Cathay Pacific Steel v. CA, G.R. No.

164561, August 30, 2006

FACTS:
 Enrique Tamandong III was a Personnel Superintendent in
Cathay Pacific. His position has fixed daily working hours or 8am to
12nn an 1pm to 5pm. Among his functions was issuing memos on
company rules and regulations, imposing disciplinary sanctions such
as warnings (with irregular attendance and unauthorized leave of
absences) and suspensions, and executing the same which was
“noted by” the company Vice President.
 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.
 LA ruled in favor of Tamondong; reversed by NLRC for lack of
merit; via Petition for Certiorari, CA affirmed LA’s decision and
ordered the reinstatement and payment of backwages and other
benefits by CAPASCO to Tamondong.

ISSUE: Whether Tamondong is a managerial employee or

supervisory employee, to accord him the right to self-organization

RULING: Yes. Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and

not a managerial employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the
union activities of private respondent.
 He 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.
 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. Also, 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.
 Tamondong does not possess the power to hire, transfer,
terminate, or discipline erring employees of the company. At the most,
the record merely showed that he informed and warned rank-and-file
employees with respect to their violations of Cathay Pacific's rules and
regulations. Also, the functions performed by Tamandong 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.
 Likewise the imposition upon Tamandong’s required fixed
daily working hours is very uncharacteristic of a managerial employee.
A managerial rank is that he is not subjected to the rigid observance
of regular office hours or maximum hours of work.
 Case cited - Engineering Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC (1984)
“Among the characteristics of the managerial rank are: (1) he is not
subject to the rigid observance of regular office hours; (2) his work
requires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its
performance; (3) the output produced or the result accomplished
cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; (4) he
manages a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the
establishment, customarily and regularly directing the work of other
employees therein; (5) he either has the authority to hire or discharge
other employees or his suggestions and recommendations as to hiring
and discharging, advancement and promotion or other change of
status of other employees are given particular weight; and (6) as a
rule, he is not paid hourly wages nor subjected to maximum hours of
work.”

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE

OF MEDICINE VS. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 102084, August 12, 1998

FACTS:
 Petitioner De La Salle University Medical Center and College
of Medicine (DLSUMCCM) is a hospital and medical school at
Dasmariñas, Cavite. Private respondent Federation of Free Workers-
De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine
Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC), 14 on the other
hand, is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees
of petitioner DLSUMCCM.
 On April 17, 1991, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a
national federation of labor unions, issued a certificate to private
respondent FFW- DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local chapter.
On the same day, it filed on behalf of private respondent FFW
DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election among the
supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM.
 Its petition was opposed by petitioner 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.
 The respondent however denied the petitioner’s allegations
and contended that It is not true that supervisory employees are
joining the rank-and file employees' union. 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not supervisory union and rank-and-file union can

affiliate in the same federation

RULING: YES. Supervisory employees have the right to self-

organization as do other classes of employees save only managerial
ones. 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.
 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. As we explained in the case
of Atlas vs. Laguesma, however, such a situation would obtain only
where two conditions concur: First, the rank-and-file employees are
directly under the authority of supervisory employees and second, the
national federation is actively involved in union activities in the
company.
 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.

PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, vs. HONORABLE

SECRETARY OF LABOR, [G.R. No. 96663 August 10, 1999]

FACTS:
 The 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,
entitled PCPPI v. PCEU-UOEF on the grounds that (a) the members
of the Union were managers and (b) a supervisors’ union can not
affiliate with a federation whose members include the rank and file
union of the same company.

ISSUE: WON a supervisors’ union can affiliate with the same

Federation of which two rank and file unions are likewise members,
without violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD 442), as
amended? W/N confidential employees may join rank and file
employees union.

HELD:
 In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA
121 [1992], as members it was ratiocinated: 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
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.
 As regards the issue of whether or not confidential employees
can join the labor union of the rank and file, what was held in the case
of National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) — 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.

SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED vs. SAN MIGUEL

CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT UNION G.R. No.
146206 August 1, 2011

FACTS:
 On the date of an ordered certification election, petitioner San
Miguel Foods, Inc. filed an objection thereto questioning the eligibility
to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some
employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent
seeks to represent.
 Specifically, it argued, among others, those certain employees
(Note: which includes, among others, Payroll Master, Human
Resource Assistant, and Personnel Assistant) should not be allowed
to vote as they are confidential employees.
 The then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in a resolution
affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter stating that respondent is
certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and
exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants,
with modification that some of the challenged employees be excluded
from the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the
Resolution of the DOLE Undersecretary, stating that those holding the
positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are
excluded from the bargaining unit.

ISSUES: 1. Whether the CA erred in not excluding the position of

Payroll Master in the definition of a confidential employee

2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the positions of Human

Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of
confidential employees
RULING: 1.
 Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or
act in a confidential capacity, in regard (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." 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 whole gamut 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.

2. 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. 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.
 As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of one’s work
necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of
employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation
package, and human resource management.
 As regards a 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.
 Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain
access to vital labor relations information which out rightly disqualifies
them from union membership.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT

UNION VS. HON. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 110399. August 15, 1997.

FACTS:
 Petitioner Union filed before the DOLE a Petition for District
Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and
exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.
 The Med-Arbiter issued an Order to conduct certification
among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia
Poultry Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining
unit.
 Respondent SMC filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum
of Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med-Arbiter’s error in
grouping together all three (3) separate plants into one bargaining
unit, and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions
are confidential in nature since they have access to information which
is regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business
standpoint.
 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.
 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 employees sought to
be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. Upon petitioner’s
motion, Laguesma granted the reconsideration and directed the
conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors
ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 and the exempt employees in
each of the three plants.

ISSUE: 1. Are supervisory employees and exempt employees of the

company considered confidential employees, hence ineligible to join a
union?
2. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the
three plants constitute an appropriate bargaining unit?

HELD: 1. NO. It is the contention of SMC that supervisory employees

3 and 4 and the exempt employees come within the meaning of the
term confidential employees primarily because they answered in the
affirmative when asked “Do you handle confidential data or
documents?” in 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 employers
labor relations policies.
2. YES. An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as a group of
employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the
employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best
suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.
 It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have
community or mutuality of interest, which is the standard in
determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.
 It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry
Division of San Miguel Corporation.
 This means that, although they belong to three different
plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive the same
wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common
stake in concerted activities.
 The fact that the three plants are located in three different
places, namely, in Cabuyao, Laguna, in Otis, Pandacan, Metro
Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga is immaterial.
 Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the
communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed.
 We rule that the distance among the three plants is not
productive of insurmountable difficulties in the administration of union
affairs. Neither are there regional differences that are likely to impede
the operations of a single bargaining representative.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

(SCBEUNUBE) vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and
ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer,
Philippines 22 April 2008 G.R. No. 161933

Facts:
 The 1998-2000 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
Standard Chartered Bank employees Union and the Standard
Chartered Bank expired so the parties tried to renew it but then a
deadlock ensued.
 Under the old CBA, the following are excluded as appropriate
bargaining unit
A. All covenanted and assistant officers (now called National
Officers)
 B. One confidential secretary of each of the: 1. Chief
Executive, Philippine Branches 2. Deputy Chief Executive/Head,
Corporate Banking Group 3. Head, Finance 4. Head, Human
Resources 5. Manager, Cebu 6. Manager, Iloilo 7. Covenanted
Officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits.
C. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila,
Cebu and Iloilo, and in any other branch that the BANK may establish
in the country.
D. Personnel of the Telex Department
E. All Security Guards
F. Probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277
(c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or
emergency employees; and
G. One (1) HR Staff
 But then in the renewal sought by SCBEU-NUBE, they only
wanted the exclusion to apply only to the following employees from
the appropriate bargaining unit – all managers who are vested with
the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those
with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant
Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human
Resources (HR) staff.
 SCBEU-NUBE also averred that employees assigned in an
acting capacity for at least a week should be given salary raise. A
notice of strike was given to the Department of Labor due to this
deadlock.
 Then DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas issued an order
dismissing the Union’s plea.

ISSUE: Whether or not the confidential employees sought to be

removed from the exclusion as appropriate bargaining unit by
SCBEU-NUBE holds ground.

HELD: No. Whether or not the employees sought to be excluded from

the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees is a
question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
 SCBEU-NUBE insists that the foregoing employees are not
confidential employees; however, it failed to buttress its claim. Aside
from its generalized arguments, and despite the Secretary's finding
that there was no evidence to support it, SCBEU-NUBE still failed to
substantiate its claim.
 SCBEU-NUBE 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.
 With regards to the salary increase of employees in acting
capacities, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that a
restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, and at
the same time, recognized that employees should not be made to
work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate
compensation.
 The usual rule that “employees in acting capacities for at least
a month should be given salary raise” is upheld.

COASTAL SUBIC BAY V. DOLE November 20, 2006

FACTS:
 Private respondents Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-
and-File Union (CSBTI-RFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc.
Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed separate petitions for certification
election before Med- Arbiter Eladio de Jesus of the Regional Office
No. III.
 The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor
organization having been issued a charter certificate by the
Associated Labor Union (ALU), and the supervisory union by the
Associated Professional, Supervisory, Office and Technical
Employees Union (APSOTEU).
 Private respondents also alleged that the establishment in
which they sought to operate was unorganized.
 The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petitions, holding that the ALU
and 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. Secretary of Labor and
Employment reversed it.
 CA affirmed the decision of the Secretary.

ISSUE: Are ALU, a rank-and-file union and APSOTEU, a supervisory

union one and the same because of the commonalities between
them? Are they commingled?
HELD: Yes. First, as earlier discoursed, once a labor union attains the
status of a legitimate labor organization, it continues as such until its
certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent
action for cancellation
 In addition, the legal personality of a labor organization cannot
be collaterally attacked.
 Thus, 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 CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU are therefore affiliated with
distinct and separate federations, despite the commonalities of
APSOTEU and ALU.
 In the instant case, 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 rank-and-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.
 For as long as they are affiliated with the APSOTEU and ALU,
the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet the criteria
to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could
not separately petition for certification elections.
 The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common
enterprise is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of
the terms and conditions of labor.
 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 ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep
open the corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA
BREWERY VS ASIA BREWERY G.R. No. 162025, August 3, 2010

FACTS: Respondent Asia Brewery Inc (ABI) is engaged in the

manufacture, sale and distribution of beer, shandy, bottled water and
glass products, it entered into a cba, effective for five years with Lakas
ng mga Manggagagawa sa Asia-Independent (BLMA), the exclusive
bargaining representative of the former’s rank and file employees.
 Under the CBA, twelve jobs were excluded from the
bargaining agreement. Subsequently, a dispute arose when ABI’s
management stopped deducting union dues from eighty one
employees, believing that their membership in BLMA violated the
CBA.
 Respondent insisted that they fall under the “Confidential and
Executive Secretaries” expressly excluded by the CBA from the rank
and file bargaining unit. BLMA claimed that ABI’s actions restrained
the employees’ rights to self organization and brought the matter to
the grievance machinery.
 As the parties failed to settle the controversy, BLMA lodged a
complaint before the NCMB. The parties eventually agreed to submit
the case for arbitration to resolve the issue with respect to the right of
self organization
 VA ruled in favor of BLMA. Accordingly, the subject
employees were declared eligible for inclusion within the bargaining
unit represented by BLMA. On appeal to the CA, it reversed the VA,
ruling that eighty one employees are excluded from and not eligible for
inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in section two, article one of
the cba; the eighty one employees cannot be validly members of
respondent and/or if already members, that their membership is
violative of the CBA and that they should disaffiliate from respondent;
and petitioner has not committed any act that restrained or tended to
restrain its employees in the exercise of their right to self organization.
 A certification election was held on August 10, 2002 wherein
petitioner won. As the incumbent bargaining representative of ABI’s
rank and file employees claiming interest in the outcome of the case,
petitioner filed with the CA an omnibus motion for reconsideration of
the decision and intervention, with attached petition signed by the
union officers.
 Both motions were denied by CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not workers were confidential employees

RULING: No. Secretaries or clerks, numbering about forty, are rank
and file employees and confidential employees.
 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.
 In the present case, the CBA expressly excluded Confidential
and Executive Secretaries from the rank- and-file bargaining unit, for
which reason ABI seeks their disaffiliation from petitioner. As can be
gleaned from the above listing, 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.
 Respondent failed to indicate who among these numerous
secretaries/clerks have access to confidential data relating to
management policies that could give rise to potential conflict of
interest with their Union membership.
 Clearly, the rationale under our previous rulings for the
exclusion of executive secretaries or division secretaries would have
little or no significance considering the lack of or very limited access to
confidential information of these secretaries/clerks.
 It is not even farfetched that the job category may exist only
on paper since they are all daily-paid workers. Quite understandably,
petitioner had earlier expressed the view that the positions were just
being reclassified as these employees actually discharged routine
functions.

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS

OWNER, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION vs. LABOR
SEC, et. al. G.R. NO. 172132 July 23, 2014

Facts:
 Respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant
and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter
(NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) filed a petition for certification election, seeking
to represent all the supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel Manila.
 The petitioner filed its opposition, but the opposition was
deemed denied when Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando issued his
order for the conduct of the certification election.
 The petitioner appealed the order of Med-Arbiter Fernando,
but the appeal was also denied. A pre-election conference was then
scheduled.
 However, the pre-election conference was suspended until
further notice because of the repeated non-appearance of
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.
 Later, NUWHRAIN-HHMSC moved for the conduct of the pre-
election conference. The petitioner primarily filed its comment on the
list of employees submitted by NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, and
simultaneously sought the exclusion of some from the list of
employees for occupying either confidential or managerial positions.
 The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss raising the prolonged
lack of interest of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC to pursue its petition for
certification election.
 The petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC’s registration as a labor union for failing to
submit its annual financial reports and an updated list of members as
required by Article 238 and Article 239 of the Labor Code.
 It filed another motion to seek either the dismissal or the
suspension of the proceedings on the basis of its pending petition for
the cancellation of union registration.
 However, the DOLE issued a notice scheduling the
certification elections. Dissatisfied, the petitioner commenced in the
CA a special civil action for certiorari, alleging that the DOLE gravely
abused its discretion in not suspending the certification election
proceedings.
 The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for non-exhaustion
of administrative remedies. The certification election proceeded as
scheduled, and NUWHRAINHHMSC obtained the majority vote of the
bargaining unit. The petitioner filed a protest (with motion to defer the
certification of the election results and the winner), insisting on the
illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.

Issue: Should the petition for the cancellation of union registration

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

Ruling: No. Under the long established rule, too, the filing of the
petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC’s registration
should not bar the conduct of the certification election.
 In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the
registration would have prevented NUWHRAINHHMSC from
continuing to enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor
union, including the right to the petition for the certification election.
This rule is now enshrined in Article 238-A of the Labor Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9481.
 Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in
treating petitions for cancellation of union registration, lest they be
accused of interfering with union activities.
 In resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities.
 Labor authorities should bear in mind that registration confers
upon a union the status of legitimacy and the concomitant right and
privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, particularly
the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining
unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the
equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without
such registration, it loses - as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code.
 R.A. No. 9481 also inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-A,
which provides for reportorial requirements that failure to comply with
the requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union
registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to
suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs.THE HON. SECRETARY OF

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, STAFF AND TECHNICAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO [G.R. No. 91902 May
20, 1991]

FACTS: On November 22, 1988, the Staff and Technical Employees

Association of MERALCO (hereafter “STEAM-PCWF”) a labor
organization of staff and technical employees of MERALCO, filed a
petition for certification election, seeking to represent regular
employees of MERALCO who are: (a) non-managerial employees
with Pay Grades VII and above; (b) non-managerial employees in the
Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section, Secretaries who
are automatically removed from the bargaining unit; and (c)
employees within the rank and file unit who are automatically
disqualified from becoming union members of any organization within
the same bargaining unit.
 MERALCO moved for the dismissal of the petition on claiming
among other things that employees from Pay Grades VII and above
are classified as managerial employees who, under the law, are
prohibited from forming, joining or assisting a labor organization of the
rank and file. As regards those in the Patrol Division and Treasury
Security Service Section, MERALCO maintains that since these
employees are tasked with providing security to the company, they
are not eligible to join the rank and file bargaining unit.

ISSUE: W/N security personnel are prohibited from joining labor

unions

HELD: NO. With regards to the rights of the security guards to self-
organize, MERALCO has questioned the legality of allowing them to
join either the rank and file or the supervisory union, claiming that this
is a violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing
Rules of RA 6715, which states as follows:
 Sec 1. Who may join unions. . . Supervisory employees and
security guards 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; . . .
 Said rule, barring security guards from joining a rank and file
organization, appear to have been carried over from the old rules
implementing then article 245.
 On December 24, 1986, Pres. Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O.
No. 111 which eliminated the above-cited provision on the
disqualification of security guards. What was retained was the
disqualification of managerial employees, renumbered as Art. 245
(previously Art. 246), as follows:
 Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to joint any
labor organization.—Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization.
 With the elimination, security guards were thus free to join a
rank and file organization.
 On March 2, 1989, the present Congress passed RA
6715. 2 Section 18 thereof amended Art. 245, 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 a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but
may join, assist, or form separate labor organizations of their own.
 As will be noted, the second sentence of Art. 245 embodies
an amendment disqualifying supervisory employees from membership
in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees. It does not
include security guards in the disqualification.
 While therefore under the old rules, security guards were
barred from joining a labor organization of the rank and file, under RA
6715, they may now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file
or that of the supervisory union, depending on their rank. By
accommodating supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor must
likewise apply the provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by
favorably allowing them free access to a labor organization, whether
rank and file or supervisory, in recognition of their constitutional right
to self-organization.
 The Court is aware however of possible consequences in the
implementation of the law in allowing security personnel to join labor
unions within the company they serve. The law is apt to produce
divided loyalties in the faithful performance of their duties. Economic
reasons would present the employees concerned with the temptation
to subordinate their duties to the allegiance they owe the union of
which they are members, aware as they are that it is usually union
action that obtains for them increased pecuniary benefits.
 Thus, in the event of a strike declared by their union, security
personnel may neglect or outrightly abandon their duties, such as
protection of property of their employer and the persons of its officials
and employees, the control of access to the employer’s premises, and
the maintenance of order in the event of emergencies and untoward
incidents.
 It is hoped that the corresponding amendatory and/or
suppletory laws be passed by Congress to avoid possible conflict of
interest in security personnel.

Benguet Electric Cooperative Inc v. Pura Ferrer-Calleja

G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989

Facts:
 Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic
Labor Organizations (BWLU- ADLO) led a petition for direct
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all
the rank and file employees of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc
(BENECO)
 BENECO employs two hundred and fourteen 214 rank and
file employees. 198 or 92.5% of these employees have supported the
filing of the petition.
 There is no certification election has been conducted for the
last 12 months. There is no existing collective bargaining
representative of the rank and file employees sought to represented
by BWLU- ADLO. There is no collective bargaining agreement in the
cooperative.
 On the other hand, Beneco Employees Labor Union (BELU)
contended that it was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the subject workers pursuant to an order issued by
the med-arbiter in October 1980.
 The med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the
petition for certification election. However, the med-arbiter limited the
election among the rank and file employees of petitioner who are non-
members and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the
cooperative. Based on the evidence, there are 37 employees who are
not members and without any involvement in the actual ownership of
the cooperative.
 BELU and BENECO appealed from this order but the same
was dismissed for lack of merit which the Supreme Court dismissed
also for lack of merit in a minute resolution.
 An ordered certification election was held on October 1, 1986.
However, BENECO's counsel contended that employees who are
members-consumers are being allowed to vote when they are not
eligible to be members of any labor union for purposes of collective
bargaining, much less, to vote in this certification election. BENECo
contended that only 4 employees are not members of BENECO and
insisted that only these employees are eligible to vote in the
certification election. Canvass of the votes showed that BELU
garnered 49 of the 83 votes cast.
 BENECO filed a protest before SC and has been answered in
affirmative by the SC. On June 23, 1987, Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) director Pura Ferrer-Calleja affirmed the med-arbiter's order
and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
the rank and file employees of BENECO.
 Petitioner BENECO asserts that the certification election held
on October 1, 1986 was null and void since members-employees of
petitioner cooperative who are not eligible to form and join a labor
union for purposes of collective bargaining were allowed to vote.
 On the other hand, Respondent director and private
respondent BELU on the other hand submit that members of a
cooperative who are also rank and file employees are eligible to form,
assist or join a labor union.
 Furthermore, the public respondent contended that to deny
the members of petitioner cooperative the right to form, assist or join a
labor union of their own choice for purposes of collective bargaining
would amount to a patent violation of their right to self-organization.
 She further pointed that rank and filers who are hired for fixed
compensation had not changed.
 They still do not actually participate in the management of the
cooperative as said function is entrusted to the Board of Directors and
to the elected or appointed officers thereof.
 They are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay
down and execute managerial policies; to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees; and/or to
effectively recommend such managerial functions.
 Likewise, private respondent BELU concurs and claimed that
the membership in petitioner cooperative is only nominal, the rank and
file employees who are members thereof should not be deprived of
their right to self-organization.

Issue:
 Whether or not nominal membership ownership of the
cooperative can join the union?
 Whether or not respondent director committed grave abuse of
discretion in certifying respondent BELU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of BENECO?

Held:
 No, the nominal membership ownership of the cooperative
can join the union.
 Yes, respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion
in certifying respondent BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the rank and file employees of BENECO.

Ratio:
 Contrary to respondents' claim, the fact that the members-
employees of petitioner do not participate in the actual management
of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form, assist or join a
labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with
petitioner. In the case of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, the
members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for a purpose of
collective bargaining was based on the fact that as members of the
cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As such, they cannot invoke
the right to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner cannot
bargain with himself or his co-owners
 It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not
involvement in the management which disqualifies a member from
joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus,
irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual
management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form,
assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
 The contention that if nominal ownership in a cooperative is
enough to take away the constitutional protections afforded to labor,
then there would be no hindrance for employers to grant, on a scheme
of generous profit sharing, stock bonuses to their employees and
thereafter claim that since their employees are not stockholders. If
such will be allowed, the floodgates of destruction to be opened upon
the rights of labor which the Constitution endeavors to protect and
which welfare it promises to promote. Such contention is erroneous,
cooperatives may exercise some of the rights and privileges given to
ordinary corporations provided under existing laws, such cooperatives
enjoy other privileges not granted to the latter because of the special
nature of cooperatives.
 Based on the findings of the mid-arbiter, only 37 employees of
petitioner who are not members of the cooperative and only
employees of petitioner cooperative eligible to form or join a labor
union for purposes of collective bargaining. However, the minutes of
the certification election show that 83 employees were allowed to
vote and 49 voted for the respondent union. Indeed, 37 employees
who were originally non-members of the cooperative can still vote in
the certification election because they were only forced and compelled
to join the cooperative on pain of disciplinary action. This is not
tenable because they already members of the cooperative at the time
of the issuance of the med-arbiter's order and cannot claim that they
are forced to join the union.
 Article 256 of the Labor Code provides, among others, that:
To have a valid, election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority
of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining
agent of all workers in the unit
In this case, it cannot be determined whether or not respondent union
was duly elected by the eligible voters of the bargaining unit because
even employees who are ineligible to join a labor union within the
cooperative due to their membership therein were allowed to vote in
the certification election.

KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AT CANNING V. BLR CALLEJA

FACTS:
Petitioner was an exclusive bargaining representative. Prior to its
expiration as such, it staged a strike to pressure the employer to
extend its contract. Now, within the freedom period, another union
belonging to the same unit filed for certification election. The same
was challenged by herein petitioner on the ground that the union
petitioning for certification election is mostly composed of Iglesia ni
Cristo members who once refused to affiliate with it. It then contends
that, by virtue of their prior religious objection, the said union(mostly
composed of INC members) are not eligible to file for certification
election.

ISSUE Whether or not INC members, who deliberately and previously

refused to affiliate with a union, may organize by themselves

RULING: Yes. This Court's decision inVictoriano 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 public respondent correctly observed
that 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."

Acosta vs. Court of Appeals GR 132088, 28 June 2000

Facts:
 Petitioners are teachers from different public schools in Metro
Manila. On various dates in September and October 1990, petitioners
did not report for work and instead, participated in mass actions by
public school teachers at the Liwasang Bonifacio for the purpose of
petitioning the government for redress of their grievances.
 Petitioners were administratively charged with such offenses
as grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of civil
service law, rules and regulations and reasonable office regulations,
refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and absence without
official leave. Petitioners failed to answer these charges.
 Following the investigations conducted by the DECS
Investigating committees, Secretary Cariño found petitioners guilty as
charged and ordered their immediate dismissal from the service.
Petitioners appealed and the CSC modified the said orders of
Secretary Cariño to six (6) months suspension without pay. Appeal to
CA: Denied

ISSUE: Whether Petitioner’s participation in the mass actions was an

exercise of their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances
HELD: These ‘mass actions’ were to all intents and purposes a strike;
they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or
absence from, work which it was the teachers’ sworn duty to perform,
undertaken for essentially economic reasons.
 The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association.
In the absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to
engage in concerted work stoppages for any purpose.
 Further, herein petitioners, are being penalized not because
they exercised their right of peaceable assembly and petition for
redress of grievances but because of their successive unauthorized
and unilateral absences which produced adverse effects upon their
students for whose education they are responsible
 As aptly stated by the Solicitor General, “It is not the exercise
by the petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble
that was punished, but the manner in which they exercised such right
which resulted in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public
service and classes in various public schools in Metro Manila.
 For, indeed, there are efficient and non-disruptive avenues,
other than the mass actions in question, whereby petitioners could
petition the government for redress of grievances.”
 It bears stressing that suspension of public services, however
temporary, will inevitably derail services to the public, which is one of
the reasons why the right to strike is denied government employees. It
may be conceded that the petitioners had valid grievances and noble
intentions in staging the “mass actions,” but that will not justify their
absences to the prejudice of innocent school children.
 Their righteous indignation does not legalize an illegal work
stoppage.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs

CALLEJA G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990

FACTS: ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine

Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong,
Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the
Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in international
humanitarian and voluntary work.
 IRRI on the other hand was intended to be an autonomous,
philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to
carry out the principal objective of conducting “basic research on the
rice plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution
and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic
advantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-
growing areas through improvement in quality and quantity of rice.”
 The labor organizations in each of the above mentioned
agencies filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed
by both, invoking diplomatic immunity.

ISSUE: Are the claim of immunity by the ICMC and the IRRI from the
application of Philippine labor laws valid?

HELD: YES
 There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of
international immunities to international organizations. These
principles, contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated thus: (1)
international institutions should have a status which protects them
against control or interference by any one government in the
performance of functions for the effective discharge of which they are
responsible to democratically constituted international bodies in which
all the nations concerned are represented; (2) no country should
derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on
common international funds; and (3) the international organization
should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities
for the conduct of its official business customarily extended to each
other by its individual member States.
 The theory behind all three propositions is said to be
essentially institutional in character. “It is not concerned with the
status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of
functional independence necessary to free international institutions
from national control and to enable them to discharge their
responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members. The raison
d’etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded
performance of their functions by the agencies concerned.
 ICMC’s and IRRI’s immunity from local jurisdiction by no
means deprives labor of its basic rights, which are guaranteed by our
Constitution.
 For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever
there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations provides that “each specialized agency shall make provision
for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of
contracts or other disputes of private character to which the
specialized agency is a party.” Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the
Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine
Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the
Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities
accorded.
 Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of
dispute with management as, in fact, there had been organized a
forum for better management-employee relationship as evidenced by
the formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management
(CIEM) wherein “both management and employees were and still are
represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial
cooperation between IRRI and its employees.”

NOTES:
 The term “international organization” is generally used to
describe an organization set up by agreement between two or more
states. Under contemporary international law, such organizations are
endowed with some degree of international legal personality such that
they are capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers. They
are organized mainly as a means for conducting general international
business in which the member states have an interest. The United
Nations, for instance, is an international organization dedicated to the
propagation of world peace.
 “Specialized agencies” are international organizations having
functions in particular fields.

REPUBLIC PLANTERS VS. LAGUESMA

FACTS:
 Republic Planters bank General Services Employees Union-
National Association of Trade Unions filed a petition for certification
election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of the 30 employees outside the bargaining unit of Republic Planters
Bank.
 Republic Planters opposed saying that the petitioner union is
comprised of 30employees of Superior Maintenance Services who are
assigned to the bank as messengers and janitors under a Contract of
Services, there is already a bargaining unit represented by RPBEU,
and that there is no prior determination that the members of petitioner
are employees of the bank.
 Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition since there is already a
bargaining unit and pursuant to one union, one company policy of the
bank. The excluded employees may join the existing bargaining unit.
 Bank appealed protesting the finding of employer-employee
relationship. Undersecretary Laguesma reversed the said decision of
the med-arbiter.
 Hence petitioner union filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner Union be allowed to file the petition for

certification election

HELD: NO.
 The petition for certification election is premature - no petition
for certification election may be entertained if filed outside the sixty-
day period immediately before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement.
 The members of the petitioner union are not employees of
Planters Bank - if the union members are not employees, no right to
organized for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as
bargaining agent can be recognized. Since the persons involved are
not employees of the company, we held that they are not entitled to
the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes
of collective bargaining.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. BPI EMPLOYEES

UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER- FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI
UNIBANK

FACTS: The BSP and SEC approved the Merger executed by and
between BPI, herein petitioner, and FEBTC.
 whereby, 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 is the exclusive bargaining
agent of BPI's rank and file employees. The former FEBTC rank-and-
file employees did not belong to any labor union at the time of the
merger.
 Respondent Union then sent notices to the former FEBTC
employees who refused to join the Union, 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. Petitioner refused to do so.

ISSUE: WON the employees absorbed by the BPI due to the merger
are considered as "New Employees", thus covered by the Union Shop
Clause in the CBA

RULING: Yes. The Union Shop Clause in the CBA simply states that
"new employees" who during the effectivity of the CBA "may be
regularly employed" by the Bank must join the union within thirty (30)
days from their regularization.(probationary, new employees, non-
regular status. Are included)
 There is nothing in the said clause that limits its application to
only new employees who possess nonregular status, meaning
probationary status, at the start of their employment.
 Petitioner likewise failed to point to any provision in the CBA
expressly excluding from the Union Shop Clause new employees who
are "absorbed" as regular employees from the beginning of their
employment.
 What is indubitable from the Union Shop Clause is that upon
the effectivity of the CBA, petitioner's new regular employees
(regardless of the manner by which they became employees of BPI)
are required to join the Union as a condition of their continued
employment.
 There are no substantial differences between a newly hired
non-regular employee who was regularized weeks or months after his
hiring and a new employee who was absorbed from another bank as a
regular employee pursuant to a merger, for purposes of applying the
Union Shop Clause.
 The effect or consequence of BPI's so-called "absorption" of
former FEBTC employees should be limited to what they actually
agreed to, i.e., recognition of the FEBTC employees' years of service,
salary rate and other benefits with their previous employer.
 The effect should not be stretched so far as to exempt former
FEBTC employees from the existing CBA terms, company policies
and rules which apply to employees similarly situated. If the Union
Shop Clause is valid as to other new regular BPI employees, there is
no reason why the same clause would be a violation of the "absorbed"
employees' freedom of association. Carpio (Dissenting Opinion): The
former FEBTC employees should not be considered as "new
employees" of BPI.
 The former FEBTC employees were absorbed by BPI
immediately upon merger, leaving no gap in their employment. The
employees retained their previous employment status, tenure, salary
and benefits. This clearly indicates the intention of BPI to assume and
continue the employer- employee relations of FEBTC and its
employees.
 The FEBTC employees' employment remained continuous
and unchanged, except that their employer, FEBTC, merged with BPI
which, as the surviving entity, continued the combined business of the
two banks.
 Thus, the former FEBTC employees are immediately
regularized and made permanent employees of BPI. They are not
subject to any probationary period as in the case of "new employees"
of BPI.
 The 30-day period within which regularized "new employees"
of BPI must join the Union does not apply to former FEBTC
employees who are not probationary employees but are immediately
regularized as permanent employees of BPI. In short, the former
FEBTC employees are immediately given the same permanent status
as old employees of BPI. Brion
 (Dissenting Opinion): An intrinsic distinction exists between
the absorbed employees and those who are hired as immediate 11
regulars, which distinction cannot simply be disregarded because it
establishes how the absorbed employees came to work for BPI.
 Those who are immediately hired as regulars acquire their
status through the voluntary act of hiring done within the effective term
or period of the CBA.
 The absorbed employees, on the other hand, merely
continued the employment they started with FEBTC; they came to be
BPI employees by reason of a corporate merger that changed the
personality of their employer but did not at all give them any new
employment.
 Thus, they are neither "new" employees nor employees who
became regular only during the term of the CBA in the way that newly
regularized employees become so.
 They were regular employees under their present
employment long before BPI succeeded to FEBTC's role as employer.
Ultimately, the absorbed employees are best recognized for what they
really are — a sui generis group of employees whose classification
will not be duplicated until BPI has another merger where it would be
the surviving corporation and no provision would be made to define
the situation of the employees of the merged constituent corporation.
 Significantly, this classification — obviously, not within the
contemplation of the CBA parties when they executed their CBA — is
not contrary to, nor governed by, any of the agreed terms of the
existing CBA on union security, and thus occupies a gap that BPI, in
the exercise of its management prerogative, can fill.

GENERAL MILLING CORP. V. CASIO G.R. No. 149552, March 10,

2010

Facts:
 The union ilaw buklod mangagawa entered into a CBA with
GMC. The effectivity of the said CBA was retroactive to August 1,
1991.
 The CBA contained a security provision. Gabiana, the IBM
Regional Director, furnished respondent Casio, et al. with copies of
the Affidavits of 2 GMC (petitioner) employees, charging Casio, et al.
with "acts inimical to the interest of the union." Gabiana then wrote a
letter addressed to Eduardo Cabahug (Cabahug), GMC Vice-
President for Engineering and Plant Administration, informing the
company of the expulsion of Casio, et al. from the union pursuant to
the Resolution.
 Gabiana likewise requested that Casio, et al. "be immediately
dismissed from their work for the interest of industrial peace in the
plant” pursuant to the security provision in the CBA.

ISSUE: Whether the dismissal from employment due to the

enforcement of the union security clause in the CBA is legal?

RULING: NO.The dismissal is illegal.

 There is no question that in the present case, the CBA
between GMC and IBM-Local 31 included 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. Union security clauses are
recognized and explicitly allowed under Article 248(e) of the Labor
Code.
 It is State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to
negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more
persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately
bargain with the employer.
 For this reason, the law has allowed stipulations for union
shop and closed shop as means of encouraging workers to join and
support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and
interest vis--vis the employer 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.
 There is no question that in the present case, the CBA
between GMC and IBM-Local 31 included 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.
 It is similarly undisputed that IBM-Local 31, through Gabiana,
the IBM Regional Director twice requested GMC, in the letters March
10 and 19, 1992, to terminate the employment of Casio, et al. as a
necessary consequence of their expulsion from the union.
 It is the third requisite ‘appears to be lacking in this case.
 GMC, the due process should be observed, there must be
notice and hearing. Otherwise the termination of casio’s employment
should be declared violation of his constitutional rights. et al. even
when said dismissal is pursuant to the closed shop provision in the
CBA.
 The rights of an employee to be informed of the charges
against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a
controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped
away by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective
bargaining agreement.

PICOP RESOURCES INC.v. TANECA August 9, 2010

FACTS: Respondents filed a Complaint for ULP, I.D and money
claims against petitioner PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI) and
its officers.
 They were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona
fide members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the
collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of
petitioner PRI. PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with
NAMAPRI-SPFL.
 It contained a union security clause, to wit: 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 PRI 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 contended that it is an act of disloyalty and a
valid basis for termination for a cause in accordance with its
Constitution and By-Laws and CBA terms.
 After investigation, they were subsequently sent termination
notices on the ground of "acts of disloyalty".
 Respondents then accused PRI of Unfair Labor Practice.
 They 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 also claimed that there was lack of procedural due
process. The Labor Arbiter declared the respondents’ dismissal to be
illegal.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are validly terminated pursuant to

union security clause provided in the CBA

HELD: No. 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.
 As to the first requisite, there is no question that the CBA
between PRI and respondents included a union security clause,
specifically, maintenance of membership as 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 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.
 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.
 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. Hence, the third requisite
is lacking.

VICTORIANO V ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION

Facts: Benjamin Victoriano is a member of the religious sect known

as the "Iglesia ni Cristo" and had been in the employ of the Elizalde
Rope Factory, Inc.
 He was also a member of the ERWU (Elizalde Rope Workers’
Union). The Company has a collective bargaining agreement
containing a closed shop provision.
 Victoriano tendered his resignation from ERWU claiming that
as per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the closed shop agreement by
virtue of his being a member of the INC because apparently in the
INC, one is forbidden from being a member of any labor union.
 The company terminate victoriano,avers that the said law is
unconstitutional and violates the EPWU’s and ERF’s legal/contractual
rights.
 Appellant Union, furthermore, asserted that a "closed shop
provision" in a collective bargaining agreement cannot be considered
violative of religious freedom.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is unconstitutional.

HELD: No Republic Act No. 3350 is constitutional.

 The Act classifies employees and workers, as to the effect
and coverage of union shop security agreements, into those who by
reason of their religious beliefs and convictions cannot sign up with a
labor union, and those whose religion does not prohibit membership in
labor unions.
 The classification introduced by said Act is also germane to its
purpose.
 The purpose of the law is precisely to avoid those who
cannot, because of their religious belief, join labor unions, from being
deprived of their right to work and from being dismissed from their
work because of union shop security agreements.
 It recognizes both the rights of unions and employers to
enforce terms of contracts and at the same time it recognizes the
workers’ right to join or not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as well
the primacy of a constitutional right over a contractual right.

KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AT CANNING V. BLR CALLEJA

FACTS: Petitioner was an exclusive bargaining representative. Prior

to its expiration,it declared a strike to pressure the employer to extend
its contract.
 Now, within the freedom period, another union belonging to
the same unit filed for certification election.
 The same was challenged by herein petitioner on the ground
that the union petitioning for certification election is mostly composed
of Iglesia ni Cristo members who once refused to affiliate with it.
are not eligible to file for certification election.

ISSUE: Whether or not INC members, who deliberately and

previously refused to affiliate with a union, may organize by
themselves

RULING: Yes! 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 public respondent correctly observed
that 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."

Comprehensive Digest: Malayang Samahan Ng Mga

Manggagawa Sa Greenland (MSMG-UWP) v. Ramos [G.R. No.
113907, February 28, 2000]

FACTS:
 Petitioner MSMS, (local union) is an affiliate of ULGWP
(federation). A local union election was held under the action of the
federation. The defeated candidates filed a petition for impeachment.
 The local union held a general membership meeting. Several
union members failed to attend the meeting.
 The local union requested the company to deduct the union
fines from the wage of those union members who failed to attend the
general membership meeting.
 The Secretary General of the federation disapproved the
resolution imposing the Php50 fine.

 The federation asked the company to stop the remittance of
the local union’s share in the education funds.
 The company led a complaint of interpleader with the DOLE.
The federation called a meeting placing the local union under
trusteeship and appointing an administrator.
 Petitioner union officers received letters from the administrator
requiring them to explain why they should not be removed from the
office and expelled from union membership.
 The officers were expelled from the federation. The federation
advised the company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and
demanded their separation pursuant to the Union Security Clause in
the CBA.
 The Federation filed a notice of strike with the NCMB to
compel the company to effect the immediate termination of the
expelled union officers. Under the pressure of a strike, the company
terminated the 30 union officers from employment.
 The petitioners filed a notice of strike on the grounds of
discrimination; interference; mass dismissal of union officers and shop
stewards; threats, coercion and intimidation ; and union busting. The
petitioners prayed for the suspension of the effects of their
termination. Secretary Drilon dismissed the petition stating it was an
intra-union matter.
 Later, 78 union shop stewards were placed under preventive
suspension. They declared strike. The strike was attended by
violence.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the company was illegal dismissal.
2. Whether or not the strike was illegal.
3. Whether or not petitioners can be deemed to have abandoned their
work.

HELD:
1. Yes. The charges against respondent company proceeds from one
main issue – the termination of several employees upon the demand
of the federation pursuant to the union security clause. Although the
union security clause may be validly enforced, such must comply with
due process. In this case, petitioner union officers were expelled for
allegedly committing acts of disloyalty to the federation. The company
did not inquire into the cause of the expulsion and merely relied upon
the federation’s allegations. The issue is not a purely intra-union
matter as it was later on converted into a termination dispute when the
company dismissed the petitioners from work without the benefit of a
separate notice and hearing. Although it started as an intra-union
dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the BLR, to remand the
same to the BLR would intolerably delay the case and the Labor
Arbiter could rule upon it. As to the act of disaffiliation by the local
union; it is settled that a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its
mother union in the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s
constitution prohibiting such. There was no such provision in
federation ULGWP’s constitution.

2. No. As to the legally of the strike; it was based on the termination

dispute and petitioners believed in good faith in dismissing them, the
company was guilty of ULP. A no-strike, no lockout provision in the
CBA can only be invoked when the strike is economic. As to the
violence, the parties agreed that the violence was not attributed to the
striking employees alone as the company itself hired men to pacify the
strikers. Such violence cannot be a ground for declaring the strike
illegal.

No, where both parties are responsible for the violence committed
during the strike, the strike cannot be declared illegal since the strike
cannot be attributed to the striking employees only. This is an
exception to the general rule that the strike shall be declared illegal
where it is marred by violence on the part of the employees.
. The evidence on record show that the violence cannot be
attributed to the striking employees alone for the company itself
employed hired men to pacify the strikers. With violence
committed on both sides, the management and the employees,
such violence cannot be a ground for declaring the strike as
illegal.

3. As to the dismissal of the petitioners; respondents failed to prove

that there was abandonment absent any proof of petitioner’s intention
to sever the employee-employer relationship.

Philippine Skylanders vs NLRC

Facts:
 In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders Employees
Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with the Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), won in the certification
election conducted among the rank and file employees of Philippine
Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders
Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested
the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.
 Several months later, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of
disaffiliation.
 PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress
of Workers (NCW), changed its name to Philippine Skylanders
Employees Association – National Congress of Workers (PSEA-
NCW), and to maintain continuity within the organization, allowed the
former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions
as elected officers in the newly-formed PSEA-NCW.
 On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with PSI which was immediately registered with
the Department of Labor and Employment.
 Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA’s shift of allegiance,
PAFLU Secretary General Serafin Ayroso wrote Mariles C. Romulo
requesting a copy of PSI’s audited financial statement. On 30 July
1994 PSI through its personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied the
request citing as reason PSEA’s disaffiliation from PAFLU and its
subsequent affiliation with NCW.

Issue: WON PSEA’s disaffiliation is legitimate.

Held: At the outset, let it be noted that the issue of disaffiliation is an

inter-union conflict the jurisdiction of which properly lies with the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and not with the Labor Arbiter.
 We upheld the right of local unions to separate from their
mother federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary
associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to
the national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the
will of their members.
 Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free
to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the
constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to
renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the agreement
which brought such affiliation into existence.
 There is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by
PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from
the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid
breakaway. As such, the pendency of an election protest involving
both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar
to a valid disaffiliation.