LABOR RELATIONS

ATTY. JOSEPHUS B. JIMINEZ

MIDTERM CASE DIGESTS
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), and RITO MANGUBAT, respondents
G.R. No. 146728. February 11, 2004

FACTS
General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers, who were all members of private
respondent General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union. The two concluded a collective
bargaining agreement for a period of 3 years. On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration
of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA. However, GMC had received collective and
individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership,
on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the union no longer had
standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal. The company had in their
mind that there was no need to negotiate, because the union ceased to exist. On the other hand,
one Marcia Tumbiga, a union member was dimissed due to incompetence. The union protested and
wanted the matter to be submit to a grievance procedure, it was denied. Hence this complaint of
illegal dismisal and unfair labor practice by the union

ISSUE
Was the dismissal of Marcia Tumbiga constituted an unfair labor practice?
CASE HISTORY

July 2, 1992-Union filed a complaint before NLRC, Arbitarion Division of Cebu City, it was dismissed.
January 30, 1998- The union appealed to the NLRC, reversed the decision
October 6, 1998- The Court of Appeals reistated its first decision upon motion of consideration of GMC

LAW APPLICABLE

Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the phrase duty to bargain collectively, The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining, hen a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a
written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply
thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. ....It shall be the
duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions
of the existing agreement during the 60-day period [prior to its expiration date] and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties
RULING

Yes, the GMC was guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its
employees to self-organization. The letters between February to June 1993 by 13 union
members signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that GMC exerted
pressure on its employees. The records show that GMC presented these letters to prove
that the union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers.

OPINION
The law had and has always been clear and strong on its stance, the state shall offer
full proection to the working class. This is the primary reason why, the labor code has
been very specific and strict on implementing its rules and regulations in realtion to
collective bargaining. The company, GMC on the other hand tried to evade these rules in
bad faith.
 LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, petitioner,
vs.
ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES and ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in
her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, respondents.
G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995
FACTS
LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK (LDB) and ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK
EMPLOYEES at a conference entered into a Memorandum of Agreement , the submission of their respective
Position Papers on December 1-15, 1994. Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received the
union's paper while LDB, on the other hand failed. LDB prayed for the continuance of the arbitration despite failure
of submitting its position paper on the time.
ISSUE
Did Luzon Development Bank (LDB) violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the
Memorandum of Agreement in the case at bar? and if it did, does its right to arbitration so ends?
LAW APPLICABLE
Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original jurisdiction of such voluntary
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies. Article 262 authorizes them, but only upon agreement of the parties, to
exercise jurisdiction over other labor disputes.
CASE HISTORY
May 24, 1995- Submission of position papers in which the employer, the bank failed to do.

RULING
The said case, had been referred to for futher analysis before the Court of appeals. The voluntary arbitrator or the panel of
voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasi-judicial agency, board or commission, still both he and the panel are
comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality. The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state,
contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. An individual
person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate, in the same manner that a sub-agent
appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the court, 16 and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an
instrumentality of the state. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to
him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in
the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him
within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein. Section 22 of Republic Act
No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or
submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing
business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction.
OPINION
The matter befor us was a very serios matter, as it stemmed primary on the necessity to make a collective bargaining between the
emloyer and its employees. I believe that, the failure of the employer to sumbit its position paper would eventually lost its right to
negotiate is nothing but a desecration of the principle equity and justice in which all laws have been grounded. Ergo, I applaud the
arbitator of the case at bar to lift the conflict before the Court of appeals to futher contemplate on the the best resolution of this issue.
 UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR
G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999

FACTS
UST Faculty Union (USTFU) Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employer, the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) was set to expire on 31 May 1998. Collantes announced
to all of its members the date of its election. Through the notice, the members were also
informed of the constitution of a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to oversee the
elections, in which some of the union members objected to. However, the election
pushed trhough and those who were not in favor of its execution, petitioned to render it
null and void. The new set of officers, took over and they were alleged to have had
usurped the said positions. The supposed election was spurious for being violative of
USTFU's Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ISSUE
Was the election violative of the union's Collective Bargaining Agreement?
LAW APPLICABLE
I.L.O. Convention No. 87 speaks of a unions full freedom to draw up its constitution
and rules, it includes freedom from interference by persons who are not members of the
union. The democratic principle that governance is a matter for the governed to decide
upon applies to the labor movement which, by law and constitutional mandate, must be
CASE HISTORY
01 October 1996 appellants filed a separate petition with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR
04 October 1996 election was held
11 October 1996, appellees filed the instant petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the results of the
election.
03 December 1996 both of the parties entered into another CBA covering the period from 01 June 1996 to 31 May 2001
11 December 1996 appellants insistence that the issue of jurisdiction should first be resolved, the med-arbiter issued a
temporary restraining order directing the respondents to cease and desist from performing any and all acts pertaining to the
duties and functions of the officers and directors of USTFU
12 December 1996 appellants claimed that the new CBA was purportedly ratified by an overwhelming majority of USTs
academic community
RULING
No. First, as has been discussed, the general faculty assembly was not the proper forum to conduct the election of USTFU officers. Not
all who attended the assembly were members of the union; some, apparently, were even disqualified from becoming union members, since they
represented management. To become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also take
some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the unions constitution and bylaws.
When a man joins a labor union (or almost any other democratically controlled group), necessarily a portion of his individual freedom is
surrendered for the benefit of all members. He accepts the will of the majority of the members in order that he may derive the advantages to be
gained from the concerted action of all. The ratification of the new CBA executed between the petitioners and the University of Santo Tomas
management did not validate the void October 4, 1996 election. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA, not the issue of union leadership -- a
matter that should be decided only by union members in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of proper procedures.
OPINION
This was an instance where the law has to be strictly
applied. It would be unfair if the law shall bend in favor of
the labors at all times, the employer has also the right to
be recognized by the state. Further, if the law on
procedure had been set clear and they are conscience, it
must be followed, to do otherwise would defeat its
purpose. The particulars of the collective bargain
agreement signed by the employer and its employees
must be executed.
 PREPARED BY

AMBAYANAN B. MANDING