DIGEST

Colgate Palmolive vs Ople

FACTS:

 MOLE (Minister of Labor and Employment) directly certified private respondent as the recognized and duly-
authorized Collective Bargaining Agent for petitioner’s sales force; and

 Ordered the resintatement of 3 employees of petitioner although it was not in conformity with law

 SC issued TOR

ISSUE:

1. W/O Respondent Minister committed grave abuse of discretion when he DIRECTLY CERTIFIED THE UNION
SOLEY ON THE BASIS OF THE LATTER’S SELF-SERVING ASSERTION that it enjoys support of the majority of the
sales force in petitioner’s company;

2. W/O Respondent Minister committed grave abuse of discretion when, notwithstanding his very own finding that
there was just cause for the dismissal of the 3 salesmen, HE NEVERTHELESS ORDERED THEIR
REINSTATEMENT.

RULING:

1. Yes. Respondent Minister disregarded the procedure set forth in Art. 257-260; 239-240 of the Labor Code and
Secs.2, 5 and 6 of Rule 5, Book 5 of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code and its legal requirements. There was
therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.

Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of
the majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to the test of competing claims.

Art. 257 - Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining
agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a
legitimate labor organization.

Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration.

2. Yes. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is
not in conformity with law. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect not only
the labor or workers’ side but also the management and/or employers’ side.

In the case of San Miguel Brewery vs National Labor Union, “an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue
with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and
whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest.”

SC reversed and set aside the order of the respondent Minister.