RepublicofthePhilippines SUPREMECOURT Manila ENBANC G.R.Nos.L2879193August27,1973 VALENTINGUIJARNO,HERMINIGILDODEJUAN,NICOLASCASUMPANG,ELEUTERIOBOBLO, BENITOGUAVEZ,ARSENIOJEMENA,DIMASBOCBOCILA,NICOLASALAMON,ISMAELBILLONES, RAYMUNDOALAMON,SANTIAGOBAES,SOFRONIOCONCLARA,ADRIANOBIAS,AURELIO ALAMON,SIMEONBERNIL,RESURRECIONDIAZ,FELICIANOBELGIRA,FEDERICOBOSQUE,and AGOSTOPULMONES,petitioners, vs. COURTOFINDUSTRIALRELATIONS,CENTRALSANTOSLOPEZCO.,INC.andUNITEDSUGAR WORKERSUNIONILOrespondents. PedritoA.Gianzonforpetitioners. LuisH.Garganeraforprivaterespondents.

. FERNANDO,J.: FACTS: ThefailureofrespondentCourtofIndustrialRelationstoorderthereinstatementofpetitionerstotheir employmentgaverisetothisappealbywayofcertiorari.Therewasnoquestionabouttheexpulsion fromrespondentlaborunionoftheformer.Inviewofaclosedshopprovisioninthethenexisting collectivebargainingcontract,respondentCentralSantosLopezCo.,Inc.assumedithadtodismiss them.SoitwasnotedinthedecisionofthethenassociateJudgeJoaquinM.Salvadorofrespondent Court.Thus:"Therespondentcompany,initsanswer,allegedthattheonlyreasonforthedismissalof thecomplainantshereinisbecausetheirsaiddismissalwasaskedbytheUSWUILOofwhichunion respondentcompanyhasavalidandexistingcollectivebargainingcontractwithaclosedshopprovision totheeffectthatthoselaborerswhoarenolongermembersofgoodstandingintheunionmaybe dismissedbytherespondentcompanyiftheirdismissalissoughtbytheunion;thatrespondentcompany hasnevercommittedactsofunfairlaborpracticeagainstitsemployeesorworkersmuchlessagainstthe complainantshereinbutthatithasasolemnobligationtocomplywiththetermsandconditionsofthe contract;andthataclosedshopagreementissanctionedunderthisjurisdictionforsuchkindof agreementisexpresslyallowedundertheprovisionsofRepublicAct875knownastheIndustrialPeace Actandthedismissalofcomplainantsismerelyanexerciseofarightallowedbysaidlaw."Therewasno question,however,astopetitionershavingbeenemployedbysuchrespondentCompanylongbeforethe collectivebargainingcontract. ISSUE: Whetherornotaclosedshopprovisioninacollectivebargainingagreementisnottobegivena retroactiveeffectsoastoprecludeitsbeingappliedtoemployeesalreadyintheservice. HELD: TheleadingcaseofConfederatedSonsofLaborv.AnakanLumberCo.decidedinAprilof1960.In discussingtheparticularstipulationinthecontract,itwasmadeclearintheopinionofthethenJustice, laterChiefJustice,Concepcion:"Inorderthatanemployermaybedeemedbound,underacollective bargainingagreement,todismissemployeesfornonunionmembership,thestipulationtothiseffect mustbesoclearandunequivocalastoleavenoroomfordoubtthereon.Anundertakingofthisnatureis soharshthatitmustbestrictlyconstrued,anddoubtsmustberesolvedagainsttheexistenceof"closed shop"."Lessthanayearlater,tobemoreprecise,onJanuary28,1961,inFreemanShirtManufacturing

Co.,Inc.v.CourtofIndustrialRelations,thisCourt,speakingthroughJusticeGutierrezDavid,went further.Thus:"Theclosedshopagreementauthorizedundersec.4,subsec.a(4)oftheIndustrialPeace Actabovequotedshouldhowever,applytopersonstobehiredortoemployeeswhoarenotyet membersofanylabororganization.Itisinapplicabletothosealreadyintheservicewhoaremembersof anotherunion.

RepublicofthePhilippines SUPREMECOURT Manila THIRDDIVISION G.R.No.96566January6,1992 ATLASLITHOGRAPHICSERVICES,INC.,petitioner, vs. UNDERSECRETARYBIENVENIDOE.LAGUESMA(DepartmentofLaborandEmployment)and ATLASLITHOGRAPHICSERVICES,INC.SUPERVISORY,ADMINISTRATIVE,PERSONNEL, PRODUCTION,ACCOUNTINGANDCONFIDENTIALEMPLOYEESASSOCIATIONKAISAHANNG MANGGAWANGPILIPINO(KAMPILKATIPUNAN),respondents. Romero,Lagman,Valdecantos&ArrezaLawOfficesforpetitioner. EstebanM.Mendozaforprivaterespondent. FACTS: On July 16, 1990, the supervisory, administrative personnel, production, accounting and confidentialemployeesofthepetitioner AtlasLithographicServices,Inc. (ALSI) affiliatedwith privaterespondentKaisahanngManggagawangPilipino,anationallabororganization.Thelocal unionadoptedthenameAtlasLithographicServices,Inc.Supervisory,Administrative,Personnel, Production, Accounting and Confidential Employees Association or ALSISAPPACEAKAMPIL in shortandwhichweshallhereafterrefertoasthe"supervisors"union. Shortlythereafter,privaterespondentKampilKatipunanfiledonbehalfofthe"supervisors"union apetitionforcertificationelectionsothatitcouldbethesoleandexclusivebargainingagentof thesupervisoryemployees. Thepetitionersopposedtheprivaterespondent'spetitionclaimingthatunderArticle245ofthe Labor bode the private respondent cannot represent the supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposeless because the private respondent also represents the rankandfile employees' union. the MedArbiter issued an order in favor of the private respondent. The petitioners, as expected, appealed for the reversal of the above order. The public respondent, however,issuedaresolutionaffirmingtheMedArbiter'sorder. Thepetitioners,inturn,filedamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdenied.Hence,this petitionforcertiorari. ISSUE: whetherornot,underArticle245oftheLaborCode,alocalunionofsupervisoryemployeesmay beallowedtoaffiliatewithanationalfederationoflabororganizationsofrankandfileemployees and which national federation actively represents its affiliates in collective bargaining negotiationswiththesameemployerofthesupervisorsandintheimplementationofresulting collectivebargainingagreements.

HELD: The petitioner argues that KAMPILKATIPUNAN already represents its rankandfile employees and,therefore,toallowthesupervisorsofthoseemployeestoaffiliatewiththeprivaterespondent istantamounttoallowingthecircumventionoftheprincipleoftheseparationofunionsunder Article245oftheLaborCode.Thepublicrespondent,ontheotherhand,contendsthatdespite affiliation with a national federation, the local union does not lose its personality which is separate,anddistinctfromthenationalfederation.ItcitesasitslegalbasisthecaseofAdamson &Adamson,Inc.v.CIR(127SCRA268[1984]).UndertheIndustrialPeaceActof1953,employees wereclassifiedintothreegroups,namely:(1)managerialemployees;(2)supervisors;and(3) rankand file employees. Supervisors, who were considered employees in relation to their employer could join a union but not a union of rankandfile employees. The definition of managerialemployeeswaslimitedtothosehavingauthoritytohireandfirewhilethosewhoonly recommendeffectivelythehiringorfiringortransfersofpersonnelwouldbeconsideredascloser torankandfileemployees.Theexclusion,therefore,ofmiddlelevelexecutivesfromthecategory ofmanagersbroughtaboutathirdclassification,thesupervisoryemployees.Thesesupervisory employeesareallowedtoformtheirownunionbuttheyarenotallowedtojointherankandfile unionbecauseofconflictofinterest(JournaloftheSenate,FirstRegularSession,1987,1988, Volume 3, p.2245).Intheareaofbargaining,theirinterestscannotbeconsideredidentical.Theneedsof one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the national federationmightinfluencethesupervisors'uniontoconductasympathystrikeonthesolebasisof affiliation. The contemplation of the law in Sec. 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is to prohibit supervisorsfromjoiningalabororganizationofemployeesundertheirsupervision.Sec.3ofthe IndustrialPeaceActprovides: Sec.3Employees'RighttoSelfOrganization.Employeesshallhavetherighttoselforganization andtoform,joinorassistlabororganizationsoftheirownchoosingforthepurposeofcollective bargainingthroughrepresentativesoftheirownchoosingandtoengageinconcertedactivitiesfor thepurposeofcollectivebargainingandothermutualaidorprotection.Individualsemployedas supervisorsshallnotbeeligibleformembershipinalabororganizationofemployeesundertheir supervision butmayformseparateorganizationsoftheirown(Emphasissupplied).Supervisors arenotprohibitedfromformingtheirownunion.Whatthelawprohibitsistheirmembershipina labororganizationofrankandfileemployees(Art.245,LaborCode)ortheirjoininganational federation of rankandfile employees that includes the very local union which they are not allowedtodirectlyjoin.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 152094 . July 22, 2004 DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW), petitioner, vs. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN,J.:

FACTS: On November 25, 1997, a certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employeesinthemainofficeandtheregionalbranchesofDHLPhilippinesCorporation.Thecontending choiceswerepetitionerand"nounion." OnJanuary19,1998,onthebasisoftheresultsofthecertificationelection,withpetitionerreceiving 546votesand"nounion"garnering348votes,theelectionofficercertifiedtheformerasthesoleand exclusivebargainingagentoftherankandfileemployeesofthecorporation.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)aPetitionforthenullificationofthecertificationelection.Theofficersofpetitioner were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by misrepresentingtothevoteremployeesthatitwasanindependentunion,whenitwasinfactanaffiliate oftheFederationofFreeWorkers(FFW). This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their selection of petitioner in the certificationelection.Allegedlysupportingthisclaimwasthefactthatthosewhomithadmisled allegedly withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an independentunion.Thelatterunion,BUKLOD,wasissuedaCertificateofRegistrationbyDOLEon December 23, 1997. The CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the members of petitioner704outof894ofthemprovidedacompellingreasontoconductacertification electionanewinordertodetermine,onceandforall,whichunionreflectedtheirchoice.Under the circumstances, the issue of representation was not put to rest by the mere issuance of a CertificationOrderbytheelectionofficer. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals seriously erred and committed grave abuse of discretionamountingtolackand/orexcessofjurisdictioninholdingthattheresignation, withdrawal,retractionofthegreatmajorityoftheformermembersofUnitedDHLshould betreatedasdisaffiliationfromsuchunion. HELD: Themakingoffalsestatementsormisrepresentationsthatinterferewiththefreechoiceofthe employeesisavalidgroundforprotest.Acertificationelectionmaybesetasideformisstatements madeduringthecampaign,where1)amaterialfacthasbeenmisrepresentedinthecampaign;2) anopportunityforreplyhasbeenlacking;and3)themisrepresentationhashadanimpactonthe freechoiceoftheemployeesparticipatingintheelection. 17Amisrepresentationislikelytohave animpactontheirfreechoice,ifitcomesfromapartywhohasspecialknowledgeorisinan authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, especially when the employeesareunabletoevaluatethetruthorthefalsityoftheassertions.18Thematerialityofsuch
misrepresentation is selfevident. The employees wanted an independent union to represent them in collectivebargaining,freefromoutsideinterference. Althoughpetitionerwonintheelection,itisnow clearthatitdoesnotrepresentthemajorityofthebargainingemployees,owingtotheaffiliationofits memberswithrespondent.Thepresentuncertaintyastowhichunionhastheirsupporttorepresentthem forcollectivebargainingpurposesisasalientfactorthatthisCourthasseriouslyconsidered.