Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Admission and Discipline of members an employee for purposes of membership in any labor
union. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715)
Labor Code 260 (a)
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, RA No. 7636 (Sept. 22 1992)
agents or representatives: AN ACT REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED ONE
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED, AS AMENDED,
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-SUBVERSION ACT
right to self-organization. However, a labor organization Section 1. Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Seven
shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect Hundred (R.A. No. 1700), otherwise known as the Anti-
to the acquisition or retention of membership; Subversion Act, as revived by Executive Order Numbered One
Hundred Sixty-Seven (E.O. No. 167) and subsequently
amended by Executive Order Numbered Two Hundred
Labor Code 250 (a) Seventy-Six (E.O. No. 276) is hereby repealed.
Rights and conditions of membership in a labor Section 2. This Act does not in any manner repeal, amend or
organization. The following are the rights and conditions of modify the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
membership in a labor organization: Section 3. Presidential Decrees Nos. 885, 1736, 1835 and
No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of 1975 remain repealed, and all other laws, presidential
the members of a legitimate labor organization nor shall decrees, letters of instruction, and other issuances, orders,
arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby
imposed; likewise repealed.
Labor Code 250 (e) G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983
No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or
continue in membership any individual who belongs to a DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS,
subversive organization or who is engaged directly or BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO ACOSTA, RECITACION
indirectly in any subversive activity; BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA
LLAGAS, petitioners,
Labor Code 292 (a) vs.
All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the
fees, union dues, assessments and fines and other Ministry of Labor, AMIGO MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED
contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS
and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and (PAFLU), respondents.
credit and cooperative undertakings. (As amended by Section
33, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) Facts:
Labor Code 292 (c) Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-
Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which, was the
shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as existing bargaining agent of the employees in private
respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (Company). The rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty of the
Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA charges.
governing their labor relations, which agreement was then
about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last 60 days PAFLU demanded the Company to terminate the employment
of the CBA, upon written authority of at least 30% of the of the petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the CBA.
employees in the company, including the petitioners, the Acting on PAFLU's demand, the Company informed PAFLU
Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for that it will first secure the necessary clearances to terminate
certification election with MOLE. The petition was opposed by petitioners. PAFLU requested the Company to put petitioners
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) with under preventive suspension pending the application for said
whom the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated. clearances to terminate the petitioners. The Company filed
The same employees who had signed the petition filed by the request for clearance to terminate the petitioners before
FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU. DOLE which was granted. DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the
appeal, hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the
authorized representative of the Amigo Employees Union, Issue: WON DOLE Secretary erred in affirming the grant of
filed a petition for certification election in the Company. The clearance of termination of petitioners.
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU intervened and moved for the
dismissal of the petition for certification election filed by Ruling:
Dolores Villar, on the ground, among others that Dolores
Villar had no legal personality to sign the petition since she It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to
was not an officer of the union nor is there factual or legal legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association
basis for her claim that she was the authorized ordained by the Constitution. But the Court has laid down the
representative of the local union. Med-Arbiter dismissed the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form of union security, and
petition filed by Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a
before BLR. restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed
by the Constitution.
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special meeting of its
general membership. A Resolution was thereby unanimously In the case at bench, the Company and the Amigo Employees
approved which called for the investigation by the PAFLU Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union security clause
national president, of all of the petitioners and one Felipe which is a reiteration of the old CBA. The quoted stipulation
Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal. Petitioners theory
false propaganda that the union officers were merely that their expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is
appointees of the management; and for causing divisiveness untenable. PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners
in the union. PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union
the local union's charges against the petitioners for acts of and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from
disloyalty. PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
which also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing is clear under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local
CBA, including the union security clause. PAFLU President union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of
the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, and remedial measures, in keeping with its laws and
PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest
by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor
union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound by the Decision appealed from is affirmed.
laws and regulations of the parent organization. When a labor
union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or
accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes subject to
the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local a. Due Process
union functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the
parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant PAULINO BUGAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. KAPISANAN NG
thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD
contract between the parent body and the subordinate union, COMPANY, defendant-appellee (1962; J. Bautista-Angelo;
and between the members of the subordinate union inter se. GR No. L-13093)
'Due process' simply means that the parties were given the **Doctrine (A2016 Reviewer): The union may discipline its
opportunity to be heard. In the instant case, ample and members for acts or omissions contrary to its CBL. However,
unmistakable evidence exists to show that the oppositors it must also follow the rules and procedures outlines in the
were afforded the opportunity to present their evidence, but CBL in enforcing a penalty to a member.
they themselves disdained or spurned the said opportunity
given to them. FACTS: Bugay was formerly an auditor of Kapisanan. He was
at the same time payroll clerk of the Manila Railroad Co.
We, therefore, hold and rule that petitioners, although Sometime in March 1953, he was requested by the secretary-
entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new treasurer of the company to deliver certain documents which
organization of their own, must, however, suffer the were in his possession belonging to the union and in
consequences of their separation from the union under the compliance therewith he delivered them without consulting
security clause of the CBA. the officers of the union. Making use of these documents, the
management of the company filed with the City Fiscal of
It is undisputable that oppositors were members of the Amigo Manila against Vicente Olazo, president of the union, a
Employees Union at the time that said union affiliated with charge for falsification of commercial document. The City
PAFLU; hence, oppositors are bound by the laws and fiscal dismissed the charge.
regulations of PAFLU. Inherent in every labor union, or any
organization for that matter, is the right of self -preservation. Subsequently, charges for disloyalty and conduct
When members of a labor union seek the disintegration and unbecoming a union member were preferred against Bugay.
destruction of the very union to which they belong; they After the investigation, he was expelled from the union. As a
thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union result, Bugay filed a ULP charge against Kapisanan before the
which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as CIR.
the dictates of law and justice, therefore, compelling
mandate the adoption by the labor union of such corrective
CIR: Bugay's expulsion was illegal it appearing that the same to the chapters on June 17, 1953. To make it effective,
has not been approved by the majority of the chapters of the the resolution had to be affirmed by the chapters on
union as required by its CBL. Hence, the court ordered his July 1, 1953, at the latest. The additional time of four
reinstatement as union member and the restoration to him of days is allowed for transmittals made by mail. Only
all his rights and privileges. the two abovenamed chapters, however, acted on the
resolution within the prescribed period. For this reason,
Excerpts from CIRs decision: Both in the investigation held even under the assumption that the proceedings against
by the investigation committee of the Kapisanan and in the Bugay were not irregular, the resolution in question never
board meeting where the committee's report recommending had any valid effect on his union membership. In short, his
expulsion was approved, Bugay was not present. The reason affiliation with the Kapisanan was never terminated.
for Bugay's failure to attend the investigation does not That being the case, Bugay is entitled to all the rights
appear of record. On the other hand, during the board and obligations appertaining to every member of the
meeting, the committee of three board members assigned to Kapisanan. Considering that he has been unduly and
summon Bugay failed to serve notice upon him because he discriminatorily deprived of such rights and
was then in Lucena, Quezon. Why all these proceedings were obligations, the Court finds, and so holds, that the
continued by the respondents inspite of Bugay's absence respondents, by their act and conduct, have engaged
remains unexplained in the record. But one thing is in and are engaging in ULP in violation of Sec. 4(b) (2)
certain, whatever might be the merits of the charge of RA 872.
filed by respondent Olazo against him, Bugay did not
have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Such This decision was affirmed by the SC with some modification.
proceedings, being violative of the elementary rule of
justice and fair play, can not give validity to any act Subsequently, Bugay filed an action for moral damages
done pursuant thereto. (amounting to P20K) having become the victim of an ULP
act by the officers of Kapisanan under RA 875 as found by the
IMPT!: Besides, the contention that majority of the chapters CIR and SC before the CFI of Manila.
voted in favor of Bugay's expulsion is not borne by the o Bugay claims that he has suffered moral damages for
evidence. An examination of the chapters to the Kapisanan mental anguish, anxiety, social humiliation and
board of directors shows that all of the votes, except those of besmirched reputation specially among the thousands
the Hondagua Chapters and Engineering Manila Yard Chapter of employees of the Manila Railroad Co.
were not validly cast. Under the Kapisanan's CBL, before
a resolution of general application may be enforced, Kapisanan filed a motion to dismiss.
and a resolution terminating union membership is o Ground: The complaint does not state facts sufficient
one, it must receive the sanction of majority of the to constitute a cause of action in that neither the
chapters within 10 days (Sec. 4, Art. VII, Kapisanan's decision of the CIR nor that of the SC contain any
Saligang Batas). In other words, action thereon, whether statement that the ULP act imputed to Kapisanan was
favorable or otherwise, must be taken by the chapters within false or fabricated as in fact the decision of the SC
a period of 10 days from the time they receive the resolution. ordering Bugay's reinstatement was merely based on
According to respondent Olazo's testimony, the "the regularity and validity of the proceedings and the
resolution passed on June 14, 1953, was transmitted means adopted by the union and its officers in
effecting his expulsion." Thus, Bugay cannot ask moral expulsion was illegal because of the irregularities
damages inasmuch as there is no showing that to committed in his investigation. In effect, it was found
effect his expulsion the officers of the union have that not only has he not been given an opportunity to
acted in bad faith. As a matter of fact, he did not lose defend himself but his expulsion was not submitted to
his employment as payroll clerk in the Manila Railroad the different chapters of the union as required by its
Co. as a result of his expulsion, nor did he suffer any CBL. The result was that because of his expulsion he was
change in his status as a consequence thereof. In subjected to humiliation and mental anguish with the
effect, he was not awarded any damages by the consequent loss of his good name and reputation. This is
industrial court. especially so considering that the members of the union from
which he was expelled amounted to around 20,000 more or
This contention having been sustained, the CFI dismissed the less. It is, therefore, an error for the lower court to hold that
complaint. Hence, the present appeal. the complaint does not state sufficient cause of action for the
relief claimed by appellant.
ISSUE: WON Bugay should be awarded moral damages
===
RULING: YES. Order appealed from is set aside. The case is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Others: With regard to the contention that this claim for
moral damages should have been included by appellant in
1. The main basis of Bugay's action is his claim that because his charge for ULP filed against the union with the CIR, suffice
of the ULP committed by the officers of Kapisanan as found it to state that the same does not come within the jurisdiction
by the CIR and the SC, he has suffered moral damages of that court. This is a matter that has to be looked into by
because of the mental anguish, anxiety, social humiliation the regular courts.
and besmirched reputation he has been subjected among the
thousands of employees of the Manila Railroad Co. This claim
finds support in our NCC. 2. Election of Officers
o NCC. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched Labor Code 250 (c)
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social The members shall directly elect their officers, including
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of those of the national union or federation, to which they or
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
recovered if they are the proximate result of the years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
defendant's wrongful act or omission. position shall be imposed other than membership in good
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
2. It is true that the decisions both of the CIR and the SC do other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
not contain any statement that the charges preferred by the Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected
officers of the union against him which resulted in his officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
expulsion were "trumped up" or fabricated, or that said are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30)
officers acted maliciously or in bad faith, but the fact calendar days after the election of officers or from the
remains that the two courts have found that his occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. The Court held that the BLR was wrong, and that the CA was
6715, March 21, 1989) partly wrong; it upheld the FFW COMELECs decision to
disqualify Montao, not because of Article 26, but because of
Labor Code 250 (f) Article 76 (which was used by FFW COMELEC and Verceles),
No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral because the Constitution and By-Laws clearly state that
turpitude shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for federation employees are barred from sitting in the FFW
appointment to any position in the union; governing board.
Labor Code 250 (k) DOCTRINE: The Federation/Unions Constitution and ByLaws
The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any govern the relationship between and among its members.
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to They are akin to ordinary contracts in that their provisions
their positions as specifically provided for in its constitution have obligatory force upon the federation/union and its
and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a member. What has been expressly stipulated therein shall be
majority of all the members at a general membership strictly binding on both.
meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be
subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly FACTS:
authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval Atty. Montao worked as legal assistant of FFW Legal
of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or Center. Subsequently, he joined the union of rankandfile
expulsion from the organization; employees, the FFW Staff Association, and eventually
became the employees union president. Later, he was
likewise designated officerincharge of FFW Legal Center.
Book V Rule XIII During the 21st National Convention and Election of
National Officers of FFW, Atty. Montao was nominated for
the position of National VicePresident.
ALLAN S. MONTAO v. ERNESTO C. VERCELES However, the Commission on Election (FFW COMELEC),
July 6, 2010 | Del Castillo, J. | Election of Officers: informed him that he is not qualified for the position as his
Qualifications; Manner; Tenure and Compensation candidacy violates the 1998 FFW Constitution and By-
Digester: Fausto, Jaime Manuel A. Laws, particularly Section 76 of Article XIX and Section 25
SUMMARY: Montao, a member of FFW Staff Association, (a) of Article VIII, both in Chapter II thereof. Montao filed
which is a federation, was nominated as FFWs national Vice an MR.
President. The FFW COMELEC disqualified him, citing the FFW
Despite this, the election ensued. It was opposed by Atty.
Constitution and By-Laws, prohibiting federation employees
Ernesto C. Verceles (Atty. Verceles), a delegate to the
from sitting in the governing board. The election nonetheless
convention and president of University of the East
took place and Montao won. Verceles, another governing
Employees Association (UEEAFFW), which is an affiliate
board officer opposed this citing the same rules. The BLR
union of FFW.
dismissed this citing another FFW rule, which is substantial
Montao was victorious.
compliance with the requirements. The CA held that the BLR-
cited rule applied, but Montao was nonetheless disqualified.
Verceles protested Montaos candidacy before the FFW Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides that the
COMELEC. The latter did not act on this. BLR and the Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent
Thus, Verceles, as President of UEEA FFW and officer of jurisdiction over interunion and intraunion disputes. Such
the Governing Board of FFW, filed before the BLR a disputes include the conduct or nullification of election of
petition for the nullification of the election of Montao as union and workers association officers.
FFW National VicePresident. The matter of venue becomes problematic when the intra-
He alleged that, as already ruled by the FFW union dispute involves a federation, because the
COMELEC, Atty. Montao is not qualified to run for the geographical presence of a federation may encompass
position because Section 76 of Article XIX of the FFW more than one administrative region.
Constitution and ByLaws prohibits federation Thus, the BLR maintains exclusive jurisdiction over
employees from sitting in its Governing Board. disputes arising from any violation of or disagreement
Montao claimed that the Regional Director of DOLE, and over any provision of the constitution and by-laws.
not the BLR, had jurisdiction, and that the filing of the
case was premature because of the pending protest Whether the petition to annul Montaos election was
before the FFW COMELEC by Verceles. prematurely filed - NO.
FFW COMELEC sent a letter, which was later used by Redress must first be sought within the organization itself,
Verceles in his argument, saying that they actually in accordance with the Constitution and by-laws. However
disqualified Montano, based on the provisions of the FFW this is open to exceptions.
Constitution. Their decision was final, but the delegates The rules provide that the committee on election shall
still proceeded with the election. The body/ delegates endeavor to settle or resolve all protests during or
were not a Constitutional Convention and had no power to immediately after the close of election proceedings and
amend the FFW Constitution. any protest left unresolved shall be resolved by the
BLR - dismissed the petition. It held that the applicable is committee within five days after the close of the election
not Section 76 of Article XIX but Section 26 of Article VIII, proceedings.
and that Montao sufficiently complied with the Verceles protested a day after the election. He thus
requirements and that the delegates unanimously decided exhausted the proper remedies. Still, FFW COMELEC failed
that Montao was qualified to run. to timely act thereon. Thus, Verceles had no other
CA - set aside the BLR decision. It held that while Sec. 26 recourse but to seek redress from the BLR.
did apply, Montao was not able to comply with this as he
was not an officer or member of a legitimate labor Whether the allegation regarding forum shopping was
organization. The CA held that he was a legal assistant, belatedly raised - YES.
thus considered a confidential employee, and is this Montao only raised this issue in his MR before the CA.
ineligible to join FFWs rank-and-file union. New issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or
on MR.
RULING: Petition denied. Montaos election is null and void.
Whether the case must be resolved despite its issues
Whether the BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union having become moot - YES.
disputes involving a federation - YES.
Montaos challenged term already expired during the eligibility to run in the election and to adopt and
pendency of this case. promulgate rules concerning the conduct of elections. It
Furhter, Verceles appointment as NLRC Commissioner has the power to prescribe rules on the qualification and
divested him of any interest in and affiliation with the eligibility of candidates and such other rules as may
federation in accordance with Art. 213, LC. facilitate the orderly conduct of elections.
It must be stated at this juncture that the legitimacy of Thus, it has sufficient authority to adopt its own
Atty. Montaos leadership as National President is beyond interpretation of the explicit provisions of the federations
our jurisdiction and is not in issue in the instant case. The constitution and bylaws and unless it is shown to have
only issue for our resolution is petitioners qualification to committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision and
run as FFW National VicePresident. ruling will not be interfered with.
It is necessary and imperative to resolve this issue not The FFW Constitution and ByLaws are clear that no
only to prevent further repetition but also to clear any member of the Governing Board shall at the same time
doubtful interpretation and application of the provisions of perform functions of the rankandfile staff. The BLR erred
FFW Constitution & Bylaws in order to ensure credible in disregarding this clear provision.
future elections in the interest and welfare of affiliate The CA is therefore correct for holding that Atty. Montao
unions of FFW. is not qualified to run for the position but not for failure
to meet the requirement specified under Section 26 (d) of
[MAIN ISSUE] Article VIII of FFW Constitution and ByLaws.
Whether Montao was qualified to run as FFW The Court nonetheless affirms the CAs finding that
National Vice-President in view of the prohibition Montao is disqualified to run for the position of National
established in Section 76, Article XIX of the 1998 FFW Vice President in view of the proscription in the FFW
Constitution and ByLaws - NO. Constitution and ByLaws on federation employees from
The pertinent provision provides that that no member of sitting in its Governing Board. Thus, Monaos election is
the Governing Board shall at the same time be an null and void.
employee in the staff of the federation.
There is no dispute that Atty. Montao, at the time of his Decision: election of Atty. Montao as FFW Vice-President is
nomination and election for the position in the Governing null and void.
Board, is the head of FFW Legal Center and the President
of FFW Staff Association. Even after he was elected, albeit
challenged, he continued to perform his functions as staff a. Qualifications/Disqualification
member of FFW and no evidence was presented to show
that he tendered his resignation. Labor Code 250 (c)
Thus the FFW COMELEC disqualified Montao. The BLR The members shall directly elect their officers, including
and CA erred in reversing this in applying Art. 26 of the those of the national union or federation, to which they or
Constitution and By-Laws. their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
The FFW COMELEC is vested with authority and power,
position shall be imposed other than membership in good
under the FFW Constitution and ByLaws, to screen
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
candidates and determine their qualifications and
other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No.
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected 6715, March 21, 1989)
officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30) i. Direct election
calendar days after the election of officers or from the ii. Secret ballot
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. c. Tenure
6715, March 21, 1989) Labor Code 250 (c)
The members shall directly elect their officers, including
Labor Code 250 (f) those of the national union or federation, to which they or
The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
their positions as specifically provided for in its constitution position shall be imposed other than membership in good
and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
majority of all the members at a general membership other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30)
authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval calendar days after the election of officers or from the
of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
expulsion from the organization; organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989)
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there Aside from the registration requirement, is only
exists a CBA.When there is a CBA, the duty to the labor organization designated or selected by
bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party the majority of the employees in an appropriate
shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written representative of the employees in such unit for
notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be in Art. 255.
the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not the labor organization
continue in full force and effect the terms and certified or designated by the majority of the
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day rank-and-file hospital employees to represent
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the them in the CBA negotiations but the NFL, as
parties.
evidenced by CBAs concluded in 1987, 1991 and federations Constitution and By-Laws, and if found
1994. guilty to expel such members.
While it is true that a local union has the right to MCCHI therefore cannot be faulted for deferring
disaffiliate from the national federation, NAMA-MCCH- action on the CBA proposal submitted by NAMA-
NFL has not done so as there was no effort on its part MCCH-NFL in view of the union leaderships
to comply with the legal requisites for a valid conflict with the national federation. We have
disaffiliation during the freedom period or the last 60 held that the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union
days of the last year of the CBA, through a majority dispute2 which must be resolved in a different forum in
vote in a secret balloting in accordance with Art. 241 an action at the instance of either or both the
(d). federation and the local union or a rival labor
NAVA and her group simply demanded that organization, not the employer.
MCCHI directly negotiate with the local union Not being a legitimate labor organization nor the
which has not even registered as one. certified exclusive bargaining representative of
To prove majority support of the employees, MCCHIs rank-and-file employees, NAMA-MCCH-NFL
NAMA-MCCH-NFL presented the CBA proposal cannot demand from MCCHI the right to bargain
allegedly signed by 153 union members. collectively in their behalf. Hence, MCCHIs refusal to
However, the petition signed by said members bargain then with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot be
showed that the signatories endorsed the considered an unfair labor practice to justify the
proposed terms and conditions without stating staging of the strike.
that they were likewise voting for or designating
the NAMA-MCCH-NFL as their exclusive Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and
bargaining representative.1 workers participation in policy and decision-making.
In any case, NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of The labor organization designated or selected by the
submission of said proposals was not a duly registered majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
labor organization, hence it cannot legally represent bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of
MCCHIs rank-and-file employees for purposes of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining. collective bargaining. x x x
Hence, even assuming that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had Art. 243 An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict
validly disaffiliated from its mother union, NFL, between and among union members, including
it still did not possess the legal personality to grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
enter into CBA negotiations. conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement
A local union which is not independently over any provision of the unions constitution and by-
registered cannot, upon disaffiliation from the laws, or disputes arising from chartering or
federation, exercise the rights and privileges disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of
granted by law to legitimate labor organizations; Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the
thus, it cannot file a petition for certification election. DOLE enumerate the following circumstances as
Besides, the NFL as the mother union has the right to inter/intra-union disputes, viz.: x x x x (e)
investigate members of its local chapter under the validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
their vehicles from entering the hospital and
3: Strike and picketing activities conducted by union other employees from reporting to work, the
officers and members were illegal\ putting up of placards with a statement advising
incoming patients to proceed to another hospital
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts.x x x because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest.
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxxx
concerted activities for purposes of collective c. In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and certified or recognized bargaining agent
protection. The right of legitimate labor may file a notice of strike or the employer may
organizations to strike and picket and of file a notice of lockout with the Department at
employers to lockout, consistent with the least 30 days before the intended date thereof.
national interest, shall continue to be recognized In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
and respected. However, no labor union may notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of
strike and no employer may declare a a duly certified or recognized bargaining
lockout on grounds involving inter-union agent, the notice of strike may be filed by
and intra-union disputes. any legitimate labor organization in behalf
of its members . However, in case of dismissal
As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a from employment of union officers duly elected
duly registered or an independently registered union at in accordance with the union constitution and
the time it filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 by-laws, which may constitute union busting,
and when it conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996. where the existence of the union is threatened,
It could not then legally represent the union members. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the the union may take action immediately. (As
conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for amended by Executive Order No. 111,
having been filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL December 24, 1986.)
which has no legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization, in violation of Art. 263 (c), (d) and (f) of d. The notice must be in accordance with such
the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus implementing rules and regulations as the
Rules Implementing the Labor Code.3 Department of Labor and Employment may
Furthermore, the strike was illegal due to the promulgate. x x x x
commission of the following prohibited activities: 4
f. A decision to declare a strike must be approved
(1) violence, coercion, intimidation and by a majority of the total union membership in the
harassment against non-participating bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret
employees; and ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be
(2) blocking of free ingress to and egress from approved by a majority of the board of directors of
the hospital, including preventing patients and the corporation or association or of the partners in
a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a makeshift structures that obstructed its use by the
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall public who were likewise barraged by the noise coming
be valid for the duration of the dispute based on from strikers using megaphones. On the other hand,
substantially the same grounds considered when the affidavits51 executed by several hospital
the strike or lockout vote was taken. The employees and patients narrated in detail the
Department may, at its own initiative or upon the incidents of harassment, intimidation, violence and
request of any affected party, supervise the coercion, some of these witnesses have positively
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the identified the perpetrators. The prolonged work
union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the stoppage and picketing activities of the striking
voting at least seven days before the intended employees severely disrupted hospital operations that
strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period MCCHI suffered heavy financial losses.
herein provided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa
Bilang 130, August 21, 1981 and further amended The findings of the Executive Labor Arbiter and
by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986.) NLRC, as sustained by the appellate court,
clearly established that the striking union
Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing members created so much noise, disturbance
the Labor Code reads: and obstruction that the local government
authorities eventually ordered their removal for
SEC. 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout.Any certified or being a public nuisance. This was followed by an
duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a injunction from the NCMB enjoining the union leaders
strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor from further blocking the free ingress to and egress
practices. The employer may declare a lockout in the same from the hospital, and from committing threats,
cases. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized coercion and intimidation against non-striking
bargaining representative, any legitimate labor employees and patients/vehicles desiring to enter for
organization in the establishment may declare a strike the purpose of seeking medical
but only on grounds of unfair labor practice. (Emphasis treatment/confinement. By then, the illegal strike had
supplied.) lasted for almost five months.
264 (e) of the Labor Code provides: No person engaged in 4: Consequences of illegal strike to union officers and
picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or members
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the
employers premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public Art. 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides
thoroughfares. for the consequences of an illegal strike to the
participating workers:
As shown by photographs submitted by MCCHI, as well x x x Any union officer who knowingly
as the findings of the NCMB and Cebu City participates in illegal strike and any worker or
Government, the hospital premises and sidewalk union officer who knowingly participates in the
within its vicinity were full of placards, streamers and
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be The termination of union officers NAVA, Alsado,
declared to have lost his employment status: Baez, Bongcaras, Canen, Gerona and
Remocaldo was valid and justified.
Provided, That mere participation of a With respect to the dismissed union members,
worker in a lawful strike shall not although MCCHI submitted photographs taken at
constitute sufficient ground for the picket line, it did not individually name those
termination of his employment, even if a striking employees and specify the illegal act
replacement had been hired by the employer committed by each of them. Hence, the
during such lawful strike. dismissal of union members who merely
participated in the illegal strike was illegal.
The above provision makes a distinction
between workers and union officers who 5: Dismissed union members not entitled to
participate in an illegal strike: backwages but should be awarded separation pay in
lieu of reinstatement
An ordinary striking worker cannot be
terminated for mere participation in an Since there is no clear proof that union members
illegal strike. There must be proof that he actually participated in the commission of illegal
or she committed illegal acts during a acts during the strike, they are not deemed to
strike. have lost their employment status as a
consequence of a declaration of illegality of the
A union officer, on the other hand, may be strike.
terminated from work when he knowingly
Petitioners assail the CA in not ordering their
participates in an illegal strike, and like
reinstatement with back wages. Invoking stare decisis,
other workers, when he commits an illegal
they cited the case of Bascon v. CA decided by this
act during a strike.
Court in 2004 and which involved two former hospital
employees who likewise sued MCCHI after the latter
Considering their persistence in holding picketing terminated their employment due to their participation
activities despite the declaration by the NCMB that in the same illegal strike led by NAMA-MCCH-NFL.
their union was not duly registered as a legitimate However, the SC said that the doctrine of stare decisis
labor organization and the letter from NFLs legal would not be applied in this case. Said doctrine is
counsel informing that their acts constitute disloyalty not cast in stone upon a showing that
to the national federation, and their filing of the notice circumstances attendant in a particular case
of strike and conducting a strike vote notwithstanding override the great benefits derived by our
that their union has no legal personality to negotiate judicial system from the doctrine of stare
with MCCHI for collective bargaining purposes, there is decisis. Thus, the Court, especially with a new
no question that NAMA-MCCH-NFL officers knowingly membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a
participated in the illegal strike. particular decision that it determines, after re-
examination, to call for a rectification.
Separation pay is made an alternative relief in (g) strained relations between the
lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, employer and employee.
like:
Considering that 15 years had lapsed from the onset
(a) when reinstatement can no longer be of this labor dispute, and in view of strained relations
effected in view of the passage of a long that ensued, in addition to the reality of replacements
period of time or because of the realities already hired by the hospital which had apparently
of the situation; recovered from its huge losses, and with many of the
(b) reinstatement is inimical to the petitioners either employed elsewhere, already old
employers interest; and sickly, or otherwise incapacitated, separation pay
(c) reinstatement is no longer feasible; without back wages is the appropriate relief.
(d) reinstatement does not serve the best
interests of the parties involved; DECISION
(e) the employer is prejudiced by the Petition denied
workers continued employment;
(f) facts that make execution unjust or
inequitable have supervened; or