LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization
1. S.S. VENTURES INT’L. INC. v. S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION
G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008 - Encarnacion
Petitioner: S.S. Ventures Int’l. Inc.
Respondents: S.S. Ventures Labor Union and Dir. Cacdac as director of BLR
Employer S.S. Ventures Int’l. Inc.
Employee/Union S.S. Ventures Labor Union
Labor Issue Cancellation of union registration
DOCTRINE: Cert. of registration may be canceled or union may be decertified as the
bargaining union for commission of any of the acts (among others) under Art. 239(A) of
the LC, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents. To decertify a union, it is not
enough to show that it includes ineligible EEs. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false
statement in connection with the application for registration and supporting documents
must also be shown. Such fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling
enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
FACTS:
● Union filed petition for certification election (542 signatures) for rank-and-file EEs,
which included the names of 82 former EEs (total R&F EEs are 1, 928 or 2, 202
– case was unclear)
● ER filed Petition to cancel union’s certificate of registration for including such
names and repeating names of other EEs, having no meeting for ratification,
and for not being supported by at least 20% of rank-and-file EEs
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
Regional Director of DOLE: for ER (Cancelled reg.)
BLR Director: reversed (For union)
CA: upheld (for union)
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: 82 EEs alleged that they were unwilling or harassed
signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting. Moreover, they are
former EEs whose attendance in the ratification meeting should not be counted.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: essentially just denied the allegations
ISSUE: Whether union registration should be cancelled – NO
RULING:
 The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,
Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the
Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once
DEAD POOL
endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization.
 Cert. of registration may be canceled or union may be decertified as the
bargaining union for commission of any of the acts (among others) under Art.
239(A) of the LC, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the
adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents.
 To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that it includes ineligible EEs.
Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement in connection with the application
for registration and supporting documents must also be shown. Such fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union members.
 Registration or recognition of a union is not ministerial for the BLR. After filing of
the documents, it is mandatory for BLR to check if the requirements under Art.
234 of the LC have been complied with.
 Procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and the determination of
who are qualified members are internal matters and flow from the union’s right
to self-organization.
 A certification election is exclusively the concern of the EEs and ER has no
legal personality to challenge it. Such interference unduly creates the
impression that it intends to establish a company union.
IN THIS CASE:
 Undated written statements of 82 EEs submitted 7 months after filing of the
petition for cancellation partake of the nature of union membership executed
after the union’s filing of a petition for certification election. EEs withdrawal
made before the filing for petition is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal
after the filing is considered involuntary and does not affect such petition.
 Issuance of certification necessarily implies that the necessary documents are
prima facie free from any vitiating regularities.
 Relevance of attendance of the 82 EEs only matter for determining whether
the union complied with the 20% requirement. Here, BLR ruled that the union
complied, even after subtracting the 82 EEs.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated
October 20, 2003 and January 19, 2004, respectively, of the CA are AFFIRMED. S.S.
Ventures Labor Union shall remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations, unless it
has in the meantime lost its legitimacy for causes set forth in the Labor Code. Costs
against petitioner.
2. NUWHRAIN - MPHC v. SOLE
G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009 - Encarnacion
Petitioner: National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries – Manila
Pavilion Hotel Chapter
Respondents: SOLE, BLR, Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union and Acesite
Philippines Hotel Corp.
1
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019 DEAD POOL
Employer Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel 1. Inclusion of Jose Gatbonton’s vote but excluding the vote of the six other
Employee/Union NUWHRAIN-MPHC probationary employees violated the principle of equal protection and is not in accord
Labor Issue Whether probationary EEs can vote in certification election with the ruling in Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja;

DOCTRINE:
1. During the pendency of the appeal to the CA, the employer may hire
additional employees. To exclude the employees hired after the issuance of
the Med-Arbiter’s Order but before the appeal has been resolved would
violate the guarantee that every employee has the right to be part of a labor
organization from the first day of their service.
2. Under the so-called "double majority rule," for there to be a valid certification
election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning
union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
FACTS:
● Petition for Cert. Election conducted
EEs in voter’s list 353
Total votes cast 346
NUWHRAIN-MPHC 151
HIMPHLU (Contending union) 189
NO UNION 1
SPOILED 3
SEGREGATED 22
● In view of the significant member of segregated votes, both unions referred the
case back to the Med-Arbiter to decide which among them would be
opened and tallied. 11 were initially segregated (legality of dismissal
pending before CA). 6 other votes segregated because EEs already
occupying supervisory positions at time of election. 5 segregated because
case by probationary EEs, and pursuant to CBA, they cannot vote. BUT vote
of Jose Gatbonton (probationary) was counted.
● Med-Arbiter ruled to open 17 out of 22, especially those cast by the 11
dismissed and 6 supervisory EEs.
● Petitioner appealed to SOLE arguing that votes of probationary EEs should be
counted because Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. And HIMPHLU should not be
immediately certified because opening of 17 ballots would change the total
of valid votes cast, hence the 169 votes HMPHLU garnered would be 1 short
of the majority required.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
SOLE: affirmed Med-Arbiter’s order (probationary EEs cannot vote because they
are not yet employed and even if the 17 votes were counted, it would not be
enough to overturn the 169 votes for HIMPHLU)
CA: affirmed SOLE
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION:
2. The time of reckoning for purposes of determining when the probationary employees
can be allowed to vote is not August 9, 2005 – the date of issuance by Med-Arbiter
Calabocal of the Order granting the conduct of certification elections, but March 10,
2006 – the date the SOLE Order affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s Order.
3. Even if the votes of the six probationary employees were included, still, HIMPHLU could
not be considered as having obtained a majority of the valid votes cast as the opening
of the 17 ballots would increase the number of valid votes from 321 to 338, hence, for
HIMPHLU to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, it should have garnered at
least 170, not 169, votes.
ISSUE:
1. Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification
elections should be allowed to vote, – YES.
2. Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified
as the exclusive bargaining agent. – NO.
RULING:
1st issue
 The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was not
questioned but because probationary employees have the right to vote in a
certification election. The votes of the six other probationary employees should
thus also have been counted.
 Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the
resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the
bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees, probationary or
permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status
as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law
refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible
to support the petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit."
 In light of Dept. Order 40-03 and prescinding from the principle that all
employees are, from the first day of their employment, eligible for membership
in a labor organization, it is evident that the period of reckoning in determining
who shall be included in the list of eligible voters is, in cases where a timely
appeal has been filed from the Order of the Med-Arbiter, the date when the
Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, whether affirming or
denying the appeal, becomes final and executory.
 During the pendency of the appeal to the CA, the employer may hire
additional employees. To exclude the employees hired after the issuance of
the Med-Arbiter’s Order but before the appeal has been resolved would
violate the guarantee that every employee has the right to be part of a labor
organization from the first day of their service.

2
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
 Here, the names of the probationary EEs were included in the list of EEs in the
bargaining unit submitted by the ER after the appeal and subsequent MR were
denied by the SOLE, rendering the Med-Arbiter’s decision final and executory.
 A certification election is the process of determining the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, refers to the
negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the
employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions
of employment in a bargaining unit. The significance of an employee’s right to
vote in a certification election cannot thus be overemphasized for he has
considerable interest in the determination of who shall represent him in
negotiating the terms and conditions of his employment.
 To rule that only EEs hired as of the date of the issuance of the Med-Arbiter’s
Order are qualified to vote would effectively disenfranchise EEs hired during
the pendency of the appeal and render the appeal to the SOLE inutile.
 BUT votes of 6 supervisory EEs should be excluded because at the time the
certification election was conducted, they had ceased to be R&F EEs.
2nd Issue
 Under the so-called "double majority rule," for there to be a valid certification
election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning
union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
 Because of the inclusion of the probationary EEs and exclusion of supervisory
EEs, the no. of valid votes cast would increase from 321 to 337. 50% + 1 = 169.5
or at least 170.
 Thus, HIMPHLU was unable to obtain a majority vote.
 The true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to
serve as basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine
which union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but valid votes
has thus become material.
 Run-off election must be held (election between labor unions receiving the.
Highest no. of votes in a certification or consent election with 3/more choices,
where such certified or consent election results in none of the 3/more choices
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast).
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 8,
2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the Court of Appeals affirming the
Resolutions dated January 22, 2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor Relations is DIRECTED to
cause the holding of a run-off election between petitioner, National Union of Workers in
Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-
MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
3. SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD v. BLR, HHIC-PHIL.
G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015 - Encarnacion
DEAD POOL
Petitioner: Samahan ng manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard
Respondents: BLR and Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., LTD.
Employer Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., LTD.
Employee/Union Samahan ng manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard
Labor Issue
DOCTRINE: EER not required for workers’ association. All that is required is that they have
the same interest. The right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers’
association belongs to the workers. No one should be compelled to exercise such a
right. No provision in LC that requires EEs with definite ERs to form, join or assist UNIONS
ONLY. he option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies with the workers
themselves, and whether they have definite employers or not.
FACTS:
● Union filed petition application for registration with DOLE, attaching list of
officers, members (total 120), and signatures of attendees in meeting +
Constitution and by-laws
● DOLE issued cert. of reg.
● ER filed petition for cancellation because its members do not fall under any of
the types of workers under Art. 249 Only ambulant, intermitted, itinerant, rural
workers, self-employed and those without definite ERs may form a workers’
association. Also, 1/3 of the members had definite ERs.
● Hanjin filed a supplemental petition,8 adding the alternative ground that
Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection with the list of
members and/or voters who took part in the ratification of their constitution
and by-laws because Samahan made it appear that its members were all
qualified to become members of the workers' association.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
DOLE Regional Dir.: ruled in favor of ER because preamble of the Const. and by-
laws was an admission of its members that they were EEs of Hanjin. Its admission
bolstered Hanjin's claim that Samahan committed misrepresentation in its
application for registration as it made an express representation that all of its
members were employees of the former. Having a definite employer, these 57
members should have formed a labor union for collective bargaining.
“KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa HANJIN Shipyard (SAMAHAN) ay naglalayong
na isulong ang pagpapabuti ng kondisyon sa paggawa at katiyakan sa
hanapbuhay sa pamamagitan ng patuloy na pagpapaunlad ng kasanayan ng
para sa mga kasapi nito. Naniniwala na sa pamamagitan ng aming mga angking
lakas, kaalaman at kasanayan ay anting maitataguyod at makapag-aambag sa
kaunlaran ng isang lipunan. Na mararating at makakamit ang antas ng pagkilala,
pagdakila at pagpapahalaga sa mga tulad naming mga manggagawa.”
[emphasis supplied]
3
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
BLR: REVERSED; Appeal granted. Law accords right of self-organization to all EEs,
even those without definite ERs. No misrepresentation; The phrase, "KAMI, ang mga
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" if translated, would be: "We, the workers at
Hanjin Shipyard." The use of the preposition "at" instead of "of " would indicate that
"Hanjin Shipyard" was intended to describe a place.19 Should Hanjin feel that the
use of its name had affected the goodwill of the company, the remedy was not to
seek the cancellation of the association's registration. At most, the use by Samahan
of the name "Hanjin Shipyard" would only warrant a change in the name of the
association.
CA: REVERSED. Only 57 out of the 120 members were actually working in Hanjin
while the phrase in the preamble of Samahan's Constitution and By-laws, "KAMI,
ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" created an impression that all its
members were employees of HHIC. Such unqualified manifestation which was used
in its application for registration, was a clear proof of misrepresentation which
warranted the cancellation of Samahan's registration. Also, members of Samahan
could not register it as a legitimate worker's association because the place where
Hanjin's industry was located was not a rural area. Neither was there any evidence
to show that the members of the association were ambulant, intermittent or
itinerant workers.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to
intermittent, ambulant and itinerant workers; Workers with a definite employer can
organize any association for purposes of mutual aid and protection. Inherent in the
workers' right to self-organization is its right to name its own organization. Samahan
referred "Hanjin Shipyard" as their common place of work. Therefore, they may adopt
the same in their association's name.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: Samahan failed to adduce sufficient basis that all its
members were employees of Hanjin or its legitimate contractors, and that the use of the
name "Hanjin Shipyard" would create an impression that all its members were employess
of HHIC.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Samahan could form a Workers’ Association – YES.
2. Whether certificate of registration should be cancelled for using “Hanjin” in the
preamble – NO.
RULING:
1st issue
 The right to self-organization includes right to form a union, workers' association
and labor management councils. It includes the right to form, join or assist
labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted
activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection.
 The right to form a union or association or to self-organization comprehends
two notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, that is, the absence of restraint
which guarantees that the employee may act for himself without being
DEAD POOL
prevented by law; and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as
he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association.
 A labor organization is defined as "any union or association of employees
which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of
dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment."44 A
labor organization has two broad rights: (1) to bargain collectively and (2) to
deal with the employer concerning terms and conditions of employment. To
bargain collectively is a right given to a union once it registers itself with the
DOLE. Dealing with the employer, on the other hand, is a generic description
of interaction between employer and employees concerning grievances,
wages, work hours and other terms and conditions of employment, even if the
employees' group is not registered with the DOLE.45
 A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for
collective bargaining and for other legitimate purpose,46 while a workers'
association is an organization of workers formed for the mutual aid and
protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining.
 Collective bargaining is just one of the forms of EE participation. The real aim is
EE participation in whatever form. Any labor organization which may or may
not be a union may deal with the employer. This explains why a workers'
association or organization does not always have to be a labor union and why
employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective
bargaining.
 EER not required for workers’ association. All that is required is that they have
the same interest. The right to choose whether to form or join a union or
workers’ association belongs to the workers. No one should be compelled to
exercise such a right.
 No provision in LC that requires EEs with definite ERs to form, join or assist
UNIONS ONLY. he option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies
with the workers themselves, and whether they have definite employers or not.
2nd issue:
 No misrepresentation to warrant cancellation. Misrepresentation, as a ground
for the cancellation of registration of a labor organization, is committed "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,
and those in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of
officers, and the list of voters.”
 It must be done maliciously and deliberately. Mistakes appearing in the
application or attachments must be grave or refer to significant matters. The
details as to how the alleged fraud was committed must also be indubitably
shown.
 Here, no deliberate or malicious intent can be sown. Even granting arguendo
that Samahan's members misrepresented themselves as employees or workers
of Hanjin, said misrepresentation does not relate to the adoption or ratification
of its constitution and by-laws or to the election of its officers.
 Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the BLR that "Hanjin Shipyard" must be
removed in the name of the association. A legitimate workers' association
4
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
refers to an association of workers organized for mutual aid and protection of
its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining
registered with the DOLE.
 As there is no provision under our labor laws which speak of the use of name
by a workers' association, the Court refers to the Corporation Code, which
governs the names of juridical persons.
 The policy underlying the prohibition in Section 18 of the Corp. Code against
the registration of a corporate name which is "identical or deceptively or
confusingly similar" to that of any existing corporation or which is "patently
deceptive" or "patently confusing" or "contrary to existing laws," is the
avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to deal with
the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the
reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations.
 For the same reason, it would be misleading for the members of Samahan to
use "Hanjin Shipyard" in its name as it could give the wrong impression that all
of its members are employed by Hanjin. Such change of name will not affect
its legal personality.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The July 4, 2013 Decision
and the January 28, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The September 6, 2010 Resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations, as
modified by its November 28, 2011 Resolution, is REINSTATED.
4. ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. v. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 96566. January 6, 1992 - Probadora
Petitioner: ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC.
Respondents: UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA (Department of Labor and
Employment) and ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. SUPERVISORY, ADMINISTRATIVE,
PERSONNEL, PRODUCTION, ACCOUNTING AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES-
ASSOCIATION-KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN),
DOCTRINE: Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own.
FACTS: On July 16,1990, the supervisory, administrative personnel, production,
accounting and confidential employees of the petitioner Atlas Lithographic Services,
Inc. (ALSI) affiliated with private respondent Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a
national labor organization.
 The local union adopted the name Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc.
Supervisory, Administrative, Personnel Production, Accounting and
Confidential Employees Association or ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL in short and
which we shall hereafter refer to as the 'supervisors' union.
DEAD POOL
Shortly thereafter, private respondent Kampil- Katipunan filed on behalf of the
'supervisors' union a petition for certification election so that it could be the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees.
 The petitioners opposed the private respondent's petition claiming that under
Article 245 of the Labor Code the private respondent cannot represent the
supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes because the private
respondent also represents the rank-and-file employees' union.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
LA: the Med-Arbiter issued an order in favor of the private respondent
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: argues that KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN already represents its rank-
and-file employees and, therefore, to allow the supervisors of those employees to
affiliate with the private respondent is tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the
principle of the separation of unions under Article 245 of the Labor Code.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: contends that despite affiliation with a national federation,
the local union does not lose its personality which is separate, and distinct from the
national federation. It cites as its legal basis the case of Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs.
CIR, (127 SCRA 268 [1984]).
It maintains that Rep. Act No. 6715 contemplates the principle laid down by this Court in
the Adamson case interpreting Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act)
on the right of a supervisor's union to affiliate. The private respondent asserts that the
legislature must have noted the Adamson ruling then prevailing when it conceived the
reinstatement in the present Labor Code of a similar provision on the right of supervisors
to organize.
ISSUE: whether or not, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of supervisory
employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations
of rank-and-file employees and which national federation actively represents its
affiliates in collective bargaining negotiations with the same employer of the supervisors
and in the implementation of resulting collective bargaining agreements? NO.
RULING: The definition of managerial employees was limited to those having authority to
hire and fire while those who only recommend effectively the hiring or firing or transfers
of personnel would be considered as closer to rank and-file employees. The exclusion,
therefore, of middle level executives from the category of managers brought about a
third classification, the supervisory employees. These supervisory employees are allowed
to form their own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because
of conflict of interest (Journal of the Senate, First Regular Session, 1987-1988, Volume 3, p.
2245).
 In terms of classification, however, while they are more closely identified with
the rank-and-file they are still not allowed to join the union of rank-and-file
employees.
 The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not managers, when
they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the
discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the
employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank- and-file.
5
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
We agree with the petitioners' contention that a conflict of interest may arise in the
areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. Members of the supervisory union
might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co-member rank-and-file
employees.
In the area of bargaining, their interests cannot be considered identical. The needs of
one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the national
federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy strike on the
sole basis of affiliation.
In relation to ADAMSON case: More important, the factual issues in the Adamson case
are different from the present case. First, the rank-and-file employees in the Adamson
case are not directly under the supervisors who comprise the supervisors' union. In the
case at bar, the rank-and-file employees are directly under the supervisors organized by
one and the same federation. Second, the national union in the Adamson case did not
actively represent its local chapters. In the present case, the local union is actively
represented by the national federation. In fact, it was the national federation, the
KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, which initially filed a petition for certification in behalf of the
respondent union.
Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with
the rank-and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting
interests, then a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the
national federation of union of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively
participates in union activity in the company.
The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank-and-file is replete
with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of
supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The prohibition extends to a
supervisors' local union applying for membership in a national federation the members
of which include local unions of rank-and- file employees. The intent of the law is clear
especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be comingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. Technicalities
should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the
rights and obligations of the parties. (Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc. vs. NLRC, 190
SCRA 747 [1990]) What should be paramount is the intent behind the law, not its literal
construction. Where one interpretation would result in mischievous consequences while
another would bring about equity, justice, and the promotion of labor peace, there can
be no doubt as to what interpretation shall prevail.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The private respondent is
disqualified from affiliating with a national federation of labor organizations which
includes the petitioner's rank-and-file employees.
5. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHIL. TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORG. v. SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION-
PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO
G.R. No. 171153. September 12, 2007 – Probadora
Petitioner: SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION– PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND
GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU–PTGWO)
DEAD POOL
Respondents: SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION– PAMBANSANG
DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU–PDMP)
DOCTRINE: There is no legal justification to support the conclusion that a trade union
center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering.
FACTS:
Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the
regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel
Corporation (SMC), namely, the San Miguel Corporate Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel
Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP), in all offices
and plants of SMC, including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna.
Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang
Pilipino (PDMP). PDMP issued Charter Certificate No. 112 to respondent on 15 June 1999.
 In compliance with registration requirements, respondent submitted the
requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal personality
Upon submission of its charter certificate and other documents, respondent
was issued Certificate of Creation of Local or Chapter PDMP-01 by the BLR on
6 July 1999.
 Thereafter, respondent filed with the Med-Arbiter of the DOLE Regional Officer
in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR), three separate petitions for
certification election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. All three petitions
were dismissed, on the ground that the separate petitions fragmented a single
bargaining unit.
Petitioner filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent’s
registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. In its petition,
petitioner accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-
compliance with registration requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration. It
raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a), (b) and (c) and 234(c) of the
Labor Code petitioner claimed that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a
trade union center, hence, it cannot directly create a local or chapter.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
RD- DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. Lim issued an Order dismissing the
allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, and irregularity in the submission of
documents by respondent. Regional Director Lim further ruled that respondent is
allowed to directly create a local or chapter. However, he found that respondent did
not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation
of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor
organizations.
BLR- While the BLR agreed with the findings of the DOLE Regional Director
dismissing the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, and in upholding that PDMP
can directly create a local or a chapter, it reversed the Regional Director’s ruling that
the 20% membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal personality as a
labor organization.
CA- dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision of the BLR
6
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of
members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit before it may
acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234(c) of the Labor Code which stipulates that any
applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire
legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration
Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of respondent must be
based not on the number of employees of a single division, but in all three divisions of
the company in all the offices and plants of SMC since they are all part of one
bargaining unit
Petitioner thus maintains that respondent, in any case, failed to meet this 20%
membership requirement since it based its membership on the number of employees of
a single division only, namely, the SMPP.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has a legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization? NO.
RULING
A legitimate labor organization is defined as “any labor organization duly registered with
the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.”
The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure strict compliance with the requirements on
registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under
the Labor Code, and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public
interest. Registration requirements are intended to 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. Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law
which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be
certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. The acquisition of rights
by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification
election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization has
attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.
 A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a
“local” or “chapter” of PDMP and was issued Charter Certificate No. 112 on 15
June 1999. Hence, respondent was directly chartered by PDMP.
The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is provided in
Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, as amended by Department
Order No. 9 which took effect on 21 June 1997, and again by Department Order No. 40
dated 17 February 2003. The Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 9 should
govern the resolution of the petition at bar since respondent’s petition for certification
election was filed with the BLR in 1999; and that of petitioner on 17 August 1999.
 The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the
creation of a chapter or a local. The first involves the affiliation of an
independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The
second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation
of a local or a chapter through the process of chartering.
DEAD POOL
Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an independent labor organization acquires
legitimacy only upon its registration with the BLR: It is emphasized that the foregoing
pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers. However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated
differently. This Court, in the landmark case of Progressive Development Corporation v.
Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, 205 SCRA 802 (1992), declared that
when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the
aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory.
Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit,
among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members comprising
at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as
provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter. The
intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch or local of a
registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union
with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union’s bargaining
powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.
 As to petitioner’s claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration
through fraud and misrepresentation, this Court finds that the imputations are
not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof to declare that respondent
committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting.
As has been held in a long line of cases, the legal personality of a legitimate labor
organization, such as PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very
clear on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the Labor Code, as amended, defines a
legitimate labor organization as “any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE,
and includes any branch or local thereof.” On the other hand, a trade union center is
any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid an d
protection of its members; for assisting such members in collective bargaining; or for
participating in the formulation of social and employment policies, standards, and
programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of
the Implementing Rules.
The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered
and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration.
Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
The aforementioned provision is enunciated in the following: Sec. 5. Effect of
registration.—The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered
and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration.
Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these
Rules.
 PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued Registration
Certificate No. FED-11558-LC by the BLR on 14 February 1991. Until the
certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization subsists. Once a union acquires legitimate status
7
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
as a labor organization, it continues to be recognized as such until its
certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for
cancellation. It bears to emphasize that what is being directly challenged is
the personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization and not that
of PDMP. This being a collateral attack, this Court is without jurisdiction to
entertain questions indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.
 Corollarily, PDMP is granted all the rights and privileges appurtenant to a
legitimate labor organization, and continues to be recognized as such until its
certificate of registration is successfully impugned and thereafter cancelled or
revoked in an independent action for cancellation.
This Court reverses the finding of the appellate court and BLR on this ground, and rules
that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter. After an exhaustive study of the
governing labor law provisions, both statutory and regulatory, we find no legal
justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly
create a local or chapter through chartering. Apropos, we take this occasion to
reiterate the first and fundamental duty of this Court, which is to apply the law. The
solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the
power to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein.
Presidential Decree No. 442, better known as the Labor Code, was enacted in 1972.
Being a legislation on social justice, the provisions of the Labor Code and the
Implementing Rules have been subject to several amendments, and they continue to
evolve, considering that labor plays a major role as a socio-economic force. The Labor
Code was first amended by Republic Act No. 6715, and recently, by Republic Act No.
9481. Incidentally, the term trade union center was never mentioned under Presidential
Decree No. 442, even as it was amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The term trade
union center was first adopted in the Implementing Rules, under Department Order No.
9. Republic Act No. 9481 or “An Act Strengthening the Workers’ Constitutional Right to
Self-Organization, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended,
Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines” lapsed into law on 25 May 2007
and became effective on 14 June 2007. This law further amends the Labor Code
provisions on Labor Relations.
 Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules,
the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local
through chartering is given to a federation or national union, then a trade
union center is without authority to charter directly.
In sum, although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has
no power to directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created
under the more lenient requirements for chartering, but must have complied with the
more stringent rules for creation and registration of an independent union, including the
20% membership requirement.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 09 March
2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 66200 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Certificate of Registration of San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union–
Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino is ORDERED CANCELLED, and SMPPEU-
PDMP DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations.
6. The Heritage Hotel Manila v Piglas Heritage
G.R. No. 177024. October 30, 2009
DEAD POOL
Employer Heritage Hotel Manila
Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE); Pinag-Isang Galing at
Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS
Employee/ union union).
Labor Issue Registration; Election
Doctrine: Discrepancies in the number of members of the union in the documents
submitted alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the
information contained in these documents. The charge that a labor organization
committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge
and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor
union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently,
charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding
circumstances.
Facts:
- HHE filed for a certification registration before DOLE. It was issued. Later, it filed
a certification election. It was opposed by Heritage (employer).
Contentions of Heritage:
- HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when it was, in
truth, a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant
and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) because the company’s supervisors union
was already affiliated with it.
Ruling of Lower Courts:
Med Arbiter: in favor of HHE.
NLRC: affirmed the decision.
CA; – issued a writ of injunction to against the certification electionuntil the petition for
cancellation of that union’s registration shall have been resolved with finality.
- Subsequently, PIGLAS was formed and got its registration certificate; HHE was
dissolved and filed for cancellation of registration certificate.
- PIGLAS filed a certification election
- Contention of Heritage before the CA: same employees from HHE. The
employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of
Appeals’ injunction against the holding of the certification election sought by
the former union.
- It filed a new petition for cancellation of registration of PIGLAS.
o Heritage claimed that the documents submitted with the union’s
application for registration bore the following false information:
 (a) The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had
100 union members;
 (b) The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees
attended the meeting on December 10, 2003;
 (c) The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10,
8
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
2003 bore the signature of 127 members who ratified the
union’s Constitution and By-Laws;17 and
 (d) The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who
attended that meeting.
o According to Heritage: PIGLAS union was required to submit the
names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the
employees in the bargaining unit. Yet the list it submitted named only
100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance
sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees.
Ruling of Lower Courts:
Med Arbiter: in favor of PIGLAS
BLR: affirmed the decision.
CA; affirmed
Issue: Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union
registration; - Not fatal.
Ruling;
- The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation
in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is
serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of
the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this
nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding
circumstances.
- Labor Code and IRR: do not require that the number of members appearing
- on the documents in question should completely dovetail. For as long as the
documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the
constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have
complied with registration requirements.
o Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union
members involved as these appeared on the documents that
supported the union’s application for registration, Heritage has no
other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. But those
discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that
respondent misrepresented the information contained in these
documents.
o While it appears in the minutes of the December 10, 2003
organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll
call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number could
not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance.
The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There is no
evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late
attendees.
o There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact
that only 127 members ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws
when 128 signed the attendance sheet. It cannot be assumed that
all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws.
Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those
documents or to simply ignore the process.
DEAD POOL
20% requirement:
- A comparison of the documents shows that, except for six members, the
names found in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature
sheets. Notably, the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to
represent consisted of 250 employees. Only 20 percent of this number or 50
employees were required to unionize. Here, the union more than complied
with such requirement
Other issue: Right to Leave and Join a Union- The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS
union’s members were also members of the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not
a ground for canceling the new union’s registration. The right of any person to join an
organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one.
Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had
already been cancelled. Thus, petitioner’s arguments on this point may also be now
regarded as moot and academic.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26, 2006.
7. Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club vs. Court Appeals
G.R. No. 178989. March 18, 2010
Employer Eagle Ridge (Eagle)
Employee/ union Eagle Ridge Employees Union” (EREU or Union)
Labor Issue Cancellation of registration; election
Doctrine: The right of employees to self-organization and membership in a union must
not be trammeled by undue difficulties.
Facts:
- EREU was formed by 205 rank and file employees of Eagle and formally
applied for registration. Later on, it filed a certification election.
- Eagle Ridge opposed.
Contentions of Eagle Ridge:
- 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. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy
between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president that 25
members actually ratified the constitution and by- laws on December 6, 2005
and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures on the documents,
making one signature a forgery.
- five employees who attended the organizational meeting had manifested the
desire to withdraw from the union. The five executed individual affidavits or
Sinumpaang Salaysay13 on February 15, 2006, attesting that they arrived late
9
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
at said meeting which they claimed to be drinking spree; that they did not
know that the documents they signed on that occasion pertained to the
organization of a union; and that they now wanted to be excluded from the
Union. The withdrawal of the five, Eagle Ridge maintained, effectively reduced
the union membership 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 employee.
- Eagle Ridge assails the inclusion of the additional four members allegedly for
not complying with what it termed as “the sine qua non requirements” for
union member applications under the Union’s constitution and by-laws,
specifically Sec. 2 of Art. IV of the union’s constitution and by-laws nor were
they shown to have been duly received, issued receipts for admission fees,
processed with recommendation for approval, and approved by the union
president.
Contention of EREU:
- Errors and discrepancies were not material.
- citing La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of Bureau of Labor
Relations,17 Belyca Corporation and Oriental Tin Can Labor Union, where the
Court ruled that “once the required percentage requirement has been
reached, the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place
after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the
petition,” it asserted the applicability of said ruling as the petition for
certification election was filed on January 10, 2006 or long before February 15,
2006 when the affidavits of retraction were executed by the five union
members, thus contending that the retractions do not affect nor be deemed
compelling enough to cancel its certificate of registration
Ruling of Lower Courts:
LA: in favor of Eagle Ridge
BLR; reverse the decision
CA: affirmed BLR decision.
Issues:
- Factual basis of the court:
- Whether fraud or misrepresentation contemplated by law on the part of EREU to
comply with the requirements for certification – None.
- Whether the affidavits executed by employees affected the requirement for
registration of the union – no
- Whether the inclusion of additional 4 members of the is a sine qua non requirement –
no
- Whether the filing of cancellation of certificate of registration is a circumvention of the
law - yes
Ruling:
- Before their amendment by Republic Act No. 9481 on June 15, 2007, the then
DEAD POOL
governing Art. 234 (on the requirements of registration of a labor union) and
Art. 239 (on the grounds for cancellation of union registration) of the Labor
Code respectively provided as follows:
o ART. 234. REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION.—Any applicant labor
organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire
legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges
granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the
certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
 (a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
 (b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal
address of the labor organization, the minutes of the
organizational meetings and the list of workers who
participated in such meetings;
 (c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty
percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seeks to operate;
 xxxx
 (e) Four copies (4) of the constitution and by-laws of the
applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification and
the list of the members who participated in it.”
o ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION.—
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
 (a) Misrepresentation, false statements 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;
 xxxx
 (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.
o 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. It
submitted before the DOLE Regional Office with its Application for
Registration and the duly filled out BLR Reg. Form.
o The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on
December 19, 2005 for registration. The Union thereby complied with
the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art.
234(c). Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank- and-file
employees in Eagle Ridge, as shown in the Sworn Statement of the
Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its
petition for cancellation
10
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
o 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.
o The difference between the number of 26 members, who ratified the
Union’s constitution and by- laws, and the 25 members shown in the
certification of the Union secretary as having ratified it, is, as shown by
the factual antecedents, a typographical error. It was an insignificant
mistake committed without malice or prevarication.
Inclusion of the additional four members allegedly for not complying with what it termed
as “the sine qua non requirements”
- Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission of union membership,
most especially in cases of independent labor unions, must be viewed in favor
of valid membership.
- The right of employees to self-organization and membership in a union must
not be trammeled by undue difficulties. In this case, when the Union said that
the four employee-applicants had been admitted as union members, it is
enough to establish the fact of admission of the four that they had duly
signified such desire by accomplishing the membership form. The fact, as
pointed out by Eagle Ridge, that the Union, owing to its scant membership,
had not yet fully organized its different committees evidently shows the direct
and valid acceptance of the four employee applicants rather than deter their
admission—as erroneously asserted by Eagle Ridge.
Affidavits of retraction executed by six union members.
1. These are hearsay evidence
2. 20% requirement: Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file employees in
Eagle Ridge would require a union membership of at least 22 employees (112 x
205 = 22.4). When the EREU filed its application for registration on December
19, 2005, there were clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the certificate of
registration was granted, there is no dispute that the Union complied with the
mandatory 20% membership requirement.
a. it cannot be argued that the six affidavits of retraction retroact to the
time of the application of registration or even way back to the
organizational meeting. Prior to their withdrawal, the six employees in
question were bona fide union members. More so, they never
disputed affixing their signatures beside their handwritten names
during the organizational meetings. While they alleged that they did
not know what they were signing, it bears stressing that their affidavits
of retraction were not re-affirmed during the hearings of the instant
case rendering them of little, if any, evidentiary value.
b. With the withdrawal of six union members, there is still compliance
with the mandatory membership requirement under Art. 234(c), for
the remaining 24 union members constitute more than the 20%
membership requirement of 22 employees.
DEAD POOL
Filing of petition to cancel registration certificate
- Eagle Ridge has apparently resorted to filing the instant case for cancellation
of the Union’s certificate of registration to bar the holding of a certification
election. This can be gleaned from the fact that the grounds it raised in its
opposition to the petition for certification election are basically the same
grounds it resorted to in the instant case for cancellation of EREU’s certificate
of registration. This amounts to a clear circumvention of the law and cannot
be countenanced.
- where the company seeks the cancellation of a union’s registration during the
pendency of a petition for certification election, the same grounds invoked to
cancel should not be used to bar the certification election. A certification
election is the most expeditious and fairest mode of ascertaining the will of a
collective bargaining unit as to its choice of its exclusive representative.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the instant petition for lack of
merit.
8. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF
UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-
SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT v. CHARTER
CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 169717, March 16, 2011 - Tamargo
Petitioner: SMCC-SUPER
Respondents: CHARTER CHEMICALS AND COATING CORP. (CCCC)
Employer CCCC
SMCC-SUPER
Employee Union
Labor Issue Legal personality of unitions; Supervisory employees joining unions
DOCTRINE: The right to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor
organization provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper
registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to
represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status
as a legitimate labor organization.
FACTS:
 On February 19, 1999, Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical
Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner
union) filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
11
 LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent
company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, NCR.
 On April 14, 1999, respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization because of (1) failure to comply with the documentation
requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within
petitioner union. (No joke, the original case only had 2 para. of facts)
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
MED-ARBITER: Dismissed the case. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is
not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certificate, "Sama-samang
Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization," and "Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa
Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas" were
not executed under oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the
union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code.
The union registration was, thus, fatally defective.
The Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner union consisted of
12 batchman, mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory functions. Under
Article 245 of the Labor Code, said supervisory employees are prohibited from joining
petitioner union which seeks to represent the rank-and-file employees of respondent
company.
As a result, not being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file
a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.
DOLE: Initially dismissed the appeal of petitioner but upon a MR, modified the
earlier ruling of the Med-arbiter thus it allowed for the certification election.
COURT OF APPEALS: Reversed DOLE. In nullifying the decision of the DOLE, the
appellate court gave credence to the findings of the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union
failed to comply with the documentation requirements under the Labor Code. It,
likewise, upheld the Med-Arbiter's finding that petitioner union consisted of both rank-
and-file and supervisory employees.
C
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Petitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its
legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election is barred by the July
16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE. In this decision, the DOLE ruled that petitioner union
complied with all the documentation requirements and that there was no independent
evidence presented to prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in petitioner union.
Also, the legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked but may
be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section 5,
Rule V, Book IV of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the doctrine enunciated
in Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incoprorated v. Tagaytay Highlands
Empoyees Union-PTGWO.
DEAD POOL
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: KML insists that the Decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations upholding its legitimacy as a labor organization has already attained finality 25
hence there was no more hindrance to the holding of a certification election.
Moreover, it claims that the instant petition has become moot because the certification
election sought to be prevented had already been conducted.
ISSUE: (1) Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employee[s] of petitioner [union's] membership is [a] ground for the cancellation of
petitioner [union's] legal personality and dismissal of [the] petition for certification
election? ~ YES
(2) Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction in holding that the alleged failure to certify under oath the local charter
certificate issued by its mother federation and list of the union membership attending
the organizational meeting [is a ground] for the cancellation of petitioner [union's] legal
personality as a labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification
election? ~ YES.
RULING:
(1) YES. CA was in error since the mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization.
Per jurisprudence (Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay
Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO) the inclusion in a union of disqualified
employees (supervisory employees) is not among the grounds for cancellation
(of the union’s cert. of registration), unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances
enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.
In this case, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor
organization even if some of its members were supervisory employees; it had
the right to file the subject petition for certification election.
(2) YES. The CA was in error.
The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked by
respondent company in the certification election proceedings.
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere
bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-
adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine
which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining
with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern
of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it
cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to
dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
12
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial
employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification
election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or
informed thereof.
Here, CCCC had no standing in challenging the legal personality of SMC-
SUPER much less one involving a certification issue.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The March 15, 2005 Decision and
September 16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The January 13, 2000 Decision of the Department of Labor
and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) is REINSTATED.
No pronouncement as to costs. NLRC
9. YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R. No. 163532, March 10, 2010 - Tamargo
Petitioner: Yokohama Tires Philippines, Inc. (YTPI)
Respondents: Yokohama Employees Union (YEU)
Employer YTPI
YEU
Employee Union
Labor Issue
DOCTRINE: The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and
misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close
scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires
none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this
nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
FACTS:
 Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (YTPI). YEU was registered as a
legitimate labor labor union on 10 September 1999.
 YEU filed before the DOLE Regional Office of Pampanga a petition for
certification election. YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition dated 24
January 2000 for the revocation of YEU’s registration. YTPI alleged that YEU
violated Article 239(a) of the Labor Code: (1) YEU fraudulently included the
signature of a certain Ronald O. Pineda (Pineda) in the organizational
documents; (2) Pineda was not aware of any election of union officers; (3) YEU
fraudulently obtained the employees’ signatures by making them believe that
they were signing a petition for a 125% increase in the minimum wage, not a
petition for registration; (4) the employees did not belong to a single
DEAD POOL
bargaining unit; and (5) YEU fraudulently stated in its organizational meeting
minutes that its second vice president was Bernard David, not Bernardo David.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
DOLE Regional Office: the Regional Office granted the 24 January 2000
petition. The Regional Office held that YEU committed misrepresentation: (1) YEU failed
to remove Pineda’s signature from the organizational documents despite instructions to
do so; and (2) YEU declared that it conducted an election of union officers when, in
truth, it did not.
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR): Reversed the decision of the regional office. It
had different findings than the latter.
COURT OF APPEALS: The Court of Appeals denied the petition and held that
the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion in making its findings.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Petitioner YTPI still maintains that the BLR and CA are in error
in not finding that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in their petition for
certification election.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: It did not commit any fraud or misrepresentation in the
filing of its petition for certification election. It was the burden of YTPI to prove that it
committed such and it failed miserably.
ISSUE: Whether or not YTPI has the burden of proof to prove that YEU committed fraud
and/or misrepresentation? ~ YES
RULING:
YES, YTPI has the burden of proof.
The cancellation of union registration at the employer’s instance, while permitted, must
be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong to a
legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such
membership will not be denied to the employees. As the applicant for cancellation,
petitioners naturally has the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the
cancellation.
In this case, YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEU’s
registration, had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and
misrepresentation. YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations —
that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pineda’s signature from the organizational
documents and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of
officers.
The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in
securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious
because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights
accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be
clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
13
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved as
these appeared on the documents that supported the union’s application for
registration, petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged
misrepresentation. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that
respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 16 January 2004
Decision and 12 May 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65460.
SO ORDERED.
10. TAKATA v. BLR AND SALAMAT
GR no. 196276, June 20, 2014 -Angeles
Petitioner: TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION
Respondents: BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA
NG TAKATA (SALAMAT)
Employer TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA
Employee/Union (SALAMAT
WHETHER OR NOT the cancellation of respondent's
registration should be sustained – NO
Labor Issue
DOCTRINE: It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in
the organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members comprising at
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership
in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting.
FACTS:
On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration of
Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that
the latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect to the
number of those who participated in the organizational meeting, the adoption and
ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election of its officers. It
contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of respondent, only 68
attendees signed the attendance sheet, and which number comprised only 17% of the
total number of the 396 regular rank- and-file employees which respondent sought to
DEAD POOL
represent, and hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum membership
requirement.
Petitioner insisted that the document “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon” bore no
signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and that employees were not given
sufficient information on the documents they signed; that the document “Sama-
Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted at the time of the filing of
respondent's application for union registration; that the 119 union members were
actually only 117; and, that the total number of petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009
was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed. Respondent denied the charge and
claimed that the 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement for union
registration. The document “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon” which it
presented in its petition for certification election supported their claim of 119 members.
Respondent also contended that petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal
personality as it agreed to a certification election and actively participated in the pre-
election conference of the certification election proceedings. Respondent argued that
the union members were informed of the contents of the documents they signed and
that the 68 attendees to the organizational meeting constituted more than 50% of the
total union membership, hence, a quorum existed for the conduct of the said meeting.
DOLE Regional Director
• Granting the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration
• It found that the 68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was
obviously less than 20% of the total number of 396 regular rank-and-file
BLR
-On December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's Appeal Memorandum with
Formal Entry of Appearance and petitioner's Answer, the BLR rendered its Decision
reversing the Order of the Regional Director
-It found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent deliberately and maliciously
misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees.
CA
- Denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the cancellation of respondent's registration should be
sustained on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation bearing on the minimum
requirement of the law as to its membership, considering the big disparity in numbers,
between the organizational meeting and the list of members, and misleading the BLR
that it obtained the minimum required number of employees for purposes of
organization and registration.
RULING: We find no merit in the arguments.
Art. 234 of the Labor Code provides:
14
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. - A federation, national union or industry or trade
union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations
upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor
organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who
participated in such meetings;
(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seeks to operate;
(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its
annual financial reports; and
(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its
adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it."
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the
organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. It is
only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members comprising at least
twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership
in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting
And after the issuance of the certificate of registration, the labor organization's
registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings
in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code. And the cancellation of
union certificate of registration and the grounds thereof are as follows:
ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration. - The certificate of registration of any legitimate
labor organization, whether national or local, may be cancelled by the Bureau, after
due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.
ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. - The following may constitute
grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(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, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers,
and the list of voters;
DEAD POOL
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Petitioner's charge that respondent committed misrepresentation and fraud in securing
its certificate of registration is a serious charge and must be carefully evaluated.
Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and
evidence. We find no evidence on record to support petitioner's accusation. Petitioner's
allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim that during the
organizational meeting on May 1, 2009, only 68 employees attended, while respondent
claimed that it has 119 members as shown in the document denominated as “Pangalan
ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon;” hence, respondent misrepresented on the 20% requirement
of the law as to its membership.
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the
organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In
fact, even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so
provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seeks to operate.
Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the
union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting.
Indeed, Article 234 (b)
and (c) provide for separate requirements, which must be submitted for the union's
registration, and which respondent did submit.
Here, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of which
was about 79. Respondent submitted a document entitled “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi
ng Unyon” showing the names of 119 employees as union members, thus respondent
sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum membership requirement.
Respondent also submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting which
contained the names and signatures of the 68 union members who attended the
meeting. Considering that there are 119 union members which are more than 20% of all
the employees of the bargaining unit, and since the law does not provide for the
required number of members to attend the organizational meeting, the 68 attendees
which comprised at least the majority of the 119 union members would already
constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution
and By-laws of the union.
There is, therefore, no basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the
cancellation of respondent's union registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to
vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have possibly
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged failure of
respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the total number of employees in
the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply with the 20%
15
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
minimum membership requirement. Even if the total number of rank-and-file employees
of petitioner is 528, while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot
be denied that the latter would have more than complied with the registration
requirement.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED. The
Decision dated December 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 29, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.
11. CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL v. CA
G.R. No. 164561, AUG. 30, 2006 – Barredo
Petitioners: CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, BENJAMIN CHUA JR., VIRGILIO
AGERO, and LEONARDO VISORRO, JR.
Respondents: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO UNION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
(CUSE) and ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III
Employer CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION (CAPASCO)
Employee/Union ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III
Labor Issue Supervisory or Managerial Employee
DOCTRINE: Accordingly, Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates
supervisory employees from managerial employees, to wit: supervisory employees are
those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial
actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those
who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees.
FACTS:
● Four former employees of CAPASCO originally filed this labor case before the
NLRC, namely: Fidel Lacambra, Armando Dayson, Reynaldo Vacalares, and
Enrique Tamondong III. However, in the course of the proceedings, Fidel
Lacambra and Armando Dayson executed a Release and Quitclaim, thus,
waiving and abandoning any and all claims that they may have against
petitioner CAPASCO. Reynaldo Vacalares also signed a RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
Quitclaim/Release/Waiver. Hence, this Petition shall focus solely on issues
affecting private respondent Tamondong.
● Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the
Personnel Manager for its Cainta Plant. Thereafter, he was promoted to the
position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel
Superintendent.
● Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a
move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private
respondent CUSE.
DEAD POOL
● Private respondent Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of
the union and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation.
● Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo to private respondent
Tamondong requiring him to explain and to discontinue from his union
activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely affect his
employment in the company.
● Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter,
invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union.
● Petitioner CAPASCO, through a memo, terminated the employment of private
respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing
his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company.
● Private respondent Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and
as an act involving unfair labor practice by filing a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice before the NLRC.
PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
● There was no just cause for his dismissal and it was anchored solely on his
involvement and active participation in the organization of the union of
supervisory personnel in CAPASCO.
● Though private respondent admitted his active role in the formation of a union
composed of supervisory personnel in the company, he claimed that such was
not a valid ground to terminate his employment because it was a legitimate
exercise of his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
● By virtue of private respondent Tamondong’s position as Personnel
Superintendent and the functions actually performed by him in the company,
he was considered as a managerial employee, thus, under the law he was
prohibited from joining a union as well as from being elected as one of its
officers.
● Private respondent Tamondong was not only a managerial employee but also
a confidential employee having knowledge of confidential information
involving company policies on personnel relations.
● The dismissal of private respondent Tamondong was perfectly valid based on
loss of trust and confidence because of the latter’s active participation in the
affairs of the union.
LA – Petitioner CAPASCO is guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
NLRC – Dismissed: (1) Complaint for Illegal Dismissal filed by private respondent
Tamondong for utter lack of merit; and (b) Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice
for lack of factual basis.
CA – Annulled the NLRC ruling and reinstated the LA ruling.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent Tamondong, as Personnel Superintendent of
CAPASCO, was performing functions of a managerial employee. – NO.
RULING + RATIO:
16
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Private respondent Tamondong was a supervisory employee and not a managerial
employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private
respondent CUSE.
One of the essential characteristics of an employee holding a managerial rank is that
he is not subjected to the rigid observance of regular office hours or maximum hours of
work. However, in the Decision of the CA, it made reference to the Memorandum which
required private respondent Tamondong to observe fixed daily working hours from 8:00
am to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. This imposition upon private respondent
Tamondong is very uncharacteristic of a managerial employee.
Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory employees
from managerial employees –
▪ Supervisory employees – those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively
recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment
▪ managerial employees – those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to
lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
In this case, petitioner CAPASCO miserably failed to establish that private respondent
Tamondong was authorized to act in the interest of the company using his independent
judgment:
o Although private respondent Tamondong may have possessed enormous
powers and was performing important functions that goes with the position of
Personnel Superintendent, nevertheless, there was no clear showing that he is
at liberty, by using his own discretion and disposition, to lay down and execute
major business and operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO.
o Tamondong may have been exercising certain important powers, such as
control and supervision over erring rank-and-file employees, however, he does
not possess the power to hire, transfer, terminate, or discipline erring
employees of the company. At the most, the record merely showed that
Tamondong informed and warned rank-and-file employees with respect to
their violations of CAPASCO’s rules and regulations.
o The functions performed by private respondent such as issuance of warning to
employees with irregular attendance and unauthorized leave of absences
and requiring employees to explain regarding charges of abandonment of
work, are normally performed by a mere supervisor, and not by a manager.
From the foregoing, it can be clearly inferred that private respondent Tamondong was
just a supervisory employee. Private respondent Tamondong did not perform any of the
functions of a managerial employee as stated in the definition given to it by the Code.
Hence, the Labor Code provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee
from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private
respondent Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be
DEAD POOL
prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of private respondent
CUSE,
With regard to the allegation that private respondent Tamondong was not only a
managerial employee but also a confidential employee, the same cannot be validly
raised in this Petition for Certiorari. It is settled that an issue which was not raised in the
trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.
12. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employess Union v. Laguesma
G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997
Petiitoner: SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT EMPLOYEES UNION
AND ERNESTO L. PONCE
Respondent: HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS
UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE DANILO L. REYNANTE IN
HIS CAPACITY AS MED-ARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
Employer San Miguel Corporation
Employee/Labor Union San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees
Union
Labor Issue Who are considered as confidential employees.
Doctrine:
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations.
In determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question frequently
considered is the employee’s necessary access to confidential labor relations
information.
An employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because
he has access to confidential information concerning employer’s internal business
operations and which is not related to the field of labor relations.
Facts:
 petitioner union filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
a Petition for Direct Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors
and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.
 Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of
certification election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the
17
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as
one bargaining unit.
 Respondent San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with
Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med-Arbiter’s error
in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, Otis, Cabuyao and San
Fernando, into one bargaining unit, and in including supervisory levels 3 and
above whose positions are confidential in nature.
 the public respondent, Undersecretary Laguesma, granted respondent
company’s Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of
origin for determination of the true classification of each of the employees
sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.
 Upon petitioner-union’s motion, Undersecretary Laguesma granted the
reconsideration prayed for on September 3, 1991 and directed the conduct of
separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory
levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the three plants
at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.
 respondent company, San Miguel Corporation filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to suspend proceedings.
 an Order was issued by the public respondent granting the Motion citing the
doctrine enunciated in Philips Industrial Development Inc. v. NLRC stating that
‘Confidential employees, like managerial employees, are not allowed to form,
join or assist a labor union for purpose of collective bargaining.” Hence, in this
case, S3 and S4 Supervisors and the so-called exempt employees are
admittedly confidential employees and therefore, they are not allowed to
form, join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining following
the above court’s ruling. Consequently, they are not allowed to participate in
the certification election.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: They are not confidential employees and eligible to join a
labor union.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Petitioners are confidential employees because they
answered in the affirmative when asked “Do you handle confidential data or
documents?” in the Position Questionnaires submitted by the Union.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are confidential employees. Hence, not eligible to join labor
union. NO.
RULING:
Petitioners are not confidential employees who may be prohibited from joining a union.
There is no question that the said employees, supervisors and the exempt
employees, are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute
DEAD POOL
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge or
dismiss employees. They are, therefore, not qualified to be classified as managerial
employees who, under Article 2454 of the Labor Code, are not eligible to join, assist or
form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are not allowed
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
or form separate labor organizations of their own.
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be
met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee—that is, the
confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the
supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of
their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a
principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule.” The
broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position
involving a potential conflict of interests.
An important element of the “confidential employee rule” is the employee’s
need to use labor relations information. Thus, in determining the confidentiality of certain
employees, a key question frequently considered is the employees’ necessary access to
confidential labor relations information.
As to the contention of the respondent corporation that petitioners are
confidential employees because they answered in the affirmative when asked “Do you
handle confidential data or documents?” in the Position Questionnaires submitted by
the Union. In the same questionnaire, however, it was also stated that the confidential
information handled by questioned employees relate to product formulation, product
standards and product specification which by no means relate to “labor relations.
Granting arguendo that an employee has access to confidential labor
relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is
not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access does not render the
employee a confidential employee. If access to confidential labor relations information
is to be a factor in the determination of an employee’s confidential status, such
information must relate to the employer’s labor relations policies. Thus, an employee of
a labor union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential labor
relations information with respect to his employer, the union, or the association, to be
regarded a confidential employee, and knowledge of labor relations information
pertaining to the companies with which the union deals, or which the association
represents, will not cause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining unit
representing employees of the union or association. Access to information which is
regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint, such as
18
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
financial information or technical trade secrets, will not render an employee a
confidential employee.
Herein listed are the functions of supervisors 3 and higher:
1. To undertake decisions to discontinue/temporarily stop shift operations when
situations require.
2. To effectively oversee the quality control function at the processing lines in the
storage of chicken and other products.
3. To administer efficient system of evaluation of products in the outlets.
4. To be directly responsible for the recall, holding and rejection of direct
manufacturing materials.
5. To recommend and initiate actions in the maintenance of sanitation and
hygiene throughout the plant.
It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may
handle will have to relate to their functions. From the foregoing functions, it can be
gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern the
employer’s internal business operations. It was ruled in the case of Westing-House
Electronic corp. v. NLRCB that ‘an employee may not be excluded from appropriate
bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning
employer’s internal business operations and which is not related to the field of labor
relations’.
It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution
mandates the State to guarantee to “all” workers the right to self-organization. Hence,
confidential employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly
defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees of their right to bargain
collectively through representatives of their choosing.
In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential
employees merely because they handle “confidential data” as such must first be strictly
classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said restrictions. The
information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business
operations data which, to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of
grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably
adversarial. Since the employees are not classifiable under the confidential type, they
may appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Furthermore, even assuming that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence has
established that there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are
not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the assailed Order of March 11, 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE and
the Order of the Med-Arbiter on December 19, 1990 is REINSTATED under which a
DEAD POOL
certification election among the supervisors (level 1 to 4) and exempt employees of the
San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando,
and Otis as one bargaining unit is ordered conducted.
13. SCBEU-NUBE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
G.R. No. 161933 April 22, 2008- Bulacan
Petitioner: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE)
Respondents: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as
Chief Executive Officer, Philippines, Standard Chartered Bank
Employer Respondent
Employee/Union Employees of petitioner union
WN Bank's Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex
Labor Issue Department and HR staff are confidential employees-YES
DOCTRINE: While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature
of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and
hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
FACTS:
● Petitioner and the Standard Chartered Bank (Bank) began negotiating for a
new CBA in May 2000 as their 1998-2000 CBA already expired.
● Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike
prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute.
● DOLE Secretary directed the parties to execute their CBA incorporating therein
the dispositions and the agreements they reached in the course of
negotiations and conciliation.
● Both parties filed MR-denied
● Petitioner filed petition for certiorari, alleging that DOLE secretary erred in
deciding that there was no basis for revising the scope of exclusions from the
appropriate bargaining unit under the CBA
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
DOLE SEC- Maintained the previous exclusions of Bank's Chief Cashiers, Assistant
Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential
employees because petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be
removed from the list qualify for exclusion., rather they are confidential employees
CA: Affirmed
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Subject employees are not confidential employees
19
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
ISSUE: Whether the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex
Department and HR staff are confidential employees, such that they should be
excluded. YES.
RULING:
The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a
bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence.
Bank cashiers - National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) – Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter v. Torres declared that they are confidential employees having
control, custody and/or access to confidential matters, e.g., the branch's cash position,
statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic
transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of
the Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody, and therefore, disqualified from
joining or assisting a union; or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization.
Accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators- Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer
stated that they are confidential employees having access to confidential information,
may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or
spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.
Personnel staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified -Philips Industrial
Development, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission designated them as
confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions, they assist and
act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons
who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.
Aside from its generalized arguments, and despite the Secretary's finding that there was
no evidence to support it, petitioner still failed to substantiate its claim. Petitioner did not
even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees,
depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed
confidential employees.
Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex
department and one (1) HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file
employees, then they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
14. COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. v. DOLE
G.R. No. 157117. November 20, 2006 - Buño
Petitioner: COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC.
Respondents: DOLE, CSBTISU-APOSTEU, and CSBTI-RFU-ALU
Employer Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc.
DEAD POOL
(1)Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-
RFU), local union of Associated Labor Union (ALU)
(2) Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Supervisory Union (CSBTISU),
local union of Associated Professional, Supervisorym Office and
Employee/Union Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU)
Labor Issue LLOs; Commingling
DOCTRINES:
● A legitimate labor organization has authority to issue charters to its affiliates.
● Once a labor union attains the status of a LLO, it continues as such until its
certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for
cancellation. When the personality of the labor organization is questioned in the
same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, the action partakes the nature
of a collateral attack.
● A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated.
Local Union as principal, Federation as agent. (I did not include the discussion na in
the digest para di gaano mahaba. Bolahin niyo na lang.)
● Supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not
allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of interest.
FACTS:
● Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-RFU) and Coastal Subic
Bay Terminal, Inc. Supervisory Union (CSBTISU) filed separate petitions for
certification election before Med-Arbiter.
MA: Dismissed. The Associated Labor Union (ALU) and Associated Professional,
Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU) are one and the
same federation having a common set of officers. Thus, the supervisory and the
rank-and-file unions were in effect affiliated with only one federation.
● SoL: Reversed. ALU and APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor unions having
separate certificates of registration from the DOLE. CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI- SU are LLO
having been chartered respectively by ALU and APSOTEU after submitting all the
requirements with the BLR.
● CA: SoL Affrimed.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: The rank-and-file union and supervisory union were not
legitimate labor organizations, and that the proposed bargaining units were not
particularly described. APSOTEU improperly secured its registration from the DOLE
Regional Director and not from the BLR. Thus, APSOTEU lacks legal personality, and its
chartered affiliate CSBTI-SU cannot attain the status of a legitimate labor organization to
file a petition for certification election.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: The rank-and-file union insists that it is a LLO having been
issued a charter certificate by the ALU, and the supervisory union by the APSOTEU.
20
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
ISSUE: (1) Is CSBTI-SU an LLO?; (3) Were private respondents engaged in commingling? -
Yes for both questions.
RULING:
Status of APSOTEU
● The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for registration of
labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR.
(Department Order No. 40-03) The amendments to the implementing rules merely
specified that when the application was filed with the Regional Office, the
application would be acted upon by the BLR.
● Here, considering further that APSOTEU’s principal office is located in Diliman,
Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the
certificate of registration is valid.
Legal Personality of an LO CANNOT be Collaterally Attacked
● The legal personality of LLOs cannot be subject to collateral attack, but maybe
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with
these Rules. (Section 5, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules)
● Petitioner’s Contention: that applying by analogy, the doctrine of piercing the veil
of corporate fiction, APSOTEU and ALU are the same federation.
● SC: When the personality of the labor organization is questioned in the same
manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, the action partakes the nature of a
collateral attack.
● Hence, in the absence of any independent action for cancellation of registration
against either APSOTEU or ALU, and unless and until their registrations are
cancelled, each continues to possess a separate legal personality.
● The CSBTIRFU and CSBTI-SU are therefore affiliated with distinct and separate
federations, despite the commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU.
BUT!!! There was Commingling
● The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not
allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of interest. A
local supervisors’ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national
federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively
participates in the union activity within the company.
● Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-
and-file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors’ local union applying for
membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of
rank-and-file employees.
● Here, the national federations that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-
file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated with, do have a common set of
officers. In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively participates in
the CSBTI- SU while ALU, the rankand-file federation, actively participates in the
CSBTI-RFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the common
officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of supervisory unions.
● When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a supervisory
union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented.
○ Labor organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to organize
themselves for the purpose of leveling the bargaining process but also to
DEAD POOL
ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep open the corridor of
opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision
dated August 31, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 54128 and the Resolution dated February 5,
2003 are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Med-Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED.
15. TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY v. ASIA
BREWERY
G.R. No. 162025, AUGUST 3, 2010 – Cariño, E.
Petitioner: Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery
Respondents: Asia Brewery, Inc.
Employer Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI)
Employee/Union Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery
Labor Issue Confidential or Rank-and-File Employees
DOCTRINE: Confidential employees are defined as those who
(1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,
(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies
in the field of labor relations.
The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to
be considered a confidential employee – that is, the confidential relationship must exist
between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of
their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a
principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule."
FACTS:
 Respondent ABI entered into a CBA with Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa
sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the exclusive bargaining
representative of ABI’s rank-and-file employees.
 Article I of the CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit, as follows: The
UNION shall not represent or accept for membership employees outside the
scope of the bargaining unit herein defined.
Section 2. Bargaining Unit. The bargaining unit shall be comprised of
all regular rank-and-file daily-paid employees of the COMPANY.
However, the following jobs/positions as herein defined shall be
excluded from the bargaining unit, to wit:
xxx
Confidential and Executive Secretaries
21
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
xxx
Purchasing and Quality Control Staff.
 The CBA expressly excluded Confidential and Executive Secretaries from the
rank-and-file bargaining unit.
 ABI seeks their disaffiliation from petitioner. ABI’s management stopped
deducting union dues from 81 employees, believing that their membership in
BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated the CBA. 18 of these affected employees are QA
Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician (checkers)
who formed part of the Quality Control Staff. The rest are secretaries/clerks
directly under their respective division managers.
 Petitioner, however, maintains that except for those who had been promoted
to monthly paid positions, the other secretaries/clerks are deemed included
among the rank-and-file employees of ABI. BLMA-INDEPENDENT claimed that
ABI’s actions restrained the employees’ right to self-organization.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
Voluntary Arbitrator: the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file
category because their functions are merely routinary and clerical.
The positions occupied by the checkers and secretaries/clerks in the different divisions
are not managerial or supervisory, as evident from the duties and responsibilities
assigned to them.
With respect to QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician,
he ruled that ABI failed to establish with sufficient clarity their basic functions as to
consider them Quality Control Staff who were excluded from the coverage of the CBA.
Accordingly, the subject employees were declared eligible for inclusion within the
bargaining unit represented by BLMA-INDEPENDENT.
CA: CA reversed the VA, ruling that the 81 employees are excluded from and
are not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in Section 2, Article I of the
CBA.
*Current petitioner won a certification election after the CA case. They replaced BLMA in
the case and filed the petition to the SC
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION:
 The 81 employees are not excluded from the bargaining unit as defined in the
CBA
 ABI committed acts that restrained their right against self-organization
ISSUE: Whether or not the 81 employees are considered confidential employees
disqualified from becoming members of a union? NO
RULING:
 Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a
confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2)
criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be
DEAD POOL
considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must
exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must
handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.
 The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of
their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations
is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential
employee rule."
 Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of
their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary
manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive
and highly confidential records.
 Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining
unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any
labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees
because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union can
also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the Union membership. Having access to confidential
information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue
advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.
 There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers
assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and
obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies, and even
assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the
company, respondent claimed, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in
the bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-and-file employees.
 it is rather curious that there would be several secretaries/clerks for just one (1)
department/division performing tasks which are mostly routine and clerical.
Respondent insisted they fall under the "Confidential and Executive
Secretaries" expressly excluded by the CBA from the rank-and-file bargaining
unit. However, perusal of the job descriptions of these secretaries/clerks reveals
that their assigned duties and responsibilities involve routine activities of
recording and monitoring, and other paper works for their respective
departments while secretarial tasks such as receiving telephone calls and filing
of office correspondence appear to have been commonly imposed as
additional duties.
 With respect to the Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge
Machine Technician, there seems no dispute that they form part of the Quality
Control Staff who, under the express terms of the CBA, fall under a distinct
category. But we disagree with respondent’s contention that the twenty (20)
22
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
checkers are similarly confidential employees being "quality control staff"
entrusted with the handling and custody of company properties and sensitive
information.
Again, the job descriptions of these checkers assigned in the storeroom section
of the Materials Department, finishing section of the Packaging Department,
and the decorating and glass sections of the Production Department plainly
showed that they perform routine and mechanical tasks preparatory to the
delivery of the finished products. No evidence was presented by the
respondent to prove that these daily-paid checkers actually form part of the
company’s Quality Control Staff who as such "were exposed to sensitive, vital
and confidential information about [company’s] products" or "have
knowledge of mixtures of the products, their defects, and even their formulas"
which are considered ‘trade secrets’.
DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 22,
2002 and Resolution dated January 28, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
55578 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The checkers and secretaries/clerks of
respondent company are hereby declared rank-and-file employees who are eligible to
join the Union of the rank-and-file employees.
No costs.
16. SAN MIGUEL FOODS v. SMCSEU
G.R. No. 146296, AUG 1, 2011 – Cariño, P.
Petitioner: SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED
Respondent: SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT UNION
Employer SMC
Employee SMCSEU
Membership of supervisors (levels 3&4) and exempt employees in the
proposed bargaining unit for their participation in the certification
Labor Issue election.
DOCTRINES:
 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.
 The rationale for the separate category of confidential employees and
disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for
managerial employees, because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter
might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the
union can also become company- denominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the union membership.
DEAD POOL
 The positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the
category of confidential employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining
unit, considering their respective positions and job descriptions.
OVERVIEW: This case is connected to the 12th assigned case (San Miguel Corporation
Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma).
FACTS:
 In San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma (1997), 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. (SMFI) 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. They perform work of the same nature, receive
the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake
in concerted activities. It was immaterial that the three plants have different
locations as they did not impede the operations of a single bargaining
representative.
 Pursuant to that decision, DOLE-NCR conducted pre-election conferences.
However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters
o SMC submitted a list of 23 employees for the San Fernando plant and 33
for the Cabuyao plant, while Union listed 60 and 82, respectively.
 On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing the Election to proceed
with the conduct of certification election. On September 30, 1998, a certification
election was conducted and it yielded the following results:
 On the date of the election, SMC Foods filed the Omnibus Objections and
Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees.
Some employees are:
(1) confidential employees;
(2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not
covered by the bargaining unit;
(3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial
work and scheduled to be promoted;
(4) employees who belong to the Barrio Ugong plant;
(5) non-SMFI employees; and
(6) employees who are members of other unions.
23
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
 Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing the Union to submit proof showing that the
employees in the submitted list are covered by the original petition for certification
election and belong to the bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise,
directing SMC Foods to substantiate the allegations contained in its Omnibus
Objections and Challenge to Voters. In compliance thereto, the Union averred that
(1) the bargaining unit contemplated in the original petition is the Poultry Division of
SMC Foods; (2) it covered the operations in Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and
Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San Fernando,
Pampanga; and (3) it submitted individual and separate declarations of the
employees whose votes were challenged in the election.
 Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the September 30,
1998 certification election, the final tally showed that:
o Eligible voters:149
o Total number of votes cast – 124 (118 “Yes” [46 + 72 = 118] and 3 “No”)
o Valid votes cast: 121
o Spoiled ballots: 3
 When the segregated ballots were opened, it showed that out of the 76
segregated votes, 72 were cast for “Yes” and 3 for “No,” with one “spoiled” ballot.
RULINGS OF LOWER COURTS
MED-ARBITER: Respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors
and exempt employees of petitioner’s Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao,
San Fernando, and Otis since the “Yes” vote received 97% of the valid votes cast.
ACTING DOLE UNDERSECRETARY: Affirmed w/ modification (George C. Matias, Alma
Maria M. Lozano, Joannabel T. Delos Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be excluded from
the bargaining unit)
- Matias and Lozano are members of Magnolia Poultry Processing Plants Monthly
Employees Union, while Delos Reyes and Pajaron are employees of San Miguel
Corporation, which is a separate and distinct entity from petitioner.
CA: Affirmed w/ modification.
- those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Contentions of SMC Foods:
1. AS to MEMBERSHIP/ELEGIBIILTY: With the Court’s ruling in San Miguel Corporation
Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma (1997), identifying the specific
employees who can participate in the certification election, i.e., the supervisors
(levels 1 to 4) and exempt employees of San Miguel Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, the CA erred in expanding the scope of the
bargaining unit so as to include employees who do not belong to or who are not
based in its Cabuyao or San Fernando plants. It also alleges that the employees of
the Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis plants of petitioner’s predecessor, San
Miguel Corporation, as stated in San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt
Union v. Laguesma (1997), were engaged in “dressed” chicken processing, i.e.,
handling and packaging of chicken meat, while the new bargaining unit, as
defined by the CA in the present case, includes employees engaged in “live”
chicken operations, i.e., those who breed chicks and grow chickens. (SC:
untenable)
DEAD POOL
2. AS TO ELEGIBILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL EEs: CA erred in not excluding the position of
Payroll Master in the definition of a confidential employee and, thus, prays that the
said position and all other positions with access to salary and compensation data
be excluded from the bargaining unit. (SC: untenable)
Contentions of Union: SMC Foods’ proposed exclusion of certain employees from the
bargaining unit was a rehashed issue which was already settled in San Miguel
Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma (1997). It maintains that the
issue of union membership coverage should no longer be raised as a certification
election already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein respondent won with 97%
votes.
ISSUE: Whether the questioned employees (HR Assistants and Personnel Assistants)
should be included in the bargaining unit. – NO.
RULING + RATIO:
APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT PRESUPOSES COMMUNITY OR MUTUALITY OF INTERESTS
(TEST)
 Petitioner’s contentions are erroneous. In San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and
Exempt Union v. Laguesma (1997), 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. 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.
CA IS CORRECT: ONE BARGAINING UNIT ONLY FOR SMC FOODS’ DIFFERENT POULTRY
DIVISIONS
 Thus, applying the ruling to the present case, 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.
PAYROLL MASTER IS NOT A CONFIDENTIAL EES PROHIBITED FROM JOINING BARGAINING
UNIT
24
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
 Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, in regard to (2) persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative,
and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential
employee—that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee
and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities
relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in
the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating
to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
“confidential employee rule.” A confidential employee is one entrusted with
confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the
employer’s property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel,
should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential
information may become the source of undue advantage.
 However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the other
involved of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and
compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does
not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the
performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to
company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he
cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.
RATIONALE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF CONFIDENTIAL EEs
 Corollarily, although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form
and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their
positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to
managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly
confidential records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-
file bargaining unit.
 The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor
organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees, because if
allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty
in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become company-
denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the union
membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees
may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a
spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.
HUMAN RESOURCE ASSISTANT AND PERSONNEL ASSISTANT ARE CONFIDENTIAL EEs
 In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant
and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of confidential employees and,
hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective positions
and job descriptions. In the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital
labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union
membership.
o As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of one’s work necessarily involves
labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to
DEAD POOL
employees’ personal files and compensation package, and human
resource management.
o As Personnel Assistant, one’s work 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
petitioner’s team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2000 and
Resolution dated November 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510,
which affirmed with modification the Resolutions dated July 30, 1999 and August 27,
1999 of the Secretary of Labor, are AFFIRMED.
OTHER
 The proceedings for certification election are quasi-judicial in nature and,
therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain finality. Applying the
doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the present case pertaining to the coverage of
the employees who would constitute the bargaining unit is now a foregone
conclusion.
 It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers;
hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. The general rule is
that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification election,
since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that
employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining
representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence
of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its
loyalty to the employees alone and to no other. The only exception is where the
employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code
because of a request to bargain collectively.
17. THE HERITAGE HOTEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014 - Cartagena
Petitioner: THE HERITAGE HOTEL, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL
CORPORATION
Respondents: SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; MED - ARBITER TOMAS F.
FALCONITIN; and NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES - HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN - HHMSC).
Employer Heritage Hotel
National Union Of Workers In The Hotel, Restaurant And Allied
Industries - Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter
Employee/Union (Nuwhrain - Hhmsc)
Labor Issue Representation of employees in the Bargaining Unit
25
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
DOCTRINE: Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere
bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial
and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will
represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of
their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot
have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the
process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation
that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually
managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification
election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed
thereof.
FACTS:
● The respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied
Industries - Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN - HHMSC) filed
petition for certification election, seeking to represent all the supervisory
employees of Heritage Hotel Manila. It moved for the conduct of the pre -
election conference and submitted a list of employees.
● Heritage commented on the list of employees for occupying either confidential
or managerial positions.
● DOLE issued a notice scheduling the certification elections.
● Certification election proceeded as scheduled, and NUWHRAIN - HHMSC
obtained the majority vote of the bargaining unit.
● Heritage filed a protest to defer the certification of election results and winner,
insisting the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN - HHMSC.
● Med - Arbiter ruled that the cancellation of union registration was not a bar to
the holding of the certification election. NUWHRAIN - HHSMC is declared the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory employees of the Heritage Hotel
Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation, for purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to wages, and hours of work and other terms
and conditions of employment.
● Heritage appealed to the DOLE Secretary claiming that the membership of
NUWHRAIN - HHMSC consisted of managerial, confidential and rank and file
employees, a labor union of mixed membership had no legal right to petition for
the certification election.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
DOLE Secretary : denied the appeal; ruled that once a union acquired a legitimate
status as a labor organization, it continued as such until its certificate
of registration was cancelled or revoked in an independent action
for cancellation and the mixture of co - mingling of employees in a
union was not a ground for dismissing a petition for certification
election.
CA : affirmed decision of DOLE Secretary; mixture or co - mingling of employees in a
union was not a ground for dismissal
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: the mixture of membership between two - employee groups
- one vested with the right of self - organization (i.e. the rank and file and supervisory
DEAD POOL
employees), and the other deprived of such right (managerial and confidential
employees) was inappropriate, and a finding of “illegal mixture” of membership during
a petition for cancellation of union registration determines whether or nor the union had
met the 20% representation required by the labor code.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: The right to be certified as a collective bargaining agent is
one of the legitimate privileges of a registered union. After a certificate of registration is
issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner has legal personality to assail the proceedings for the
certification election? – NO.
RULING:
Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole
concern of the workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the
certification election is concerned. Thus, the petitioner lacked the legal personality to
assail the proceedings for the certification election,and should stand aside as a mere
bystander who could not oppose the petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders
relative to the conduct of the certification election. As the Court has explained
in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.(Kawashima):
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a
mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such
proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the
purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The
choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it
cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation
that some employees participating in a petition for certification
election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer
legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's
only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
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.35 In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the registration
would have prevented NUWHRAIN-HHMSC 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.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the questioned decision
AFFIRMED. No special pronouncement is made as to costs.
18. DLSU MEDICAL CENTER v. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 102084. August 12, 1998- Cornelio
26
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Petitioner: DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Respondents: HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of Labor and
Employment; ROLANDO S. DE LA CRUZ, Med-Arbiter Regional Office No. IV, DE LA SALLE
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE SUPERVISORY UNION-
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS
Employer DLSU-MC
Free WorkersDe La Salle University Medical Center and
College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-
Employee/Union DLSUMCCMSUC)
Labor Issue
DOCTRINE: The affiliation of two local unions (supervisory union and rank-and file union)
in a company with the same national federation is not by itself a negation of their
independence since in relation to the employer, the local unions are considered as the
principals, while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.
FACTS:
● Federation of Free WorkersDe La Salle University Medical Center and College of
Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC) is a labor organization
composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM.
● FFW, a national federation of labor unions, issued a certificate to private
respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local chapter. It also filed on
behalf of FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election among the
supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM.
● Its petition was opposed by DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees
who signed the petition for certification election were managerial employees and
that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in the company.
● FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC contended that the petition seeks for the holding of a
certification election among the supervisory employees of herein respondent. It
does not intend to include managerial employees, and that “while it is true that
both regular rank-and-file employees and supervisory employees of herein
respondent have affiliated with FFW, yet there are two separate unions organized
by FFW. The supervisory employees have a separate charter certificate issued by
FFW”.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
LA: Granted the petition for certification election.
SOLE: Appeal was dismissed. Affirmed LA.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: DLSUMCCM contends that respondent Laguesma (SOLE)
gravely abused his discretion. While it does not anymore insist that several of those who
joined the petition for certification election are holding managerial positions in the
company, petitioner nonetheless pursues the question whether unions formed
DEAD POOL
independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly
affiliate with the same national federation.
ISSUE: Whether a supervisory union may be validly affiliated with the FFW to which the
rank-and-file employees of the same company are likewise affiliated– YES.
RULING: Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other classes of
employees save only managerial ones. The Constitution states that the right of the
people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law, shall not be abridged.
Conformably with the constitutional mandate, Art. 245 of the Labor Code now provides
for the right of supervisory employees to self-organization, subject to the limitation that
they cannot join an organization of rank-and-file employees:
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their
own.
The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a
company with respect to the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in
their interests. Supervisory employees are more closely identified with the employer than
with the rank-and-file employees. If supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a
company are allowed to form a single union, the conflicting interests of these groups
impair their relationship and adversely affect discipline, collective bargaining, and
strikes. These consequences can obtain not only in cases where supervisory and rank-
and-file employees in the same company belong to a single union but also where
unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and file employees of a company
are allowed to affiliate with the same national federation.
The affiliation of two local unions in a company with the same national federation is not
by itself a negation of their independence since in relation to the employer, the local
unions are considered as the principals, while the federation is deemed to be merely
their agent. This conclusion is in accord with the policy that any limitation on the
exercise by employees of the right to self-organization guaranteed in the Constitution
must be construed strictly. Workers should be allowed the practice of this freedom to the
extent recognized in the fundamental law.
Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of
rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same
national federation, the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence
showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under
the authority of the supervisory employees.
Mention has already been made of the fact that the petition for certification election in
this case was filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. This circumstance, while
showing active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company, is by itself
insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. 245 since there is no proof that the
27
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file
employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the FFW.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
19. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 96663. August 10, 1999 - Daguinod
Petitioner/s: PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC.
Respondent/s: HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, MED- ARBITER NAPOLEON V.
FERNANDO & PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION-UOEF
Employer Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.
Labor Union Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Employees Organization-UOEF
Labor Issue Eligibility for Membership in a Union
DOCTRINE: Court considers the position of confidential employees as included in the
disqualification found in Article 245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees
were written in the provision.
FACTS:
- Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union) filed a petition for certification
election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining agent of
supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI).
- The Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, with the explicit statement that it was an
affiliate of Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (federation) together with
two (2) rank and file unions, Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola
Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP).
- PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to Set Aside, Cancel
and/or Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union, on the grounds that
(a) the members of the Union were managers and
(b) a supervisors’ union cannot affiliate with a federation whose members
include the rank and file union of the same company.
- PEPSI presented a motion to re- open the case since it was not furnished with a
copy of the Petition for Certification Election.
- PEPSI filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal with the Secretary
of Labor, questioning the setting of the certification election. It also presented
an urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend the Certification Election, which motion
was granted on October 18, 1990.
- The Secretary of Labor denied the appeal and Motion for Reconsideration.
Even as the Petition to Cancel, Revoke and Suspend Union Charter Certificate
was pending before the BLR, PEPSI found its way to this Court via the present
petition for certiorari.
- The Court granted the prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction.
DEAD POOL
- The supervisory employees who are members of the Union includes the position
of Route Manager, C & C Manager, Sales Service Department Manager, Chief
Checker, Accounting Manager, Operations Manager and Maintenance
Manager.
Order of MedArbiter: The call for certification election among the supervisory
workers of the Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. at its plant at Tin-ao, Cagayan de
Oro City is hereby sustained.
Contention of the Federation (in favor of the Union)
- The provision of law does not prohibit a local union composed of supervisory
employees from being affiliated to a federation which has local unions with
rank-and-file members as affiliates.
- The grounds for the cancellation of the registration certificate of a labor
organization are provided in Section 7 of Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, and the inclusion of managerial employees is
not one of the grounds thereof.
Respondent’s Contentions (Secretary of Labor and Employment through OSG)
- Article 245 of the New Labor Code does not preclude the supervisor’s union
and the rank-and-file union from being affiliated with the same federation.
- The affiliation of the supervisory employee’s union with the same federation with
which the rank and file employees union is affiliated did not make the
supervisory employees members of the rank and file employee’s union and vice
versa.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether a supervisors’ union can affiliate with the same Federation of which two (2)
rank and file unions are likewise members, without violating Article 245 of the Labor
Code (PD 442), as amended, by Republic Act 6715? – Moot.
2. Whether mangers and confidential employees are eligible to join a labor union? - NO
RULING:
Issue 1: The issue whether the supervisors union can be affiliated with a Federation with
two (2) rank and file unions directly under the supervision of the former, has thus
become moot and academic in view of the Union’s withdrawal from the federation.
However, the court in a case held that even if a case were moot and academic, a
statement of the governing principle is appropriate in the resolution of dismissal for the
guidance not only of the parties but of others similarly situated.
In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, it was ratiocinated:
Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would
merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors’ labor organization
would represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisors’ union should not
be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file
employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the
company. The prohibition against a supervisors’ union joining a local union of
rank and file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the
limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors’ wanting to join a rank-and-
28
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors’ local union applying for
membership in a national federation the members of which include local
unions of rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially
where, as in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
Note: The case was decided in 1992 in which the prevailing law was the LC as amended
by RA 6715
Section 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
"Article 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. - Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their
own."
However, in 2007, RA 9481 was enacted which provides that:
SEC. 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"ART. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization;
Right of Supervisory Employees. - Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be
eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units
and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and
the supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may join the
same federation or national union.”
Issue 2: The Court finds merit in the submission of the OSG that Route Managers, Chief
Checkers and Warehouse Operations Managers are supervisors while Credit &
Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly confidential employees.
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees.
A careful scrutiny of their job description indicates that they do not lay down company
policies. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies since they have to
report to their respective superior. The mere fact that an employee is designated
manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd
situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a
member of a union. In the case of National Steel Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No.
103743, January 29, 1996, it was stressed that:
What is essential is the nature of the employee’s function and not the
nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether the
employee has rank and file or managerial status, or whether he is a supervisory
employee.
As regards the issue of whether or not confidential employees can join the labor union
of the rank and file, the Court ruled that a confidential employee is one entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of
the employer’s property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial
employee as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of
necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. This doctrine
states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is
DEAD POOL
expressed, as elucidated in several case; the latest of which is Chua v. Civil Service
Commission where we said:
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its
application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular
situation. What is thought, at the time of the enactment, to be an all
embracing legislation maybe inadequate to provide for the unfolding events
of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of
the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of
necessary implication x x x, Every statute is understood, by implication, to
contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and
purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it
grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be
fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis x x x
In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into consideration the
rationale behind the disqualification of managerial employees expressed in Bulletin
Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, thus x x x if these managerial employees would
belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to
the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company–
dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.– Stated
differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to
be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its
interest are well protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if these
employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation
can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as
if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the provision. If
confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for
themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest
of the employers.
Also, an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the
petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petitions under consideration are DISMISSED but subject
Decision, dated October 4, 1991, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is
MODIFIED in that Credit and Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly
confidential employees not eligible for membership in a supervisors’ union. No
pronouncement as to costs.
20. a. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO
CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK
G.R. No. 164301 : August 10, 2010 – Diño
Petitioner: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Respondent: BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI
UNIBANK
29
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
EMPLOYER BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
EMPLOYEE BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-
FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK
Doctrine: The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA, even if
they impinge upon the individual employee's right or freedom of association, is not to
protect the union for the union's sake. Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism and
afford certain protections to the certified bargaining agent in a unionized company
because a strong and effective union presumably benefits all employees in the
bargaining unit since such a union would be in a better position to demand improved
benefits and conditions of work from the employer. This is the rationale behind the State
policy to promote unionism declared in the Constitution
FOR THE DISSENT:
It is this Court's solemn duty to implement the State policy of promoting unionism.
However, this duty cannot be done at the expense of a fundamental constitutional right
of a worker. We cannot exalt union rights over and above the freedom and right of
employees to join or not to join a union.
Facts:
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the Articles of Merger executed on January
20, 2000 by and between BPI, herein petitioner, and FEBTC. This Article and Plan of
Merger was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Pursuant to the Article and Plan of Merger, all the assets and liabilities of FEBTC were
transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the surviving corporation. FEBTC employees,
including those in its different branches across the country, were hired by petitioner as its
own employees, with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits
maintained.
Respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter - Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank
(hereinafter the "Union," for brevity) is the exclusive bargaining agent of BPI's rank and
file employees in Davao City. The former FEBTC rank-and-file employees in Davao City
did not belong to any labor union at the time of the merger. Prior to the effectivity of
the merger, or on March 31, 2000, respondent Union invited said FEBTC employees to a
meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause (Article II, Section 2) of the existing CBA
between petitioner BPI and respondent Union.
After the meeting, some of the former FEBTC employees joined the Union, while others
refused. Later, however, some of those who initially joined retracted their membership.
Respondent Union then sent notices to the former FEBTC employees who refused to join,
as well as those who retracted their membership, and called them to a hearing
regarding the matter. When these former FEBTC employees refused to attend the
hearing, the president of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union Shop Clause
of the CBA and to terminate their employment pursuant thereto.
DEAD POOL
After two months of management inaction on the request, respondent Union informed
petitioner BPI of its decision to refer the issue of the implementation of the Union Shop
Clause of the CBA to the Grievance Committee. However, the issue remained
unresolved at this level and so it was subsequently submitted for voluntary arbitration by
the parties.
Ruling of the Lower Courts:
Voluntary Arbitrator: ruled in favor of petitioner BPI's interpretation that the former FEBTC
employees were not covered by the Union Security Clause of the CBA between the
Union and the Bank on the ground that the said employees were not new employees
who were hired and subsequently regularized, but were absorbed employees "by
operation of law" because the "former employees of FEBTC can be considered assets
and liabilities of the absorbed corporation." The Voluntary Arbitrator concluded that the
former FEBTC employees could not be compelled to join the Union, as it was their
constitutional right to join or not to join any organization.
Court of Appeals: CA reversed the VA’s decision. This Court agrees with the voluntary
arbitrator that the ABSORBED employees are distinct and different from NEW employees
BUT only in so far as their employment service is concerned. The distinction ends
there. In the case at bar, the absorbed employees' length of service from its former
employer is tacked with their employment with BPI. Otherwise stated, the absorbed
employees service is continuous and there is no gap in their service record. Further, the
voluntary arbitrator's interpretation of the provisions of the CBA concerning the
coverage of the "union-shop" clause is at war with the spirit and the rationale why the
Labor Code itself allows the existence of such provision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the former FEBTC employees that were absorbed by petitioner
upon the merger between FEBTC and BPI should be covered by the Union Shop Clause
found in the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent Union. YES
RULING:
"Union security" is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop,"
"union shop," "maintenance of membership" or any other form of agreement which
imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a
condition affecting employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees
are required to join the union within a certain period for their continued
employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are
union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment
until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is
terminated. A closed-shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise in
which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their
representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of
the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement,
remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the
30
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
employees in interest are a part. It is the policy of the State to promote unionism to
enable the workers to negotiate with management on the same level and with more
persuasiveness than if they were to individually and independently bargain for the
improvement of their respective conditions.
All employees in the bargaining unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA with
management are subject to its terms. However, under law and jurisprudence, the
following kinds of employees are exempted from its coverage, namely,
1. employees who at the time the union shop agreement takes effect are bona
fide members of a religious organization which prohibits its members from
joining labor unions on religious grounds;
2. employees already in the service and already members of a union other than
the majority at the time the union shop agreement took effect;
3. confidential employees who are excluded from the rank and file bargaining
unit;
4. employees excluded from the union shop by express terms of the agreement.
When certain employees are obliged to join a particular union as a requisite for
continued employment, as in the case of Union Security Clauses, this condition is a valid
restriction of the freedom or right not to join any labor organization because it is in favor
of unionism. This Court, on occasion, has even held that a union security clause in a
CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Moreover, a closed shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds
himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain
members in good standing to keep their jobs. It is "the most prized achievement of
unionism." It adds membership and compulsory dues. By holding out to loyal members
a promise of employment in the closed shop, it wields group solidarity.[25]
Indeed, the situation of the former FEBTC employees in this case clearly does not fall
within the first three exceptions to the application of the Union Shop Clause discussed
earlier. No allegation or evidence of religious exemption or prior membership in another
union or engagement as a confidential employee was presented by both parties. The
sole category therefore in which petitioner may prove its claim is the fourth recognized
exception or whether the former FEBTC employees are excluded by the express terms of
the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent. As can be gleaned from the
existing CBA between the petitioner and respondent, there is no express term that
excludes the absorbed FEBTC Employees from being covered by a Union Shop Clause in
aforementioned CBA with the BPI management and be subjected to its terms.
The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA, even if they
impinge upon the individual employee's right or freedom of association, is not to protect
the union for the union's sake. Laws and jurisprudence promote unionism and afford
certain protections to the certified bargaining agent in a unionized company because
a strong and effective union presumably benefits all employees in the bargaining
unit since such a union would be in a better position to demand improved benefits and
DEAD POOL
conditions of work from the employer. This is the rationale behind the State policy to
promote unionism declared in the Constitution.
In the case at bar, since the former FEBTC employees are deemed covered by the
Union Shop Clause, they are required to join the certified bargaining agent, which
supposedly has gathered the support of the majority of workers within the bargaining
unit in the appropriate certification proceeding. Their joining the certified union would,
in fact, be in the best interests of the former FEBTC employees for it unites their interests
with the majority of employees in the bargaining unit. It encourages employee solidarity
and affords sufficient protection to the majority status of the union during the life of the
CBA which are the precisely the objectives of union security clauses, such as the Union
Shop Clause involved herein. We are indeed not being called to balance the interests
of individual employees as against the State policy of promoting unionism, since the
employees, who were parties in the court below, no longer contested the adverse
Court of Appeals' decision.
In sum, this Court finds it reasonable and just to conclude that the Union Shop Clause of
the CBA covers the former FEBTC employees who were hired/employed by BPI during
the effectivity of the CBA in a manner which petitioner describes as "absorption." A
contrary appreciation of the facts of this case would, undoubtedly, lead to an
inequitable and very volatile labor situation which this Court has consistently ruled
against.
In the case of former FEBTC employees who initially joined the union but later withdrew
their membership, there is even greater reason for the union to request their dismissal
from the employer since the CBA also contained a Maintenance of Membership
Clause.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED, and the Decision dated
September 30, 2003 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, subject to the thirty (30) day
notice requirement imposed herein. Former FEBTC employees who opt not to become
union members but who qualify for retirement shall receive their retirement benefits in
accordance with law, the applicable retirement plan, or the CBA, as the case may be.
DISSENTING OPINION 2010
CARPIO, J
BPI, independently of the absorbed FEBTC employees, has the right to challenge the
constitutionality of the union shop clause as applied to the absorbed FEBTC employees
because BPI is being compelled, against its best interests, to terminate their employment
if they do not join the Union. Besides, this Court cannot adopt as part of its jurisprudence
a practice that clearly violates a fundamental constitutional right just because the
aggrieved employees gave up the fight to protect such right. The Constitution
guarantees the fundamental right of all workers to “self-organization.” The right to “self-
organization” is a species of the broader constitutional right of the people “to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law,” which right “shall not
be abridged.”
31
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
The right of workers to self - organization means that workers themselves voluntarily
organize, without compulsion from outside forces. “Self-organization” means voluntary
association without compulsion, threat of punishment, or threat of loss of livelihood.
Workers who “self-organize” are workers who on their own volition freely and voluntarily
form or join a union. Compulsory membership is anathema to “selforganization.” The
right to self-organize includes the right not to exercise such right. Freedom to associate
necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. Thus, freedom to join unions
necessarily includes the freedom not to join unions.
To further strengthen the powers of a union, the State has allowed the inclusion of union
security clauses, including a “union shop” (the type of union security clause involved in
this case), in collective bargaining agreements (CBA). In a “union shop,” employees
who are not union members at the time of signing of the contract need not join the
union, but all workers hired thereafter must join—non-members may be hired, but to
retain employment must become union members after a certain period; In a “closed
shop,” only union members can be hired by the company and they must remain union
members to retain employment in the company; A closed shop is so harsh that it must
be strictly construed and that doubts must be resolved against it.
It is this Court's solemn duty to implement the State policy of promoting unionism.
However, this duty cannot be done at the expense of a fundamental constitutional right
of a worker. We cannot exalt union rights over and above the freedom and right of
employees to join or not to join a union.
20.b. BPI v. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION (2011 RESOLUTION)
G.R. No. 164301 October 19, 2011 - Diocales
Petitioner: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
Respondents: BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI
UNIBANK
Employer BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
Former employees of the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)
"absorbed" by BPI / BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-
Employee/Union FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK
Labor Issue Right to Self-Organization – Union Shop Clause
DOCTRINE: It is more in keeping with the dictates of social justice and the State policy of
according full protection to labor to deem employment contracts as automatically
assumed by the surviving corporation in a merger, without break in the continuity of their
employment, and even in the absence of an express stipulation in the articles of merger
or the merger plan.
A contrary interpretation of the Union Shop Clause would dilute its efficacy and put the
certified union that is supposedly being protected thereby at the mercy of
management.
DEAD POOL
FACTS:
 Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) moves for reconsideration of the
Decision dated August 10, 2010, holding that former employees of the Far East
Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) "absorbed" by BPI pursuant to the two banks’
merger in 2000 were covered by the Union Shop Clause in the then existing
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of BPI with respondent BPI Employees
Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (the Union).
 Needless to state, BPI refused to accede to the Union’s request. Although BPI
won the initial battle at the Voluntary Arbitrator level, BPI’s position was
rejected by the Court of Appeals which ruled that the Voluntary Arbitrator’s
interpretation of the Union Shop Clause was at war with the spirit and rationale
why the Labor Code allows the existence of such provision. On review with the
Court, the court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and disposed of the case
 Notwithstanding the affirmation of the applicability of the Union Shop Clause
to former FEBTC employees, for reasons already extensively discussed in the
August 10, 2010 Decision, even now BPI continues to protest the inclusion of
said employees in the Union Shop Clause.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTIONS:
 Petitioner insists that the parties to the CBA clearly intended to limit the
application of the Union Shop Clause only to new employees who were hired
as non-regular employees but later attained regular status at some point after
hiring. FEBTC employees cannot be considered new employees as BPI merely
stepped into the shoes of FEBTC as an employer purely as a consequence of
the merger.
 Petitioner contends that the absorbed FEBTC employees should be considered
"a sui generis group of employees whose classification will not be duplicated
until BPI has another merger where it would be the surviving corporation."
 Petitioner propounds that the Union Shop Clause should be strictly construed
since it purportedly curtails the right of the absorbed employees to abstain
from joining labor organizations.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTIONS:
 The Union, in turn, adverts to the discussion in the August 10, 2010 Decision
regarding the voluntary nature of the merger between BPI and FEBTC, the lack
of an express stipulation in the Articles of Merger regarding the transfer of
employment contracts to the surviving corporation, and the consensual nature
of employment contracts as valid bases for the conclusion that former FEBTC
employees should be deemed new employees.
 The Union argues that the creation of employment relations between former
FEBTC employees and BPI (i.e., BPI’s selection and engagement of former
FEBTC employees, its payment of their wages, power of dismissal and of control
32
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
over the employees’ conduct) occurred after the merger, or to be more
precise, after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approval of the
merger.
While most of the arguments offered by BPI have already been thoroughly addressed in
the August 10, 2010 Decision, the court finds that a qualification of the ruling is in order
only with respect to the interpretation of the provisions of the Articles of Merger and its
implications on the former FEBTC employees’ security of tenure.
ISSUE: Whether or not the "absorbed" FEBTC employees fell within the definition of "new
employees" under the Union Shop Clause, such that they may be required to join
respondent union and if they fail to do so, the Union may request BPI to terminate their
employment - YES
RULING:
The absorbed FEBTC employees are covered by the Union Shop Clause.
The court agreed with Justice Brion's view that it is more in keeping with the dictates of
social justice and the State policy of according full protection to labor to deem
employment contracts as automatically assumed by the surviving corporation in a
merger, without break in the continuity of their employment, and even in the absence
of an express stipulation in the articles of merger or the merger plan.
By upholding the automatic assumption of the non-surviving corporations existing
employment contracts by the surviving corporation in a merger, the Court strengthens
judicial protection of the right to security of tenure of employees affected by a merger
and avoid confusion regarding the status of their various benefits. However, it shall be
noted that nothing in the Resolution shall impair the right of an employer to terminate
the employment of the absorbed employees for a lawful or authorized cause or the
right of such an employee to resign, retire or otherwise sever his employment, whether
before or after the merger, subject to existing contractual obligations.
Although by virtue of the merger BPI steps into the shoes of FEBTC as a successor
employer as if the former had been the employer of the latter’s employees from the
beginning it must be emphasized that, in reality, the legal consequences of the merger
only occur at a specific date, i.e., upon its effectivity which is the date of approval of
the merger by the SEC. Thus, the court observed in the Decision that BPI and FEBTC
stipulated in the Articles of Merger that they will both continue their respective business
operations until the SEC issues the certificate of merger and in the event no such
certificate is issued, they shall hold each other blameless for the non-consummation of
the merger.
From the plain, ordinary meaning of the terms of the Union Shop Clause, it covers
employees who (a) enter the employ of BPI during the term of the CBA; (b) are part of
the bargaining unit (defined in the CBA as comprised of BPI’s rank and file employees);
and (c) become regular employees without distinguishing as to the manner they
acquire their regular status. Consequently, the number of such employees may
DEAD POOL
adversely affect the majority status of the Union and even its existence itself, as already
amply explained in the Decision.
Indeed, there are differences between (a) new employees who are hired as
probationary or temporary but later regularized, and (b) new employees who, by virtue
of a merger, are absorbed from another company as regular and permanent from the
beginning of their employment with the surviving corporation. It bears reiterating here
that these differences are too insubstantial to warrant the exclusion of the absorbed
employees from the application of the Union Shop Clause.
Again, it is worthwhile to highlight that a contrary interpretation of the Union Shop
Clause would dilute its efficacy and put the certified union that is supposedly being
protected thereby at the mercy of management. For if the former FEBTC employees
had no say in the merger of its former employer with another bank, as petitioner BPI
repeatedly decries on their behalf, the Union likewise could not prevent BPI from
proceeding with the merger which undisputedly affected the number of employees in
the bargaining unit that the Union represents and may negatively impact on the Union’s
majority status. In this instance, we should be guided by the principle that courts must
place a practical and realistic construction upon a CBA, giving due consideration to
the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Decision dated
August 10, 2010 is AFFIRMED, subject to the qualifications that:
(a) Petitioner is deemed to have assumed the employment contracts of the Far East
Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) employees upon effectivity of the merger without
break in the continuity of their employment, even without express stipulation in the
Articles of Merger; and
(b) Aside from the thirty (30) days, counted from notice of finality of the August 10, 2010
Decision, given to former FEBTC employees to join the respondent, said employees shall
be accorded full procedural due process before their employment may be terminated.
SO ORDERED.
21. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION V. ERNESTO CASIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 149552, March 10, 2010 – Elmido
Petitioner: GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
Respondents: ERNESTO CASIO, ET AL.
Employer General Milling Corporation
Employee/Union Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) – Local 31 Chapter
Labor Issue Enforcement of union security clause to terminate employment
33
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
DOCTRINE: In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union
security clause, the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union
security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union
security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision
of the union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause
for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.
FACTS:
 The labor union Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM)-Local 31 Chapter (Local
31) was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees
of GMC in Lapu-Lapu City.
 On November 30, 1991, IBM-Local 31, through its officers and board members,
entered into a CBA with GMC. The effectivity of the said CBA was retroactive to
August 1, 1991.
 The CBA contained the following union security provisions:
“Section 3. MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP – All
employees/workers employed by the Company with the
exception of those who are specifically excluded by law and by
the terms of this Agreement must be members in good standing
of the Union within thirty (30) days upon the signing of this
agreement and shall maintain such membership in good
standing thereof as a condition of their employment or continued
employment.
Section 6. The Company, upon written request of the Union, shall
terminate the services of any employee/worker who fails to fulfill
the conditions set forth in Sections 3 and 4 thereof, subject
however, to the provisions of the Labor Laws of the Philippines
and their Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Union shall
absolve the Company from any and all liabilities, pecuniary or
otherwise, and responsibilities to any employee or worker who is
dismissed or terminated in pursuant thereof.”
 Casio, et al. were regular employees of GMC. Casio was elected IBM-Local 31
President for a three-year term in June 1991, while his co-respondents were union
shop stewards.
 In a letter, Rodolfo Gabiana, the IBM Regional Director for Visayas and
Mindanao, furnished Casio, et al. with copies of the Affidavits of GMC
employees Basilio Inoc and Juan Potot, charging Casio, et al. with "acts inimical
to the interest of the union."
 Subsequently, the officers and members of the IBM-Local 31 issued a Resolution
expelling Casio, et al. from the union.
 Gabiana inquired from Cabahug (GMC Vice-President for Engineering and Plant
Administration) why Casio, et al. were still employed with GMC despite the
request of IBM-Local 31 that Casio, et al. be immediately dismissed from service
pursuant to the closed shop provision in the existing CBA.
DEAD POOL
 GMC issued a Memorandum dated March 24, 1992 terminating the employment
of Casio, et al. effective April 24, 1992 and placing the latter under preventive
suspension for the meantime.
 Casio, et al., in the name of IBM-Local 31, filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB-
Regional Office No. VII (NCMB-RO). Casio, et al. alleged as bases for the strike
the illegal dismissal of union officers and members, discrimination, coercion, and
union busting.
 Casio, et al. next sought recourse from the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch VII
by filing a Complaint against GMC and Pino, et al. for unfair labor practice,
particularly, the termination of legitimate union officers, illegal suspension, illegal
dismissal, and moral and exemplary damages.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
LA: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction but endorsed it to NCMB-RO.
NCMB-RO: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but granted separation pay to
Casio, et al. The Voluntary Arbitration Award presented the following findings:
1. The termination by GMC of the employment of Casio, et al. was in valid
compliance with the closed shop provision in the CBA;
2. GMC had no competence to determine the good standing of a union member;
3. Casio, et al. waived their right to due process when they refused to receive
Gabiana's letter which required them to submit their answer to the charges;
4. The IBM-Local 31 Resolution expelling Casio, et al. as union members, also
automatically ousted them as union officers.
CA: Set aside the Voluntary Arbitration Award. While the dismissal of Casio, et al., was
made pursuant to a valid closed shop provision, the company failed to observe the
elementary rules of due process in implementing the said dismissal.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
 Before IBP-Local 31 expelled Casio, et al. from the union and requested GMC to
dismiss Casio, et al. from service pursuant to the closed shop provision in the
CBA, IBP-Local 31 already accorded Casio, et al. due process, only that
Casio, et al. refused to avail themselves of such opportunity.
 Casio, et al. were expelled by IBP-Local 31 for "acts inimical to the interest of the
union," and GMC had no authority to inquire into or rule on which employee-
member is or is not loyal to the union, this being an internal affair of the union.
RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS:
 GMC itself, as the employer, should have held proceedings distinct and
separate from those conducted by IBM-Local 31 to accord respondents due
process.
 GMC cannot justify its failure to conduct its own inquiry using the argument that
such proceedings would constitute an intrusion by the company into the internal
affairs of the union.
34
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Casio, et al were legally terminated by the
enforcement of the union security clause – NO.
RULING: "Union security" is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends "closed
shop," "union shop," "maintenance of membership," or any other form of agreement
which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership
as a condition affecting employment. There is union shop when all new regular
employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their
continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees,
who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter
become members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued
employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the
agreement is terminated.
A closed shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise in which, by
agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no
person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless
he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in
good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are
a part.
Union security clauses are recognized and explicitly allowed under Article 248(e) of the
Labor Code, which provides that:
“Art. 248. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. x x x
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms
and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any
other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment,
except those employees who are already members of another union at
the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement.”
In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause,
the employer needs only to determine and prove that:
1. The union security clause is applicable;
2. The union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the
CBA; and
3. There is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the
employee from the union.
In the present case, the CBA between GMC and IBM-Local 31 included a maintenance
of membership and closed shop clause as can be gleaned from Sections 3 and 6 of
Article II. IBM-Local 31, by written request, can ask GMC to terminate the employment of
the employee/worker who failed to maintain its good standing as a union member.
Here, the IBM-Local 31, through Gabiana, the IBM Regional Director for Visayas and
DEAD POOL
Mindanao, twice requested GMC to terminate the employment of Casio, et al. as a
necessary consequence of their expulsion from the union.
It is the third requisite - that there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of IBM-
Local 31 to expel Casio, et al. - which appears to be lacking in this case.
It is apparent from the aforequoted letter that GMC terminated the employment of
Casio, et al. relying upon the Resolution expelling Casio, et al. from IBM-Local 31;
Gabiana's letters demanding that GMC terminate the employment of Casio, et al. on
the basis of the closed shop clause in the CBA; and the threat of being sued by IBM-
Local 31 for unfair labor practice. The letter made no mention at all of the evidence
supporting the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel Casio, et al. from the union. GMC never
alleged nor attempted to prove that the company actually looked into the evidence of
IBM-Local 31 for expelling Casio, et al. and made a determination on the sufficiency
thereof. Without such a determination, GMC cannot claim that it had terminated the
employment of Casio, et al. for just cause.
The failure of GMC to make a determination of the sufficiency of evidence supporting
the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel Casio, et al. is a direct consequence of the non-
observance by GMC of procedural due process in the dismissal of employees.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision of
the Court of Appeals dated March 30, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 40280 is AFFIRMED.
22. PICOP Resources v. Taneca
G.R. No. 160828, August 9, 2010 - Gutierrez
Employer PICOP Resources
Employee/Union Taneca
Labor Issue Validity of termination based on Union Security Clause
DOCTRINE: The mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for
Certification Election of FFW before the "freedom period," is not sufficient ground to
terminate the employment of respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually
filed during the freedom period. Nothing in the records would show that respondents
failed to maintain their membership in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not
resign or withdraw their membership from the Union to which they belong. Respondents
continued to pay their union dues and never joined the FFW.
35
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
FACTS:
1. Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona
fide members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo saPRI Southern Philippines
Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the collective bargaining agent
for the rank-and-file employees of petitioner PRI.
2. PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with NAMAPRI-SPFL for a
period of five (5) years from May 22, 1995 until May 22, 2000 which provides the
ff provisions:
6.1 All employees within the appropriate bargaining unit who are members of
the UNION at the time of the signing of this AGREEMENT shall, as a condition of
continued employment by the COMPANY, maintain their membership in the
UNION in good standing during the effectivity of this AGREEMENT.
6.2 Any employee who may hereinafter be employed to occupy a position
covered by the bargaining unit shall be advised by the COMPANY that they
are required to file an application for membership with the UNION within thirty
(30) days from the date his appointment shall have been made regular.
6.3 The COMPANY, upon the written request of the UNION and after
compliance with the requirements of the New Labor Code, shall give notice of
termination of services of any employee who shall fail to fulfill the condition
provided in Section 6.1 and 6.2 of this Article.
3. The Union sent a letter to the management of PRI demanding the termination
of employees who allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the
Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW)
during the effectivity of the CBA. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of
campaigning for and signing the petition for certification election of FFW as an
act of disloyalty and a valid basis for termination for a cause in accordance
with its Constitution and By-Laws, and the terms and conditions of the CBA,
specifically Article II, Sections 6.1 and 6.2 on Union Security Clause.
4. The management of PRI investigated those union members who signed the
Petition for Certification Election of FFW during the existence of their CBA.
NAMAPRI-SPFL, likewise, furnished PRI with authorization letters.
5. NTEs were issued and explanations were submitted in compliance therewith.
6. PRI then served notices of termination for causes to the employees whom
NAMAPRIL-SPFL sought to be terminated on the ground of "acts of disloyalty"
committed against it when respondents allegedly supported and signed the
Petition for Certification Election of FFW before the "freedom period" during the
effectivity of the CBA.
7. Respondents filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and
money claims against petitioner PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI).
Respondents’ Contention/s:
DEAD POOL
Respondents alleged that none of them ever withdrew their membership from
NAMAPRI-SPFL or submitted to PRI any union dues and check-off disauthorizations
against NAMAPRI-SPFL. They claimed that they continue to remain on record as bona
fide members of NAMAPRI-SPFL. They pointed out that a patent manifestation of one’s
disloyalty would have been the explicit resignation or withdrawal of membership from
the Union accompanied by an advice to management to discontinue union dues and
check-off deductions. They insisted that mere affixation of signature on such
authorization to file a petition for certification election was not per se an act of
disloyalty. They claimed that while it may be true that they signed the said authorization
before the start of the freedom period, the petition of FFW was only filed with the DOLE
on May 18, 2000, or 58 days after the start of the freedom period.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE TERMINATION IS VALID BASED ON THE UNION SECURITY CLAUSE - NO
RULING:
"Union security" is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop,"
"union shop," "maintenance of membership," or any other form of agreement which
imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a
condition affecting employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees
are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their continued
employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are
union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment
until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the agreement is
terminated. A closed shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise in
which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their
representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of
the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement,
remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the
employees in interest are a part.15
However, in terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union
security clause, the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security
clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security
provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the
union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for
terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.
As to the first requisite, there is no question that the CBA between PRI and respondents
included a union security clause, specifically, a maintenance of membership as
36
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
stipulated in Sections 6 of Article II, Union Security and Check-Off. Following the same
provision, PRI, upon written request from the Union, can indeed terminate the
employment of the employee who failed to maintain its good standing as a union
member.
Secondly, it is likewise undisputed that NAMAPRI-SPFL, in two (2) occasions demanded
from PRI, in their letters dated May 16 and 23, 2000, to terminate the employment of
respondents due to their acts of disloyalty to the Union.
However, as to the third requisite, we find that there is no sufficient evidence to support
the decision of PRI to terminate the employment of the respondents.
PRI alleged that respondents were terminated from employment based on the alleged
acts of disloyalty they committed when they signed an authorization for the Federation
of Free Workers (FFW) to file a Petition for Certification Election among all rank-and-file
employees of PRI. It contends that the acts of respondents are a violation of the Union
Security Clause, as provided in their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for Certification Election of
FFW before the "freedom period," is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of
respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the freedom period.
Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership
in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not resign or withdraw their membership
from the Union to which they belong. Respondents continued to pay their union dues
and never joined the FFW.
Significantly, petitioner's act of dismissing respondents stemmed from the latter's act of
signing an authorization letter to file a petition for certification election as they signed it
outside the freedom period. However, we are constrained to believe that an
"authorization letter to file a petition for certification election" is different from an actual
"Petition for Certification Election."
Strictly speaking, what is prohibited is the filing of a petition for certification election
outside the 60-day freedom period.18 This is not the situation in this case. If at all, the
signing of the authorization to file a certification election was merely preparatory to the
filing of the petition for certification election, or an exercise of respondents’ right to self-
organization.
DEAD POOL
23. BENJAMIN VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE
ROPE FACTORY, INC., ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION
G.R. No. L-25246. September 12, 1974 – Horario
Employer Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc.
Employee Benjamin Victoriano
Labor Issue Union security clause
Doctrine: The "union security clause" embodied in its Collective Bargaining Agreement
with the Company, by virtue of which "membership in the union was required as a
condition for employment for all permanent employees workers". This agreement was
already in existence at the time Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted on June 18, 1961,
and it cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been incorporated into the agreement. But
by reason of this amendment, Appellee, as well as others similarly situated, could no
longer be dismissed from his job even if he should cease to be a member, or disaffiliate
from the Union, and the Company could continue employing him notwithstanding his
disaffiliation from the Union. The Act, therefore, introduced a change into the express
terms of the union security clause; the Company was partly absolved by law from the
contractual obligation it had with the Union of employing only Union members in
permanent positions, It cannot be denied, therefore, that there was indeed an
impairment of said union security clause.
Fact:
1. Victoriano was an employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. As such employee, he
was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union which had a closed shop
agreement with the Company that membership in the Union shall be required as a
condition of employment for all its permanent employees.
2.Prior to its amendment, Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act No. 875 allows the employer to
require as a condition of employment membership in a labor organization, if such
organization is the representative of the employees. However, the provision was later
amended by the enactment of Republic Act No. 3350, which reads: … “but such
agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of
their members in any such labor organization”.
3.Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any
labor organization, Victoriano presented his resignation to the Union. In turn, the Union
asked the Company to dismiss Victoriano from the service in view of the fact that he
was resigning from the Union as a member. This prompted Victoriano to file an action to
enjoin the Company and the Union from dismissing him. The Union assails the
constitutionality of RA No. 3350, contending that it infringes on the fundamental right to
form lawful associations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Issue: Whether there is violation of union security clause ? NO
37
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Ruling + Ratio:
Appellant Union also contends that the Act is unconstitutional for impairing the
obligation of its contract, specifically, the "union security clause" embodied in its
Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Company, by virtue of which "membership in
the union was required as a condition for employment for all permanent employees
workers". This agreement was already in existence at the time Republic Act No. 3350
was enacted on June 18, 1961, and it cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been
incorporated into the agreement. But by reason of this amendment, Appellee, as well
as others similarly situated, could no longer be dismissed from his job even if he should
cease to be a member, or disaffiliate from the Union, and the Company could continue
employing him notwithstanding his disaffiliation from the Union. The Act, therefore,
introduced a change into the express terms of the union security clause; the Company
was partly absolved by law from the contractual obligation it had with the Union of
employing only Union members in permanent positions, It cannot be denied, therefore,
that there was indeed an impairment of said union security clause.
According to Black, any statute which introduces a change into the express terms
of the contract, or its legal construction, or its validity, or its discharge, or the remedy for
its enforcement, impairs the contract. The extent of the change is not material. It is not a
question of degree or manner or cause, but of encroaching in any respect on its
obligation or dispensing with any part of its force. There is an impairment of the contract
if either party is absolved by law from its performance. Impairment has also been
predicated on laws which, without destroying contracts, derogate from substantial
contractual rights.
In order to determine whether legislation unconstitutionally impairs contract
obligations, no unchanging yardstick, applicable at all times and under all
circumstances, by which the validity of each statute may be measured or determined,
has been fashioned, but every case must be determined upon its own circumstances.
Legislation impairing the obligation of contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for
the promotion of the general good of the people, and when the means adopted to
secure that end are reasonable. Both the end sought and the means adopted must be
legitimate, i.e., within the scope of the reserved power of the state construed in
harmony with the constitutional limitation of that power.
It cannot be denied, furthermore, that the means adopted by the Act to achieve
that purpose — exempting the members of said religious sects from coverage of union
security agreements — is reasonable.
It may not be amiss to point out here that the free exercise of religious profession or
belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must, therefore, yield to
the former. The Supreme Court of the United States has also declared on several
occasions that the rights in the First Amendment, which include freedom of religion,
enjoy a preferred position in the constitutional system. 33 Religious freedom, although
not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred position in
the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must yield to freedom of religion. It
is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the
security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be
justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.
“RA No. 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of the
closed shop agreement the employees belonging to any religious sects which prohibit
DEAD POOL
affiliation of their members with any labor organization. What the exception provides,
therefore, is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to
join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the
employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects
cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they
are not members of the collective bargaining union. It is clear, therefore, that the
assailed Act, far from infringing the constitutional provision on freedom of association,
upholds and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from
affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty and the power to
affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the
members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If
in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the
law does not coerce them to join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and
neither may the employer or labor union compel them to join. Republic Act No. 3350,
therefore, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association.”
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed, and the decision, dated August 26,
1965, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 58894, appealed from is
affirmed, with costs against appellant Union. It is so ordered.
24. KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIVISION v. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 82914 June 20, 1988 – Landicho
Petitioner: Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division TUPAS Local Chapter No. 1027)
hereinafter referred to as "TUPAS,"
Respondent: Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations
DOCTRINE:
- Union Security Clause Labor Code: Art. 259 (e)
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the
parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining
agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are
already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective
bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are
not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed
a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of
the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members
accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that
the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this
Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent;
38
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
- the "recognition of the tenets of the sect ... should not infringe on the basic right
of self-organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of
religious affiliation."
- Med-Arbiter Abdullah: "certification election is the best forum in ascertaining
the majority status of the contending unions wherein the workers themselves
can freely choose their bargaining representative thru secret ballot." Since it
has not been shown that this order is tainted with unfairness, this Court will not
thwart the holding of a certification election.
FACTS:
- The petitioner, seeks a review of the resolution of public respondent Pura
Ferrer-Calleja, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, dismissing its appeal
from the Order of the Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah ordering a certification
election to be conducted among the regular daily paid rank and file
employees/workers of Universal Robina Corporation-Meat and Canning
Division to determine which of the contending unions:
a) Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division TUPAS Local Chapter No.
1027 (or "TUPAS" for brevity);
b) Meat and Canning Division New Employees and Workers United
Labor Organization (or "NEW ULO" for brevity);
c) No union.
shall be the bargaining unit of the daily wage rank and file employees in the Meat and
Canning Division of the company.
- From 1984 to 1987 TUPAS was the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the workers in the Meat and Canning Division of the Universal
Robina Corporation, with a 3-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Within the freedom period of 60 days prior to the expiration of its CBA, TUPAS
filed an amended notice of strike on September 28, 1987 as a means of
pressuring the company to extend, renew, or negotiate a new CBA with it.
- On October 8, 1987, the NEW ULO, composed mostly of workers belonging to
the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect, registered as a labor union.
- On October 12, 1987, the TUPAS staged a strike. ROBINA obtained an
injunction against the strike, resulting in an agreement to return to work and for
the parties to negotiate a new CBA.
- The next day, October 13, 1987, NEW ULO, claiming that it has "the majority of
the daily wage rank and file employees numbering 191," filed a petition for a
certification election at the Bureau of Labor Relations (Annex A).
- TUPAS moved to dismiss the petition for being defective in form and that the
members of the NEW ULO were mostly members of the Iglesia ni Kristo sect
which three (3) years previous refused to affiliate with any labor union. It also
accused the company of using the NEW ULO to defeat TUPAS' bargaining
rights.
- Med-Arbiter: ordered the holding of a certification election
- TUPAS appealed to BLR. BLR Director Calleja dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE:
DEAD POOL
WON petition the public respondent acted in excess of her jurisdiction and with
grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order for a certification election.
NO.
HELD:
- The public respondent did not err in dismissing the petitioner's appeal in BLR
Case No. A-12-389-87. This Court's decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54, upholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI
KRISTO sect NOT to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious
beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union.
- The fact that TUPAS was able to negotiate a new CBA with ROBINA within the
60-day freedom period of the existing CBA, does not foreclose the right of the
rival union, NEW ULO, to challenge TUPAS' claim to majority status, by filing a
timely petition for certification election on October 13, 1987 before TUPAS' old
CBA expired on November 15, 1987 and before it signed a new CBA with the
company on December 3, 1987.
- As pointed out by Med-Arbiter Abdullah, a "certification election is the best
forum in ascertaining the majority status of the contending unions wherein the
workers themselves can freely choose their bargaining representative thru
secret ballot." Since it has not been shown that this order is tainted with
unfairness, this Court will not thwart the holding of a certification election
(Associated Trade Unions [ATU] vs. Noriel, 88 SCRA 96).
DISPO: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied, with costs against the petitioner.
25. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA– LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG
KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA–LIKHA), vs. SAMMA CORPORATION
G.R. No. 167141. March 13, 2009 - Laqui
Petitioner: SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA– LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG
KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA–LIKHA)
Respondent: SAMMA CORPORATION
Employer: SAMMA CORPORATION
LO: SAMMA LIKHA
Labor Issue: Non forum shopping in Certification of Election; Legal
Personality of LO
39
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Doctrine: The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints,
counter- claims, cross-claims, petitions or applications where contending parties litigate
their respective positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant,
petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a
“petition,” is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact- finding
character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of misconduct
requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an inquisitorial nature. The Board’s functions are
not judicial in nature, but are merely of an investigative character. The object of the
proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs nor asserted
deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the
ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees in respect of the selection of a
bargaining representative. The determination of the proceedings does not entail the
entry of remedial orders to redress rights, but culminates solely in an official designation
of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees’ expressed choice of
bargaining agent.
Legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of certificate of registration.
FACTS: Petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001
in the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office IV. It claimed
that: (1) it was a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization
registered with the DOLE; (2) it sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of
respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate labor organization
representing these rank-and- file employees; (4) respondent was not a party to any
collective bargaining agreement and (5) no certification or consent election had been
conducted within the employer unit for the last 12 months prior to the filing of the
petition.
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation
failed to establish its legal personality; (2) petitioner failed to prove its existence as a
local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had
a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
Ruling of the Lower Court
Med-Arbiter: Med-arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco ordered the dismissal of the petition on the
following grounds: (1) lack of legal personality for failure to attach the certificate of
registration purporting to show its legal personality; (2) prohibited mixture of rank- and-
file and supervisory employees and (3) failure to submit a certificate of non-forum
shopping.
DEAD POOL
Regional Director of DOLE Regional Office IV forwarded the case to the Secretary of
Labor.
On December 14, 2002, respondent Corporation filed a petition for cancellation of
petitioner’s union registration in the DOLE Regional Office.
SecofLabor: Acting Secretary Manuel G. Imson, treating the motion for reconsideration
as an appeal, rendered a decision reversing the order of the med- arbiter. He ruled that
the legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked but may only be
questioned in an independent petition for cancellation of registration. Thus, he directed
the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of
respondent, subject to the usual pre-election conference and inclusion-exclusion
proceedings.
Crispin D. Dannug, Jr., Officer-in-Charge/Regional Director of DOLE Regional Office IV,
issued a resolution revoking the charter certificate of petitioner as local chapter of LIKHA
Federation on the ground of prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees and non- compliance with the attestation clause under paragraph 2 of
Article 235 of the Labor Code.
CA: CA reversed the decision and April 3, 2003 resolution of the Secretary of Labor. It
held that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 which required the filing of a certificate of
non-forum shopping applied to petitions for certification election. It also ruled that the
Secretary of Labor erred in granting the appeal despite the lack of proof of service on
respondent. Lastly, it found that petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for
certification election because its members were a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a petition for
certification election?
(2) Whether petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification
election?
RULING:
1. No, Requirement of Certificate Of Non-Forum Shopping Is Not Required in a Petition
For Certification Election.
The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints, counter-
claims, cross-claims, petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their
respective positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant,
40
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a
“petition,” is not a litigation but an investigation of a non- adversarial and fact-finding
character. The same situation holds true for a petition for certification election. Under
the omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code as amended by D.O. No. 9, it is
supposed to be filed in the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal
office of the employer or where the bargaining unit is principally situated. The rules
further provide that where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are
filed in one Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated. Hence, the
filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely happen in this
proceeding and, if it does, will be easy to discover. Under the Labor Code and the rules
pertaining to the form of the petition for certification election, there is no requirement for
a certificate of non-forum shopping either in D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 or in D.O. No. 40-
03, series of 2003 which replaced the former.
Considering the nature of a petition for certification election and the rules governing it,
The SC therefore hold that the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is
inapplicable to such a petition.
2. YES, The erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file
employees was not a ground to impugn its legitimacy as a legitimate labor organization
which had the right to file a petition for certification election.
LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under certificate of registration no.
92-1015-032-11638- FED-LC. Subsequently, petitioner as its local chapter was issued its
charter certificate no. 2-01. With certificates of registration issued in their favor, they are
clothed with legal personality as legitimate labor organizations. Such legal personality
cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation of certificate of registration. Unless petitioner’s
union registration is cancelled in independent proceedings, it shall continue to have all
the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to petition for
certification election.
Furthermore, the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on
the lack of legal personality of a labor organization are the following: (a) petitioner is not
listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate
labor organizations or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with
finality in accordance with the rules.
Respondent, as employer, had been the one opposing the holding of a certification
election among its rank-and-file employees. This should not be the case. We have
already declared that, in certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no
right or material interest to assail the certification election.
DEAD POOL
DISPOSITION:WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Let the records of the case
be remanded to the office of origin, the Regional Office IV of the Department of Labor
and Employment, for determination of the status of petitioner’s legal personality. If
petitioner is still a legitimate labor organization, then said office shall conduct a
certification election subject to the usual pre-election conference.
26. MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2019 – Lucion
Petitioner/Employer Mariwasa Siam Ceramics
Respondent/Union Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.
Labor Issue: Cancellation of Registration; Denied
Doctrine: For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must
be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
Facts:
On May 4, 2005, respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a
legitimate labor organization by the DOLE, Region IV-A.
On June 14, 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petitioner for
Cancellation of union Registration against respondent, claiming that the latter violated
Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement, and that it
committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same
code.
Petitioner contention: Respondent failed to comply with the 20% union membership
requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization because of the
disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees who executed
affidavits recanting their union membership.
RD of DOLE IV-A – issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the registration of
respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.
BLR – reversed
CA – affirmed decision of the BLR
Issue: Whether or not CA erred in ruling that the private respondent union complied with
the 20% membership requirement
Held: No. the legitimacy of respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed.
41
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
While it is true that the withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation from
the union, the fact remains that at the time of the union’s application for registration,
the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more than the required
20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union. Article 234 of the Labor
Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application for union
registration. It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum
membership requirement all throughout its existence.
The distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are
presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas
withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary.
In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities of the
union members became public, i.e., after the union filed a petition for certification
election on May 23, 2005, since the names of the members were attached to the
petition. The purported withdrawal of support for the registration of the union was made
after the documents were submitted to the DOLE, Region IV-A. The logical conclusion,
therefore, following jurisprudence, is that the employees were not totally free from the
employer’s pressure, and so the voluntariness of the employees’ execution of the
affidavits becomes suspect.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, 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, the 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.15
The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who participated
in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
respondent’s certificate of registration. The cancellation of a union’s registration
doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud
and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under the
Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have possibly
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged failure of
respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the total number of employees in
the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply with the 20%
minimum membership requirement. Even if the total number of rank-and-file employees
of petitioner is 528, while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot
be denied that the latter would have more than complied with the registration
requirement.
Fallo: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed December 20, 2007 Decision and
the June 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
27. HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN
HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES – SUPERVISORS CHAPTER
G.R. No. 178296, January 12, 2011 – Manzo
DEAD POOL
Petitioner: Heritage Hotel
Respondents: National Union
Employer Heritage Hotel
Employee/Union National Union – Supervisors Chapter
Labor Issue Cancellation of Union Registration
DOCTRINE: Failure to file financial reports and list of union members 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.
FACTS: Respondent-union filed a Petition for Certification Election which was granted by
the DOLE-NCR. Heritage Hotel later on discovered that the union failed to submit to the
Bureau of Labor Relations its (1) annual financial reports for several years and (2) the list
of its members since it filed its registration papers. On these grounds, Heritage Hotel filed
a Petition for Cancellation of Registration of the union. It also requested for the
suspension of the certification election proceedings.
Petitioner reiterated its request by filing a Motion to Dismiss or Suspend the CE
Proceedings arguing that the legitimacy of the respondent-union is seriously being
challenged and such question must first be resolved before the union should be allowed
to exercise rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to be certified as
the bargaining agent of the covered employees.
Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through and National Union emerged as
the winner.
Heritage then filed a Protest with Motion to Defer Certification Election Results and
Winner claiming that if respondent’s registration is cancelled, it would no longer be
entitled to be the certified bargaining agent of the hotel’s supervisory employees.
Heritage also alleges that some of the union’s members were not qualified to be
members because they were either confidential or managerial employees.
National Union filed its Answer claiming that the Hotel’s petition was filed to primarily
delay the conduct of the certification election to avoid the commencement of
bargaining negotiations. The Union prayed for the dismissal of the Hotel’s petition
because (a) Heritage is estopped from questioning the Union’s status because it
already recognized its legitimacy during the pre-election conferences, (b) petition is not
a party-in-interest as to the issue of non-submission of financial reports, (c) the union has
already complied with the reportorial requirements, and (d) the issue is already moot
and academic because certification elections have already been held and the
members have already manifested their will to be represented by the National Union.
(So there are two suits – the Protest and the Petition for Cancellation of Registration)
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
42
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
(Protest) Med-Arbiter: MA dismissed the Protest and certified National Union as the
SEBA of all supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel.
(Protest) DOLE: Heritage appealed the Order to the DOLE Secretary. SoLE dismissed
the appeal.
(Petition for Cancellation) DOLE-NCR: Regional Director denied the petition; his
reason being freedom of association and the right to self-organization are more
substantive considerations than the procedural grounds under which the union is
being challenged. Besides, the belated submission of the reportorial requirements
was deemed sufficient compliance.
(Petition for Cancellation) BLR: Heritage appealed to the BLR which dismissed the
appeal on the same reason as DOLE-NCR’s.
(Petition for Cancellation) CA: CA dismissed Heritage’s appeal, echoing the
decisions of DOLE-NCR and BLR. It held that the police power of the state should
not be used to work against the workers’ constitutionally protected right to self-
organization.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: The use of the word “shall” in Article 238 of the Labor Code
which state that the certificate of registration shall be cancelled if the labor
organization does not meet the prescribed requirements makes cancellation a
ministerial duty. Thus, the lower courts erred in dismissing the Cancellation Petition
despite the mandatory provisions of the Labor Code regarding reportorial requirements.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Petition for Cancellation of Registration was filed to
prevent collective bargaining. Also, it has already complied by submitting the required
documents.
ISSUE: W/N the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of filing financial reports
and the list of its members is sufficient ground for the cancellation of registration of the
respondent as a labor union. – NO.
RULING: The noncompliance should not be a ground for the cancellation.
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code provide that failure to file financial reports and
the list of its members are grounds for the cancellation of Union Organization. However,
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.
The union members should not be deprived of a bargaining agent merely because of
the negligence of union officers who were responsible for the late submission of the
documents to BLR.
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
DEAD POOL
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.
Furthermore, that the Labor Code’s provisions on cancellation of union registration and
on reportorial requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers’ Constitutional Right to Self-Organization,
Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known
as the Labor Code of the Philippines, which says that failure to file financial reports and
list of union members 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
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated
May 30, 2005 and Resolution dated June 4, 2007 are AFFIRMED.
28. LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED v. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG
LEGENDA
G.R. No. 169754, February 23, 2011 – Miguel
Petitioner: Legend International Resorts Limited
Respondents: Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda
Employer Legend International Resorts Limited
Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda
Employee/Union
Labor Issue Cancellation of Registration
DOCTRINE: A certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the
cancellation proceedings.
The legal personality of a union cannot be the subject of collateral attack in a petition
for certification election, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation of union registration
FACTS:
 KML filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition for Certification
Election. KML alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization of the rank and
file employees of Legend International Resorts Limited (LEGEND) and that it
was issued its certification of registration by DOLE
 LEGEND moved to dismiss the petition alleging that KML is not a legitimate
labor organization because its membership is a mixture of rank and file and
supervisory employees in violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code. LEGEND
also claimed that KML committed acts of fraud and misrepresentation when it
made it appear that certain employees attended its general membership
43
 LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
meeting on April 5, 2001 when in reality some of them were either at work;
have already resigned as of March 2001; or were abroad.
 KML argued that even if 41 of its members are indeed supervisory employees
and therefore excluded from its membership, the certification election could
still proceed because the required number of the total rank and file
employees necessary for certification purposes is still sustained. KML also
claimed that its legitimacy as a labor union could not be collaterally attacked
in the certification election proceedings but only through a separate and
independent action for cancellation of union registration.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
MED-ARBITER: Dismissed for lack of merit the petition for certification election. The Med-
Arbiter found that indeed there were several supervisory employees in KML's
membership. Since Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly prohibits supervisory
employees from joining the union of rank and file employees, the Med-Arbiter
concluded that KML is not a legitimate labor organization. KML was also found to have
fraudulently procured its registration certificate by misrepresenting that 70 employees
were among those who attended its organizational meeting.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DOLE: Granted KML’s appeal, reversing and setting aside
the decision of the Med-arbiter. Office of the Secretary of DOLE held that KML's
legitimacy as a union could not be collaterally attacked. It declared that any violation
of the provision of Article 245 does not ipso facto render the existence of the labor
organization illegal.
COURT OF APPEALS: The issue on the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has
already been settled with finality.
C organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: LEGEND posits that the cancellation of KML's certificate of
registration should retroact to the time of its issuance. It thus claims that the petition for
certification election and all of KML's activities should be nullified because it has no legal
personality to file the same, much less demand collective bargaining with LEGEND.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: KML insists that the Decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations upholding its legitimacy as a labor organization has already attained finality 25
hence there was no more hindrance to the holding of a certification election.
Moreover, it claims that the instant petition has become moot because the certification
election sought to be prevented had already been conducted.
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the Petition to cancel/revoke registration is a prejudicial
question to the petition for certification election? NO.
(2) Whether or not the legal personality of KML can be collaterally attacked? NO.
RULING:
(2) No. An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of
the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent
union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its
petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order
directing the cancellation.
DEAD POOL
That there is a pending cancellation proceedings against the respondent
Union is not a bar to set in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining. If a
certification election may still be ordered despite the pendency of a petition
to cancel the union's registration certificate . . . more so should the collective
bargaining process continue despite its pendency.
A certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the
cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for
certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal
personality to file the same. There is therefore no basis for LEGEND's assertion
that the cancellation of KML's certificate of registration should retroact to the
time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KML's activities, including
its filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to collectively
bargain.
(3) No. The legitimacy of the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally
attacked in a petition for certification election proceeding. This is in
consonance with our ruling in Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment that "such legal
personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a
separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it.
Section 5, Rule V of D.O. 9 is instructive on the matter. It provides that the
legal personality of a union cannot be the subject of collateral attack in a
petition for certification election, but may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation of union registration. What applies in this
case is the principle that once a union acquires a legitimate status as a labor
or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.
Equally important is Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule IX of D.O. 9, which
provides for the dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the
lack of legal personality of a labor organization only in the following instances:
(1) appellant is not listed by the Regional Office or the BLR in its registry of
legitimate labor organizations; or (2) appellant's legal personality has been
revoked or cancelled with finality. Since appellant is listed in the registry of
legitimate labor organizations, and its legitimacy has not been revoked or
cancelled with finality, the granting of its petition for certification election is
proper.
"[T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization . . . cannot be
subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. . . . The
Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed
registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its
certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union,
its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. In may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance
with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 18, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 72848
insofar as it affirms the May 22, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution of the
44
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Office of the Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment is AFFIRMED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it declares that the March 26, 2002 Decision
of the Bureau of Labor Relations in Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001 upholding that the
legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has long become final and executory for
failure of LEGEND to appeal the same, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
29. REPUBLIC v. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 160352. July 23, 2008- Montellano
Petitioner: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE)
Respondents: KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Employer Kawashima Textile Mfg. Phils., Inc.
Employee/Union Kawashima Free Workers Union (KFWU)
Mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a
Labor Issue union
DOCTRINE: The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds
for cancellation of union registration, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of
Article 239 of the Labor Code.
FACTS: KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election
to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rankand- file employees of
respondent.5 Attached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter6
issued on January 19, 2000 by DOLE Regional Office No. IV, stating that it [KFWU]
submitted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it by the national federation Phil.
Transport & General Workers Organization (PTGWO), and a Report of Creation of
Local/Chapter.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not
acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and
supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its
books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development
Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
Med-Arbiter: found KFWU’s legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for
certification election, Since petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and
supervisory employees, petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained the
status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the
supervisory employees from its membership before it can attain the status of a
legitimate labor organization.
DEAD POOL
DOLE: Reversed the ruling of the med-arbiter, While Article 245 declares supervisory
employees ineligible for membership in a labor organization for rank-and-file
employees, the provision did not state the effect of such prohibited membership on
the legitimacy of the labor organization and its right to file for certification election.
Neither was such mixed membership a ground for cancellation of its registration. It
noted that neither ground existed; on the contrary, KFWU’s legal personality was
well-established, for it held a certificate of creation and had been listed in the
registry of legitimate labor organizations.
CA: reversed the DOLE Decision, and ruled that since respondent union clearly
consists of both rank and file and supervisory employees, it cannot qualify as a
legitimate labor organization imbued with the requisite personality to file a petition
for certification election. This infirmity in union membership cannot be corrected in
the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during the pre-election conference.
Petitioner’s contention:
Respondent;s contention:
ISSUE: Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a
union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election in view of the
amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in
the old rule that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employee shall
not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards.
RULING: No.
If there is one constant precept in our labor laws, it is that only a legitimate labor
organization may exercise the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining. What has varied over the years has been the degree of enforcement of this
precept, as reflected in the shifting scope of administrative and judicial scrutiny of the
composition of a labor organization before it is allowed to exercise the right of
representation.
One area of contention has been the composition of the membership of a labor
organization, specifically whether there is a mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees and how such questioned mingling affects its legitimacy.
It was in R.A. No. 875, under Section 3, that such questioned mingling was first
prohibited,40 to wit:
“Sec. 3. Employees’ right to self-organization.—Employees shall have the right to self-
organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form
separate organizations of their own.” (Emphasis supplied)
Nothing in R.A. No. 875, however, tells of how the questioned mingling can affect the
legitimacy of the labor organization. Under Section 15, the only instance when a labor
organization loses its legitimacy is when it violates its duty to bargain collectively; but
there is no word on whether such mingling would also result in loss of legitimacy. Thus,
45
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
when the issue of whether the membership of two supervisory employees impairs the
legitimacy of a rank-and-file labor organization came before the Court En Banc in
Lopez v. Chronicle Publications Employees Association, the majority pronounced: the
absence of any provision on the effect of the disqualification of one of its organizers
upon the legality of the union, may be construed to confine the effect of such
ineligibility only upon the membership of the supervisor. In other words, the invalidity of
membership of one of the organizers does not make the union illegal, where the
requirements of the law for the organization thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and
met.”
Then the Labor Code was enacted in 1974 without reproducing Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875.
The provision in the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is Article 290,43 which is deafeningly
silent on the prohibition against supervisory employees mingling with rank-and-file
employees in one labor organization. Even the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
the Labor Code (Omnibus Rules) merely provides in Section 11, Rule II, thus: “xxx
Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial
employees shall become eligible to join or assist the rank and file organization. Xxx”
In 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order
No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under
Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules—that the petition for certification
election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been
mingled with supervisory employees—was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended
Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit
As enunciated in Tagaytay Highlands Int’l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO,after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise
all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between
supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy
for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling
was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of
the Labor Code.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The December 13, 2002 Decision
and October 7, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals and the May 17, 2000 Order of
Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, while the August 18, 2000
Decision and September 28, 2000 Resolution of the Department of Labor and
Employment are REINSTATED.
30. DHL PHILS. UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOCIATION v. BUKLOD NG
MANGAGAWA NG DHL PHIL
G.R. No. 152094. July 22, 2004 – Nitro
Petitioner: DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATIONUNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOCIATION-
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW)
Respondents: BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION
Employer DHL Phils Corp
BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES
Employee/Union CORPORATION
DEAD POOL
Labor Issue
DOCTRINE: False statements made by union officers before and during a certification
election -- that the union is independent and not affiliated with a national federation --
are material facts likely to influence the election results. This principle finds application
in the present case in which the majority of the employees clearly wanted an
independent union to represent them. Thus, after the members learned of the
misrepresentation, and after a majority of them disaffiliated themselves from the union
and formed another one, a new certification election should be held to enable them to
express their true will.
FACTS:
On November 25, 1997, a certification election was conducted among the regular rank
and file employees in the main office and the regional branches of DHL Philippines
Corporation. The contending choices were petitioner and no union.
On January 19, 1998, on the basis of the results of the certification election, with
petitioner receiving 546 votes and no union garnering 348 votes, the election officer
certified the former as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees of the corporation.5
Meanwhile, on December 19, 1997, Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL
Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the nullification of the
certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with committing fraud and
deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by misrepresenting to the voter-
employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their selection of petitioner in the
certification election. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it
had misled allegedly withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed
themselves into an independent union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a
Certificate of Registration by DOLE on December 23, 1997.
On May 18, 1998, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the November 25, 1997
certification election and ordered the holding of another one with the following
contending choices: petitioner, respondent, and no choice.
Setting aside the Decision of Med-Arbiter Falconitin, DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda
Dimapilis-Baldoz held on appeal that the issue of representation had already been
settled with finality in favor of petitioner, and that no petitions for certification election
would be entertained within one year from the time the election officer had issued the
Certification Order.
CA Ruling: The CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the members of
petitioner -- 704 out of 894 of them -- provided a compelling reason to conduct a
certification election anew in order to determine, once and for all, which union
46
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
reflected their choice. Under the circumstances, the issue of representation was not put
to rest by the mere issuance of a Certification Order by the election officer.
According to the appellate court, broader considerations should be accorded the
disaffiliating member-employees and a new election held to finally ascertain their will,
consistent with the constitutional and labor law policy of according full protection to
labors right to self-organization. The CA added that the best forum to determine the
veracity of the withdrawal or retraction of petitioners former members was another
certification election.
The appellate court also held that the election officers issuance of a Certification Order
on January 19, 1998 was precipitate because, prior thereto, respondent had filed with
the med-arbiter a Petition for nullification of the election. Furthermore, the Certification
was not in accordance with Department Order No. 9 (DO 9), Series of 1997. The charges
of fraud and deceit, lodged immediately after the election by petitioners former
members against their officers, should have been treated as protests or issues of
eligibility within the meaning of Section 13 of DO 9.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: Petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in rendering its
assailed Decision, considering that no protest or challenge had been formalized within
five days, or raised during the election proceedings and entered in the minutes thereof.
Petitioner adds that respondent did not file any protest, either, against the alleged fraud
and misrepresentation by the formers officers during the election.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION: is that a number of employees were lured by their officers
into believing that petitioner was an independent union. Since the employees had long
desired to have an independent union that would represent them in collective
bargaining, they voted yes in favor of petitioner. Having been misled, a majority of them
eventually disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an independent union,
respondent herein, which thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having
been formed just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest within five
days from the close of the election proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not the certification election is valid? – NO.
RULING:
We disagree. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondents
Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have
deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing
Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case.
Notably, after it had applied for registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR),
respondent filed its Petition to nullify the certification election. Petitioner insistently
opposed the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration
at the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of the latter four days after the
filing of the Petition, on December 23, 1997, the misgivings of the former were brushed
aside by the med-arbiter. Indeed, the fact that respondent was not yet a duly
DEAD POOL
registered labor organization when the Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any
fatal defect in its application for registration.
The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not sleep on their
rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the
period for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere technicalities
should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers.15 What is essential is
that they be accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor
organization shall act on their behalf.16 Having been denied this opportunity by the
betrayal committed by petitioners officers in the present case, the employees were
prevented from making an intelligent and independent choice.
The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the free choice
of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be set aside
for misstatements made during the campaign, where 1) a material fact has been
misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an opportunity for reply has been lacking; and 3)
the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees
participating in the election.17 A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on their
free choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an authoritative
position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, especially when the employees
are unable to evaluate the truth or the falsity of the assertions
The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, misrepresented it to the
voting employees as an independent union constituted a substantial misrepresentation
of material facts of vital concern to those employees. The materiality of such
misrepresentation is self-evident. The employees wanted an independent union to
represent them in collective bargaining, free from outside interference. Thus, upon
knowing that petitioner was in fact an affiliate of the FFW, the members disaffiliated
from petitioner and organized themselves into an independent union. Additionally, the
misrepresentation came from petitioners recognized representative, who was clearly in
a position to hold himself out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an
authoritative position to know the true facts.
We are not easily persuaded by the argument of petitioner that the employees had
sufficient time between the misrepresentation and the election to check the truth of its
claims. They could hardly be expected to verify the accuracy of any statement
regarding petitioner, made to them by its officers. No less than its president stated that it
was an independent union. At the time, the employees had no reason to doubt him.
DISPOSITION: the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
31. DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS v. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE
OCAMPO
MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC.
G.R. No. 192648, March 15, 2017 – Manzo
47
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019
Petitioner: De Ocampo Memorial Schools
Respondents: Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc.
Employer De Ocampo
Employee/Union Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc.
Labor Issue Cancellation of Registration
DOCTRINE: A direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud
and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation
which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with
supporting circumstances and evidence.
FACTS: De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. has two main divisions – DOM Medical
Center (hospital) and DOM Colleges (school). Bigkis Manggagawa was declared to be
a legitimate labor organization and was granted Union Registration/Certification of
Creation of Local Chapter.
De Ocampo filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the DOLE-
NCR against Bigkis Manggagawa stating in the petition the following grounds for
revocation of registration: 1) Misrepresentation of declaring the officers and members 2)
Mixed membership of rank file, and 3) Inappropriate bargaining unit.
A Comment-Opposition was then filed by Bigkis Manggagawa, denying De Ocampo's
allegations and claiming that the latter only wants to impede the formation of the
union.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
DOLE-NCR: DOLE-NCR ruled that Bigkis committed misrepresentation by making it
appear that the bargaining unit is composed of faculty and technical employees
when all the union officers and most of its members are from the General Services
Division. Furthermore, the members of the union do not share commonality of
interest as it was composed of academic and non-academic personnel. Bigkis
appealed to the BLR.
BLR: The BLR reversed the Regional Director’s decision. According to the BLR, De
Ocampo failed to adduce proof to support its allegation of mixed membership
within the union. Furthermore, records show that Bigkis stated in its application that
members are composed of “rank-and-file employees falling under either faculty or
technical occupational classifications”. BLR also held that the inclusion of
disqualified employees in a union would not necessarily result in the cancellation of
union registration as it is not a ground for cancellation. De Ocampo filed a Petition
for Certiorari with the CA.
CA: CA affirmed the BLR Decision. It held that there was no misrepresentation
because the minutes of the general membership meeting and the list of members
DEAD POOL
who attended and ratified the union constitution and by-laws were all employees
of (1) the school and the (2) General Services Division, even if some of the
employees under the GSD also service the hospital. Other than De Ocampo’s
allegations, there was also no proof of intent to defraud or mislead on part of Bigkis.
However, CA took note that the members, who are form academic, non-
academic, and general services, do not perform work of the same nature showing
a lack of mutuality and commonality of interests. Regardless, this is not a ground for
cancellation of union registration.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTION: De Ocampo claims that Bigkis-School committed
misrepresentation and fraud in connection with its application, creation, and
registration by suppressing the fact that there was another union known as Bigkis-
Medical Center with whom they shared the same set of officers and members. De
Ocampo alleges that Bigkis-School made it appear that it had knowledge nor relation
to Bigkis-Medical Center. Lastly, Bigkis-School allegedly suppressed the fact that its
members have no mutuality or commonality of interest as they belong to different work
classifications.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc.
claims that De Ocampo only wants to impede the formation of the union. Bigkis-School
also denies any knowledge of nor relation to Bigkis-Medical Center.
ISSUE: W/N there is a valid ground for the cancellation of Bigkis’ Union Registration – NO.
RULING: The only grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be
sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code which provides:
Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. - The following may
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(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, and the list of members who took part in
the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election
of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
For fraud and misrepresentation to constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must
be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
The SC affirmed the BLR and CA Decisions that Bigkis-School did not commit fraud or
misrepresentation in its application for registration because the it indicated in its
48
LABOR REV – September 4, 2019 DEAD POOL
Description that it was composed of “Rank and File”, and under the Occupational
Classification, it marked “Technical” and “Faculty”.

Furthermore, the Minutes of the General Membership Meeting and the List of Members
who attended the organizational meeting and adopted the Constitution and By-Laws
are all employees of the (1) school and the (2) General Services Division, even if some of
the employees under the GSD also service the hospital.

Moreover, there cannot be misrepresentation in the application because the

application does not require the applicant to disclose the existence of another union,
much less the names of the officers of such other union.

Lastly, the lack of mutuality or commonality of interests among the union members is not
enough reason to cancel its registration. The only grounds on which the cancellation of
a union's registration may be sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code.

Thus, for purposes 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 paragraphs
(a) and (b) of Article 247 of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with: (1) the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; (2) the minutes of
ratification; (3) the election of officers; (4) the minutes of the election of officers; and (5)
the list of voters.

The BLR and the CA's finding that the members of BMDOMSI are rank-and-file
employees is supported by substantial evidence and is binding on this Court. On the
other hand, other than the allegation that BMDOMSI has the same set of officers with
BMDOMMC and the allegation of mixed membership of rank-and-file and managerial
or supervisory employees, De Ocampo has cited no other evidence of the alleged fraud
and misrepresentation.

A final word. A party seeking the cancellation of a union's certificate of registration must
bear in mind that:

x x x [A] direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on

fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious
allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be
compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of the
case are devoid of such evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts,
and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of
administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the BLR, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. CA Decision
affirmed. No cancellation of registration.

49