SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC

vs. HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of labor, and MALAYANG

NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG PACIFIC PLASTIC

G.R. No. 111245 January 31, 1997

Facts:

Petitioner SAMAHAN and respondent MNMPP are labor unions of rank and file employees at
the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC).

MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election. SAMAHAN countered by seeking the
cancellation of MNMPP's union registration. As a result, MNMPP's petition to be certified as the
bargaining agent was dismissed.

MNMPP appealed to the Secretary of Labor who, reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter and
ordered the holding of a certification election among the rank and file employees of the PPC.

Accordingly, the representation officer of the Secretary of Labor held a pre-election conference
during which the PPC was required to submit the list of its rank and file employees based on the
company payroll three (3) months prior to the filing of the petition. The respondent company
failed to submit the list.

The certification election was held October 6, 1992 using the list furnished by the SSS, as the
basis of the number of eligible voters. MNMPP won the election.

The Med-Arbiter, dismissed the election protest of SAMAHAN and upheld the election of
MNMPP as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file employees at the PCC.

SAMAHAN appealed to the Secretary of Labor, contended that the use of the SSS list was in
violation of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which prescribe the use of the
company payroll as basis for the voter's list.

Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma denied the appeal of SAMAHAN and affirmed the
decision of the Med-Arbiter.

Issues:

1. Whether the certification election held on October 6, 1992 is null and void on the ground that
only 62 out of 130 employees participated in the activity.

2. Whether the SSS lists indicating 98 covered employees can be used as substitute for three (3)
monthly payrolls required for the purpose of determining the qualified voters and the majority
vote needed in an election.

1
Ruling:

The petition has no merit.

1. The certification election held on October 6, 1992 is valid Art. 256 of the labor Code provides
that in order to have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have
cast their votes. The certification election results show that more than a majority, i.e, 62 out of a
total of 98 eligible voters included in the list of employees obtained from the SSS, cast their
votes. Hence, the legal requirement for a valid election was met.

The bone of contention actually concerns the propriety of utilizing the list of employees
furnished by the SSS as basis for determining the total number of eligible voters in the
bargaining unit. Petitioner claims that, according to the Implementing Rules, the basis for the list
of eligible voters should have been the payroll three (3) months preceding the filing of the
petition for certification election and that if this was done the 62 votes cast would be short of the
majority because, instead of only 98 employees, as shown in the SSS list, there were actually 130
as alleged in MNMPP's petition for certification election.

The contention is without merit. As petitioner itself says, the figure 130 is based on the allegation
that MNMPP made in its petition for certification election that it was supported by at least 25%
of the members of the bargaining unit. Such statement was a mere approximation of the size of
the bargaining unit that the petitioning union seeks to represent and cannot be used against
MNMPP for this reason.

2. It should ideally be the payroll which should have been used for the purpose of the election.
However, the unjustified refusal of a company to submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts
to make it produce it, compelled resort to the SSS list as the next best source of information.
After all, the SSS list is a public record whose regularity is presumed.

In Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) v. Undersecretary of Labor and Employment,
this Court underscored the policy of the Labor Code of encouraging the holding of a certification
election as the definitive and certain way of ascertaining the choice of employees as to the labor
organization in a collective bargaining unit.

In Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services World Federation of Trade Unions v.
Laguesma, we reiterated this policy thus:

It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification elections, for it is
a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. We have held that whenever there is doubt as
to whether a particular union represents the majority of the rank and file employees, in the
absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification election is the most democratic
method of determining the employees' choice of their bargaining representative. It is the
appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by
the unequivocal vote of the employees themselves. Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial
democracy.

2
Insistence on the application of the Omnibus Implementing Rules could defeat this policy.
Worse, it could facilitate fraud by employers who can easily suppress the payroll to prevent
certification elections from being held.

This Court has therefore consistently adhered to the principle announced in U.E. Automotive
Employees v. Noriel that where it concerns the weight to be accorded to the wishes of the
majority as expressed in an election conducted fairly and honestly, certain provisions that may be
considered mandatory before the voting takes place become thereafter merely directory in order
that the wishes of the electorate prevail. Considering all the arguments presented above, we find
no substantial reason to nullify the certification election conducted on October 6, 1992 on the
basis of a mere technicality which finds no justification considering the facts of the case nor
upon close examination of the true intent of the law to remove all impediments to the conduct of
certification elections.

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS

vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC

G.R. No. 190515 June 6, 2011

Facts:

This resolves the motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration filed
by respondent, Cirtek Electronics, Inc., of the Court’s Decision dated November 15, 2010.

Respondent-movant maintains that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties; and that, as early as February 5, 2010,
petitioner Union had already filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a
resolution of disaffiliation from the Federation of Free Workers resulting in the latter’s lack of
personality to represent the workers in the present case.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner has no personality to represent the workers because of its disaffiliation
from the Federation of Free Workers.

Ruling:

The motion is bereft of merit.

At all events, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute which must be resolved in a
different forum in an action at the instance of either or both the FFW and the Union or a rival
labor organization, not the employer.

3
An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or disaffiliation of the union.

Indeed, as respondent-movant itself argues, a local union may disaffiliate at any time from its
mother federation, absent any showing that the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule.
Such, however, does not result in it losing its legal personality altogether.

Verily, Anglo-KMU v. Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa Sa Manila Bay Spinning

Mills At J.P. Coats enlightens:

A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure and maintain an
equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members. A local union
does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct
voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. The mere act of affiliation
does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation
the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency
where the former acts in representation of the latter.

Whether then, as respondent claims, FFW "went against the will and wishes of its principal" (the
member-employees) by pursuing the case despite the signing of the MOA, is not for the Court,
nor for respondent to determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own pursuant to
their principal-agent relationship.

PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS, INC., MARILES C. ROMULO and FRANCISCO

DAKILA vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER EMERSON
TUMANON, PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU)
SEPTEMBER (now UNIFIED PAFLU) and SERAFIN AYROSO

G.R. No. 127374; G.R. No. 127431 January 31, 2002

Facts:

In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor
union affiliated with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) won in the
certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders,
Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU)
immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.

Several months later, pending settlement of the controversy, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of
disaffiliation.

4
PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its
name to Philippine Skylanders Employees Association - National Congress of Workers (PSEA-
NCW), and to maintain continuity within the organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-
PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers in the newly-formed PSEA-
NCW.

On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI which
was immediately registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA's shift of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary General

Serafin Ayroso wrote Mariles C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI's audited financial statement.
Ayroso explained that with the dismissal of PSEA-WATU's election protest the time was ripe for
the parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.

On 30 July 1994 PSI through its personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied the request citing as
reason PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with NCW.

Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA-NCW, PAFLU through Serafin Ayroso filed a complaint
for unfair labor practice against PSI, its president Mariles Romulo and personnel manager
Francisco Dakila. PAFLU alleged that aside from PSI's refusal to bargain collectively with its
workers, the company through its president and personnel manager, was also liable for
interfering with its employees' union activities.

Two (2) days later or on 6 October 1994 Ayroso filed another complaint in behalf of PAFLU for
unfair labor practice against Francisco Dakila. Through Ayroso PAFLU claimed that Dakila was
present in PSEA's organizational meeting thereby confirming his illicit participation in union
activities. Ayroso added that the members of the local union had unwittingly fallen into the
manipulative machinations of PSI and were lured into endorsing a collective bargaining
agreement which was detrimental to their interests. The two (2) complaints were thereafter
consolidated.

The Labor Arbiter declared PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, PSEA-
PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of unfair labor practice.

The NLRC upheld the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and conjectured that since an election
protest questioning PSEA-PAFLU's certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent was
pending resolution before the Secretary of Labor, PSEA could not validly separate from PAFLU,
join another national federation and subsequently enter into a collective bargaining agreement
with its employer-company.

Issue:

Whether PSEA, which is an independent and separate local union, validly disaffiliate from
PAFLU pending the settlement of an election protest questioning its status as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file employees

5
Ruling:

At the outset, let it be noted that the issue of disaffiliation is an inter-union conflict the
jurisdiction of which properly lies with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and not with the
Labor Arbiter.

The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is not a novel thesis
unillumined by case law. In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty
Cotton Mills, Inc. we upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on
the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and
existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their
members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common
bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their interests.
Admittedly, there are times when without succor and support local unions may find it hard,
unaided by other support groups, to secure justice for themselves.

Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests subject
to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also
to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought such
affiliation into existence.

Such dictum has been punctiliously followed since then.

Upon an application of the aforecited principle to the issue at hand, the impropriety of the
questioned Decisions becomes clearly apparent. There is nothing shown in the records nor is it
claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the
federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the pendency
of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute
a bar to a valid disaffiliation. Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 111 signatories out of the
120 members of the local union, or an equivalent of 92.5% of the total union membership
supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized PAFLU from instituting any
complaint in their behalf. Surely, this is not a case where one (1) or two (2) members of the local
union decided to disaffiliate from the mother federation, but it is a case where almost all local
union members decided to disaffiliate.

It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with
PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had validly severed itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions
which could validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW and entering into a
collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its members.

There is a further consideration that likewise argues for the granting of the petitions. It stands
unchallenged that PAFLU instituted the complaint for unfair labor practice against the wishes of
workers whose interests it was supposedly protecting. The mere act of disaffiliation did not
divest PSEA of its own personality; neither did it give PAFLU the license to act independently of
the local union. Recreant to its mission, PAFLU cannot simply ignore the demands of the local
chapter and decide for its welfare. PAFLU might have forgotten that as an agent it could only act

6
in representation of and in accordance with the interests of the local union. The complaint then
for unfair labor practice lodged by PAFLU against PSI, PSEA and their respective officers,
having been filed by a party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint, should
have been dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action.

Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a
national federation, those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically though, the desires of
the mother federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be shunned. It will however be to
err greatly against the Constitution if the desires of the federation would be favored over those of
its members. That, at any rate, is the policy of the law. For if it were otherwise, instead of
protection, there would be disregard and neglect of the lowly workingmen.