BLR-DOLE CASES

SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED VS SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT
UNION G.R. No. 146206

Topic: Determination of Appropriate Bargaining Unit; Factors – Unit Determination

QUICKIE FACTS: San Miguel Foods has factory/branches in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis. The
employees from these three branches wanted to form a single bargaining unit. This was opposed by the
company as being against the “one company, one union” policy. SC ruled that applying the mutuality of
interest test, there should only be one bargaining unit.

FACTS:
In the case of San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, the Court held that
even if they handle confidential data regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory
employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. are not to be
considered confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly,
negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an appropriate
bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Court also declared that the employees
belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community or mutuality of interests, constitute a single
bargaining unit.

A certification election was conducted. On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus
Objections and Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the
grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent
or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.

Based on the results of the election, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the Yes vote
received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San
Fernando, and Otis.

On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution, affirmed the Order of the Med-
Arbiter.

CA affirmed the Resolution of DOLE Undersecretary with modification stating that those holding the
positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.

Hence, this petition by the San Miguel Foods

ISSUE: W/N CA departed from jurisprudence when it expanded the scope of the bargaining unit.

RULING: No. In San Miguel vs Laguesma, the Court explained that the employees of San Miguel
Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An appropriate bargaining
unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to
the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.

It held that while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in
determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must
be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the basic
test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination
which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. Certainly, there
is a mutuality of interest among the employees. Their functions mesh with one another. One group
needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. There may be differences as to the
nature of their individual assignments, but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a
separate bargaining unit.

The Court affirms the finding of the CA that there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees
in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in dressed chicken
processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in live chicken operations. Certain factors, such as
specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant
conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and
distinct from each other, the specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists
mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining unit.

DISPOSITIVE: Respondent won

DOCTRINE: An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer,

comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the
employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal
rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

It held that while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in
determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must
be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the basic
test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination
which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. Certainly, there
is a mutuality of interest among the employees. Their functions mesh with one another. One group
needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. There may be differences as to the
nature of their individual assignments, but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a
separate bargaining unit.

UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio / BLR - GR No. 131235 Case Digest
FACTS:

Private respondent Marinio et al were duly elected officers of UST faculty. The union has a 5-year CBA
with its employer and is set to expire on May 31, 1998. On October 5, 1996 various UST club presidents
requested a general faculty assembly thus union and non-union faculty members convened. New set of
officers were elected, violative of the CBL and that the GA was held with non-union members present.
Union officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office, and CBA was ratified by an
overwhelming majority. Med-Arbiter declared the election violative of the CBL while BLR director
Bitonio upheld the decision with a ruling that the CBL which constituted the covenant between the
union and its members could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty members,
since it had not been authorized by the union.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the
officers elected during the “general assembly”.

RULING:

Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code. Corollary to
this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a
union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to become one, but also take some
positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the
union’s CBL. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and he concomitant
obligations that go with the new status and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations.

CASE TITLE: Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. CA

GR NO.: 178989
DATE: March 18, 2010

PETITIONER:EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

RESPONDENT:COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU)

DOCTRINE:
The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw their membership through
their affidavits of retraction will not cause the cancellation of registration on the ground of violation
of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-and-file
employees in the employees' union

FACTS:
At least 20% of Eagle Ridge's rank-and-file employees had a meeting where they organized themselves
into an independent labor union, named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union"(EREU or Union), elected a set
of officers, and ratified their constitution and by-laws. Thereafter, they formally applied for registration
before the DOLE which was later on issued to them.

Subsequently, petitioner filed for cancellation of the Union’s registration. Petitioner alleged that
EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members, when the minutes of its December
6, 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members. Moreover, petitioner contended that
five employees who attended the organizational meeting had manifested, through their individual
affidavits, the desire to withdraw from the union. Thus, the union membership reduced to 20 or 21,
either of which is below the mandatory minimum 20%membership requirement under Art. 234 (c) of
the Labor Code. Reckoned from 112 rank-and-file employees of Eagle Ridge, the required number would
be 22 or 23 employees. The DOLE RD ruled in favor of the petitioner which was affirmed by the BLR. On
MR, the BLR set aside the previous rulings and ruled in favor of the Union. Petitioner went to the CA but
to no avail, thus this petition.

ISSUE: Was there a bona fide compliance with the registration requirements?
HELD: Yes.

First, the Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting
on December 6, 2005, the election of its officers, and the adoption of the Union's constitution and by-
laws. Second, The members of the Union totaled 30employees when it applied on December 19, 2005
for registration. The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership
requirement under Art. 234 (c).

Third, The Union has sufficiently explained the discrepancy between the number of those who attended
the organizational meeting showing 26 employees and the list of union members showing 30. The
difference is due to the additional four members admitted two days after the organizational meeting as
attested to by their duly accomplished Union Membership forms.

Fourth, The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw their membership
through their affidavits of retraction will not cause the cancellation of registration on the ground of
violation of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum 20% membership of
rank-and-file employees in the employees' union.

When the EREU filed its application for registration on December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30union
members. Thus, when the certificate of registration was granted, there is no dispute that the Union
complied with the mandatory 20% membership requirement

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES (NUBE) vs.

PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA) AND PNB
G.R. No.174287, August 12, 2013
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) used to be a government-owned and controlled banking
institution established under Public Act 2612, as amended by Executive Order No. 80 dated December 3,
1986 (otherwise known as The 1986 Revised Charter of the Philippine National Bank). Its rank-and-file
employees, being government personnel, were represented for collective negotiation by the Philnabank
Employees Association (PEMA), a public sector union.

In 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved PNB’s new Articles of Incorporation and By-
laws and its changed status as a private corporation. PEMA affiliated with petitioner National Union of
Bank Employees (NUBE), which is a labor federation composed of unions in the banking industry,
adopting the name NUBE-PNB Employees Chapter (NUBE-PEC). Later, NUBE-PEC was certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the PNB rank-and-file employees. A collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) was subsequently signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB covering the period of January
1, 1997 to December 31, 2001.
Following the expiration of the CBA, the Philnabank Employees Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed on
January 2, 2002 a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of PNB. The
petition sought the conduct of a certification election to be participated in by PEMA-FFW and NUBE-PEC.
While the petition for certification election was still pending, two significant events transpired – the
independent union registration of NUBE- PEC and its disaffiliation with NUBE. PEMA sent a letter to the
PNB management informing its disaffiliation from NUBE and requesting to stop, effective immediately,
the check-off of the P15.00 due for NUBE. Acting thereon, on July 4, 2003, PNB informed NUBE of
PEMA’s letter and its decision to continue the deduction of the P15.00 fees, but stop its remittance to
NUBE effective July 2003. PNB also notified NUBE that the amounts collected would be held in a trust
account pending the resolution of the issue on PEMA’s disaffiliation.

Alleging unfair labor practice (ULP) for non-implementation of the grievance machinery and procedure,
NUBE brought the matter to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for preventive
mediation.

ISSUE:
Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE, the resolution of which, in turn, inevitably affects
the latter’s right to collect the union dues held in trust by PNB.

HELD:
The right of the local members to withdraw from the federation and to form a new local union depends
upon the provisions of the union's constitution, by-laws and charter and, in the absence of enforceable
provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its
relationship with its parent.

In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by NUBE that PEMA was
expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid
breakaway. This being so, PEMA is not precluded to disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the
status of an independent labor organization duly registered before the DOLE.

Consequently, by PEMA's valid disaffiliation from NUBE, the vinculum that previously bound
the two entities was completely severed. As NUBE was divested of any and all power to act in
representation of PEMA, any act performed by the former that affects the interests and affairs of the
latter, including the supposed expulsion of Serrana et al., is rendered without force and effect.

Also, in effect, NUBE loses it right to collect all union dues held in its trust by PNB. The moment that
PEMA separated from and left NUBE and exists as an independent labor organization with a
certificate of registration, the former is no longer obliged to pay dues and assessments to the latter;
naturally, there would be no longer any reason or occasion for PNB to continue making deductions.

AIR PHIL. CORP VS. BLR 492 SCRA 241

Topic: Cancellation of Union Certificate of Registration

FACTS:
Respondent Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA) was issued a Certificate of
Registration by the DOLE
APFLAA filed a petition for certification election as the collective bargaining representative of the flight
attendants of APC

After the Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering the holding of a certification election, such election
was held, with majority of votes cast in favor of AFPLAA

APC filed a petition for De-Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration against APFLAA with
DOLE
- APFLAA could not be registered as a labor organization, as its composition consisted of “a mixture of
supervisory and rank-and-file flight attendants
- Flight attendants holding the position of “Lead Cabin Attendant,” which according to it is supervisory
in character, were among those who comprised APFLAA

DOLE: dismissed petition, holding that Article 245 of the Labor Code does not provide a ground for
cancellation of union registration, which is instead governed by Article 239 of the LC

ISSUE: Whether or not APFLAA’s union registration may be cancelled considering that the union is
allegedly composed of a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees

RULING:

NO. For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-and-file union
includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it
must be shown that there was 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, or 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 to the BLR.

In its Petition for De-certification and Cancellation of Union Registration, APC did not impute on APFLAA
such misrepresentation of the character necessitated under Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code.
APC merely argued that APFLAA was not qualified to become a legitimate labor organization by reason
of its mixed composition of rank-and-file and supervisory employees; and that APFLAA committed
misrepresentation by making it appear that its composition was composed purely of rank-and-file
employees. Such misrepresentation (if it can be called as such) as alleged by APC, is not conformable to
Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. Indeed, it appears from the record that APC instead devoted
the bulk of its arguments in establishing that supervisory employees comprised part of the membership
of APFLAA, a ground which is not sufficient to cause the cancellation of union registration. And this is of
course all under the assumption that Lead Cabin Attendants are indeed supervisory employees, a claim
consistently denied by APFLAA and which was not confirmed by either the DOLE-NCR or the BLR.

DISPOSITIVE: APFLAA won.

DOCTRINE: For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-and-file
union includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor
Code, it must be shown that there was 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, or 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 to the BLR.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER,
GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION vs. LABOR SEC, et. al.
G.R. NO. 172132 July 23, 2014

For: Petition for the cancellation of union registration / Certification Election

Facts:
Respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) filed a petition for certification election, seeking to represent
all the supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel Manila. The petitioner filed its opposition, but the
opposition was deemed denied when Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando issued his order for the
conduct of the certification election.

The petitioner appealed the order of Med-Arbiter Fernando, but the appeal was also denied. A pre-
election conference was then scheduled. However, the pre-election conference was suspended until
further notice because of the repeated non-appearance of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC. Later, NUWHRAIN-
HHMSC moved for the conduct of the pre-election conference.

The petitioner primarily filed its comment on the list of employees submitted by NUWHRAIN-HHMSC,
and simultaneously sought the exclusion of some from the list of employees for occupying either
confidential or managerial positions. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss raising the prolonged lack
of interest of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC to pursue its petition for certification election.

The petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC’s registration as a labor union
for failing to submit its annual financial reports and an updated list of members as required by Article
238 and Article 239 of the Labor Code. It filed another motion to seek either the dismissal or the
suspension of the proceedings on the basis of its pending petition for the cancellation of union
registration. However, the DOLE issued a notice scheduling the certification elections.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari, alleging that the
DOLE gravely abused its discretion in not suspending the certification election proceedings. The CA
dismissed the petition for certiorari for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The certification
election proceeded as scheduled, and NUWHRAINHHMSC obtained the majority vote of the bargaining
unit. The petitioner filed a protest (with motion to defer the certification of the election results and the
winner), insisting on the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.

Issue:
Should the petition for the cancellation of union registration based on mixed membership of supervisors
and managers in a labor union, and the non-submission of reportorial requirements to the DOLE justify
the suspension of the proceedings for the certification elections or even the denial of the petition for
the certification election?

Ruling:
No.
Under the long established rule, too, the filing of the petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-
HHMSC’s registration should not bar the conduct of the certification election. In that respect, only a final
order for the cancellation of the registration would have prevented NUWHRAINHHMSC from continuing
to enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor union, including the right to the petition for
the certification election. This rule is now enshrined in Article 238-A of the Labor Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9481.

Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in treating petitions for cancellation of union
registration, lest they be accused of interfering with union activities. In resolving the petition,
consideration must be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
and peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities should bear in mind that registration confers upon a
union the status of legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a legitimate
labor organization, particularly the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining
unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a
labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code.

R.A. No. 9481 also inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-A, which provides for reportorial requirements
that failure to comply with the requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration
but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any
appropriate penalty.

Presently, then, the mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of the registered labor union
unless the same was done through misrepresentation, false statement or fraud according to Article 239
of the Labor Code.

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS vs. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC., petitioner versus BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE OCAMPO
MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 192648
March 15, 2017

FACTS:
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly-organized and existing under the laws
of the Philippines. De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center and De Ocampo Memorial College. Under the
aforementioned institution is Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Medical Center a union which was
granted Union Registration No. on September 26, 2003. Another permit was issued for Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated December 5, 2003; Union
Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter No. NCR-l 2-CC-002-2003, declaring that they are
legitimate organization.

A Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor and Employment -
National Capital Region was filed by De Ocampo against Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial
School, Inc. dated March 4, 2004. Stating in the petition the grounds of revocation of registration 1.)
Misrepresentation of declaring the officers and members 2.) Mixed membership of rank file 3.)
Inappropriate bargaining unit.
A Comment-Opposition was then filed by BMDOMSI, denying De Ocampo's allegations and claiming that
the latter only wants to impede the formation of the union.

A decision of Acting Regional Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad III of the DOLE-NCR ruled that BMDOMSI
committed misrepresentation by making it appear that the bargaining unit is composed of faculty and
technical employees, dated July 26, 2004.

The respondents then filed an appeal to Bureau of Labor Relations. On December 29, 2004, a decision
was released by BLR reversing the Regional Director's finding of misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud in BMDOMSI’s application for registration.

According to BLR the petitioner failed to present proof to support its allegation of mixed membership
within respondent union. Certiorari was filed by the petitioner to the CA seeking to annul and set aside
the BLR Decision as well as the Resolution dated January 24, 2005 denying its motion for
reconsideration. CA affirmed the Decision of the BLR. It ruled that there was no misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in the application for registration. The respondents were able to substantiate that
there have been no misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes of the general
membership meeting BMDOMSI Union, and the list of members who attended the meeting and ratified
the union constitution and by-laws, are in truth employees of the school, though some service the
hospital.

Although, the CA observed that the members of the union, who are from academic, non-academic, and
general services, do not perform work of the same nature and these factors dictate the separation of
the categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining, the CA reasoned that such lack of
mutuality and commonality of interest of the union members is not among the grounds for cancellation
of union registration under Article 247 of the Labor Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not De Ocampo Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. Union
Registration should be revoked

HELD:
No. The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to have grounds for cancelation of their
Union Registration. BMDOMSI Union was able to testify to the court that there were no
misrepresentation, mixed membership and inappropriate bargaining unit in their union. The CA ruled
the according to Article 247 of the Labor Code provides: Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union
Registration. The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

1.) 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, and the list of members
who took part in the ratification;
2.) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of
the election of officers, and the list of voters;
3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

The petitioner was not able to establish to the court the violation alleged to the respondents, wherefore
CA decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the petition denied for lack of merit.