Philippine Christian University

Sampaloc 1, Dasmariñas City, Cavite

CASE DIGEST IN
LABOR RELATION

CHRISTOPHER IAN M. CASTILLO MS. ANIE P. MARTINEZ

BSBA-MANAGEMENT III
 [G.R. No. 82918. March 11, 1991]

LA SALETTE OF SANTIAGO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and CLARITA JAVIER, Respondents.

Jesarene C. Aquino for Petitioner

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

The La Salette of Santiago, Inc., the petitioner in this case, is one of a group of educational

institutions known as the La Salette School System. Also forming part of the System are the La

Salette of Jones High School and La Salette College. On March 11, 1991, a private respondent

Clarita Javier filed the petition entitled “the probationary employment of professors, instructors

and teachers shall be subject to standards established by the Department of Education and

Culture” against Jesarene C. Aquino of La Salette of Santiago, Inc. The petition, which was filed

before Manila City Hall, Taft Avenue, Manila.

Private respondent has been assigned to different administrative and teaching positions of the

petitioner’s school system, a private school system, where private respondent was initially

employed for three years as high school principal. In 1984 to 1986 private respondent was again

assigned as the high school principal of the petitioner. After her term as high school principal she

received a letter from the petitioner instructing her to report to La Salette College and stating the

person as her replacement as high school principal. Private respondent wrote a letter to the

petitioner complaining of her sudden removal as high school principal but did not received any

reply so she filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter

decided in her favor and the CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
 II. ISSUE :

Whether or not private respondent had acquired permanency, or tenure in the position of high

school principal of the educational system of La Salette of Santiago Inc.

III. RULING :

Whether or not she has also acquired permanency, or tenure, in the position of high school

principal of the educational system of La Salette of Santiago, Inc. The Court held, according to

Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, the probationary

employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject to standards established by

the Department of Education and Culture. Said standards are embodied in paragraph 75 of the

Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Unlike teachers (assistant instructors, assistant,

professors, associate professors, full professors) who aspire for and expect to acquired

permanency, or security of tenure, in their employment, as faculty members, teachers who are

appointed as department heads or administrative officials (e.g., college or department secretaries

principals, directors, assistant deans, deans) do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a

second status of permanency, or an additional or second security of tenure as such officer. The

acquisition of such an additional tenure, to repeat, is not consistent with normal practice,

constitutes the exception rather than the rule, and may take place only where categorically and

explicitly provided by law or agreement of the parties. Therefore, private respondent did not

acquire permanency or tenure in the position of high school principal of the educational system

of La Sallete of Santiago Inc.

 [G.R. No. L-24224 July 30, 1965]

MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO (PFPW) and PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF

PETROLEUM WORKERS, petitioners, vs.

ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., and HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, Judge of

the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

The respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as ESSO, is a foreign corporation registered in the

Philippines and engaged in the marketing and distribution of petroleum, oil, gas and other allied

products. There are two labor organizations to either of which its employees are affiliated: the

Citizens Labor Union (CLU) and the Malayang Manggagawa sa ESSO (MME), ESSO, however,

has its collective bargaining agreement only with CLU, entered into on April 8, 1963, to expire

on July 8, 1966.The respondent, herein after to be referred to as ESSO, is a foreign corporation

registered in the Philippines and engaged in the marketing and distribution of petroleum, oil, gas

and other allied products. There are two labor organizations to either of which its employees are

affiliated: the Citizens Labor Union (CLU) and the Malayang Manggagawa sa ESSO (MME).

ESSO, however, has its collective bargaining agreement only with CLU, entered into on April 8,

1963, to expire on July 8, 1966. On January 7, 1965, MME filed a petition for certification

election with the Court of Industrial Relations (Case No. 1459-MC), claiming
to represent a majority of ESSO’s employees at the latter’s terminal plant in Pandacan, Manila,

and praying that after due hearing it be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all said

employees.

II. ISSUE :

The order of injunction is directed not against the commission of illegal acts but against the very

right to strike and the right to picket both of which are protected by law (Sec. 9 (a) (1) (5), R.A.

875) and the exercise of which cannot be enjoined.

III. RULING :

It is true petitioner here applied to us for relief in a rather precipitate manner, not having waited

until respondent Court could resolve its motion to reconsider the injunction issued. The excuse

given is that the striking laborers were being arrested in mass (32 of them on

February 23, 1965) by the police for picketing, in violation of the broad terms of the injunction.

Ordinarily relief by certiorari is not extended unless the lower court has been given a chance to

correct itself; but under the circumstances of this case, especially considering that in our opinion

said court acted without jurisdiction and the question involved should go to the Court of

Industrial Relations as an incident in the certification election case already filed there, the

procedural prerequisite referred to should be disregarded. WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is

granted; the order complained of is set aside, and the injunction issued by this Court is made

permanent, with costs against private respondent.

 [G.R. No. 7871 June 27, 1990]

ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LAZARO ABAIGAR,

VICTORIANO ANIBAN, FELIPE BATERZAL, RUFINO YAGUIT, JONNIE YAGUIT

and EUGENIO BALBUENA, petitioners, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ABOITIZ SHIPPING

CORPORATION, respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolutions of the public respondent National

Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated April 30, 1987 and May 29, 1987 affirming the

Decision of August 23, 1985 rendered by Labor Arbiter Julio P. Andres, Jr. holding that: "x x x

respondent Aboitiz Shipping Corporation could not be guilty of said charge (unfair labor practice

through dismissal) for lack of employer-employee relationship between them and the individual

complainants at the time said act was allegedly committed in April 1985." (p. 165, Rollo)

II. ISSUE :

"1. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION WHICH AMOUNTS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.

"2. THE RESOLUTIONS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW

AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT."

 III. RULING :

All the above evidences constitute positive proofs that the petitioners-workers were, at the time

in question, in the employ of NARBEN's and not anymore of respondent Corporation.

Respondent NLRC, therefore, did not err in refusing to give weight to petitioners' uncorroborated

claim that they were continuously employees of Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. With regard to

the issuance of ID's to petitioners by private respondent, it appears that these ID's were special

ID's and is different from those issued to its regular employees. On these special identification

cards, the following words are written: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BEARER WHOSE

PICTURE APPEAR ON THIS CARD IS AUTHORIZED TO HAUL, OPERATE, AND

TRANSACT BUSINESS WITH ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION. On the other hand,

appearing on the regular or probationary employee's ID cards are the following words: "THIS IS

TO CERTIFY THAT THE BEARER WHOSE PICTURE AND PERSONAL DATA APPEAR

ON THIS CARD IS AN EMPLOYEE OF ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION". Besides, the

issue of the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties in the case at bar is

a question of fact which has already been resolved by the labor arbiter and upheld by the

National Labor Relations Commission. Review of labor cases are confined to questions of

jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. We find that no grave abuse of discretion was

committed by public respondent NLRC in affirming the non-existence of employer-employee

relationship between petitioners and private respondent.

 [G.R. No. 73199 October 26, 1988]

DR. RENATO SARA and/or ROMEO ARANA petitioners, vs.

CERILA AGARRADO and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Private respondent Cerila Agarrado was an attendant in the clinic of petitioner Dr.Renato

four years later petitioner dr. Sara and romeo arabia being owners of a rice mill, entered into a

verbal agreement with private respondent Agarrado whereby it was agreed that the latter would

be paid P2.00 commission per sack of milled rice sold as well as a commission of 10% per kilo

of palay purchased. It was further agreed that private respondent would spend her own money for

the undertaking, but she was authorized to borrow money from other persons, as in fact she did,

subject to reimbursement by petitioners. Later, private respondent file a complaint before the

NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch for unpaid commissions and reimbursements. Petitioners

contend that the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction since there was no employer-employee

relationship between the private parties so claims were cognizable by the regular courts. The

labor arbiter ordered petitioner to pay all claims. On appeal, labor arbiter’s decision was

affirmed. Thus this petition.

II. ISSUE :

Whether an employer employee relationship exist between petitioners and private respondent as

to warrant cognizance by the Labor Arbiter of Case No LRD-ROXII-006-82.

 III. RULING :

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has applied the

following four-fold test: the selection and engagement of the employee; the payment of

wages; the power of dismissal; and the power to control the employee's conduct.

Noticeably absent from the agreement between the parties is the element of control. The means

and methods of purchasing and selling rice or palay by private respondent were totally

independent of petitioners' control. Note that private respondent was never given capital by his

supposed employer but relied on her own resources and if insufficient, she borrowed money

not even obliged to sell the palay she purchased to petitioners. Moreover, private respondent

worked for petitioners at her own pleasure and was not subject to definite hours or conditions of

work. Under the conditions set forth in their agreement, private respondent was an independent

contractor. The absence of employer-employee relationship deprives the labor arbiter of

jurisdiction. Wherefore, the instant petition for certiorari is granted, Case No LRD-RCXII- 006-

82 of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.
 [G.R. No. 123276. August 18, 1997]

MARIO TIU and JONATHAN HAYUHAY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

COMMISSION and REPUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. (CHANNEL 7),

respondent.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul and set aside the

resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 28 November 1994 in

NCR Case No. 00-08-0453-91 which affirmed the decision of labor arbiter Edgardo Madriaga

dated 18 February 1994 holding the strike held by GMA Channel 7 Employees Union (GMAEU)

on 2 August 1991 as illegal and declaring the fourteen (14) GMAEU union officers who

knowingly participated in the illegal strike to have lost their employment status. The records

show that of the fourteen (14) GMAEU officers involved in the strike, ten (10) officers did not

appeal the labor arbiters decision and opted to avail of the optional retirement benefits under the

collective bargaining agreement with private respondent Republic Broadcasting System Inc.

(RBS). The remaining four (4) union officers, namely: Mario Tiu, Nani Hayuhay, Bong Cerezo

and Virgilio Santoyo, appealed to the NLRC. Considering that Santoyo and herein petitioners

were dismissed under the same factual circumstance, the Court reviewed the records of G.R. No.

122613 to determine whether the ruling laid therein applies in the case at bar. The Court notes

that the issues raised by Santoyo in his petition were procedural in character. Santoyo alleged

that he was never represented by counsel in the proceedings both before the labor arbiter and the

NLRC and was denied the opportunity to present his evidence. This allegation, however, had no
factual basis as the records showed that he was represented by counsel during the entire

proceedings below. In contrast, the present petition raised substantive issues concerning the

legality or illegality of the strike conducted by GMAEU on 2 August 1991.

II. ISSUE :

Failure to comply therewith taints the dismissal with illegality. In another case, we held that the

employer is bound to furnish the employee two notices, the written charge and the notice of

dismissal, if after healing dismissal is indeed warranted.

III. RULING :

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The private respondents are ordered to PAY

Diosdado Tingson, Jr., Godofredo Oblefias, and Carmeno Molino their wages they should have

earned from August 16, 1983 until April 28, 1984, the date of expiration of the parties’

crew agreement, as follows: Diosdado Tingson, Jr. US$ 975.00 a month Godofredo Oblefias US$

975.00 a month Carmeno Molino US$ 760.00 a month in their equivalent in Philippine pesos,

plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six (6%) per cent per annum reckoned from August 16,

1983 until fully and finally paid. The private respondents are also ORDERED to pay overtime

pay and other benefits allowed by law. Let this case be REMANDED to the Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration for the computation of overtime pay and other unpaid benefits.

Costs are adjudged against the private respondents, premises considered, the petition is

hereby DISMISSED, there being no substantial evidence of grave abuse of discretion amounting

to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.

 [G.R. No. L-25999. February 9, 1967.]

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, Petitioner, v. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, JUDGE

JOSE C. BORROMEO, and SUPERIOR GAS And Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc.,

Respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

On January 1, 1965, Associated Labor Union1 and Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu,

Inc.,2 entered into a collective bargaining contract. It was to expire on January 1, 1966. Prior to

the contract's expiry, Union and employer started negotiations for its renewal. Late in February,

1966, while bargaining was in progress, 12 of Sugeco's employees resigned from the Union.

Negotiations were broken. On March 1, 1966, the Union wrote Sugeco. There, request was made

that unless the 12 resigned employees3 could produce a clearance from the Union, they be not

allowed in the meantime to report for work. The reasons given are that irreparable injury would

ensue, that the bargaining contract had lapsed, and that the Company could no longer demand

from its employees the requested clearance. Sugeco made it understood that after the 12 men

would have returned into the Union fold, said company would then be "in a position to negotiate

again for the renewal of the collective bargaining contract." Also on the same day, March 1, the

Union wrote Sugeco, charged the latter with bargaining in bad faith, and its supervisors with

"campaigning for the resignation of members of this Union." The Union there served notice

"unless the aforementioned unfair labor practice acts will immediately be stopped and a

collective bargaining agreement be signed between your company and this union immediately
after receipt of this letter, this union will declare a strike against your management and

correspondingly establish picket lines in any place where your business may be found.

II.ISSUE:

The Court shall have jurisdiction over the prevention of unfair labor practices and is empowered

to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice. This power shall be exclusive

and shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be

established by an agreement, code, law or otherwise

III.RULING:

The Court of First Instance of Cebu, we rule, is without jurisdiction over the subject-matter of

Case No. R-9221. Its judges, therefore, did not have the authority to provide for an ancillary

remedy in that case. Hence, the injunction below complained of was issued coram non judice. It

is void. The petition herein for a writ of certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted, and the writ

of preliminary injunction we issued on May 18, 1966 is declared permanent; the writ of

preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Case No. R-9221, entitled

"Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc., Petitioner, v. Associated Labor Union,"

respondent", is hereby declared null and void; and the respondent judges, or whoever shall take

their place, are hereby directed to dismiss the said Case No. R-9221.
 [G.R. No. 143511 November 15, 2010]

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs.

JOSE B. TEVES, Respondent.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Petitioner terminated respondent through an Inter-Office Memorandum dated on account of his

three (3) unauthorized leaves of absence committed within three (3) years in violation of

petitioners rules and regulations.

Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter (LA) Benigno C. Villarente, Jr.

rendered his Decision declaring that the dismissal of complainant LEGAL. Respondent

interposed an appeal with the NLRC. NLRC rendered its Decision reversing the LAs Decision.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Petitioner filed a Petition for

Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunction

assailing the Decisin and Resolution of NLRC. CA rendered its assailed Decision, which

affirmed and reiterated the NLRC decision.

The CA found that (1) petitioner complied with the two-notice requirement which was essential

to respondent's right to due process; (2) respondent was given a notice to explain in writing why

no disciplinary action should be meted on him for his unauthorized absences from February 11 to

19, 1992; and (3) when respondents explanation proved unacceptable to petitioner, respondent

was sent another notice informing him of his termination by reason of three unauthorized

absences within a three-year period, a conduct which was circumscribed in petitioner's rules and
regulations. Notwithstanding compliance with the requirement of due process, the CA affirmed

the illegality of respondent's dismissal finding that respondent's comportment cannot be

characterized as grave so as to constitute grave misconduct; that his first two leaves of absence

were satisfactorily justified; and that he should not have been suspended from service by reason

of such absences. However, the CA found that respondents failure to report for work on February

11 to 19, 1992 appeared to be the only unauthorized and unjustified leave of absence during his

11 years of stay with petitioner, and it did not merit the harsh penalty of dismissal.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the CA.

II. ISSUE :

Was respondent illegally dismissed?

III. RULING :

Even assuming that respondent's absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, such offense does

not warrant respondent's dismissal. Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by

an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal. There must be a reasonable

proportionality between the offense and the penalty.

While management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate

penalties on erring workers, pursuant to company rules and regulations, however, such

management prerogatives must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers

interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under

special laws and valid agreements. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its

own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such
prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its

implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should

bear in mind that, in the execution of said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employees

position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket.

Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Even where a worker has

committed an infraction, a penalty less punitive may suffice, whatever missteps maybe

committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. This is not only the

laws concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his or her family to consider.

Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows upon those dependent on the wage-earner.

DENIED.
 [G.R. NO. 146779 January 23, 2006]

RENATO S. GATBONTON, Petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAPUA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY and JOSE CALDERON, Respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

which seeks to set aside the Decision1 dated November 10, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in

CA-G.R. SP No. 57470, affirming the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC); and the CA Resolution dated January 16, 2001, denying the motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton is an associate professor of respondent Mapua Institute of

Technology (MIT), Faculty of Civil Engineering. Some time in November 1998, a civil

engineering student of respondent MIT filed a letter-complaint against petitioner for unfair/unjust

grading system, sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an academician. Pending

investigation of the complaint, respondent MIT, through its Committee on Decorum and

Investigation placed petitioner under a 30-day preventive suspension effective January 11, 1999.

The committee believed that petitioner’s continued stay during the investigation affects his

performance as a faculty member, as well as the students’ learning; and that the suspension will

allow petitioner to “prepare himself for the investigation and will prevent his influences to other

members of the community.” Thus, petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal

suspension, damages and attorney’s fees.

Petitioner questioned the validity of the administrative proceedings with the Regional Trial Court

of Manila in a petition for certiorari but the case was terminated on May 21, 1999 when the

parties entered into a compromise agreement wherein respondent MIT agreed to publish in the

school organ the rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 7877 or the Anti-Sexual

Harassment Act; disregard the previous administrative proceedings and conduct anew an

investigation on the charges against petitioner. Petitioner agreed to recognize the validity of the

published rules and regulations, as well as the authority of respondent to investigate, hear and

decide the administrative case against him.

II. ISSUE :

Whether Mapua’s Rules and Regulations is effective as of January 11, 1999 when it was

published only on February 23, 1999 (persons). Whether or not there is a valid justification for

the 30-day preventive suspension under the Labor Code (labor). Whether damages should be

awarded

III. RULING:

Petition is partially granted. CA, NLRC set aside and Labors Arbiter reinstated

1. NO

R.A. No. 7877 imposed the duty on educational or training institutions to "promulgate rules and

regulations in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or students or trainees,

through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the procedures for the investigation of

sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefore

Taňada vs. Tuvera:

all statutes, including those of local application and private laws shall be published as a condition

for their effectivity is fixed by the legislative.(especially penal laws)

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President

in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature

or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must

also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid

delegation.

· publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the

public of the contents of the laws

· Mapua Rules is one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity, since its

purpose is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general application

Mapua Rules Section 3 Rule IV (Administrative Provisions) states that it shall take effect

15 days after publication by the committee.

2. NO.

· Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s

property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the

employee. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his

continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the

employer or of his co-workers. However, when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to
justify an employee’s preventive suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries

during the time of preventive suspension

· Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Ominibus Rules, there is no valid justification

does not show that evidence of petitioner’s guilt is strong and that the school head is morally

convinced that petitioner’s continued stay during the period of investigation constitutes a

distraction to the normal operations of the institution; or that petitioner poses a risk or danger to

the life or property of the other members of the educational community

3. No.

While petitioner’s preventive suspension may have been unjustified, this does not automatically

mean that he is entitled to moral or other damages

- No showing of bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in preventively suspending

petitioner
 [G.R. No. 93117 August 1, 1995]

LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP) and

COMMERCIAL AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (CAILO),

respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

The Med-Arbiter, sustained by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, has ruled that Art. 257

is mandatory and give him no other choice than to conduct a certification election upon the

receipt of the corresponding petition.

“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.”

26 July 1989, private respondent National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the

Philippines-TUCP ("NACUSIP-TUCP") filed with the Department of Labor and Employment

("DOLE") a petition for direct certification or for certification election to determine the sole and

exclusive collective bargaining representative of the supervisory employees of herein petitioner,

Lopez Sugar Corporation.- NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimate national labor

organization; that LSC was employing55 supervisory employees, the majority of whom were

members of the union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over the
supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement covering said

employees; and that there was no legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-

TUCP or to the holding of a certification election. 1- LSC contended, that the petition was bereft

of any legal or factual basis; that the petition was nothing more than a useless scrap of paper

designed to harass the company; and that its employees above the rank-and-file category were in

truth unaware of the petition.-18 August 1989, the Commercial and Agro-Industrial Labor

Organization also claiming to count substantial membership among the LSC supervisory

employees, moved to intervene.- 22 August 1989, NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter

Certificate No. 003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central

Supervisory Chapter. 5 LSC, on its part, submitted a list of its employees above the rank-and-file

status preparatory to the inclusion/exclusion proceedings. 6- One Carlos S. Gevero, asserting a

right to represent the "supervisors of LSC," filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of

interest on the part of the supervisory employees. 7- Med-Arbiter Felizardo T. Serapio issued an

Order granting the petition. He ruled that under Article 257of the Labor Code, as amended, the

Med-Arbiter was left with no option but to order the conduct of a certification election

immediately upon the filing of the petition, holding that the subsequent disaffiliation or

withdrawals of members did not adversely affect the standing of the petition. The dispositive

portion of his Order read.

VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for certification election among

thesupervisory employees of the Lopez Sugar Central, filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP is, as it is

hereby GRANTED with the following choices:

1) National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Phils. (NACUSIP-TUCP);

2) Commercial and Agro-Industrial Labor Organization (CAILO);

3) No Union.- LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a patent nullity and

that the Med-Arbiteracted with grave abuse of discretion. 11- Secretary of Labor ruled that the

holding by the Med-Arbiter of a certification election is mandatory under Article 257 of the

Labor Code; that the subsequent withdrawals and disauthorization/disaffiliationof some

supervisory personnel in the petition for certification election could not bar its being granted; and

that a certification election is still the most appropriate means to finally settle the issue of

representation.- The Solicitor General agrees with public respondent in arguing that the tenor of

Article 257 of the Labor Code is one of command. He cites paragraph 2, Section 6, Rule V, Book

V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, to the effect that once "a

petition (is) filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-

Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election," which is designed, he

continues, to give substance to the workers' right to self-organization.

II. ISSUE:

Public Respondent Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment (has) committed grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it refused to dismiss a petition for

certification election despite clear lack of legal and factual basis for holding the same?The

application of Article 257 clearly must first be occasioned by a genuine petition from a legitimate

labor organization?
 III. RULING :

No, because the labor organization is not legitimate. It was held in

Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment:

“But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a

certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for

certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 212 defines a

legitimate labor organization as ‘any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and

includes any branch or local thereof.’ Rule 1, Section 1, Book V of the Implementing Rules

likewise defines a legitimate labor organization as ‘any labor organization duly registered with

the DOLE and includes any branch, local or affiliate thereof .

Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton which can instantly be set to

impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election. He is still tasked to

satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and amongthe legal requirements is that

the petitioning union must be legitimate labor organization in good standing.

The law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton which can instantly be set to impulse by

them are filing of a petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself that all

the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that the petitioning union

must be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.2. The petition for certification election

was filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with the DOLE

under Registration Certificate. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded;

being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar

Central Supervisory Chapter), the federation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local
chapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.- The

only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar

Central Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. The instant petition, at least

for now must thus be GRANTED.WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Secretary of

Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET

ASIDE. The petition for certification election is dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED.

 [G.R. No. L-29743 September 30, 1969]

BLUE BAR WORKERS' UNION, petitioner, vs.

LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, respondents.

I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

In this, a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction, petitioner seeks to reverse,

and meanwhile restrain enforcement of, the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial

Relations (CIR) dated July 17, 1968 and August 26, 1968 as well as its resolution en banc of

October 3, 1968.On September 20, 1967, Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers

(PLUM for short) petitioned CIR for certification as the majority union and as the sole and

exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees and workers in the Blue Bar

Coconut Philippines, Inc. Upon the averment that petitioner Blue Bar Workers' Union is a local

affiliate of another labor union respondent Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (Lakas) and

that it has an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines,

Inc., said Blue Bar Workers' Union filed in said case on September 27, 1967 a motion for

intervention which CIR granted. Blue Bar's foregoing allegations in reference to the existence of

the collective bargaining agreement were confirmed by the company in its answer dated October

10, 1967 and filed with CIR. On July 3, 1968, a consent election conducted and supervised by

CIR's personnel was held in the premises of the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. at Lusacan,

Tiaong, Quezon. In the official ballots used in said election, the name of petitioner Blue Bar

Workers' Union appeared in parentheses below that of respondent union Lakas Ng

Manggagawang Makabayan. The official tally sheet shows that out of a total of 714 votes cast in

the election, 526 votes were garnered by petitioner Blue Bar Workers' Union-Lakas Ng

Manggagawang Makabayan as against 155 in favor of the PLUM. On July 17, 1968, CIR issued

the controverted order certifying Lakas as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the

regular rank-and-file employees and workers of Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc., for purposes

of collective bargaining with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and

conditions of employment. That order disregarded the name of petitioner union.Blue Bar

Coconut Philippines, inc. balked at this order, moved to reconsider. CIR refused to reconsider. It

was petitioner union's turn, on September 4, 1968, to file its motion for reconsideration of the

orders of July 17, 1968 and August 26, 1968. This too was denied by CIR en banc on October 3,

1968. Petitioner appealed to this Court.

II. ISSUE :

a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction, petitioner seeks to reverse.

III. RULING :

Then came the letter of respondent Lakas to Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. dated June 23,

1969. Lakas, in that letter, informed the employer that "in accordance with an understanding and

agreement with our local officers that they are joining voluntarily with the Blue Bar Workers'

Union, we are giving up all our rights, claims and interests" in the case at bar "on the issue of

Union recognition in favor of Blue Bar Workers' Union." Request was there made that said

company "fully recognize" petitioner "as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the

employees." Petitioner, in view of this letter, filed on August 19, 1969 a manifestation and

motion praying that decision be rendered herein by this Court recognizing said petitioner (Blue
Bar Workers' Union) as the sole collective bargaining representative of the rank-and-file

employees of Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. In a resolution of this Court of August 22,

1969, respondent Lakas was asked to comment within 10 days from notice thereof, on the

foregoing manifestation and motion.1awphîl.nèt Notwithstanding the lapse of the 10-day period,

respondent union failed of compliance. In view of such development, the controversy comes to

an end. WHEREFORE, the Blue Bar Workers' Union is hereby declared as the sole bargaining

representative of the rank-and-file employees of the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. The

preliminary injunction heretofore issued herein is hereby made permanent. No costs. So ordered.