency thereof, petitioners recognized a

newly formed union and hastily signed with it an alleged Collective Bargaining Agreement. Their preference for the new union was at the expense of

respondent union. Moncada Bijon Factory v. CIR held that an employer could be held guilty of discrimination, even if the preferred union was not

company-dominated.)

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT, petitioner,

vs.

HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Undersecretary of Labor, and NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA

(NLM)-KATIPUNAN, respondents.

FACTS:

Respondent Union filed a PEC in behalf of the R&F employees of the petitioner Corporation.

Petitioner a Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent. Union's registration making it void

and invalid. It alleged that: a) respondent Union's registration was tainted with false, forged, double or multiple signatures of those who allegedly

took part in the ratification of the respondent Union's constitution and by-laws and in the election of its officers that there were two sets of supposed

attendees to the alleged organizational meeting; that the alleged chapter is claimed to have been supported by 318 members when in fact less persons

who actually signed; and b) while the application for registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organizational meeting

held on June 27, 1993, the charter certification issued by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day prior to the formation

of the chapter, thus, there were serious falsities in the dates of the issuance of the charter certification and the organization meeting of the alleged

chapter.


7/33

Petitioner filed a Petition for cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsification and likewise filed (with the Med-

Arbiter)a motion for suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personality is

determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration.

The Med-Arbiter directed the holding of a certification election and explained that the Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa ng Pizza Hut (local affiliate of

respondent Union) is a LLO in contemplation of law and shall remain as such until its very charter certificate is canceled or otherwise revoked by

competent authority. The alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false statement in connection with the issuance of the charter certificate are collateral

issues which could be properly ventilated in the cancellation proceedings. The Sec. Also affirmed the same.

ISSUE: W/N the order to conduct a certification election is proper (despite the petition for cancellation of the Union's registration on the

grounds of fraud and falsification).

HELD: NO.

The Labor Code requires that in organized and unorganized establishments, a PCE must be filed by a LLO. The acquisition of rights by any union or

labor organization, particularly the right to file a PCE depends on W/N the labor organization has attained the status of a LLO.

In this case, the Med-Arbiter disregarded the petitioner's prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping

declaration that the union was in the possession of a charter certificate so that "for all intents and purposes, Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut

(was) a legitimate labor organization” and that the alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false statement in connection with the issuance of the charter

certificate are collateral issues which could be ventilated in the cancellation proceedings.

However, it cannot be denied that the grounds invoked by petitioner for the cancellation of respondent Union's registration fall under paragraph (a)and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code, to wit:

(a) 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, the list of members who took part in the ratification of the constitution and by-

laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of members who took part in the ratification;

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud 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 within thirty (30) days from election.

xxx xxx xxx

The grounds in Article 239 of the Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to the right of respondent Union to ask for certification election.

Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized, which, at

best, holds on to a mere scrap of paper. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no

rights, particularly the right to ask for certification election in a bargaining unit.

As we laid emphasis in Progressive Development Corporation Labor , "the employer needs the assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona

fide organization, one which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau." Clearly, fraud, falsification and

misrepresentation in obtaining recognition as a legitimate labor organization are contrary to the Med-Arbiter's conclusion not merely collateral issues.

The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election.

Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate labor organization it begins to possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law to

such organizations. As such rights and privileges ultimately affect areas which are constitutionally protected, the activities in which labor

organizations, associations and unions are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be zealously protected. A strict enforcement of the

Labor Code's requirements for the acquisition of the status of a legitimate labor organization is in order.

Inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent Union had been seriously challenged, it would have been more prudent to have granted petitioner's

request for the suspension of proceedings in the certification election case, until the issue of the legality of the Union's registration shall have been

resolved.

Additional:

ISSUE: W/N, after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the BLR merely becomes a

ministerial function.

HELD: NO.

Article 234 of the Labor Code clearly indicates that the requirements embodied therein are intended as preventive measures against the commission

of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the necessary papers and documents for registration, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the

requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious

irregularities, a labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of recognition has been issued,

the propriety of the labor organization's registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with

Articles 238 and 239 of the LC, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for certification election.


8/33

These measures are necessary — and may be undertaken simultaneously — if the spirit behind the Labor Code's requirements for registration are to

be given flesh and blood. Registration requirements specifically afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into

joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. Such

requirements are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are

engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected.

Thus, in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment , we held:

The controversy in this case centers on the requirements before a local or chapter of a federation may file a petition for certification election

and be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner's employees.

xxx xxx xxx

But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a certification election in an unorganized

establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization . . .

xxx xxx xxx

. . . The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona-fide organization, one which has not submitted false

statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay

these apprehensions of management. Not only is the issuance of any false statement and misrepresentation or ground for cancellation of

registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury.

The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of

protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control

union funds or to use the union for dubious ends.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . It is not this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by law in order to make them wiser or to allow greater protection

to the workers and even their employer. Our only recourse is, x x x, to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as requisites for

local or chapter formation.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local union's right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent inthe petitioner's establishment. We are merely saying that the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to

exercise this right. Big federations and national unions of workers should take the lead in requiring their locals and chapters to faithfully

comply with the law and the rules instead of merely snapping union after union into their folds in a furious bid with rival federations to get

the most number of members

Furthermore, the Labor Code itself grants the BLR a period of thirty (30) days within which to review all applications for registration (Article 235).

The thirt#/da# period ensures that an# action taken "# the 5?8 is made in consonance with the mandate of the ?a"or 4ode, which specificall#

re0uires that the "asis for the issuance of a certificate of registration should "e compliance with the re0uirements for recognition under %rticle &=.

Since, o"viousl#, recognition of a la"or union or la"or organi@ation is not merel# a ministerial function.


9/33

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) vs. HON. FERRER-CALLEJA (1989) FACTS:

GAW Trading, Inc. recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the maorit! of its

em"lo!ees. A #$A %as executed.

In the meantime, &outhern 'hili""ines (ederation of

Labor )&'(L* together %ith +agaisang -amumuo sa GAW )+A-GAW* undertoo a &trie after it

failed to get GAW Trading Inc. to sit for a conference res"ecting its demands in an effort to "ressure

GAW Trading Inc. to mae a turnabout of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive

bargaining re"resentative of its em"lo!ees

GAW Trading Inc. filed a T/

Labor Arb!"r: held the strie as illegal

GAW Lumad Labor Union )GALLU0'&&LU* (ederation ... filed a #ertification 1lection "etition

#"$-Arb!"r 2 ruled for the holding of a certification election in all branches of GAW Trading Inc. BLR2

granted ALU3s a""eal )-* and reversed the -ed0Arbiter on the ground that the #$A has been

effective and valid and the contract bar rule a""licable

&'(L filed a - to the $

BLR: reversed its "revious decision and ordered the holding of a certification election among the

ran0and0file %orers of GAW Trading, Inc. and ruled that the 4contract0bar rule5 does not a""l! in

this case because the #$A involved is defective as it %as not dul! submitted in accordance %ith the

Im"lementing ules. xxx 4There is no "roof tending to sho% that the #$A has been "osted in at

least 6 cons"icuous "laces in the establishment at least 7 da!s before its ratification and that it has

been ratified b! the maorit! of the em"lo!ees in the bargaining unit.

Iss%": Whether the contract-bar rule is applicable in this case?

HELD: NO Wind no reversible error in the challenged decision of res"ondent director. A careful

consideration of the facts culled from the records of this case, !ields the conclusion that the collective

bargaining agreement in 8uestion is indeed defective hence un"roductive of the legal effects

attributed to it b! the former director in his decision %hich %as subse8uentl! and "ro"erl! reversed.


10/33

To be a bar to a certification election, the #$A must be ade8uate in that it com"rise substantial terms

and conditions of em"lo!ment

LA SUERTE CI&AR ' CI&ARETTE FACTOR vs. DIRECTOR OF THE BLR (198) FACTS:

The La &uerte #igar and #igarette (actor! 'rovincial and -etro -anila &ales (orce Association

a""lied for and %as granted cha"ter status b! the +ational Association of Trade Unions )+ATU*

&ometime later, 9: local union members signed a oint letter %ithdra%ing their membershi" in

+ATU.

The local union and +ATU filed a "etition for certification election.

The com"an! o""osed on the ground that it %as not su""orted b! at least 9;< )no% 67 members of the local union, 9: had %ithdra%n"rior to the filing of the "etition, and )b* := of the alleged members of the union %ere not em"lo!ees

of the com"an! but %ere inde"endent contractors. The $L director denied the com"an!3s obection

Iss%": Whether the withdrawal of 31 unions from NATU affected the petition for certification election

insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned

HELD: ES The reversed the $L, it a""earing that the 9: union members has %ithdra%n their

su""ort to the "etition $1(/1 the filing of said "etition. It %ould be other%ise if the %ithdra%al %as

made A(T1 the filing of the "etition for it %ould then be "resumed that the %ithdra%al %as not free

and voluntar!. The "resum"tion %ould arise that the %ithdra%al %as "rocured through duress,

coercion or for valuable consideration. In other %ords, the distinction must be that %ithdra%als made

before the filing of the "etition are "resumed voluntar! unless there is convincing "roof to the

contrar!, %hereas %ithdra%als made after the filing of the "etition are deemed involuntar!. The reason

for such distinction is that if the %ithdra%al or retraction is made before the filing of the "etition, the

names of em"lo!ees su""orting the "etition are su""osed to be held secret to the o""osite "art!.

Logicall!, an! such %ithdra%al or retraction sho%s voluntariness in the absence of "roof to the

contrar!. -oreover, it becomes a""arent that such em"lo!ees had not given consent to the filing of

the "etition, hence the subscri"tion re8uirement has not been met. We hold and rule that the :=

members of res"ondent local union are dealers or inde"endent contractors. The! are not em"lo!ees

of "etitioner com"an!. With the %ithdra%al b! 9: members of their su""ort to the "etition "rior to or

before the filing thereof, maing a total of =7, the remainder of 9 out of the => alleged to have

su""orted the "etition can hardl! be said to re"resent the union.


11/33

SAN #I&UEL FOODS* INCOR+ORATED vs. SAN #I&UEL COR+ORATION SU+ER,ISORS a$ EE#+T UNION

&.R. No. 1/020 A%3%s! 1* 211

FACTS:

In G.. +o. ::;9??, entitled an !i"uel #orporation uper$isors and &empt Union $' (a"uesma) the #ourt held

that even if the! handle confidential data regarding technical and internal business o"erations, su"ervisor!em"lo!ees 9 and = and the exem"t em"lo!ees of "etitioner &an -iguel (oods, Inc. )&-(I* are not to be consideredconfidential em"lo!ees, because the same do not "ertain to labor relations, "articularl!, negotiation and settlementof grievances. #onse8uentl!, the! %ere allo%ed to form an a""ro"riate bargaining unit for the "ur"ose of collectivebargaining. The #ourt also declared that the em"lo!ees belonging to the three different "lants of &an -iguel#or"oration -agnolia 'oultr! 'roducts 'lants in #abu!ao, &an (ernando, and /tis, having @communit! or mutualit!of interests,@ constitute a single bargaining unit. The! "erform %or of the same nature, receive the same %agesand com"ensation, and most im"ortantl!, share a common stae in concerted activities. It %as immaterial that thethree "lants have different locations as the! did not im"ede the o"erations of a single bargaining re"resentative.

'ursuant to the #ourts decision in G.. +o. ::;9??, the B/L10+# conducted "re0election conferences. Co%ever,

it %as found out that there %as a discre"anc! in the list of eligible voters.

The -ed0Arbiter issued an /rder directing 1lection /fficer to "roceed %ith the conduct of certification election.

/n the date of the election, "etitioner filed the /mnibus /bections and #hallenge to Doters, 8uestioning the

eligibilit! to vote b! some of its em"lo!ees on the grounds that some em"lo!ees do not belong to the bargaining unit%hich res"ondent sees to re"resent or that there is no existence of em"lo!er0em"lo!ee relationshi" %ith "etitioner.&"ecificall!, it argued that certain em"lo!ees should not be allo%ed to vote as the! are2 ):* confidential em"lo!eesE)6* em"lo!ees assigned to the live chicen o"erations, %hich are not covered b! the bargaining unitE )9* em"lo!ees%hose ob grade is level =, but are "erforming managerial %or and scheduled to be "romotedE )=* em"lo!ees %hobelong to the $arrio Ugong "lantE )7* non0&-(I em"lo!eesE and )F* em"lo!ees %ho are members of other unions.

The -ed0Arbiter issued an /rder directing res"ondent to submit "roof sho%ing that the em"lo!ees in the submitted

list are covered b! the original "etition for certification election and belong to the bargaining unit it sees tore"resent.

In com"liance thereto, res"ondent averred that ):* the bargaining unit contem"lated in the original "etition is the'oultr! Bivision of &an -iguel #or"oration, no% no%n as &an -iguel (oods, Inc.E )6* it covered the o"erations in#alamba, Laguna, #avite, and $atangas and its home base is either in #abu!ao, Laguna or &an (ernando,'am"angaE and )9* it submitted individual and se"arate declarations of the em"lo!ees %hose votes %erechallenged in the election.

The -ed0Arbiter validl! identified the res"ondent as the exclusive bargaining agent of the su"ervisors and exem"t

em"lo!ees of "etitioners -agnolia 'oultr! 'roducts 'lants in #abu!ao, &an (ernando, and /tis.

/n a""eal, the then Acting B/L1 Undersecretar! affirmed the order exce"t for the four em"lo!ees that should be

excluded from oining as because -atias and Lozano are members of -agnolia 'oultr! 'rocessing 'lants -onthl!1m"lo!ees Union, %hile Belos e!es and 'aaron are em"lo!ees of &an -iguel #or"oration, %hich is a se"arateand distinct entit! from "etitioner.

'etitioners motions %ere denied b! B/L1 and #A. Cence this "etition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not these em"lo!ees %ho %ored in a different and se"arate entit! should be excluded.


12/33

6. Whether or not the "a!roll master, human resource and "ersonnel assistant are considered as confidential

em"lo!ees.

RULIN&:

1. +o, the! should not be excluded. There should be onl! one bargaining unit for the em"lo!ees in #abu!ao, &an

(ernando and /tis of -agnolia 'oultr! 'roducts 'lant involved in dressed chicen "rocessing and -agnolia 'oultr!

(arms engaged in live chicen o"erations. #ertain factors, such as s"ecific line of %or, %oring conditions, location

of %or, mode of com"ensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or im"ede their communalit! of interest.

Although the! seem se"arate and distinct from each other, the s"ecific tass of each division are actuall!

interrelated and there exists mutualit! of interests %hich %arrants the formation of a single bargaining unit.

The test of grou"ing is communit! of interest. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining units

acce"tabilit! is %hether or not it is fundamentall! the combination %hich %ill best assure to all em"lo!ees the

exercise of their collective bargaining rights.

. 'a!roll -aster does not involve in dealing %ith confidential labor relations information in the course of the

"erformance of his functions. &ince the nature of his %or does not "ertain to com"an! rules and regulations and

confidential labor relations, it follo%s that he cannot be excluded from the subect bargaining unit.

Cuman esource Assistant, the sco"e of ones %or necessaril! involves labor relations, recruitment and selection

of em"lo!ees, access to em"lo!ees "ersonal files and com"ensation "acage, and human resource management.

'ersonnel Assistant, ones %or includes the recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining

negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and administrative investigations, and securing

legal advice for labor issues from the "etitioners team of la%!ers, and im"lementation of com"an! "rograms.

Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information %hich is outrightl!

dis8ualifies them from union membershi".


13/33

G.R. No. 149552 March 10, 2010

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.ERNESTO CASIO, ROLANDO IGOT, MARIO FAMADOR, NELSON LIM, FELICISIMO BOOC, PROCOPIOOBREGON, JR., a! ANTONIO ANINIPO", Respondents,

a! #IRGILIO PINO, PA$LINO CABREROS, MA. L$NA P. J$MAOAS, DOMINADOR BOOC, FIDEL #ALLE,BARTOLOME A$MAN, REMEGIO CABANTAN, LORETO GON%AGA, EDILBERTO MENDO%A a! ANTONIOPANILAG, Respondents.

FACTS&

The labor union Ilaw at BuklodngMangagawa (IBM)-Loal !" #hapter (Loal !") was the sole and e$lusive bargainingagent o% the rank and %ile e&plo'ees o% M# in Lapu-Lapu #it'. IBM-Loal !", through its o%%iers and board &e&bersheaded b' PI* entered into a #olletive Bargaining +gree&ent (#B+) with M# with stipulations as %ollows

Section 3. MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP – All employees/wo!es employe" #y t$e Comp%ny wit$ t$e e&ception o' t$ose w$o %especi'ic%lly e&cl("e" #y l%w %n" #y t$e tems o' t$is A)eement m(st #e mem#es in )oo" st%n"in) o' t$e *nion wit$in t$ity +3,-"%ys (pon t$e si)nin) o' t$is %)eement %n" s$%ll m%int%in s(c$ mem#es$ip in )oo" st%n"in) t$eeo' %s % con"ition o' t$ei

employment o contin(e" employment.

Rodol%o abiana (abiana), the IBM Regional iretor %or isa'as and Mindanao, %urnished #asio, et al. with opies o% the +%%idavits o% M# e&plo'ees harging #asio, et al. with /ats ini&ial to the interest o% the union./ 0ubse1uentl',Pino, et al., as o%%iers and &e&bers o% the IBM-Loal !", issued a Resolution e$pelling #asio, et al. %ro& the union.

abana said that #asio, et al. &ust be i&&ediatel' dis&issed %ro& servie b' M# pursuant to the losed shopprovision in the e$isting #B+ and warned that %ailure o% M# to do so would onstitute gross violation o% the e$isting#B+ and onstrain the union to %ile a ase %or un%air labor pratie against M#. 0o, M# ter&inated #asio, et al. andplaed the& under preventive suspension.

#asio2s e%%orts to oppose reahed the %ollowing

a. ational Labor Relations #o&&ission (LR#) Regional +rbitration Branh II 3 * #*#ILI+TI*

b. L+B*R +RBIT4R 333 dis&issed

. rievane Mahiner' 333 still no avail

d. oluntar' +rbitration 333 ter&ination is in valid o&pliane with losed shop provision in #B+.

e. #+ 333 set aside the ontention o% oluntar' +rbitration and ruled that while the dis&issal o% #asio, et al., was&ade b' M# pursuant to a valid losed shop provision under the #B+, the o&pan', however, %ailed to observe theele&entar' rules o% due proess in i&ple&enting the said dis&issal.

ISS$E& 5hether or not #asio and other e&plo'ees an be ter&inated b' reason o% the losed shop provision o% the#B+6

R$LE& *.

4ven though the dis&issal o% #asio, et al. was &ade b' M# pursuant to a valid losed shop provision in the #B+, theo&pan' still %ailed to observe the ele&entar' rules o% due proess.

7nder the Labor #ode, an e&plo'ee &a' be validl' ter&inated on the %ollowing grounds (") 8ust auses under +rt.9:9; (9) authori. Ao'h(r ca)*( +or '(r-a'-o -* !-*-**a +ro (/o(' !)( 'o'h( (+orc((' o+ 'h( )-o *(c)r-' ca)*( - 'h( CBA. .


14/33

/7nion seurit'/ is a generi ter&, whih is applied to and o&prehends /losed shop,/ /union shop,/ /&aintenane o% &e&bership,/ or an' other %or& o% agree&ent whih i&poses upon e&plo'ees the obligation to a1uire or retainunion &e&bership as a ondition a%%eting e&plo'&ent. There is union shop when all new regular e&plo'ees arere1uired to 8oin the union within a ertain period as a ondition %or their ontinued e&plo'&ent. There is &aintenaneo% &e&bership shop when e&plo'ees, who are union &e&bers as o% the e%%etive date o% the agree&ent, or whotherea%ter beo&e &e&bers, &ust &aintain union &e&bership as a ondition %or ontinued e&plo'&ent until the'are pro&oted or trans%erred out o% the bargaining unit or the agree&ent is ter&inated. + losed shop, on the otherhand, &a' be de%ined as an enterprise in whih, b' agree&ent between the e&plo'er and his e&plo'ees or theirrepresentatives, no person &a' be e&plo'ed in an' or ertain agreed depart&ents o% the enterprise unless he or sheis, beo&es, and, %or the duration o% the agree&ent, re&ains a &e&ber in good standing o% a union entirel'

o&prised o% or o% whih the e&plo'ees in interest are a part.

7nion seurit' lauses are reogni


15/33

G.R. No. 1030 No(6(r 1, 199

R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.7ON. BIEN#IENIDO E. LAG$ESMA. - h-* ca/ac-' a* $!(r*(cr('ar o+ 'h( D(/ar'(' o+ La6or a!E/o(', C7RISTIAN LABOR ORGANI%ATION OF T7E P7ILIPPINES 8CLOP, NATIONAL FEDERATIONOF LABOR $NIONS 8NAFL$, a! ASSOCIATED LABOR $NIONS 8AL$:T$CP, respondents.

FACTS6

Respondent #hristian Labor *rgani=:). Thus, and to repeat, i% the dis&issal is under 1uestion, as in the ase now atbar whereb' a ase o% illegal dis&issal andor un%air labor praties was %iled, the e&plo'ees onerned ould still1uali%' to vote in the eletions.

There%ore, the e&plo'ees o% petitioner who partiipated in the strike, legall' re&ain as suh, until either the &otion todelare their e&plo'&ent status legall' ter&inated or their o&plaint %or illegal dis&issal is resolved b' the LR#.


16/33

G.R. No. 93. J)( 15, 1992.

NESTLE P7ILIPPINES, INC., J$AN B. SANTOS, ROBERT GRITC7TING, EMETERIO L. ASINAS, JR., JAC" C7IO#INI,

7ONORATO T. SABLON, FRANCISCO G. SANTOS, RAN$LFO M. RELLITA, MARIO D. FONACIER, Petitioners, .

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, $NION OF FILIPRO EMPLOEES 8$FE:DFA, E' A., Respondents.

FACTS& Prior to !C June "D:G, private respondent 7nion o% ?ilipro 4&plo'ees (7?4-?+) had %our (=) #olletive Bargaining

+gree&ents (#B+s) with petitioner estl Philippines, In. (hereina%ter re%erred to as estl) overing %our (=) bargaining units

o% the latter, na&el' (") Makati, (9) +labang#abu'ao, (!) #ebuavao and (=) #aga'an de *ro. These #B+s were to e$pire

on !C June "D:G. Prior to suh e$piration, both 7?4-?+ and estl negotiating panels &et to dra%t the ground rules %or the

negotiation o% new #B+s, the agree&ent on the said rules was eventuall' signed on 9G Jul' "D:G.

+%ter negotiation &eetings, the 7?4-?+ panel delared a deadlok and later delared and staged a strike at the Makati,

+labang, #abu'ao and #aga'an de *ro work loations o% estl. estl dee&ed the strike illegal and ter&inated %ro&

e&plo'&ent all the union o%%iers %or allegedl' instigating the sa&e and knowingl' partiipating in it.

7?4-?+ %iled a o&plaint %or illegal dis&issal. Ket, even be%ore the ase was deided, the striking o%%iers and &e&bers o% 7?4-?+ voluntaril' and unonditionall' o%%ered to return to work. estl ad&itted all e$ept eight'-three (:!) o%%iers andthirt'-three (!!) &e&bers, inluded in this nu&ber are the twent'-eight (9:) individual private respondents. The saide&plo'ees were issued separate letters o% ter&ination b' estl dated > or "" ?ebruar' "D::

These 9: individual private respondents +-(! ;-'h 'h( R(


17/33

5e agree with private respondents 9= that sine paragraph (a) o% the above1uoted 0etion speaks o% theo&plainantpetitionerFs workplae, it is evident that the rule is intended %or the e$lusive bene%it o% the worker. The reason%or this is not onl' onveniene, it is eono&i as well. The worker, being the eono&iall'-disadvantaged part' N whether aso&plainantpetitioner or as respondent, as the ase &a' be, the nearest govern&ental &ahiner' to settle the dispute &ustbe plaed at his i&&ediate disposal, and his adverse part' &ust in no ase be allowed a hoie in %avor o% another o&petentagen' sitting in another plae to overburden the %or&er. Th-* 6(-< 'h( ca*(, 'h( ;or(r a ;a-( 'h( 6((+-'. I')*' 6( *'r(**(!, ho;((r, 'ha' 'h-* *(c'-o !o(* o' co*'-')'( a co/('( r)( o ()( - ca*(* coH. &everal da!s before the ex"iration of

the said #$A or on -arch 69, :?>H, "rivate res"ondent +ational (ederation of Labor Unions )+A(LU*

filed a "etition for certification election %ith the $L, alleging, among others, that no #1 had been

held in 'A&A %ithin :6 months immediatel! "receding the filing of the said "etition.

'etitioner moved to intervene and sought the dismissal of the "etition on the ground that +A(LU

failed to "resent the necessar! signatures in su""ort of its "etition. In an order, -ed0Arbiter dismissed

the "etition. Co%ever, the order of dismissal %as set aside and the said order lie%ise enoined

'A&A from entering into a #$A %ith an! union until after the issue of re"resentation is finall!

resolved. (inall!, in the order dated une :, :?>H, the "etition for certification %as dismissed for

failure of +A(LU to solicit the maorit! of the ran and file em"lo!ees %hile ALU submitted 99 "ages

containing the signatures of >>.7< of the ran and file em"lo!ees at 'A&A.

BLR: 'rivate res"ondent a""ealed the order of dismissal to the $L. While the a""eal %as "ending,

"etitioner ALU concluded negotiations %ith 'A&A on the "ro"osed #$A. 'ublication %as made then

follo%ed the ratification of the #$A. Thereafter, "etitioner ALU moved for the dismissal of the a""eal

alleging that it had ust concluded a #$A %ith 'A&A and that the said #$A had been ratified b! ?><

of the regular ran0and0file em"lo!ees and that at least H7 of +A(LUs members renounced their

membershi" thereat and affirmed membershi" %ith '1A0ALU in se"arate affidavits.

In a resolution, the "ublic res"ondent Birector of $L gave due course to the a""eal b! ordering the

conduct of a certification election among the ran0and0file em"lo!ees of 'A&A %ith ALU, +A(LU

and no union as choices, and denied "etitioner s motion to dismiss. $oth "arties moved for reconsideration of the said resolution. Co%ever, both motions %ere denied b! "ublic res"ondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract bar rule is a""licable %here a #$A %as hastil! concluded in defiance of the order of

the med0arbiter enoining the "arties from entering into a #$A until the issue on re"resentation is finall! resolvedJ


18/33

RULIN&: The record s"eas for itself. The "revious #$A entered into b! "etitioner ALU %as due to ex"ire on A"ril :,

:?>H. The "etition for certification %as filed b! +A(LU on -arch 69, :?>H, %ell %ithin the freedom "eriod.

The contract bar rule is a""licable onl! %here the "etition for certification election %as filed either before or after the

freedom "eriod.

Co%ever, the "arties %ere in bad faith %hen the! concluded the #$A. Their act %as clearl! intended to bar the "etition for

certification election filed b! +A(LU. A #$A %hich %as "rematurel! rene%ed is not a bar to the holding of a certification

election. &uch indecent haste in rene%ing the #$A des"ite an order enoining them from doing so is designed to frustrate

the constitutional right of the em"lo!ees to self0organization. -oreover, We cannot countenance the actuation of the

"etitioner and the management in this case %hich is not conducive to industrial "eace.

The rene%ed #$A cannot constitute a bar to the instant "etition for certification election for the ver! reason that the same

%as not !et in existence %hen the said "etition %as filed. The holding of a certification election is a statutor! "olic! that

should not be circumvented.

G.R. No. 11891+ (ebr&r- , 1997

%API#OL MEDI%AL %EN#ER O( %ON%ERNED EMPLOYEES/UNI(IED (ILIPINOSER)I%E 0ORERS, %M%/A%E/U(S03, petitioners,vs%

4ON. $IEN)ENIDO E. LAGUESMA, U'er!e5ret&r- o te Dep&rtmet o L&bor

&' Empo-met %API#OL MEDI%AL %EN#ER EMPLOYEES ASSO%IA#ION/ALLIAN%E O( (ILIPINO 0ORERS AND %API#OL MEDI%AL %EN#ERIN%ORPORA#ED AND DRA. #4ELMA %LEMEN#E, Pre!i'et, respondents%

(&5t!* /n Fe$r#ary >?, >EE7, respondent #nion+s petition for certi'cation electionamon" the ran@4and4'le employees of the Capitol Medical Center was "ranted%

*espondent CMC appealed the /rder to the /ce of the Secretary $y #estionin" the

le"al stat#s of respondent #nion+s aliation with the Alliance of Filipino .or@ers


19/33

*espondent #nion, after $ein" declared as the certi'ed $ar"ainin" a"ent presented

economic proposals for the ne"otiation of a CBA% However, respondent CMC contended

that CBA ne"otiations sho#ld $e s#spended in view of the /rder iss#ed on Fe$r#ary ,

>EEK declarin" the re"istration of respondent #nion as n#ll and void% -n spite of the

ref#sal of respondent CMC, respondent #nion still persisted in its demand for CBA

ne"otiations%

0#e to respondent CMC+s ref#sal to $ar"ain collectively, respondent #nion sta"ed astri@e on April >8, >EEK% S#$se#ently, the case was certi'ed to comp#lsory ar$itration

$efore the ()*C%

-t is at this 6#nct#re that petitioner #nion, on March 7, >EE, 'led a petition for

certi'cation election amon" the re"#lar ran@4and4'le employees of the CMC% Petitioner

insists that the circ#mstances prescri$ed in Section K, *#le 2, Boo@ 2 /f the *#les

-mplementin" the )a$or Code where a certi'cation election sho#ld $e cond#cted, viz : =

that one year had lapsed since the iss#ance of a 'nal certi'cation res#lt and


20/33

NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. ATT=& ERUDITO E& LUNA

Petitioner la"or union, in this certiorari proceeding assailed an order of respondent Med/%r"iter ?una dated Gul# &), ()'', which surprisingl# denied

the petition for certification election of such union on the ground that there was lacking the *H re0uirement provided for "# the ?a"or 4ode "ecause

while the evidence for petitioner union showed that the *H re0uirement had "een complied with as indicated "# the signatures of the emplo#ees in

the collective "argaining unit, thereafter, at least &(& had changed their minds, as shown "# affidavits su"mitted "# respondents union the reducing to

less than the re0uired percentage the num"er of emplo#ees petitioning for certification election. ,

-irector 4armelo 4. 9oriel, the superior of the med ar"iter, rendered a decision which is stated as follows ISince there has "een no certification

election for the past (&! months and no certified collective "argaining agreement, the present petition for certification election could naturall#

prosper.J This was also the decision the S4.

% motion for reconsideration was filed "# petitioner "ut which was denied in a resolution dated Gune &, ()'>. ;ence this present petition for certiorari.

$ssue

(! W79 there was a valid retraction "# the &(& emplo#ees.

&! W79 a certification election should "e conducted

8U?$9K


21/33

(ST issue 97

$n !ederacion "brera de la #ndustria $abaquera y "tros $raba%adores de !ilipinas v. Noriel , this 4ourt had occasion to state the rule that should "e

followed in case of such withdrawal or retraction of signatures. Thus 6There is persuasiveness, likewise, to the su"mission of Solicitor Keneral

Mendo@a in the comment filed, that the thirteen emplo#ees who allegedl# retracted were not even presented "efore the Med/ar"iter and that the

alleged additional fort#/five emplo#ees who supposedl# likewise changed their minds, were also not called to testif# to that effect, petitioner

satisf#ing itself with their "eing named in an affidavit e:ecuted "# its president. That would make, so it is plausi"l# contended, such alleged

retraction to "e highl# du"ious in character There is this reinforcement to the contention of respondent pu"lic official in this closing paragraph of

such comment 25esides, the "est forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the la"orers is in the certification

election itself wherein the workers can freel# e:press their choice in a secret "allot. $f, therefore, petitioner herein is confident that it commands thema3orit# of the workers in the collective "argaining unit, wh# then does it vigorousl# oppose a certification electionA2 6 : ;ad the respondent Med/

%r"iter "een aware of the a"ove, then perhaps he would not have "een led to pursue a course of action clearl# at war with the doctrine in

interruptedl# adhered to "# this 4ourt favoring the holding of certification elections.

& 9- $ssue #es

The tenor of the ruling of this 4ourt in &enguet '(ploration )iners* nion v. Noriel , involving the same two la"or unions, parties to this case, with

principal respondent Med/%r"iter Erudito E. ?una in this certiorari petition likewise included therein as one of the pu"lic respondents, not lend itself

to misinterpretation. $t reflected the constant and unwavering polic# of this 4ourt re0uiring a certification election as the "est means of ascertaining

which la"or organi@ation should "e the collective "argaining representative. So it has "een since nited 'mployees nion of +elmart #ndustries

Philippines v. Noriel , @ promulgated the first #ear of the effectivit# of the present ?a"or 4ode, to )onark #nternational, #nc. v. Noriel , decided in the

earl# part of this month. The attempt on the part of such la"or organi@ation, now respondent, then petitioner, 5enguet E:ploration Miners2 Union, to

prevent a certification election "# the far/fetched and implausi"le plea that "efore it could "e ordered "# respondents 9oriel and ?una, the# should

first decide a motion to dismiss "ased on a provisional guideline which had "ecome o"solete, was thus rendered futile.

The present state of the law on certification elections was succinctl# set forth in the latest case, )onark #nternational, #nc. v. Noriel , referred to at the

outset of this opinion 6nited 'mployees nion of +elmart #ndustries Philippines v. Noriel has left no dou"t that "oth under the $ndustrial Peace %ct

and the present ?a"or 4ode, this 4ourt is committed to the view that a certification election is 6crucial6 to the institution of collective "argaining for

it gives 6su"stance to the principle of ma3orit# rule, one of the "asic concepts of a democratic polit#.6 $n a su"se0uent case, Philippine -ssociation of

!ree Labor nions v. &ureau of Labor Relations, it was held that even conceding that the statutor# re0uirement of *H of the la"or force asking for a

certification election had not "een strictl# complied with, respondent -irector is still empowered to order that it "e held 6precisel# for the purpose of

ascertaining which Lof the contending la"or organi@ations shall "e the e:clusive collective "argaining representative.6 Such re0uirement then, to

0uote from Kapisanan Ng )ga )anggagaa v. Noriel , 2is relevant onl# when it "ecomes mandatory for respondent 9oriel to conduct a certification

election. ; $n all other instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tri"unal, ought to "e ordinaril# e:ercised in favor of a petition for

certification. $t would follow then that had respondent Med/%r"iter taken due note of the authoritative and controlling precedents, he would not haveruled the was he did, unless he was so/minded 7nce again, it is 0uite apparent that independentl# of the doctrine of the law of the case, deference to

such applica"le pronouncements from this Tri"unal ought to have dictated a result different than that arrived at in the assailed order.

LAGUNA AUTOPARTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR=

8espondent union filed a petition for certification election "efore the -7?E 8egional 7ffice< $n its petition, the respondent union alleged that

7"rero Pilipino was a legitimate la"or organi@ation under 8egistration 4ertificate 9o. 948/?F/((/*=/)& issued "# -7?E and that its chapter

affiliate, ?%M478 4hapter, had "een assigned 4ontrol 9o. 87=**/)*'/44/**. The petition further alleged that the "argaining unit sought

to "e represented was composed of all the rank/and/file emplo#ees in the petitioner compan#, more or less, (>* emplo#ees. $t averred that the

said "argaining unit is unorgani@ed and that there has "een no certification election conducted for the past (& months prior to the filing of the petition.

The petitioner compan# moved to dismiss the petition. $t claimed that the respondent union was not a legitimate la"or organi@ation for failure to

show that it had complied with the registration re0uirements. Petitioner compan# further asserted that even if the respondent union was issued a

certificate of registration, it could not file a petition for certification election since its legal personalit# was at 0uestion.

Med/%r"iter dismissed the petition for certification election for the respondent unionDs lack of legal personalit# "ecause it failed to indicate its

principal office on the documents it su"mitted to the 8egional 7ffice which was a fatal defect tantamount to failure to su"mit the complete

re0uirements, which warranted the dismissal of the petition for certification election. The Secretar# of ?a"or and Emplo#ment who reversed the

decision of the med ar"iter and ordered the remand of the case to the regional office for the immediate conduct of a certification election among

the rank/and/file emplo#ees of ?%M478. The 4% affirmed the decision of the Secretar# of ?a"or. ;ence, this present petition.

ISSUES

a! whether or not the respondent union is a legitimate la"or organi@ation.

"! whether or not a chapterDs legal personalit# ma# "e collaterall# attacked in a petition for certification election

c! Whether or not the petitioner, as the emplo#er, has the legal standing to oppose the petition for certification election.

RULING


22/33

(ST $SSUE NES

Findings of fact of administrative agencies and 0uasi/3udicial "odies, which have ac0uired e:pertise "ecause their 3urisdiction is confined to specific

matters, are generall# accorded not onl# great respect "ut even finalit#. $n this case, the 4% affirmed the finding of the Secretar# of ?a"or and

Emplo#ment that the respondent union is a legitimate la"or organi@ation. $ndeed, a local or chapter need not "e independentl# registered to ac0uire

legal personalit#. Section , 8ule +$ of the $mplementing 8ules of 5ook +, as amended "# -.7. 9o. ) clearl# states —

SE4. . Ac4.isitio" of /e*!/ 1eso"!/it2 %2 /oc!/?c0!1te.— % local


23/33

G.R. No. 7+81; September 9, 1991

AISA4AN NG MANGGAGA0ANG PILIPINO AMPIL/A#IPUNAN3, petitioer,"!.4ON. %RESEN%IANO $. #RA


24/33

G.R. No. 1;761; No"ember 2+, 199

%RU@)ALE, IN%., petitioer,)!.4ON. $IEN)ENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSE%RE#ARY O( #4E DEPAR#MEN# O( LA$OR AND EMPLOYMEN#,MED/AR$I#ER ANGELI M. #UYAY AND UNION O( (ILIPINO 0ORERS U(03, re!po'et!.

(A%#S* Private respondent #nion !F.Q 'led a petition for certi'cation election amon" the re"#lar ran@4and4'le wor@ers of petitioner%

Petitioner so#"ht the denial of the petition on the followin" "ro#nds:>% (o charter certi'cate was attached to the petition or s#$mitted to the 0/) at the time the petition was'led7% *espondent !nion has not presented any proof that it is a le"itimate la$or or"aniation%

*espondent Med4Ar$iter rendered a decision in favor of private respondent%

*espondent is an R#nor"anied esta$lishment%

ISSUE 1* 0N Re!po'et Uio i! & LLO ? YES

The Med4Ar$iter fo#nd that private respondent was iss#ed:>% Certi'cate of *e"istration (o% >>>9D and7% Charter Certi'cate (o% I7

Progressive Development is inappropriate to the case at bench.

ISSUE 2* 0N %erti>5&tio Ee5tio !o' 5o"er te EES i %&it& &' to!e empo-e' i te 5iem&b!ie!! / NO

The call for the cond#ct of election covers all the re"#lar ran@4and4'le employees of Cr#vale, -nc% at its "armentman#fact#rin" corporation%

The employees at the Cinema operation and those at the "arment man#fact#rin" operation do not sharecommonality of interest as the former clearly perform wor@ entirely di&erent from that of the latter% Th#s, theirseparation into two 5&tio ee5tio !o' &"e bee >e' Cit te re:io& o5e Ci5 &!

ri!'i5tio o"er te pri5ip& o5e o te empo-er.

5#risdiction refers to ven#e where the petition for certi'cation m#st $e 'led% 2en#e merely refers to the place where the action shall $e $ro#"ht% The said provision does not apply to the 'lin" of petitions for certi'cation election where

>% The place of wor@ of the employees and the place of principal oce of the employer are located within theterritorial 6#risdictions of di&erent re"ional oces%

Petitioner has not shown how it will $e pre6#diced $y the hearin" on the petition for certi'cation election $efore the*e"ional /ce (o% -2, which has its oces in #eon City, the same city where the principal place of $#siness of petitioner is located Petitioner is $ein" #nreasona$le in demandin" that the petition for certi'cation election U $e 'led with the (ationalCapital *e"ion /ce, which holds oces in Manila%

.here the employer had appeared twice at the hearin" of the petition for certi'cation election witho#t #estionin"the ven#e, said employer was $arred from raisin" the iss#e in the s#$se#ent proceedin"s%


25/33

G.R. No!. 178222/2B Septem$er 7E, 79>9MANILA MINING %ORP. EMPLOYEES ASSO%IA#ION/(EDERA#ION O( (REE 0ORERS %4AP#ER, SAMUEL G.@UFIGA "!. MANILA MINING %ORP. &'or AR#EMIO (. DISINI, Pre!i'et

(A%#S* *espondent company MMCQ is en"a"ed in lar"e4scale minin" for "old and copper ore% The company is re#ired $y law to maintain a tailin"s containment facility to store the waste material "enerated $yits minin" operations% /ne of these dams was Tailin"s Pond (o% ? TP (o% ?Q which operated #nder a permit iss#ed $y the 0(*%

leven >>Q ran@ and 'le employees of MMC who later $ecame complainantsQ attended the or"aniational meetin"of Petitioner #nion% The #nion 'led all the re#irements for its re"istration and ac#ired its le"itimate re"istration stat#s% -t s#$mitted letters to MMC relatin" its intention to $ar"ain collectively and its CBA proposal%

!pon expiration of the tailin"s permit, 0(*4MB did not iss#e a permanent permit d#e to the ina$ility of MMC tosec#re an CC nvironmental Compliance Certi'cateQ, which is the consent of the residents in the comm#nity to allow TP (o% ? to operate, which MMC failed to o$tain% Th#s, MMC was compelled to temporarily sh#t down its minin" operations res#ltin" in the temporary lay4o& of morethan 99 employees in the mine site% MMC called for the s#spension of ne"otiations on the CBA with the #nion #ntil res#mption of minin" operations%

The >> ran@ and 'le S to"ether with the #nion, 'led a complaint prayin" for:>% *einstatement7% *eco"nition of the #nion as the sole and excl#sive representative of its ran@ and 'le employees

Complainants alle"ed that:>% MMC did not want to $ar"ain collectively with the #nion so that instead of s#$mittin" their co#nterproposalto the CBA, it decided to terminate all #nion ocers and active mem$ers7% -ndivid#als laid4o& were those who si"ned the attendance sheet of the #nion or"aniational meetin"

MMC 6#sti'ed the temporary lay4o& as $ona 'de in character and a valid 6#d"ment prero"ative pendin" the iss#anceof the permit to contin#o#sly operate TP (o% ?%

LA$OR AR$I#ER* *#led in favor of MMC V Gtemporary sh#tdown of the minin" operation and temporary lay4o& of theS is 2A)-0%

NLR%* Modi'ed V Gordered the payment of separation pay temporary lay4o&, which exceeded more than D monthshad the e&ect of severance of the *4 relationship%

The #nion elevated the case and claimed that:>% Temporary lay4o& was e&ected witho#t notice to the 0/) Art% 7IKQ7% MMC is "#ilty of !)P when it #nilaterally s#spended the ne"otiation for a CBAK% )ay4o& and s#$se#ent termination of complainants were d#e to the formation of the #nion at MMC%

MMC defends that it merely deferred respondin" to the #nions letter4proposal #ntil the res#mption of its minin"operations%

ISSUE*0N MM% %OMMI##ED ULP (OR RE(USING #O $ARGAIN 0I#4 #4E UNION ? NO

4ELD* !)P cannot $e imp#ted to MMC since the call of MMC for a s#spension of the CBA ne"otiations cannot $e e#ated toGref#sal to $ar"ain%

Arti5e 2+2 of the )a$or Code de'nes the phrase 't- to b&r:&i 5oe5ti"e-,H to wit:

AR#I%LE 2+2. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively . 4 The d#ty to $ar"ain collectively means the performance of am#t#al o$li"ation to meet and convene promptly and expeditio#sly in "ood faith for the p#rpose of ne"otiatin" an a"reement withrespect to wa"es, ho#rs of wor@ and all other terms and conditions of employment incl#din" proposals for ad6#stin" any "rievancesor #estions arisin" #nder s#ch a"reements and exec#tin" a contract incorporatin" s#ch a"reementsQ if re#ested $y either party$#t s#ch d#ty does not compel any party to a"ree to a proposal or to ma@e any concession%

For a char"e of #nfair la$or practice to prosper, it m#st $e shown that the employer was motivated $y:

>% ill4will,7% $ad faith or fra#d, or wasK% oppressive to la$or

The employer m#st have acted in a manner contrary to morals, "ood c#stoms, or p#$lic policyca#sin" social h#miliation, wo#nded feelin"s or "rave anxiety%

.hile the law ma@es it an o$li"ation for the employer and the employees to $ar"ain collectively witheach other, s#ch comp#lsion does not incl#de the commitment to precipitately accept or a"ree to theproposals of the other% All it contemplates is that $oth parties sho#ld:

>% Approach the ne"otiation with an open mind and7% Ma@e reasona$le e&ort to reach a common "ro#nd of a"reement

-t cannot $e said that MMC deli$erately avoided the ne"otiation% -t merely so#"ht a s#spension and in fact, even expressed its willin"ness to ne"otiate once the minin"operations res#me% There was valid reliance on the s#spension of minin" operations for the s#spension, in t#rn, of the CBAne"otiation%


26/33

The !nion failed to prove $ad faith in MMCs act#ations%

Spporti: Det&i!* 0espite all e&orts, MMC did not s#cceed in o$tainin" the consent of the residents of the comm#nity where the tailin"pond wo#ld operate% -t is MMCs fa#ltless fail#re to sec#re a permit, which ca#sed the temporary sh#tdown of its minin" operations% The s#spension of MMCs minin" operations was not d#e to its fa#lt nor was it necessitated $y 'nancial reasons$eca#se it was $ro#"ht a$o#t $y the non4iss#ance of a permit for the contin#ed operation of TP (o% ?, witho#t whichMMC cannot res#me its millin" and minin" operations%

GENERAL MILLING )S. %ASIO

The la$or #nion -law at B#@lod n" Man"a"awa Chapter = was the sole and excl#sive$ar"ainin" a"ent of the ran@ and 'le employees of 1MC in )ap#4)ap# City% /n (ovem$er K9, >EE>, -BM4)ocal K>, thro#"h its ocers and $oard mem$ers , >EE>%

The CBA contained the followin" #nion sec#rity provisions:

Section K% MA-(T(A(C /F MMB*SH-P V All employeesUwor@ers employed $y the Company with theexception of those who are speci'cally excl#ded $y law and $y the terms of this A"reement m#st $emem$ers in "ood standin" of the !nion within thirty President for a three4yearterm in 5#ne >EE>, while his co4respondents were #nion shop stewards%

-n a letter, 1a$iana , iss#ed a *esol#tion expellin"Casio, et al% from the #nion%

1a$iana then wrote a letter addressed to d#ardo Ca$ah#" ocers and $oard mem$ers% 1a$iana li@ewise re#ested that Casio, et al%$e immediately dismissed from their wor@ for the interest of ind#strial peace in the plant%

1a$iana followed4#p with another letter in#irin" from Ca$ah#" why Casio, et al% were still employed with1MC despite the re#est of -BM4)ocal K> that Casio, et al% $e immediately dismissed from service p#rs#antto the closed shop provision in the existin" CBA%

Press#red $y the threatened 'lin" of a s#it for #nfair la$or practice, 1MC acceded to 1a$ianas re#est toterminate the employment of Casio%

/n March 7?, >EE7, Casio, et al%, in the name of -BM4)ocal K>, 'led a (otice of Stri@e with the (CMB4*e"ional /ce (o% 2--


27/33

a&ects not only his position $#t also his means of livelihood% mployers sho#ld therefore respect andprotect the ri"hts of their employees, which incl#de the ri"ht to la$or% x x x%

The Co#rt reiterated in Malayan" Samahan n" m"a Man""a"awa sa M% 1reen'eld v% *amos that:

The twin re#irements of notice and hearin" constit#te the essential elements of proced#ral d#e process% The law re#ires the employer to f#rnish the employee so#"ht to $e dismissed with two written notices$efore termination of employment can $e le"ally e&ected: = a written notice apprisin" the employee of the partic#lar acts or omissions for which his dismissal is so#"ht in order to a&ord him an opport#nity to $e

heard and to defend himself with the assistance of co#nsel, if he desires, and to dismiss Casio, et al%

-n s#m, the Co#rt 'nds that 1MC ille"ally dismissed Casio, et al% $eca#se not only did 1MC fail to ma@e adetermination of the s#ciency of evidence to s#pport the decision of -BM4)ocal K> to expel Casio, et al%,$#t also to accord the expelled #nion mem$ers proced#ral d#e process, i%e%, notice and hearin", prior tothe termination of their employment%


28/33

NES#LE P4IL )S. NLR%

Private respondent !nion of Filipro mployees = Ma@ati, EI?% Prior to s#chexpiration, $oth !F40FA and (estle ne"otiatin" panels met to draft the "ro#nd r#les for the ne"otiation of new CBAs,the a"reement on the said r#les was event#ally si"ned%

/n 7 Septem$er >EI?, after sixteen D= ne"otiation meetin"s, the !F40FA panel declared a deadloc@%

/n I Septem$er >EI?, then Secretary of )a$or and mployment iss#ed an /rder en6oinin" the !F40FA from resortin"to any stri@e and directin" the parties to cease and desist from committin" any and all acts that wo#ld a""ravate thesit#ation% This notwithstandin", !F40FA declared and sta"ed a stri@e at the Ma@ati, Ala$an", Ca$#yao and Ca"ayande /ro wor@ locations of (estle%

(estle deemed the stri@e ille"al and terminated from employment all the #nion ocers for alle"edly insti"atin" thesame and @nowin"ly participatin" in it%

/n 7> Septem$er >EI?% !F40FA 'led a complaint for ille"al dismissal% /n >? 0ecem$er >EI?, even $efore the casewas decided, the stri@in" ocers and mem$ers of !F40FA vol#ntarily and #nconditionally o&ered to ret#rn to wor@%

/n >E Fe$r#ary >EE9, the !F40FA and the herein 7I individ#al private respondents 'led with the *e"ional Ar$itrationBranch of the ()*C, (ational Capital *e"ion, at Manila, a complaint for #nfair la$or practice, ille"al dismissal,reinstatement to former or s#$stantially e#ivalent positions and dama"es a"ainst the herein petitioners%

/ne of the iss#es raised $y herein petitioners in their Position Paper is improper ven#e% They alle"e that #nder Section>, *#le 2 of the new *#les of the ()*C, all cases which )a$or Ar$iters have a#thority to hear and decide may $e 'ledin the *e"ional Ar$itration Branch .e a"ree with the p#$lic respondent that petitioners waived the defense of improper ven#e% Altho#"h petitionersinvo@ed the said "ro#nd in their Position Paper which was 'led on >I April >EE9, they did not p#rs#e it with thedili"ence of a party con'dently if not a$sol#tely, certain of the ind#$ita$ility of his defense% -n this case, it was only on>I A#"#st >EE9 ; fo#r


29/33

SCT-/( >% Motion to dismiss% ; Any motion to dismiss a complaint or petition on the "ro#nds that the )a$or Ar$iterhas no 6#risdiction, or that the ca#se of action is $arred $y prior 6#d"ment or $y prescription, shall $e immediatelyacted #pon $y the )a$or Ar$iter if the facts stron"ly indicate dismissal% Any motion to dismiss with no s#ch indicationshall $e disposed of only in the 'nal determination of the case and shall not $e allowed to interr#pt or delay theproceedin"s%

.hen 6#xtaposed with para"raph , *#le 2, hereinafter #oted and which spea@s merely of improperven#e not o$6ected to $efore or at the time of the 'lin" of the position paper, the intention of the *#les to excl#deimproper ven#e as a "ro#nd for a motion to dismiss and to consider it as a mere formal proced#ral defect appearsind#$ita$le%

F#rthermore, Section >, *#le 2 of the ()*C *#les reads that:

SCT-/( >% 2en#e% ;


30/33

6IO6 LO* $o3 b%s"ss %$"r !7" a5" a$ s!" SEDEN ICE CREA# +LANT vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS CO##ISSION (NLRC) a$ +A#BANSAN& 6ILUSAN N& +A&&AA (6ILUSAN)

Fa;!s:In a certification election held on /ctober 9, :?H>, the 'ambansang Kilusang 'agga%a )Union for short*, a legitimate latelabor federation, %on and %as subse8uentl! certified in a resolution dated +ovember 6?, :?H> b! the $ureau of Labor elations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the ran0and0file em"lo!ees of &%eden Ice #ream 'lant.

/n Becember H, :?H>, the Union furnished / the #om"an! %ith t%o co"ies of its "ro"osed collective bargainingagreement. At the same time, it re8uested the #om"an! for its counter "ro"osals. 1liciting no res"onse to the aforesaidre8uest, the Union again %rote the #om"an! reiterating its re8uest for collective bargaining negotiations and for the

#om"an! to furnish them %ith its counter "ro"osals. $oth re8uests %ere ignored and remained unacted u"on b! the#om"an!.

The Union, on (ebruar! :=, :?H?, filed a @+otice of &trie@, %ith the $ureau of Labor elations )$L* on ground of unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining.

#oncilation "roceedings then follo%ed during the thirt!0da! statutor! cooling off "eriod. $ut all attem"ts to%ards anamicable settlement failed, "rom"ting the $ureau of Labor elations to certif! the case to the +L# for com"ulsor!arbitration. $ut the com"an! has a lot of "ost"onements.

When the case %as called for hearing on une =,:?H? as scheduled, the #om"an!s re"resentative, -r. #hing, %ho %assu""osed to be examined, failed to a""ear. Att!. 'anganiban then re8uested for another "ost"onement %hich the LAdenied. Ce also ruled that the #om"an! has %aived its right to "resent further evidence and, therefore, considered the

case submitted for resolution.

+L#2 that the com"an! is guilt! of unustified refusal to bargain. The draft "ro"osal for #$A sent n! the Union is hereb!declared to be the #$A %hich should govern the "arties.

Iss%": W/+ the #om"an! is guilt! of UL' for refusal to bargain.

R%3: ES.

Co";!v" bar3a3 %hich is defined as negotiations to%ards a collective agreement, 0 is one of the democratic

frame%ors under the +e% Labor #ode, designed to stabilize the relation bet%een labor and management and to create a

climate of sound and stable industrial "eace.

It is a mutual res"onsibilit! of the em"lo!er and the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation.

Ar!;" /9*


31/33

%or, and all other terms and conditions of em"lo!ment including "ro"osals for adusting an! grievance or 8uestion

arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incor"orating such agreement, if re8uested b! either "art!.

While it is a mutual obligation of the "arties to bargain, the em"lo!er, ho%ever, is not under an! legal dut! to initiate

contract negotiation. =

The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion onl! %hen the follo%ing urisdictional "reconditions are "resent,

namel!2

):* "ossession of the status of maorit! re"resentation of the em"lo!ees re"resentative in accordance %ith an! of

the means of selection or designation "rovided for b! the Labor #odeE

)6* "roof of maorit! re"resentationE and

)9* a demand to bargain under Article 67:, "ar. )a* of the +e% Labor #ode . ... all of %hich "reconditions are

undis"utedl! "resent in the instant case.

There can be no doubt that the Union has a valid cause to com"lain against its )#om"an!s* attitude, the totalit! of %hichis indicative of the latters disregard of, and failure to live u" to, %hat is enoined b! the Labor #ode to bargain in goodfaith.

It has been indubitabl! established that2):* res"ondent Union %as a dul! certified bargaining agentE)6* it made a definite re8uest to bargain, accom"anied %ith a co"! of the "ro"osed #ollective $argaining

Agreement, to the #om"an! not onl! once but t%ice %hich %ere left unans%ered and unacted u"onE and)9* the #om"an! made no counter "ro"osal %hatsoever all of %hich conclusivel! indicate lac of a sincere desireto negotiate. 8

A #om"an!s refusal to mae counter "ro"osal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining "rocess, ma! indicate badfaith and this is s"eciall! true %here the Unions re8uest for a counter "ro"osal is left unans%ered. 9 1ven during the "eriod of com"ulsor! arbitration before the +L#, "etitioner #om"an!s a""roach and attitude0stallingthe negotiation b! a series of "ost"onements, non0a""earance at the hearing conducted, and undue dela! in submittingits financial statements, lead to no other conclusion exce"t that it is un%illing to negotiate and reach an agreement %iththe Union.

'etitioner has not at an! instance, evinced good faith or %illingness to discuss freel! and full! the claims and demands set

forth b! the Union much less ustif! its o""osition thereto.

In re: Lab Rel

(Last Case, Part IV-A. Sorry Hindi ko alam mag-attach ng file. Hehe.✌ ✌ )

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS VS. SOLE

FACTS:

A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file ees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel

(the Hotel) with the ff. results:

EMPLOYEES IN VOTER’S LIST= 353

TOTAL VOTES CAST= 346

NUWHRAIN-MPHC= 151

HIMPHLU= 169

NO UNION= 1

SPOILED= 3

SEGREGATED= 22

Because of the significant number of segregated votes, contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and

respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to

decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated because they were

cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still pending before the Court of Appeals. Six


32/33

other votes were segregated because the employees who cast them were already occupying supervisory positions

at the time of the election. Still five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast by probationary

employees and, pursuant to the existing CBA, such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however, that

the vote of one Jose Gatbonton, a probationary employee, was counted.

Med-Arbiter ruled for the opening of 1

case digest midterm (incomplete)

Documents