Manresa Labor Relations B TSN First Exam PDF

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR RELATIONS
FROM THE LECTURES OF:
ATTY. JESSIELLE ANN C. FABIAN, CPA, Esq
CONTRIBUTORS 2020-2021
ALAG, MIGUEL ALLEANDRO DELGADO, MIKEL HOFILEÑA

AMISTAD, RYAN JAMES ESTREMOS, DOMINIC
AÑIDES, JELAINE GADOR, LEXA ATHENA
ARELLANO, FRANCES NOREEN LASTIMOSA, ELLA JULES
BARTOLOME, MARK ANTHONY MANLIGOY, KEMARIE
BRAGA, ADRIANNE BEATRICE PIODOS, VICCO
CHEW, MARY GRACE PUERIN, JESSALYN
CULLO, MARC DENIEL SIOSON, KEZIAH
UGDANG, NELLIE III
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. JESSIELLE ANN C. FABIAN 2
PART I: RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION
LABOR RELATIONS
Constitutional Bases as to Private Employees
July 1, 2020 – Miguel Alag
How was your experience in Labor Standards? Was it Article II (Declaration of State Policies), Section 18
exciting? Did you learn a lot of things? The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall
The reason why I asked if your experience in Labor Standards protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
was exciting or not, is that Labor Standards is a pre-requisite of
Labor Relations. As a student, for me, Labor Standards was just Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 8
memorization work. Hopefully, Labor Relations will be more The right of the people, including those employed in the public
exciting on your end. Also, Labor Relations consists up to 50% and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
of the Bar Exam Questions in Labor Law. So the other 50% purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
consists of Labor Standards, Social Legislation, and other Special  Freedom of Association
Laws.
Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), Section 3
Distinction Between Labor Relations and Labor Standards The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized and promote full employment and
Labor Standards equality of employment opportunities for all.
Refers to that part of labor law which prescribes the minimum
terms and conditions of employment which the employer is It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
required to grant to its employees. collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
Under labor standards, we have minimum wage, number of They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
leaves that you have to give to your employees, holiday pay, of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
overtime pay, etc. All of those are minimum terms and and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
conditions of employment. benefits as may be provided by law.
Basically, the terms and conditions of work can’t be agreed upon Labor Code Bases as to Private Employees
because it is fixed by law. Provides for benefits (e.g. working
conditions, wages, hours of work, holiday pay, and other Article 292 (277c)
benefits). Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not,
shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as
Labor Relations an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union (as
Refers to that part of labor law which regulates the relations amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715).
between employers and employees.
Article 253 (243)
The terms and conditions to the agreement of the parties are “All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural
still fixed as to the floor, but may agree on terms and conditions enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational
higher than labor standards. Meaning, labor standards sets the institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the
floor and then, whatever increases you get from the minimum right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor
wage, then comes the labor relations. You join a union, you ask organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
for a raise, you rally, you enter into a collective bargaining bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
agreement, etc. employed people, rural workers and those without any definite
employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and
Labor relation does not provide benefits, but provides condition protection.”
for parties to meet. (Except: Kiok Loy vs. NLRC in case of ER’s
ULP). Article 255 (245)
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any
Here, we’re not going to memorize how much is the overtime labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible
pay, but we are going to learn how parties meet, how parties for membership in the collective bargaining unit of rank-and-file
create union, and how parties bargain with each other. Here, we employees but may join, assist or form separate collective
are also going to learn what those unfair labor practices are, and bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their
what to do and not to do during negotiations or bargaining. own. The rank and file union and the supervisor’s union
operating within the same establishment may join the same
federation or national union. (As amended by RA 9841).
Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Bartolome, Braga, Chew, Cullo, Delgado MANRESA 2020-2021 Puerin, Sioson, Ugdang
Constitutional Bases as to Government Employees Right to Self-Organization vs. Freedom of Association
Article IX-B (CSC), Section 2 (1) (5) Right to Freedom of

The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government Self-Organization Association
employees. Statutory: Labor Code. Constitutional: Bill of
Basis
Rights.
NOTE: Because the constitutional provisions do not jive with the “In whole and in part” Any lawful purpose –
labor code provisions as to the right to self-organization, one for the purpose of need not include
collective bargaining. collective bargaining
has to give in order to reconcile the two provisions. Purpose
(may be for collective
bargaining or mutual
Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) Section 1 aid and protection.
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, Economic right; Privileged right.
at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with Right Involved
protected right.
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with Carries with it the Does not carry with it
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. creation of a separate the right to have a
Juridical
and distinct personality separate and distinct
Personality
Labor Code Bases as to Government Employees by virtue of registration personality.
(with DOLE).
Employer- Must exist Need not exist
Article 254 (244) Employee
Employees of government corporations established under the Relationship
Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain Abridgement Can be abridged and Cannot be abridged.
collectively with their respective employers. All other employees by State regulated.
in the civil service shall have right to form associations for Private sector Private and
Who can
purposes not contrary to law. employees only. Government
exercise?
employees.
NOTE: Employees of GOCCs without original charters have the Labor Workers
What is it
Organization/Union Association/Union in
right to organize and to bargain collectively with their called?
under the Labor Code. general.
employers.
What does the right to self-organization include?

Article 291 (276). Government Employees
1. The right to form, join, or assist labor organization of
The terms and conditions of employment of all government
their own choosing for the purposes of collective
employees, including employees of government-owned and
bargaining [Article 253(243)].
controlled corporations shall be governed by the Civil Service
2. The right not to join any union.
Law, rules and regulations. Their salaries shall be standardized by
the National Assembly as provided for in the New Constitution.
GR: An employee has a right to join and a right not to join any
union.
NOTE: The terms and conditions of employees of GOCCS with
original charters are based on law. Meaning, they have to wait
XPN: If there is, in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), a
for the Senate to pass a law increasing their salaries.
closed-shop agreement (it prohibits employees to jump from
one union to another).
Hopefully, by the end of this class, you will be able to distinguish
where this government employee belongs (to GOCCs with or
XPN TO XPN: In the Victoriano case, some religious beliefs
without original charter), what kind of government employee
prohibit one to join any union.
he/she is (covered by Labor Code or CSC), and what are their
respective rights.
3. The right to vote by 2/3 majority of its general
membership to cancel registration of its union in a
meeting called for the purpose [Article 248 (239-A)].
 VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION
4. The right to file a petition for cancellation of union

registration and/or de-certification of the union on
grounds provided for by law [Article 247 (239)].
 PETITION FOR CANCELLATION

July 1, 2020 – Ryan James Amistad WHO MAY JOIN, FORM, OR ASSIST A LABOR
Can an employee form a union is he's only one employee? ORGANIZATION FOR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING PURPOSES
EX: In a law firm, there are several lawyers but only one rank-
and-file secretary, can that secretary form a union? What is a Labor Organization and what is its purpose?
A labor organization means any union or association of
Yes. The labor code does not require a minimum number of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of
employees for the exercise of the right to self-organization. If it collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning
did, then it would be discriminatory to employees in workplaces terms and conditions of employment.
that do not meet the required number of union formation. The
lone can simply affiliate with a union or a labor federation, which You only use Labor Organization if the purpose is collective
in turn would represent that employee in collective bargaining bargaining, don't interchange the terms because it's very
with the employer. specific. Hence, if it's for collective bargaining you use the term
labor organization.
When can an employee start to exercise his right to self-
organization? Who can form a labor organization for purpose of collective
Article 292. (277c) Any employee, whether employed for a bargaining?
definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service,
be considered as an employee for purposes of membership in A. IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
any labor union. (As amended by Section 33, RA No. 6715) 1. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and
agricultural enterprises;
GR: An employee is entitled to join a union from the first day of 2. Employees of religious, charitable, medical, or
work regardless of the status of his employment, provided the educational institutions, whether operating for profit or
position is covered by the union (Art. 292.c) not;
XPN: When the position is not covered by the union and when NOTE: Numbers 1 and 2 are found under Article 253 [243] of the
there is a qualification in the union itself. Labor Code:
ARTICLE 253. [243] Coverage and Employees' Right to Self-
Unions can provide for requirements or qualifications for joining Organization. — All persons employed in commercial, industrial and
(e.g. employee must be employed for one year in the company) agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or
if they want to. If you are not qualified based on their standards, educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have
the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor
then you cannot enforce them to admit you as a member.
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed
Can a probationary employee demand membership in a people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may
regular-employee's union? form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
No, the union has the right to deny the probationary employee
membership because they make their own regulations. They can, There is no a type of worker that has a plenary right to self-
however, admit him if they like. organization; it is always exercised in a limited degree (e.g. rank-
and-file employees cannot join union of supervisory employees)
If there is a sizable number of probationary employees, they may Even if you have the enumerations in Article 253, certain rules
even be allowed to form their own union and allowed to join it may prohibit you from joining.
from the first day of work. However, such is not practical since if
they do manage to create a union for probationary employees, 3. Front-line Managers, commonly known as supervisory
they would be part of it only for 6 months and after that they employees;
would be regularize, so it would be counterproductive. 4. Alien employees;
5. Working Children (Minors);
NOTE: Probationary employees do not have a lesser right of self- 6. Homeworkers;
organization compared to a regular employee. Even if you are a 7. Employees of Cooperatives;
probationary employee you still have the right to self- 8. Employees of legitimate contractors not with principal
organization. However, temporary workers cannot alter any CBA but with contractor; and
provisions and cannot demand the employer to give benefits to 9. Employees of GOCCs without original charters
that temporary employee. established under the Corporation Code;
B. IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

1. All rank-and-file employees of all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
government, including GOCCs with original charters,
can form, join or assist employee's organizations of
their own choosing.

NOTE: There is a distinction between a labor organization and EX: You are designated as a Chief but for Messengerial
employee's organization. In the public sector you don't call it a Operations, or you can be the Vice President for Marketing but
labor organization, you call it an employee's organization. basically you are in the marketing department or just an
advertiser of some sort.
Three Categories of Employees Under the Labor Code
IMPT: These classifications usually come out in the bar exam, It is not automatic that because you are a CFO that you are part
they will trick you to think that it is a supervisory employee but of the top management since it will still depend on the structure
actually it is a managerial employee or vice-versa, so it is of the organization.
important to know the distinctions between the three:
Are managerial employees allowed to unionize? How about
One who is vested with the powers or supervisory employees?
prerogatives to lay down and execute
Managerial ARTICLE 255. [245] Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to
management policies and/or to hire,
Employee Join Any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees. Employees. — Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
Those who, in the interest of the employer, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees
effectively recommend such managerial shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining
actions if the exercise of such authority is unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form
not merely routinary or clerical in nature separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor
but requires the use of independent organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the
Supervisory judgment. supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may
Employees join the same federation or national union.
They can only effectively recommend such
managerial actions, hence they can only GR: Only top and middle managers are not allowed to join any
recommend who to hire, who to transfer, labor organization.
who to suspend, who to fire but they have
to raise it up to another person. XPN: First-line managers (or supervisory employees) are allowed
All employees not falling within any of the to join a supervisory union.
Rank-and-File
above definitions are considered for
Employees The managerial employees are not allowed to make unions
purposes of this Book.
because he acts for the benefit of the employer and therefore,
he cannot bargain with himself.
Three Types of Managerial Employees
for Purposes of Labor Relations
Distinction Between Managerial and Supervisory Employees
1. Top Management
2. Middle Management
3. First-Line Management Managerial Employees Supervisory Employees
Have the power to decide Have the power only to
Usually, the top and middle management consists of the and do managerial acts recommend managerial acts
managerial employees in the first category while the first-line such as laying down policy,
management are the supervisory employees. hiring or dismissal of
employees and the like.
Top Composed of comparatively small group of Not allowed to join any labor Allowed to join a supervisory
Management executives. (CEO, CFO, COO, President, VP) organization union but not the union of
Refers to more than one level in rank-and-file employees or
organization. Those who direct the vice-versa.
Middle
activities of other managers and to
Management Difference in Treatment in Labor Standards and Relations
implement the organization's policies
(plant manager).
Lowest level at which individuals are Is a supervisory employee a managerial employee?
responsible for the work of others. Those Under Labor Standards Under Labor Relations
First-Line who direct operating employees only and Yes, no overtime pay, etc. In No, in the sense that he cannot
labor standards there is a bigger join any labor organization
Management do not supervise other managers (foreman,
range for Managerial Employees. because supervisory employees
production supervisor, technical
can join unions different from a
supervisor, clerical supervisor). rank and file employee. In Labor
relations there is a narrower
Actual titles in real life vary from one organization from another category of managerial
and therefore is not always a reliable guide of membership in employees.
the highest management classification.
July 1, 2020 – Jelaine Añides "Managerial Employee"- is one who is vested with powers or
What is the test for determining whether one is managerial prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies
or supervisory employee? and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees.
Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph
International (PMTI) v. Pura Ferrer-Calleja “Supervisory Employees”- are those who, in the interest of the
G.R. No. 85915 | January 17, 1990 employer, effectively recommend such management actions if
the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical
FACTS: PMTI is the recognized collective bargaining agent of in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.
the rank-and-file employees of Triumph International. PMTI and
Triumph has a valid and existing collective bargaining All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are
agreement. considered rank and file employees for purposes of this Book.
Section 18 retains the provision on the ineligibility of managerial
A petition for certification election was filed by the respondent employees to join any labor organization. Supervisory
Progressive Employees Union with the DOLE. Both PMTI and employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
Triumph opposed to said petition on the grounds that the union organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
cannot lawfully represent managerial employees. The Labor or form separate labor organizations of their own.
Arbiter issued an order granting the petition for certification
election and directed the holding of a certification election to There is no evidence which distinguishes and clearly separates
determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the group of employees sought to be represented by the union
monthly-paid administrative, technical, confidential and into managerial and supervisory on one hand or supervisory and
supervisory employees of Triumph. This was affirmed by the rank-and-file on the other. The pleadings do not show the
Bureau of Labor Relations with modification that the subject distinctions in functions and responsibilities which differentiate
employees sought to be represented by the union are given the the managers from the supervisors and sets apart the rank-and-
option whether to join the existing bargaining unit composed of file from either the managerial or supervisory groups. In fact, the
daily paid rank-and-file employees. issue of the formation of a supervisor's union was never before
the LA and the Bureau of Labor Relations.
PMTI also said that while some of the employees were
managerial employees under the existing CBA they are not No evidence that rules out the commonality of interests among
prohibited from joining the bargaining unit if later found to be the rank-and-file members of the PMTI as the collective
rank and file employees. bargaining agent of Triumph and the declared rank-and-file
employees who are members of the union. Instead of forming
ISSUE: Whether or not the employees were managerial another bargaining unit, the law requires them to be members
employees and are prohibited from joining any labor of the existing one. The ends of unionism are better served if all
organization? No! the rank-and-file employees with substantially the same
interests and who invoke their right to self-organization are part
HELD: Members of the union are rank and file and not of a single unit so that they can deal with their employer with
managerial employees notwithstanding their title or just one and yet potent voice. The employees' bargaining power
nomenclature in position because: with management is strengthened thereby.
(1) They do not have the power to lay down and execute What was the designation of the managerial employees?
management policies as they are given ready policies merely to Their designations are department manager, personnel manager
execute and standard practices to observe; and general manager. Hence, there was confusion as to whether
they are in managerial positions.
(2) They do not have the power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees but only to No evidence that rules out the commonality of interests among
recommend for such actions as the power rests upon the the rank-and-file members of the PMTI as the collective
personnel manager; and bargaining agent of Triumph and the declared rank-and-file
employees who are members of the union. Instead of forming
(3) They do not have the power to effectively recommend any another bargaining unit, the law requires them to be members
managerial actions as their recommendations have to pass of the existing one.
through the department manager for review, the personnel
manager for attestation and general manager/president for final
actions.
The recent amendments to the Labor Code contain separate

definitions for managerial and supervisory employees. Section 4
of Republic Act No. 6715 states that:

United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma prohibition of managers from joining a union is not a violation
GR No. 122226 | March 25, 1998, 288 SCRA 15 of the Constitution but rather, it complies with the mandate of
the Constitution.
FACTS: The supervisory or route managers of Pepsi-Cola formed
a union named the United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union. They Franklin Baker Company v. Trajano
had filed a petition for certification of election on behalf of the G.R. No. L-75039 | January 28, 1988
route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. The
petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal it was FACTS: Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association Trade Union
also denied by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. United (ATU) filed a petition for certification election among the office
Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union then filed a petition before the and technical employees of the company. ATU alleged that
Supreme Court Third Division and the same was dismissed. Franklin Baker Company had in its employ approximately 90
Hence, this case before the Supreme Court En Banc. regular technical and office employees, which is a group
separate and distinct from the regular rank and file employees
ISSUES: and is excluded from the coverage of existing Collective
1. Whether the route managers are managerial employees? Bargaining Agreement. Franklin Baker Company did not object
Yes! to the holding of such election but manifested that out of the 90
2. Whether Article 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees sought to be represented by the union, 74 are
employees from forming, joining, or assisting labor unions, managerial employees while 2 others are confidential employees.
violates Article III, Section 8 of the Constitution? No! Hence, they alleged that said employees must be excluded from
the certification election and from the bargaining unit that may
RULING: result from said election.
The route managers are managerial employees. The company appealed to the BLR, praying that 74 employees
Under Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code, “managerial employee” would be declared as managerial employees. BLR affirmed the
is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down Med-Arbiter’s order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, subsequently denied. Hence, the instant petition.
suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the ISSUE: Whether or not subject employees are managerial
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the employees under the Labor Code and its IRR? No!
exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in
nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All RULING: Subject employees are not managerial employees.
employees not falling within any of the above definitions are The Supreme Court defined a managerial employee as one “who
considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book. is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
Unlike supervisors who basically merely direct operating recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively
employees in line with set tasks assigned to them, route recommend such managerial actions. In addition, the Court cited
managers are responsible for the success of the company’s the test of “supervisory” or “managerial status” which depends
main line of business through management of their on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of
respective sales teams. Such management necessarily involves his employer in the matter and whether such authority is not
the planning, direction, operation and evaluation of their merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of
individual teams and areas which the work of supervisors does independent judgment. In the case at bar, in the exercise of their
not entail. Therefore, they are considered as managerial recommendatory powers, the subject employees may only
employees. recommend. The ultimate power to hire, fire, or suspend rests
upon the plant personnel manager.
Article 245 does not violate the 1987 Constitution.
The Supreme Court here referred to the discussions of the 1986 Are supervisory employees allowed to join rank-and-file?
Constitutional Commission wherein in sum, Commissioner what are the effects?
Lerum’s proposal to amend Article III, Section 8 of the draft Previously, the law did not allow mixed membership of both
Constitution by including labor unions in the guarantee of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one union. When
organizational right should be taken in the context of statements such happens, the union with mixed membership is considered
that his aim was the removal of the statutory ban against security as no union at all and it cannot exercise the rights of a legitimate
guards and supervisory employees joining labor organizations labor organization. This is enunciated in the “Separation of
which shows that the Commission had purposefully excluded Unions Doctrine”.
managerial employee by having not mentioned the same.
SEPARATION OF UNIONS DOCTRINE
Considering this, it was the clear intention of the Constitutional The “separation of unions” doctrine simply means that the
Commission to completely ban managerial employees from affiliation of both the rank- and-file union and supervisory union
forming, joining, or assisting the Labor Union. Therefore, the in the same company with one and the same federation is not
allowed if the rank-and-file employees are under the direct requisite personality to file for recognition as a legitimate labor
supervision of the supervisors composing the supervisory union. If organization. In Progressive Development Corp. vs. Laguesma, the
not, said affiliation with one and the same federation is allowed. Supreme Court ruled that if a labor organization's application for
registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularities, a
Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Labor Union vs. labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate
Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Employees and labor organization. And if a certificate of registration has been
Workers Union issued, the propriety of its registration could be assailed directly
G.R. No. 135806 | August 8, 2002 through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance
with Arts. 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly, by
FACTS: Petition for Certification Election before the Med- challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for
Arbitration Unit of DOLE-NCR seeking to represent the rank- certification election.
and-file employees of the manufacturing division of Toyota
Motor Philippines Corp. While the case was pending, Toyota What happened to their registration? Was it cancelled?
Motors – Labor Union (TMLU) filed its first Motion to Intervene, Their certificate of registration was deemed void ab initio since
claiming that the petition was premature since a similar case their prior registration includes the supervisory and rank and file
involving the same subject matter was already pending before employees. Even though they have complied with the removal
the Supreme Court. of the supervisory employees from their membership, there is an
additional requirement that they should have renewed their
Supreme Court ruled that TMLU's membership list contained certificate of registration stating that they already removed the
supervisory employees, the labor union could not attain the supervisory members.
status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it
cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for Atty. Fabian’s Comment
certification election. Subsequently, TMLU filed its second In this case, you can see that the [law] is very strict. That the
Petition-in-Intervention alleging that it was now representing presence of supervisory members together with the rank and file
only the rank-and-file employees. employees will automatically render the membership void ab
initio. It is as if you have never existed.
The Med-Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing for TMEWU's
Petition for Certification Election since it failed to include all Did they require a petition for cancellation to be filed? Or
rank-and-file employees in other departments of Toyota Motors. the Court that the registration is void from the very
Further, the Med-Arbiter also dismissed TMLU's second Petition- beginning?
in-Intervention for lack of legal personality, since in its certificate No. The Court did not require a separate petition for
of registration the union was composed of supervisory and rank- cancellation.
and-file employees.
What year was this promulgated?
TMLU appealed to the Secretary of Labor, but the latter affirmed This case was decided on August 2002.
the Med-Arbiter's decision. Aggrieved, TMLU appealed before
the Supreme Court contending that it had the legal personality AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 256 BY R.A. NO. 9481
to intervene in the certification election proceedings, as shown It must be noted that RA No. 9481 was passed on February 19,
by its Certificate of Registration. 2007. Hence, the Toyota Motors case was decided before Art.
256 was revised. So, what is the effect of the inclusion of
ISSUE: Whether TMLU has legal personality as a legitimate labor employees outside the bargaining unit?
organization when it filed its Petition-in-Intervention? No!
Article 256. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees
RULING: TMLU is seeking to represent a mixture of supervisory Outside the Bargaining Unit. - The inclusion as union members
employees, which is prohibited under Article 245 of the Labor of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground
Code, as amended. The union before purging itself of for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said
supervisory employees-members, had not attained the status of employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of
a legitimate labor organization. TMLU asserts that it has purged membership of said union.
its membership of supervisory employees and therefore is now
a legitimate labor organization of the rank-and-file employees, The separation of unions doctrine that we discussed has now
but it failed to show that it registered anew because admittedly, been rendered useless. Now, because of Article 256, in case there
some of its officers are supervisory employees. The need to is mixed membership, the DOLE cannot dismiss a petition for
register anew is necessary, and the purging by itself of its officers registration or invoke that it is a ground for the cancellation of
who are holding supervisory position is imperative. registration of union. In the list of membership, the managerial
employees are deemed automatically excluded. In other
The union's composition being in violation of the Labor Code's words, their removal from the said list is by operation of law. The
prohibition of unions composed of supervisory and rank-and- employer can just say that you are automatically excluded by
file employees would mean that it could not possess the virtue of Art 256 and there is no need to file a petition or have

them revoked or removed because they automatically removed employees from joining the union of rank-and-file employees is
by operation of law. not a ground for cancellation of union registration.
The purpose of discussion of the case of Toyota Motors is to For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to
know that it was very strict before but now, Article 256 clarified establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible
all those questions and thus, it will not cause the cancellation of employees in its membership—it must be shown that there
union registration. was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution
July 1, 2020 – Frances Noreen R. Arellano and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification,
Is it enough that a rank and file union include ineligible or in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
employees to decertify the union? election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
documents together with the list of newly elected-appointed
Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations officers and their postal addresses to the Bureau of Labor
GR. 155395 | June 22, 2006 Relations.
FACTS: Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA) RIGHT OF RIGHT OF ALIEN EMPLOYEES TO JOIN A UNION
applied for union registration before DOLE which was approved.
Subsequently, APC filed a Petition for De-Certification and Article 284 (269).
Cancellation of Union Registration against APFLAA with the Prohibition Against Aliens; Exceptions.
DOLE. APC alleged that APFLAA could not be registered as a All aliens, natural or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are
labor organization, as its composition consisted of "a mixture of strictly prohibited from engaging directly or indirectly in all
supervisory and rank-and-file flight attendants." Particularly, APC forms of trade union activities without prejudice to normal
alleged that flight attendants holding the position of "Lead contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized
Cabin Attendant," which according to it is supervisory in international labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens
character, were among those who comprised APFLAA. working in the country with valid permits issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment, may exercise the right to
ISSUE: Whether APFLAA’s union registration may be cancelled self-organization and join or assist labor organizations of their
considering that the union is allegedly composed of a mixture own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining: Provided,
of supervisory and rank-and-file employees? No! further, That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants
the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. (As amended by
HELD: For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
to establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible
employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) This is Number 4 of that enumeration (Who can form a Labor
of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was Organization for the purpose of Collective Bargaining?).
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws GR: All aliens, natural or juridical, as well as foreign organizations
or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in are strictly prohibited from engaging directly or indirectly in all
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election forms of trade union activities without prejudice to normal
of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized
together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers international labor centers.
and their postal addresses to the BLR.
XPN: Alien employees with:
In its Petition for De-certification and Cancellation of Union 1. Valid working permits issued by the DOLE may exercise
Registration, APC did not impute on APFLAA such the right to self-organization and join or assist labor
misrepresentation of the character necessitated under Article organizations for purposes of collective bargaining,
239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. APC merely argued that 2. If they are nationals of a country which grants the same
APFLAA was not qualified to become a legitimate labor or similar rights to Filipino workers, as certified by the
organization by reason of its mixed composition of rank-and-file Department of Foreign Affairs.
and supervisory employees; and that APFLAA committed
misrepresentation by making it appear that its composition was NOTE: Working permits issued by the DOLE is different from
composed purely of rank-and-file employees. Such working visas issued by the BOI. If you have a working visa but
misrepresentation as alleged by APC, is not conformable to you don't have a working permit, you still can't exercise right to
Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. self-organization. The DOLE is not obliged to give a working
permit even if the alien is issued a working visa.
There may be remedies available to enforce the proscription set
forth in Article 245 of the Labor Code on supervisory employees
joining the union of rank-and-file employees. But consistent with
jurisprudence, the rule under Article 245 barring supervisory

RIGHT OF WORKING CHILDREN TO SELF-ORGANIZATION RIGHT OF MEMBERS OR EMPLOYEES
OF COOPERATIVES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
GR: Working children have the same freedom as adults to join
the labor organization of their own choosing in accordance with GR: Employees of a cooperative are entitled do to exercise their
existing laws. right to self-organization.
XPN: Working children cannot be officers of a union/labor XPN: Employees who are at the same time members of the
organization. cooperative. They are considered owners, and owners cannot
bargain with himself or his co-owners. (Cooperative Rural Bank
The general rule is that yes, they have freedom as much as of Davao City vs Calleja)
adults. P.D. 603, Article 11 as amended by P.D. 1179 provides
that neither management nor any collective bargaining union XPN TO XPN: But employee-members of a cooperative may
shall threaten or coerce working children to join, continue, or withdraw as members of the cooperative for the purpose of
withdraw as a member of a union. joining a labor union (Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs
Secretary).
RIGHT OF HOMEWORKERS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
NOTE: Take note of this exception. Members of the cooperative
GR: Homeworkers have the right to form, join or assist have no right to join or form labor organizations for the purpose
organization of their choosing in accordance with law. of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the
cooperative. In fact, the fact of co-ownership or ownership of the
XPN: Household workers/Domestic Helpers cooperative and not the involvement in the management or
operations thereof is what disqualifies the member to join any
Why do you think domestic helpers do not have the right to labor organization. It’s not participation but actual ownership of
self-organization? the member in the cooperative. So irrespective of the degree of
It will be absurd for the kasambahays to rally outside your house participation in the actual management of the coop, all members
and then go back and sleep at your house. still cannot join or form a labor union for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
If you remember in your Labor Standards, this is where materials
are supplied by the employer and the work will be done in the Note also that in the case of Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative
employer's home. If the employer does not return to get the vs. Secretary, to deprive a person of his right to join a union, there
products, the employee sells the products to another and the should be proof that he is a member or co-owner of the
employer is deemed to have reneged on their obligation to pay cooperative. Absent such evidence, he should be allowed to
the salary of the employee and the employer will be held liable. join the union. So, you cannot be a member and an employee at
the same time if you want to exercise the right to self-
Homeworkers are different from a household worker. organization.
Distinction between homeworkers and household workers
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES
Homeworkers Household Workers OF LEGITIMATE CONTRACTORS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Place of Work
Works in his home Works in the home of ER GR: Department Order No. 18-02 (2002) recognizes that a
contractual employee of a legitimate independent contractor or
Classification
sub-contractor has the right to self-organization, collective
Industrial Worker Non-industrial Worker
bargaining and peaceful concerted action.
History
Product of industrial Antedates industrial worker
Such rights, however, cannot be exercised and invoked against
revolution
the Principal but only against the Independent Contractor which
DOLE Inspection and Visitorial Powers employed them.
Subject to DOLE Inspection Not subject to DOLE’s
and visitorial powers inspection and visitorial XPN: When there is Labor-Only contracting.
powers, a warrant is needed
Right to Self-Organization What happens in labor-only contracting?
Can form union Cannot form union It’s as if the principal is the only actual employer of the
employee. So therefore, that's the exception.

RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES OF GOCCS WITHOUT ORIGINAL The test to determine whether a corporation is government
CHARTER ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE owned or controlled, or private in nature is simple. Is it created
by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by
ARTICLE IX Constitutional Commissions incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION special charters are government corporations subject to its
Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory members of the
including government-owned or controlled corporations with Government Service Insurance System.
original charters.
The PNRC was not "impliedly converted to a private corporation"
Those without original charters are subject to the Labor Code. simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the
Now, let's go to the charter test. authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all
duties, taxes, fees and other charges of all kinds on all
Charter Test: It is the test to determine whether a corporation importations and purchases for its exclusive use, on donations
is government owned or controlled, or private in nature. for its disaster relief work and other services and in its benefits
and fund raising drives, and be allotted one lottery draw a year
Francisca S. Baluyot v. Paul E. Holganza by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the support of
G. R. No. 136374 | February 9, 2000 its disaster relief operation in addition to its existing lottery
draws for blood program.
DOCTRINE: Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a
government owned and controlled corporation, with an original Clearly then, public respondent has jurisdiction over the matter,
charter under Republic Act No. 95. Hence, it falls under the pursuant to Section 13, of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise
jurisdiction of Ombudsman. known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989".
FACTS: During a spot audit conducted by a team of auditors Baltazar G. Camporedondo vs NLRC
from the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) headquarters, a G.R. No. 129049 | August 6, 1999
cash shortage was discovered in the funds of its Bohol chapter.
The chapter administrator, Baluyot, was held accountable for the FACTS: Camporedondo was employed by the Philippine
shortage. Baluyot was charged with malversation and National Red Cross since 1980 until his early retirement, he was
dishonesty. administrator of the Surigao del Norte Chapter. In July, 1995, a
field auditor conducted an audit and found Baltazar short in the
Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction total sum. PNRC Secretary General Celso Samson required
over the subject matter of the controversy since the PNRC is petitioner to restitute the total sum representing cash shortages,
allegedly a private voluntary organization. The following technical shortage and unremitted collection. He applied for
circumstances, she insists, are indicative of the private character early retirement from service. Petitioner filed with the NLRC a
of the organization: complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and underpayment of
1. The PNRC does not receive any budgetary support wages against the PNRC and its key officials.
from the government, and that all money given to it by
the latter and its instrumentalities become private ISSUE: Whether or not the PNRC is a government-owned and
funds of the organization; controlled corporation? Yes!
2. Funds for the payment of personnel's salaries and other
emoluments come from yearly fund campaigns, private HELD: The PNRC is a government-owned and controlled
contributions and rentals from its properties; and corporation with an original charter under R.A. No. 95, as
3. It is not audited by the Commission on Audit. amended. Those with special charters are government
corporations subject to its provisions and its employees are
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine National Red Cross is a under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are
government owned and controlled corporation that falls under compulsory members of the Government Service Insurance
the jurisdiction of Ombudsman? Yes! System. The PNRC was not impliedly converted to a private
sector corporation simply because its character was amended to
RULING: Practically the same issue was addressed in vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from
Camporedondo v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al. payment of all duties, taxes, fees, and other charges of all kinds
on all importations and purchases for its exclusive use, on
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Philippine National donations for its disaster relief work and other services and in its
Red Cross (PNRC) is a government owned and controlled benefits and fund raising drives, among others.
corporation, with an original charter under Republic Act No. 95,
as amended.

July 7, 2020 – Mark Anthony Bartolome The amendments of CA 148 also made it clear that the Society
3 Exceptions to the Charter Test was a private corporation and not an agency of the government.
These corporations with original charters are within the coverage This was also evident in EO 63 declaring that the revocation of
of the Labor Code: the powers of the Society to appoint agents with powers of arrest
“corrected a serious defect.”
1. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals The Society’s charter also shows that it is not subject or control
2. GOCCs even if with original charter are covered by or supervision by any agency of the State, unlike GOCCs. There
Article 106 and 107 of the LC on joint and several is also no government representative sitting in its Board of
liability of contractor Trustees. The successors of its members are determined
3. Philippine National Red Cross voluntarily and solely by the Society according to its by-laws.
These are exceptions to the Charter Test. So let’s go to the cases: The employees of the Society are covered by SSS through its
initiative, and not through GSIS which covers government
Philippine Society for the employees. This further signifies that the Society is a private
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) v. COA entity.
G.R. No. 169752, September 25, 2007
Also, even though the primary purpose of the Society is to secure
FACTS: The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to the protection and welfare of animals (public interest), it does not
Animals was incorporated as a juridical entity over 100 yrs. ago by automatically make the entity a public corporation. This class of
virtue of Act 1285 (enacted Jan. 19, 1905). Act 1285 preceded both corporations may be considered as quasi-public corporations,
the Corporation Law (Act 1459 made a year after) and creation of in which private corporations render some kind of public service.
SEC. Quasi-public corporation is a species of private corporations, the
qualifying factor being the performance of public service.
The Society was initially imbued with the power to apprehend
animal welfare laws violators. Also, 1⁄2 of the fines collected shall What is the true criterion to determine whether a private
belong to said group to promote its objectives. However, due to corporation is public or private?
CA 148, the privilege to retain a portion of the collected fines was The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public
recalled – it shall now accrue to the general fund of the or private is found in the totality of the relation of the
municipality where the offense was committed. corporation to the State.
EO 63 was later issued, withdrawing from the agents of the If the corporation is created by the State as its agent to help it
society the power and authority to make arrests for violation of in carrying out its governmental functions, then that
the law against animal cruelty and to collect fines for said corporation is considered public;
violations.
IN THIS CASE: Powers to arrest offenders revoked from the
COA Audit Survey on the Society COA later went to the Society’s Society – not an agent. Otherwise, it is private.
office to conduct an audit survey, but the latter objected to it,
citing that it was a private entity not under the jurisdiction of CONCLUSION: The Society is a private domestic corporation, not
COA, citing Art. 9, Sec. 2(1) of the Constitution. a public corporation.
ISSUE: Whether the Society qualifies as a government agency, or How about the control and supervision by the government?
a private entity? The court discussed that the society’s charter itself states that it
cannot be a subject of control or supervision of any agency of
RULING: the state.
It is a private domestic corporation. Did the court mention any other grounds why it is a private
In the case, the “charter test” cannot be applied. Since the and not a public corporation?
“charter test” was only introduced during the establishment of Aside from those, the court also discussed that the amendments
the 1937 Constitution. Hence, it follows that the test cannot apply itself shows that the Society is a private corporation because as
to the Society, which was incorporated by Act 1285, enacted on what was stated, the powers of the Society was revoked – the
Jan 19, 1905. Settled is the rule that laws in general have no power to make arrests and collect funds. These were revoked by
retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. the amendments. Also, in the board of trustees of the Society,
there is no Government representative, and the successors of the
Given that the charter test doctrine does not apply, the mere fact members are solely identified by the Society according to its
that the Society has been created by virtue of a special law does bylaws. Another thing is that employees of the society were
not necessarily qualify it as a public corporation. covered by the SSS and not by the GSIS. The court also discussed
that even if the primary purpose of the society was to protect

the animals, meaning, there involves a public interest, however In this case, the GSIS cannot evade liability by claiming that it
the court said that this does not automatically make the society had fully paid complainants' salaries by incorporating in the
as public corporation. Also, the court here classified these types Security Service Contract the salary rate increases mandated by
of corporation as quasi-public corporation, wherein like the Wage Order Nos. 1 and 2 by increasing the contract price.
Society, a private corporation render public service.
The joint and several liabilities of the employer or principal
Comments was enacted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Obviously here, there is a special law creating the Society, but Code, principally those on statutory minimum wage. The
still it is governed by the Labor Code. It has a charter technically contractor or subcontractor is made liable by virtue of his or her
but, it is governed by the Labor Code because of no retroactive status as a direct employer, and the principal as the indirect
effectivity of laws. employer of the contractor’s employees. This liability
facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers’
GSIS v. NLRC and Lanting Security et. Al., compensation, thus, giving the workers ample protection as
G.R. NO. 157647, October 15, 2007 mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This is not unduly
burdensome to the employer. Should the indirect employer
FACTS: Tomas Lanting, doing business under the name and style be constrained to pay the workers, it can recover whatever
of Lanting Security and Watchman Agency (LSWA) entered into amount it had paid in accordance with the terms of the
a Security Service Contract to provide security guards to the service contract between itself and the contractor.
properties of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) at
the contract rate of ₱3,000.00 per guard per month. For cases of salaries for employees that are not being paid by
virtue of contractor and sub-contractor relationship, GOCCs
During the effectivity of the contract, LSWA requested the GSIS even if with original charter are still liable jointly and severally.
for an upward adjustment of the contract rate which the GSIS
approved. On March 15, 1993, GSIS terminated the Security Liban v. Gordon
Service Contract with LSWA which prompted the complainants GR No. 175352, January 18, 2011
to file separate complaints against LSWA for underpayment of
wages and non-payment of labor standard benefits. FACTS: This resolves the Motion for Clarification and/or for
Reconsideration filed on by Richard J. Gordon of the Decision
LSWA filed a Third-Party Complaint against GSIS for promulgated by this Court and the Motion for Partial
underpayment of complainants' wages. The Labor Arbiter ruled Reconsideration by Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC).
in favor of complainants, ordering LSWA and/or Lanting and the
GSIS jointly and severally liable to pay the complainants. On the In the Decision, the Court held that respondent did not forfeit
other hand, the NLRC ruled that GSIS is solely liable for payment his seat in the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the
of salary differentials. However, the same was reversed by the PNRC Board of Governors, as "the office of the PNRC Chairman
Court of Appeals and held that GSIS and LSWA jointly and is not a government office or an office in a government-owned
severally liable. or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in
Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution." The Decision,
ISSUE: Whethere GSIS is jointly and severally liable with LSWA however, further declared void the PNRC Charter "insofar as it
for the payment of salary differentials? Yes! creates the PNRC as a private corporation" and consequently
ruled that "the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation
HELD: Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code provide: Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission
if it wants to be a private corporation."
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor.– Whenever an employer enters
into contract with another person for the performance of the former’s
In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, PNRC prays that the
work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor,
Court sustain the constitutionality of its Charter contending that
if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
PNRC’s structure is SUI GENERIS. It is a class of its own. While it
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the is performing humanitarian functions as an auxiliary to
wage of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer government, it is a neutral entity separate and independent of
shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or government control, yet it does not qualify as strictly private in
subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work character.
performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that
he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
ISSUE: What is the structure of the PNRC?
ART. 107 Indirect employer.– The provisions of the immediately
preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, HELD:
association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with
an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or It is sui generis. It is neither private nor public in nature.
project. There is merit in PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui
generis. The PNRC is one of the National Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, which, together with the International registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Angelo
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the IFRC and RCS, make Reyes was the Secretary of National Defense who issued the
up the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the assailed Department Circular No. 04 on June 10, 2002.
Movement). They constitute a worldwide humanitarian
movement. The Department Circular No. 04 stressed the relationship
between the VFP and DND stating that the former is under the
National Society, such as the Philippine National Red Cross, control and supervision of the latter by virtue of RA No. 2640.
partakes of a sui generis character. It is a protected component Under the said order, the VFP is mandated to submit the
of the Red Cross movement under Articles 24 and 26 of the First following: annual reports, proceedings of council meetings,
Geneva Convention, especially in times of armed conflict. report of operations together with financial statement of its
National societies are therefore organizations that are directly assets and liabilities and fund balance per year, and other
regulated by international humanitarian law, in contrast to other documents/reports as may be necessary or required by the
ordinary private entities, including NGOs. Secretary of National Defense.
So must this Court recognize too the country’s adherence to the Thereafter, VFP received a letter from DND’s Undersecretary,
Geneva Convention and respect the unique status of the PNRC informing it for "the conduct of a Management Audit of the
in consonance with its treaty obligations. Veterans Federation of the Philippines." Secretary General of the
VFP responded to DND Secretary complaining about the alleged
Moreover, the PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, broadness of the scope of the management audit and
humanitarian organization, whose mission is to bring timely, requesting the suspension thereof.
effective, and compassionate humanitarian assistance for the
most vulnerable without consideration of nationality, race, The VFP filed this Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition
religion, gender, social status, or political affiliation. It is entirely contending that:
devoted to public service. It is not covered by the prohibition 1. It does not possess the elements which would qualify it
since the Constitution aims to eliminate abuse by the Congress, as a public office, particularly the possession or
which tend to favor personal gain. delegation of a portion of sovereign power of
government to be exercised for the benefit of the
But the most important question is, why in the previous public;
discussion did we say that PNRC has its original charter, 2. VFP funds are not public funds
making it a public corporation. How come in this case it’s 3. Although the juridical personality of the VFP emanates
different? from a statutory charter, the VFP retains its essential
The simple answer is, look at the dates of these cases, the recent character as a private, civilian federation of veterans
case is the Liban v. Gordon (2011). You can see how the Supreme voluntarily formed by the veterans themselves to attain
Court can change from one opinion to totally different opinion a unity of effort, purpose and objectives
by passage of time depending on how the SC would construe 4. The VFP is governed, not by the Civil Service Law, the
the facts. Now PNRC is sui generis, as an exception to the charter Articles of War nor the GSIS Law, but by the Labor Code
test. and the SSS Law.
Let’s go to other notable cases. Let’s go to The Veterans ISSUE: Whether or not the VFP is a private corporation? No!
Federation of the Philippines vs Reyes. The issue that must be
pinpointed is mentioned below: HELD: In Laurel vs Desierto, the Court held that the holding of
the Centennial Celebrations was an executive function, as it was
The Veterans Federation of the Philippines v. Reyes intended to enforce Article XIV of the Constitution which
G.R. No. 155027, February 28, 2006 provides for the conservation, promotion and popularization of
the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, and
ISSUE: Is the VFP a private corporation when (1) its funds do not artistic relations.
come from government budgetary appropriations but from
membership dues and lease rentals raised from government In the case at bar, the functions of corporation enshrined in
lands; (2) even if its juridical nature stems from a statutory Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 2640 should most certainly fall within
charter, the VFP is voluntarily formed by the veterans the category of sovereign functions. The protection of the
themselves, is governed not to be Civil Service or GSIS Laws but interests of war veterans is not only meant to promote social
by SSS Law and the Labor code; (3) the Admin Code does not justice but is also intended to reward patriotism. All of the
provide that the VFP is an attached agency under the control functions in Section 4 concern the well-being of war veterans,
and supervision of the DND; (4) the DBM declare that the VFP is our countrymen who risked their lives and lost their limbs in
a non-government organization? fighting for and defending our nation.
FACTS: The Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) is a Like the holding of the National Centennial Celebrations, the
corporate body organized under Republic Act No. 2640 and is functions of the VFP are executive functions, designed to
implement not just the provisions of Rep. Act No. 2640, but also,
and more importantly, the Constitutional mandate for the State July 7, 2020 – Andie Braga
to provide immediate and adequate care, benefits and other Alliance of Government Workers v.
forms of assistance to war veterans and veterans of military Ministry of Labor and Employment
campaigns, their surviving spouses and orphans.
FACTS: AGW, a Labor Federation of Unions in Government
Therefore, the assailed DND Department Circular does not
Owned Corporations (GOCCs) and State Schools took collective
supplant nor modify and is perfectly in consonance with Rep. Act
action (strike among others) to demand the inclusion of
No. 2640. VFP is a public corporation. As such, it can be placed
government employees in the coverage of PD 851 which
under the control and supervision of the Secretary of National
Defense, who consequently has the power to conduct an requires employers to pay 13th month pay to their employees
extensive management audit of petitioner corporation. receiving not more than P1000.00 a month.
What was the allegation as to who controls the VFP? ISSUE: Are Government employees allowed to act through a
The VFP is under the supervision and control of National Defense Labor Federation which uses collective bargaining power to
Secretary. The court ruled that since it is under the supervision secure an increased compensation of its members? No!
of a public officer, that’s why it must be considered as a public
office or exercising public function. RULING: It is the legislature or, in proper cases, the
administrative heads of government and not the collective
What did they allege? bargaining process nor the concessions wrung by labor unions
They said that they are civilian federation and that their from management that determine how much the workers in
membership is voluntary and then as read from the history, this
government-owned or controlled corporations may receive in
federation was made public pursuant to RA 2640 and in the
terms of salaries, 13th month pay, and other conditions or terms
same charter, it was held to be under the supervision of the
of employment.
National Defense Secretary.
Alliance of Government Workers v. The general rule in the past and up to the present is that "the
Minister of Labor and Employment terms and conditions of employment in the Government,
G.R. No. L-60403, August 3, 1983, 124 SCRA 1 including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof are
governed by law" (Section 11, the Industrial Peace Act, R.A. No.
ISSUE: Are the branches, agencies, subdivisions, and 875, as amended and Article 277, the Labor Code, P.D. No. 442,
instrumentalities of the Government, including government as amended).
owned or controlled corporations included among the 4
"employers"" under P.D. No. 851 which are required to pay and Since the terms and conditions of government employment are
their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons
P1,000.00 a month, a thirteenth (13th) month pay not later than employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions
December 24 of every year? from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in
private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured
HELD: No, the Republic of the Philippines, as a sovereign, cannot
through compulsion by law.
be covered by a general term like “employer” unless the
language used in the law is clear and specific to that effect. Since
the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed Relations between private employers and their employees rest
by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons on an essentially voluntary basis.
employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions
from their employers. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other
labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of
In government employment, however, it is the legislature and, employment in the unionized private sector are settled through
where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads the process of collective bargaining. In government
of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment, however, it is the legislature and,
employment. And this is effected through statutes or where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads
administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through of government which fix the terms and conditions of
collective bargaining agreements.
employment. And this is effected through statutes or
administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through
collective bargaining agreements.

If you’re going to be a government employee, you don’t have a package adopted by the SSS and the SSC, pursuant to law. The
right to collectively bargain because the terms and conditions of COA-Legal Services Sector (COA-LSS) denied the motion for
your work are fixed by law. Your salary range has a “plantilla”. reconsideration filed by the SSS. On appeal, the COA upheld the
You have a rank - a salary grade number. disallowance of the disbursements in question. The COA stated
that whether the other benefits were CNA incentives was
Social Security System vs. Commission On Audit immaterial because the grant had no legal basis,
notwithstanding the SSS Blue Book. It elucidated that the SS Law
FACTS: The Social Security Commission (SSC) of the Social set the limit on the amount of the compensation which the
Security System (SSS) approved and issued two resolutions: members of the SSC could receive, and the said benefits were
not among those included.
1) Resolution No. 360 – which grants a new compensation
package for its members, including medical benefits, rice ISSUE: Whether the members of the SSC are entitled to the EME,
allowance, and a provident fund. These benefits were medical benefits, rice allowance, and provident fund? No!
incorporated in the SSS Manual on Personnel Policies, Rules and
Regulations or commonly known in the SSS as the "Blue Book.” HELD: In SSS v. COA, the Court held that the funds of the SSS
were merely held in trust for the benefit of workers and
2) Resolution No. 790 – which grants Extraordinary and employees in the private sector. In the said case, the Court did
Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) to its members. The EME not find the signing bonus to be a truly reasonable
included, but was not limited to, expenses incurred for meetings, compensation. The gratuity was of course the SSC's gesture of
seminars, conferences, official entertainment, and public good will and benevolence for the conclusion of collective
relations. negotiations between SSC and ACCESS, as the CNA would itself
state. But for what objective? Agitation and propaganda which
The COA disallowed the amount, covering the EME and other are so commonly practiced in private sector labor management
benefits. The disallowance was anchored on these grounds: relations have no place in the bureaucracy, and that only a
peaceful collective negotiation which is concluded within a
For the EME – the same is disallowed in audit for lack of legal reasonable time must be the standard for interaction in the
authority of the SSC Commissioners to claim EME either under public sector. This desired conduct among civil servants should
the SSS Charter (Section 3 of R.A. 8282) or under the General not come, we must stress, with a price tag which is what the
Appropriations Act as provided under COA Circular. signing bonus appears to be.
For the medical expenses, rice allowances and provident fund – Section 3(a) of the SS Law was passed with the purpose of
these allowances/benefits which are included in the Collective providing reasonable compensation to appointive members of
Negotiation Agreement (CNA) were disallowed in audit pursuant the SSC. It was crafted in such a manner that the specific benefits
to Section 1 of Public Sector Labor Management Council be laid out so that there would be no need for Congress to later
Resolution (PSLMC) No. 2, s. 2003. Said Resolution provides that pass a law providing for additional benefits. Following the maxim
only rank and file employees of the GOCC are entitled to CNA expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the COA was correct in
Incentives. Members of the Commission are considered high- disallowing the disbursements in question as they were not
level employees, whose functions are normally considered as among those enumerated in Section 3(a) of the SS Law.
policy making or managerial, hence, they are not allowed to join
the organization by virtue of E.O. No. 180. Verily, the SSS cannot grant additional benefits to SSC members
other than the reasonable allowances specified by the law. To do
Aggrieved, the SSS filed Motion for Reconsideration and so would be contrary to the intentions of Congress for the SS
proffered, among others, that the COA's ground for Law to categorically enumerate the benefits to be received by
disallowance, arguing that the 2000-2002 CNA between the SSC members. It must be remembered that the objective of the
management and ACCESS (the labor organization in SSS) did not law was to provide reasonable and adequate compensation to
include a provision granting medical benefits, rice allowance, SSC members. Guided by the recommendations of the SSS
and provident fund to either the employees or the officials of administrator, Congress specifically provided for the benefits to
the SSS. In other words, the CNA was not the source of the be received by SSC members. Thus, Congress deemed the said
benefits which were disallowed by the COA. While Sections 1 amounts to be reasonable compensation to SSC members as
and 3, Article II of the CNA require the SSS to continue extending they were the same benefits suggested by the former SSS
all benefits existing during the signing thereof and to implement administrator.
all government legislated wages and benefits covering the
employees in the civil service, such existing benefits referred to Notwithstanding the disallowance of the questioned
were those provided under the benefits and compensation disbursements, the Court ruled that the responsible officers

under the Notice of Disallowance need not refund the same on Public Sector
the basis of good faith. Good faith may be appreciated because (1) High-level Employees;
the approving officers were without knowledge of any (2) Members of the AFP, police officers, PNP, firemen, and
circumstance or information which would render the transaction jailed guards; and
illegal or unconscientious. Neither could they be deemed to be (3) Employees of International Organization and
grossly negligent as they believed that they could disburse the Institutions
said amounts on the basis of the provisions of the SS Law.
Who are Confidential Employees?
ISSUE: Is a “signing bonus” of P5000 per employee as gratuity Under the Confidential Employee Doctrine/Rule, confidential
upon the signing of the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CAN)
employees are not allowed to join any union as they are treated
for SSS employees allowed?
like managers:
(1) Persons who assist or act in a confidential capacity;
NOTE: SSS funds are government funds, and not SSS money.
(2) Persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
WHO MAY JOIN, FORM OR ASSIST LABOR management policies, specifically, in the field of labor
ORGANIZATIONS ONLY FOR MUTUAL AID & PROTECTION, relations.
BUT NOT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURPOSE?
Otherwise, if these two conditions do not concur, they can join
ART. 253. [243] Coverage and Employees' Right to Self- a union. Simply put, if the confidential information to which the
Organization.195 All persons employed in commercial, industrial confidential employee has access has nothing to do with labor
and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, relations, such employee cannot be considered a confidential
or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, employee under this rule.
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or
assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of The information must be significant to labor relations. For
collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant example, contract negotiations, dispositions of grievances of the
workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those employees, SALNs, profits, or other labor relations matter.
without any definite employers may form labor Therefore, it depends on the information they have access to.
organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
A confidential employee may be a rank-and-file or supervisory
The reason being that because these people have no employers employee but because in the normal course of his duties, he
with whom they can collectively bargain. They’re self- becomes aware of management policies relating to labor
employed. So who are they going to bargain with and go relations, he is not allowed to assist, form, or join a rank-and-
against? Note that these people “ambulant, intermittent and file union or supervisory union, as the case may be. His exclusion
itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those from the bargaining unit is justified under the Confidential
without any definite employers” can only form labor Employee Rule. To allow him to join would give rise to a potential
organizations for mutual aid and protection but other conflict of interest.
employees who can join a labor organization for collective
bargaining can also join this type of organization as well. This is from the case of San Miguel vs Laguesma:
Meaning, everybody else can join organizations for mutual aid Exception to The Confidential Employee Rule
and protection. You will learn later on that this actually pertains
to a workers’ association, as defined by the Labor Code and its (1) Incidental Access to Confidential Information
IRR. Those organizations for mutual aid and organization are The mere access to confidential labor relations information, but
actually considered a Workers’ Association. such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof
is not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access
INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT FORM A UNION does not render the employee a confidential employee. For
confidential labor relations information to be a factor in the
Private Sector determination of an employee’s confidential status, such
(1) Managerial Employees; information must relate to the employer’s labor relations
(2) Confidential Employees; and policies.
(3) Household or Domestic Workers
(2) Technical Trade Secrets
Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be
confidential from the business standpoint, such as financial

information or technical trade secrets (ex: recipes, formulas, which determines whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory or
trademarks, patent applications), will not render an employee a managerial status.
confidential employee. An employee may not be excluded from
an appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to The court however ruled that the branch manager, controller and
confidential information concerning the employer's internal cashier are confidential employees. It was held that even if only
business operations and which is not related to the field of labor managerial employees are ineligible to join, assist, or form any
relations. legal union, under the doctrine of necessary implication,
confidential employees are also disqualified.
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much The rationale behind the disqualification of managerial
a part thereof as that which is expressed. By applying the employees is that if these employees would be affiliated with a
doctrine, confidential employees are deemed implied in the union, his loyalty will not be assured by reason of conflict of
term “managerial employees” under Article 255 (245) of the interest. Managerial employees are supposed to be on the side
Labor Code. of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that
its interests are well protected. The employer is not assured of
NATU v. SECRETARY such protection if these employees themselves are union
members. For the same reason, confidential employees are
ISSUE: Are Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of likewise disqualified. If confidential employees could unionize in
Republic Planters Bank disqualified from joining or assisting order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could
NATU -Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter? be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the
employers. Moreover, they might jeopardize that interest which
FACTS: NATU, a union, filed a petition for certification election. they are duty-bound to protect during collective bargaining and
Said petition was approved but was challenged by the bank may become the source of undue advantage. Said employees
alleging that several employees sought to be included in the may also act as spy or spies of either party to a collective
certification election, particularly department managers, branch bargaining agreement.
managers, cashiers, and controllers were managerial or
confidential employees and thus, ineligible to join, assist, or form Hence, the branch manager, controller, and cashier, being
a union. On the other hand, NATU contended that said confidential employees, are therefore disqualified to join or
employees are only supervisory employees. Even assuming that assist the union.
they are confidential employees, there is no legal prohibition
against confidential employees who are not performing Basically, the Doctrine of Necessary Implications applies if there
managerial functions to form and join a union. is conflict of interest that exists in the position. Although the
employee is not a manager, as long as there is conflict of interest
ISSUE: Whether or not the said employees are managerial that he will be representing the employees’ side and the
and/or confidential employees and are thus ineligible to join, employer’s side, then he is considered a confidential employee.
assist, or form a union?
EX: Telephone operators, secretaries of major executives, cost
RULING: accountants, cashiers, or payroll clerks
They are confidential employees. Other Cases Where Confidential Employees Were Not
The court held that department managers, branch managers, Allowed to Join Unions
cashiers and controllers of Planter’s Bank are supervisory ● Accounting personnel and radio and telegraph
employees based on Article 245 of the Labor Code. As to branch operators
managers, their general duties and responsibilities is to
● Division secretaries, all staff of General Management,
discharge his duties and authority in accordance with and within
Personnel and Industrial Relations Department,
the limitations of the policies promulgated by the Board of
Secretary of Audit, EDP and Financial Systems
Directors and implemented by the Management. As to
● Legal secretaries who are tasked with, among others,
controllers and cashiers, their job description also does not
the typing of legal documents, memoranda and
mention any authority to lay down policies. Department
managers also occupy supervisory positions since they are correspondence, and keeping of record and files, the
charged with the duty to recommend proposals to improve and giving of and receiving notices, and such other duties
streamline operations. It is the nature of the employee's as required by the legal personnel of the corporation
functions, and not the nomenclature or title given to his job, ● Executive secretaries of the General Manager and the
executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance

Manager, Product Development Manager, Human discharge, assign, or discipline employees. Moreover, the forms
Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering also do not show that the Cashiers, Accountants, and Acting
Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager Chiefs of the Loans Department formulate and execute
were also considered as confidential employees since management policies which are normally expected of
they have access to “vital labor information” management officers.
That is not always the case. The last part of the NATU ruling Article 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit
provides “but this ruling should be understood to apply only to confidential employees from engaging in union activities.
the present case based on the evidence of the parties as well as However, under the doctrine of necessary implication, the
those similarly situated”. So it should not be understood, in any disqualification of managerial employees equally applies to
way, to apply to all banks in general. Meaning, it depends on confidential employees. The confidential-employee rule justifies
your function and not on your title. It depends on the exclusion of confidential employees because in the normal
document you have and not on your title. Confidential course of their duties they become aware of management
employees are not absolutely prohibited from joining unions. policies relating to labor relations. It must be stressed, however,
There are some cases where they are allowed to join. that when the employee does not have access to confidential
labor relations information, there is no legal prohibition against
Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. Laguesma confidential employees from forming, assisting, or joining a
union. As such, the Cashiers, Accountant, and Acting Chief of the
Loans Department of the bank did not possess managerial
ISSUE: Is a bank cashier who serves as a secretary of the board
of directors classified as a confidential employee? powers and duties. Therefore, they are not managerial
employees and are not prohibited from joining labor
FACTS: Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (bank, for brevity) is a duly- organizations and engaging in union activities.
registered banking institution. SRBI Association of Professional,
Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union (labor It depends on your function, not the title that they gave you in
union) is a legitimate labor organization. The union filed a determining whether or not you are a confidential employee.
petition for certification election of the supervisory employees
of the bank. One of the important matter raised in such petition READ:
was that the bank employed 5 or more supervisory employees and (1) Southern Philippines Federation vs Ferrer-Calleja
a majority of these employees supported the petition. The bank (2) Filoil Refinery Corporation vs Filoil Supervisory and
sought to prevent the holding of a certification election based Confidential Employees Association
on two grounds. First, that the members of union were in fact
managerial or confidential employees. Thus, jurisprudence In these two cases, confidential rank-and-file employees were
provides that they were disqualified from forming, joining, or allowed to join rank-and-file unions and even supervisory
assisting any labor organization. Second, another union was unions.
already representing the union. Since the former union also
sought to represent the rank-and-file employees of the bank What are the employer’s rights in this?
there was a violation of the principle of separation of unions. The GR: “Principle of Liberty to Contract” - parties have the right to
union argued that its members were not managerial employees stipulate the terms and conditions of their contract.
but merely supervisory employees. The members attached their
affidavits describing the nature of their respective duties. The XPN: Labor Contracts, because the employer is obligated to
union pointed out that Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly bargain.
allowed supervisory employees to form, join, or assist their own
unions. Employers have no liberty to refuse to bargain. If the employee
has questions on his employment that arises from a contract,
ISSUE: Whether or not the members of the union are managerial then the employer has to bargain. Otherwise, unfair labor
or confidential employees, hence prohibited by law from joining practice.
labor organizations and engaging in union activities? No!
RULING: The bank failed to show that the employees in question

were vested with managerial powers. At best they only had
recommendatory powers subject to evaluation, review, and
final decision by the bank's management. The job description
forms submitted by the bank clearly show that the union
members in question may not transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
July 8 – Mary Grace Chew What is PSLMC?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 180
Passed on June 1, 1987 by President Corazon Aquino Creation of PSLMC under E.O. 180
This is here because of the enumeration on who cannot form, VII. PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
join, assist labor organizations. When we refer to the public SECTION 15
sector, we refer to EO 180. This was passed by President Aquino A Public Sector Labor Management Council, hereinafter referred
when she still has the legislative power. to as the Council, is hereby constituted to be composed of the
following:
Who are managerial employees in the public sector?  Chairman, Civil Service Commission Chairman
 Secretary, Department of Labor & Employment Vice Chairman
SECTION 1  Secretary, Department of Finance Member
This EO applies to all employees of all branches, subdivisions,  Secretary, Department of Justice Member
 Secretary, Department of Budget and Management Member
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including
GOCCs with original charters.
The Council shall implement and administer the provisions of
this Executive Order. For this purpose, the Council shall
SECTION 2
promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement
All government employees can form, join or assist employees’
this Executive Order.
organizations of their own choosing for the furtherance and
protection of their interests. They can also form, in conjunction
In Lungsod ng Maynila v. CSC, the jurisdiction of PSLMC over
with appropriate government authorities, labor-management
violations of government employees’ right to self-organization.
committees, works councils and other forms of workers’
In the Settlement of Disputes under E.O. 180,
participation schemes to achieve the same objectives.
SECTION 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures,
SECTION 3
whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of
High-level employees whose functions are normally considered
complaints, grievances and cases involving government
as policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of a highly
employees.
confidential nature shall NOT be eligible to join the organization
of rank-and-file government employees.
In case any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the
available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the
Section 3 is where you get the managerial employees. High-level
parties may jointly refer the dispute to the Council (PSLMC), for
employees are somewhat the same managerial employees in the
appropriate action.
private sector. This is an absolute prohibition to join unions but
they can, however, join collective agreement for other
Jurisdiction Over Intra-Union Disputes
consequential matter excluding salaries and wages. This is
of Government Employees
because salaries and wages are governed by law which has to
pass the senate.
Genaro Bautista v. Court of Appeals
What about Members of the Armed Forces of the G.R. No. 123375, February 28, 2005
Philippines; Police Officers; Policemen; Firemen; and Jail The BLR and the Labor Relations division in the Regional offices
guards? of DOLE.
SECTION 4 1. Intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or
The Executive Order shall NOT apply to the members of the inside a labor union
Armed Forces of the Philippines, including police officers, 2. Inter-union controversy or dispute is one occurring or
policemen, firemen and jail guards. carried on between among unions.
Exception: Civilian employees in these organizations can form a FACTS: Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani
labor organization vis-à-vis such organization (when they are sa Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (KKMK-
hired are secretaries). MWSS) is the accredited and certified labor union of the rank
and file employees in the said public sector (MWSS), created and
Why can’t these individuals form a labor organization? registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180. A petition for
This is because they have the obedience to the government. election of officers was filed by de Guzman, former auditor of
What happens when they wanted a raise? Would there be coup KKMK-MWSS before the BLR. BLR granted the petition. The
d’état? They are prohibited by virtue of their office. Some would incumbent officers of KKMK-MWSS, led by its president, Bautista
say that they are prohibited because they have arms. AFP, opposed the petition for election arguing that BLR acted with
Military they have guns. But also because they need the grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction.
government to survive. So they cannot bargain to their superior.
Otherwise, in terms of battle, they will die together. ISSUE: Whether BLR has jurisdiction over the conduct of election
of officers of an employee’s association in the public sector? Yes!
RULING: The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over Quiz 1
any inter-union or intra-union conflicts, is found in Article 226 of 1. By virtue of Art. 292(c), the employer cannot exclude a probationary
the Labor Code of the Philippines, which reads: employee from the benefits provided by the CBA signed with a regular
employee union to which the employee is a member of. True.
ARTICLE 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. – The Bureau 2. The admission of a supervisory employee in a rank-and-file employee
of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Division in the union will invalidate the union's registration with the DOLE. False.
regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original 3. If dismissed or terminated from work, a probationary employee may
and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon be represented by a regular employee union in which he is a member,
request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra- in an illegal dismissal complaint with the labor arbiter. True.
union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising 4. The Constitution guarantees the Right to Self-Organization to private
sector. False.
from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces
5. Because Art. 292(c) of the Labor Code dictates that “(a)ny employee,
whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising
whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on his
from the implementation or interpretation of collective
first day of service, be considered an employee for purposes of
bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
membership in any labor union,” the labor union representing the
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
regular monthly-paid workers cannot prevent a probationary
monthly-paid worker, from joining in the said union. False.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor
6. Because of Art. 292(c), a regular employee union can accept a
cases before it, subject to extension by agreement of the parties. probationary employee as a member of the union. True.
It is quite clear from this provision that BLR has the original and 7. All confidential employees are prohibited from exercising their right
exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. to self-organization. False.
An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside 8. Employees of all GOCCs enjoy the right to join and form a union and
a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute, one the right to strike. False.
occurring or carried on between or among unions. 9. Waivers of labor standards benefits contained in a CBA are valid.
False.
The subject in the case at bar, which is the election of the officers 10. House helpers have no right to strike. True.
and members of the board of KMKK- MWSS, is, clearly, an intra-
union conflict, being within or inside a labor union.
Moreover, Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section

16 thereof, is completely lucid as to the settlement of disputes
involving government employees, viz:
SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, whenever
applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances
and cases involving government employees.
Thus, BLR has jurisdiction over the conduct of election of officers

of KKMK-MWSS.
Based on the case, KKMK-MWSS is a national federation. Intra-

union disputes are covered by BLR’s jurisdiction. Regular courts
have jurisdiction over general law (ex: Civil Code, Revised Penal
Code) and Labor Arbiter if Labor Law is involved, and CSC if the
CSC Law is involved.
What about Employees of International Organizations or

Institutions?
1. Southeast Asia Development Center (SEAFDEC),
2. International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), and
3. International Rice Research Institution (IRRI)
Not allowed to join or form a union because the exercise of

jurisdiction by the DOLE (BLR) would defeat the very purpose of
immunity. These organizations are independent from the
jurisdiction of the Philippines that is why they are not allowed to
join or form a union.
What is a Union?

 “Company union” means any labor organization whose Yes, as long are they will not ask for an increase in salaries. The
formation, function or administration has been assisted by prohibition is on forming and joining labor organization.
any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code. (Art.
219 (212) LC) Labor Organization vs. Workers Association
Labor Organization Worker’s Association
 “Union” refers to any labor organization in the private sector Existence of ER-EE Relationship
organized for collective bargaining and for other legitimate Necessary Not necessary
purposes. (IRR as amended by Dep. Ord. 40-03) Purpose
In whole or in part, for For Mutual Aid and
What is a Labor Organization? Collective Bargaining Protection
● "Labor Organization" means any union or association Formation or Registration
of employees which exists in whole or in part for the Under the Article 240 (234), a Registration as a Workers
purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with LO can be registered as an Association is provided
employers concerning terms and conditions of independent union or under IRR Bk V, Rule IV and
employment. (Art. 219 (212) LC) become a Chartered local Rule III Section 2 (C & D)
under Article 241 (234-A)
● “Labor Organization” refers to any union or association Right to File a Petition for Certification Election
of employees in the private sector which exists in whole Can file for Certification Cannot file for Certification
or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining, Election Election
mutual aid, interest, cooperation, protection, or other Basis
lawful purposes. (IRR as amended by Dep. Ord. 40-03) Right to Self-Organization Constitutional Right of
Freedom of Association
Can a labor organization not engage in a collective
bargaining at all?
Why is there a need for state intervention?
Obviously not. The main purpose of its creation is the collective
● The solitary worker needs to be protected from at least
bargaining. As long as the primary purpose is collective
3 forces: capital, government, and the union itself.
bargaining.
● There is need for state intervention because there are
some organizations who will take advantage of the
Can a labor organization register as a credit cooperative?
employees and the workers.
Yes, as long as being a credit cooperative is not inimical to being
a labor organization. And as long as the primary purpose is the
You can read the case of Victoriano vs Elizarde GR-L-25246
collective bargaining.
September 24, 1974.
What is a Legitimate Labor Organization?

LABOR ORGANIZATION
● "Legitimate Labor Organization" means any labor
organization duly registered with the Department of Labor As to how formed: As to components:
and Employment and includes any branch, local or affiliate 1. Independent Union 1. Federation
thereof. (Art. 219 (212) LC) 2. Chartered Local 2. National Union
3. Affiliate (Labor Center)
● “Legitimate Labor Organization” refers to any labor 3. Trade Union Center
organization in the private sector registered or reported
with the Department in accordance with Rules III and IV of Classification as to How Formed
these Rules. (IRR as amended by Dep. Ord. 40-03)
INDEPENDENT UNION refers to a labor organization operating
What is a Worker’s Association?
at the enterprise level that acquired legal personality through
“Workers’ Association” refers to an association of workers independent registration via issuance of Certificate of
organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members or Registration (under Article 240 (234) LC and IRR Rule III, Section
for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining. (IRR 2-A).
as amended by Dep. Ord. 40-03)
CHARTERED LOCAL refers to a labor organization in the private
What is a Legitimate Worker’s Association? sector operating at the enterprise level that acquired legal
“Legitimate Workers’ Association” refers to an association of personality through the issuance of a charter certificate by a duly
workers organized for mutual aid and protection of its members registered federation or national union, and reported to the
or for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining Regional Office (under IRR Rule III, Section 2-E).
registered with the Department in accordance with Rule III,
Sections 2-C and 2-D of these Rules. (IRR as amended by Dep.
Ord. 40-03)
Are supervisors allowed to join Worker’s Association? AFFILIATE refers to:
(1) an independent union affiliated with a federation, EFFECT OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE LABOR CODE
national union or
(2) a chartered local which was subsequently granted IRR Rule IV, Section 8. Effect of Registration – The labor union
independent registration but did not disaffiliate from or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested
its federation, reported to the Regional Office and the with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of
Bureau (under IRR Rule III, Sections 6 and 7) registration or certificate of creation of chartered local.
Classification as to Components Such legal personality may be questioned only through an

independent petition for cancellation of union registration
FEDERATION is a group of legitimate labor unions in a private in accordance with Rule XIV of these Rules, and not by way of
establishment organized for collective bargaining or for dealing collateral attack in petition for certification election
with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment proceedings under Rule VIII.
for their member unions registered with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR). Once you have a separate legal personality, your personality can
only be questioned by direct attack in the petition for
NATIONAL UNION (aka LABOR CENTER) is a group of certification election. You have to file a petition for cancellation
legitimate labor unions in a private establishment organized not of union registration.
for collective bargaining but for participating in the formulation
of social and employment policies, standards and programs, What is the effect of incorporation by the Labor
registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). Organization with the SEC under the Corporation Code?
TRADE UNION CENTER is any group registered national unions Cebu Seamen's Association. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja
or federations organized for mutual aid and protection of its G.R. No. 83190, August 4, 1992
members, assisting such in collective bargaining or participating
in the formulation of social and employment policies, standards, FACTS: A group of deck officers and marine engineers organized
programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE. themselves into an association and registered as a non-stock
corporation known as Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc. (CSAI)
When does an LLO acquire legal personality? with the SEC. The same group also registered its association with
Article 240 (234) Requirements of Registration the Bureau as a labor union known as the Seamen's Association
A federation, national union or industry or trade union center or of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI).
an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall
be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to the Pursuant to the CBA between Aboitiz and SAPI, Aboitiz has been
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of remitting checked-off union dues to SAPI. However, in February
registration based on the following requirements: 1987, a group composed of members of SAPI and headed by
Gabayoyo, introduced itself to be its new set of officers, went to
Four Kinds Aboitiz and claimed that they are entitled to the remittance and
1. Federation custody of such union dues.
2. National Union
3. Industry or Trade Union Center In November 1987, another group headed by Nacua also
4. Independent Union claiming as the duly elected set of officers of the union filed a
complaint against CSAI to restrain the first group from acting in
What is the purpose of registration? behalf of the union and to direct Aboitiz to remit the union dues
This is for permanence and easy negotiation of both parties. To to them.
know their legal personalities to represent the employees to the
employer. Separate and distinct personality is for easier CSAI contended that complainant union (SAPI) and CSAI are one
negotiation and bargaining. We also have to know if these and the same union and that the set of officers headed by
organizations are legal and have the authority to bargain with Gabayoyo has the right to the custody of the union dues. They
the employer. also claimed that it is the SEC the SEC that has jurisdiction over
the dispute and not the Med-Arbiter.
ISSUES
1. What is the nature of the controversy? Intra-union
dispute.
2. Who is entitled to the collection and custody of the union
dues? SAPI.
It is an intra-union dispute.
July 8, 2020 – Marc Cullo
Pursuant to Art. 226 of the Labor Code, it is the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) who has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes. 3) the name of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees
Hence, the Med-Arbiter originally, and the Director on appeal, in the bargaining unit;
correctly assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.
4) the annual financial reports if the applicant has been in existence for
one or more years, unless it has not collected any amount from the
SAPI is entitled to the collection & custody of union dues. members, in which case a statement to this effect shall be included in
CSAI is registered as a non-stock corporation with the SEC. The the application;
same group also is registered with the BLR as a labor union
named SAPI. 5) the applicant’s constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or
ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it. The list of
It is the registration of the organization with the BLR and not ratifying members shall be dispensed with where the constitution and
by-laws was ratified or adopted during the organizational meeting. In
with the SEC which made it a legitimate labor organization with
such a case, the factual circumstances of the ratification shall be
rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code. recorded in the minutes of the organizational meeting(s).
Therefore, the BLC correctly ruled that the union is the legitimate No need to memorize the requirements. Take note that the
labor union and it is not the same association with CSAI insofar requirement in number 3 applies only to independent unions,
as their rights under the Labor Code are concerned. Hence, it is it is not required for federations or national unions because
the SAPI and not CSAI that is entitled to the release and custody under letter B of this section requires a different requirement for
of the union fees. federations and national unions and there is no 20%
requirement.
The effect of incorporation by the Labor Organization with the
SEC under the Corporation Code is inconsequential. It does not B. The application for registration of federations and national
give you the right of legitimate labor organization (LLO). It only unions shall be accompanied by the following documents:
has the effect of giving you personality to be sued in court. It does
not confer the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor 1) A statement indicating the name of the applicant labor union, its
organization. That’s why the other organization in the case was principal address, the name of its officers and their respective addresses;
not recognized because it was only registered under the SEC.
2) The minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list of
The actual LLO is the one that registered with the BLR.
employees who participated in the said meeting(s);
Rule III, Section 1. Where to File 3) The annual financial reports if the applicant union has been in
Applications for registration of independent labor unions, existence for one or more years, unless it has not collected any amount
chartered locals, workers’ associations shall be filed with the from the members, in which case a statement to this effect shall be
Regional Office where the applicant principally operates. It shall included in the application;
be processed by the Labor Relations Division at the Regional
Office in accordance with Sections 2-A, 2-C, and 2-E of this Rule. 4) The applicant union’s constitution and by-laws, minutes of its
adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in
it. The list of ratifying members shall be dispensed with where the
Applications for registration of federations, national unions or
constitution and by-laws was ratified or adopted during the
workers’ associations operating in more than one region shall be organizational meeting(s). In such a case, the factual circumstances of
filed with the Bureau or the Regional Offices, but shall be the ratification shall be recorded in the minutes of the organizational
processed by the Bureau in accordance with Sections 2-B and 2- meeting(s);
D of this Rule.
5) The resolution of affiliation of at least ten (10) legitimate labor
If you are independent labor unions, chartered locals, or a organizations, whether independent unions or chartered locals, each of
which must be a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent in the
workers’ associations, you should register with the regional
establishment where it seeks to operate; and
office. If you are federations or national unions or workers’
associations operating in more than one region, you should 6) The name and addresses of the companies where the affiliates
register with the Bureau or the regional office. operate and the list of all the members in each company involved. Labor
organizations operating within an identified industry may also apply for
Section 2. Requirements for Application registration as a federation or national union within the specified
A. The application for registration of an independent labor union shall industry by submitting to the Bureau the same set of documents.
be accompanied by the following documents:
Under No. 5, federations require at least 10 independent locals
1) the name of the applicant labor union, its principal address, the name or chartered locals. 10 LLOs.
of its officers and their respective addresses, approximate number of
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, with a
statement that it is not reported as a chartered local of any federation or
national union;
2) the minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list of employees What is the rationale for requiring registration?
who participated in the said meeting(s);
Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary
G.R. 96425, February 4, 1992 FACTS: SS Ventures claimed that the Labor union under its
business deliberately and maliciously included 82 former
FACTS: Kilusan is a union that filed a petition for certification employees in its certificate of registration but these employees
election for the rank and file employees of PDC. PDC opposed have already been dismissed from their positions and hence,
contending that Kilusan may not validly invest the status of their certificate of registration should be cancelled by the BLR.
legitimacy through the mere expedient of issuing a charter and
that it also failed to comply with the requirements of submission The labor union however contended that their application was
of a duly subscribed constitution and by-laws. Kilusan however done with regularity and that these 82 employees which SS
contends that they have submitted the required documents. ventures claim to be dismissed, did not affect the validity of their
registration.
ISSUE: Whether Kilusan may validly invest the status of
legitimacy? No! ISSUE: Whether the union’s certificate of registration should be
cancelled? No!
RULING: A labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon
registration with the BLR. Under Article 235 of the Labor Code, RULING: While a certificate of registration confers a union with
the papers to be submitted should be certified under oath. legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for
certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may
The rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining
papers be certified under oath is because the employer unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a
naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is legitimate labor organization.
a bona fide organization, one which has not submitted false
statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. In this case, the ground cited by SS ventures was not meritorious
because in order to decertify a union, it is not enough to show
The certification and attestation requirements are preventive that the union includes ineligible employees in its
measures against the commission of fraud. membership. It must also be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with
In this case, since there is a failure on the part of Kilusan to certify the application for registration and the supporting documents,
the required documents under oath, it is fatal to its acquisition such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
of its legitimate status. laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of
the constitution or by-laws, among other documents.
Here, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the registration and
attestation requirement under oath is for the benefit of the It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration or the
employees, the members themselves, because unsuspecting recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the
employees may join unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the
sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for BLR. After a labor organization has filed the necessary
dubious ends. If it is under oath, any fraud or misrepresentation registration documents, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to
made can be a ground for perjury. check if the requirements under Article 234 of the Labor Code
have been sedulously complied with. If the union’s application is
Is the approval of registration of a labor organization, infected by falsification and like serious irregularities, especially
ministerial in nature? those appearing on the face of the application and its
Previously, the approval of the registration of a labor attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a
organization was a ministerial function provided that the legitimate labor organization.
applicant labor organization complies with all the legal
requirements for registration. In this case, since the BLR has approved the certificate of
registration of the Labor Union, this implies that the application
However, it has been held lately that it is not the ministerial for registration and supporting documents thereof are prima
function of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) to grant facie free from any vitiating irregularities, contrary to what SS
recognition to a labor organization after the necessary papers ventures was claiming. Hence, the union’s certificate of
and documents for registration have been filed. registration was legitimate and it should not be cancelled.
The approval of registration of a labor organization is not

ministerial because the BLR has to assess if there is fraud or
irregularities. The BLR has to use its own judgment to see such
frauds or irregularities. Hence, it is discretionary based on the
evaluations of the BLR.
S.S. Ventures v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union ACTION ON AND DENIAL OF
G.R. 161690, July 23, 2008 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION

1. Provisional Personality – if it has only a charter
ART. 242. [235] Action on Application certificate.
“The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within
thirty (30) days from filing.” The Chartered Local is considered as an LLO only for the purpose
of filing a Petition for Certification Election.
All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath
by the secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case NOTE: Under this provisional personality, during the pendency
may be, and attested to by its president. of the application for registration, a union can already initiate a
Petition for Certification Election. Meaning, if it hasn’t complied
ART. 243. [236] Denial of Registration; Appeal. yet with letter a (names of chapter’s officers, addresses and
The decision of the Labor Relations Division in the regional office principal office of the chapter) and letter b (chapter’s constitution
denying registration may be appealed by the applicant union to and by-laws), it still has a personality to petition for certification
the Bureau within ten (10) days from receipt of notice thereof. election. It has provisional personality.
Based on the jurisdiction chart, in “registration, revocation, and The union’s right to file said petition is guaranteed even pending
cancellation” of cases under the BLR portion. The registration, the registration process as long as it has a charter certificate,
revocation, and cancellation of cases is appealed to the then it’s good for certification election for as long as there is no
Secretary of Labor. If you’re an independent union or a local fatal defect in the application for registration.
chapter, you raise your appeal to the BLR. Where you appeal
your case depends on where you filed the registration. 2. Full Personality – if it submits all other documents for
registration.
Registration of Chartered Locals
It will be considered a LLO for all purposes (i.e. to file cases for
ART. 241. [234-A] Chartering & Creation of a Local Chapter its members, to purchase property in its name etc.) and
A duly registered federation or national union may directly possesses full powers of a LLO.
create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating
the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter shall acquire NOTE: No certificate of registration is required as long as you
legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for submit all of the requirements. No express mention of a
certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate of registration requirement to acquire personality as
certificate. opposed to an independent union.
The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of Are local chapters required to acquire independent
a legitimate labor organization only upon the submission of the registration in order to have legal personality?
following documents in addition to its charter certificate:
Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v.
(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the Office of the Secretatary, DOLE
principal office of the chapter; and G.R. No. 157146, April 29, 2005
(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, that where FACTS: Laguna Autoparts moved to dismiss the petition for
the chapter's constitution and by-laws are the same as that of certification election, claiming that OBRERO PILIPINO-LAMCOR
the federation or the national union, this fact shall be indicated CHAPTER was not a legitimate labor organization for failure to
accordingly. show that it had complied with the registration requirements to
the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and
The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under that its legal personality was at question.
oath by the secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by
its president. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election for
OBRERO PILIPINO’S lack of legal personality. The Med-Arbiter
Under Art. 241, it is clear that the authority to directly create a stated that the respondent union had not yet attained the status
local chapter is vested only in a duly registered federation or of a legitimate labor organization because it failed to indicate its
national union. Meaning, union centers are not allowed to principal office on the documents it submitted to the Regional
create local chapters. Office. He opined that this was a fatal defect tantamount to
failure to submit the complete requirements, which warranted
These requirements must be under oath by the Secretary or the dismissal of the petition for certification election.
Treasurer of the Chapter and attested to by its President. So it’s
under oath. If there’s fraud or irregularities, it is subject to The respondent union appealed the case to the Secretary of
perjury. Labor and Employment who reversed the decision of the med-
July 8, 2020 – Mikel Hofileña Delgado arbiter. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the
2 Personalities of Chartered Locals Secretary of Labor.

listed by the Regional Office or the BLR in its registry of
ISSUES: legitimate labor organizations; or (2) appellant’s legal
1. Whether or not the respondent union is a legitimate personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality. Since
labor organization; Yes! appellant is listed in the registry of legitimate labor
2. Whether or not a chapter’s legal personality may be organizations, and its legitimacy has not been revoked or
collaterally attacked in a petition for certification cancelled with finality, the granting of its petition for certification
election; No! election is proper.
3. Whether or not the petitioner, as the employer, has the
legal standing to oppose the petition for certification Third Issue
election. No! Finally, on the issue of whether the petitioner has the legal
standing to oppose the petition for certification election, we rule
HELD: in the negative.
First Issue Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in
Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial Trade Unions as that of a mere bystander. It has no legal
bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the
is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only petition or appeal the Med- Arbiter’s orders related thereto.
great respect but even finality. This is particularly true where the
CA affirms such findings of fact. In this case, the CA affirmed the There is no reversible error in the CA’s decision in affirming the
finding of the Secretary of Labor and Employment that the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment that Obrero
respondent union is a legitimate labor organization. Pilipino is a legitimate labor organization.
Indeed, a local or chapter need not be independently NOTE: There is legal personality for the purpose of filing a
registered to acquire legal personality pursuant to Section 3 certification election as long as you have a charter certificate.
Rule VI of the IRR of Book 5 as amended by D.O No. 9 which says You acquire legal personality even if you only have a charter
that a local/chapter constituted in accordance with Section 1 of certificate, but only for the purpose of certification election. All
this Rule shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of other purposes, you need to be registered with the BLR.
the complete documents enumerated therein.
San Miguel Foods, Inc v. Laguesma
As gleaned from the said provision, the task of determining G.R. No. 116172, October 10, 1996
whether the local or chapter has submitted the complete
documentary requirements is lodged with the Regional Office or FACTS: Labor Federation Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
the BLR, as the case may be. The records of the case show that filed a second petition for certification election among the
the respondent union submitted the said documents to Regional monthly-paid employees of the San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-
Office No. IV and was subsequently issued CERTIFICATE OF Meg Feeds Plant (SMFI) before Med-Arbiter Achilles Manit,
CREATION OF LOCAL/CHAPTER. alleging that it is a legitimate labor organization duly registered
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and has
Hence, the Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division complied with the mandatory requirements for the creation of
Chief, has determined that the respondent union complied with its local or affiliate in SMFI’s establishment. They further alleged
the requirements under the law. It, therefore, declared that the that: (a)SMFI employs roughly 75 monthly paid employees,
respondent union has acquired legal personality as a labor almost all of whom support the present petition; and, (b) There
organization. has been no certification election conducted in SMFI to
determine its sole bargaining agent thereat for the past two
2nd Issue years and that the proposed bargaining unit composing the
Section 5, Rule V of D.O. 9 is instructive on the matter. It provides SMFI’s monthly paid employees is an unorganized one.
that the legal personality of a union cannot be the subject of
collateral attack in a petition for certification election, but may SMFI opposed and filed a motion to dismiss the petition. SMFI
be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation asserts that IBM at SMFI is not a legitimate labor organization
of union registration. This has been the rule since NUBE v. notwithstanding the fact that it is a local or chapter of the IBM
Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274 (1981). What applies in this case Federation, since Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that any
is the principle that once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization shall acquire legal personality only upon the
labor organization, it continues as such until its certificate of issuance of the Certificate of Registration by the Bureau of Labor
registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for Relations.
cancellation.
MAIN ISSUE: Whether or not the IBM at SMFI, a local or chapter
Equally important is Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule IX of D.O. 9, of the IBM Federation, is not a legitimate labor organization?
which provides for the dismissal of a petition for certification
election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor
organization only in the following instances: (1) appellant is not
RULING: NO. IBM at SMFI, a local or chapter of the IBM
Federation, is a legitimate labor organization. They can either register with all of the requirements or they can
obtain a charter certificate, to become LLOs. The Court stresses
Article 212(h) of the Labor Code defines a legitimate labor the differences of the requirements for independent unions and
organization as "any labor organization duly registered with the chartered locals.
Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch
or local thereof." The requirements under Article 234-A of the Labor Code are far
less stringent than those provided under Article 234. Usually,
Ordinarily, a labor organization attains the status of legitimacy labor unions would go for chartering rather than going over the
only upon the issuance in its name of a Certificate of Registration procedures under Article 234. Obtaining a charter certificate is
by the Bureau of Labor Relations pursuant to Articles 234 and more convenient.
235 of the Labor Code. However, when an unregistered union
becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the Acquisition of Legal Personality by the Various Unions
aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer
required pursuant to Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Federation, National Union,
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code which governs the Industry Or Trade Union Or Chartered Local
procedure for union affiliation. Independent Union
Acquisition of legal Acquisition of legal
By force of law (in this case, Article 212 [h], such local or chapter personality under Article 240 personality under Article 241
becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with (234) in rel. to IRR Rule III, (234-A) in rel. to IRR Rule III,
the aforementioned provisions of Section 3 9 (a) and (e), without Sec 2 (A and B) Sec 2 (E)
having to be issued a Certificate of Registration in its favor by Acquires legal personality Acquires legal personality in
the BLR. In relation thereof, a local or chapter therefore becomes upon the issuance of a 2 stages. Namely the First
a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the certificate of registration stage (partial personality)
following to the BLR: and Second stage (full
personality)
1. A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by More stringent because it Easier because it only
the labor federation or national union, and requires a Certificate of requires charter certificate
2. The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of Registration (notarized)
officers, and the books of accounts all of which are
certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the It’s easier to be a chartered local because in the first stage, you
case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to already have provisional personality.
by its president.
AFFILIATE
Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the
local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor What is an Affiliate?
organization. 1. An independent union affiliated with a federation,
national union; or
In the case at bar, a close scrutiny of the records shows that at 2. A chartered local which was subsequently granted
the time of the filing of the subject petition on 24 September independent registration but did not disaffiliate from
1993 by the petitioner Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, for and its federation.
in behalf of its local affiliate IBM at SMFI-CEBU B-MEG, the latter
has been clothed with the status and/or character of a legitimate NOTE: In relation to an affiliate, the federation or national union
labor organization. This is so, because on 19 July 1993, petitioner is commonly known as “Mother Union.”
submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), this
Department, the following documents: charter certificate, An independently registered union does not lose its
constitution and by-laws, names and addresses of the union independent legal personality when it affiliates with a federation
officers and a certification of the union’s secretary on the non- or a national union. In one case, the appending of the federation
availability of the union’s Books of Accounts. Said documents in the local union’s name does not mean that the federation
(except the charter certificate) are certified under oath and absorbed the local union.
attested to by the local union’s secretary and President,
respectively." A chartered local cannot be properly called an affiliate if it has
not acquired an independent registration of its own. If you are a
In this case, the Court said that a union can acquire legal charted local without an independent registration, then you
personality not just by registering under Article 243 of the Labor cannot be an affiliate.
Code or under the provision for independent unions, but they
can also become an LLO by obtaining a charter certificate from Requirements of Affiliation
a federation or national union.

Section 6. Report of Affiliation with Federations or National Unions; FORMEY and Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI)
Where to File. – The report of affiliation of an independently registered moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that there was
labor union with a federation or national union shall be filed with the already a duly registered CBA covering the period 1 January 4
Regional Office that issued its certificate of registration.
1992 to 31 December 1996, hence the “contract bar rule” would
Section 7. Requirements of Affiliation. – The report of affiliation of
apply.
independently registered labor unions with a federation or national
union shall be accompanied by the following documents: KAPATIRAN opposed to said motion claiming that the CBA
a. Resolution of labor union’s board of directors approving the executed between FORMEY and KAMAPI was fraudulently
affiliation; registered with the DOLE and that it was defective since what
b. Minutes of the general membership approving the affiliation was certified as bargaining agent was KAMAPI which, as a
c. Total number of members comprising the labor union and the federation, only served as mere agent of the local union hence
names of members who approved the affiliation;
without any legal personality to sign in behalf of the latter.
d. Certificate of affiliation issued by the federation in favor of the
independently registered labor union; and,
e. Written notice to the employer concerned if the affiliating union is ISSUE: Whether the Petition for Certification Election filed by
the incumbent bargaining agent. KAPATIRAN should be denied? Yes!
What are the effects of affiliation? HELD: The Petition for Certification Election filed by KAPATIRAN
1. The Mother Union becomes the agent, and the Affiliate should be denied.
Union, the principal.
 Mother represents affiliate union in Art. 253-A of the Labor Code provides that no certification
collectively bargaining with the employer. election shall be conducted by DOLE outside of the sixty (60)-
2. The Affiliate Union becomes subject to the rules of the day period immediately before the date of expiry of the five-year
Mother Union. term of the CBA. In this case, the CBA is yet to expire on 31
3. The appendage of the acronym of the Mother Union December 1996 and KAPATIRAN’s petition for certification
after the name of the Affiliate election was filed on 22 April 1993 before the 60-day freedom
4. Union does not mean that the affiliate cannot period. Hence, it must fail.
independently stand on its own. (THFEU-CGW vs.
Tropical Hut) As to the contention that the CBA was fraudulently registered, it
5. Affiliation does not give the Mother Union the license is without any legal basis at all; it is purely speculative and bereft
to act independently of the Affiliate Union. of any documentary support. KAPATIRAN itself even admitted
6. However, if the Mother Union negotiated the CBA, the the existence of an agreement but argued that its provisions
Affiliate Union cannot negotiate the renewal of the CBA were not being implemented nor adhered to at all.
without the consent and participation of the Mother
Union. (Abaria vs. NLRC) As to the contention that the CBA has no binding force since it
7. The Affiliate Union and not the Mother Union has the was entered into by KAMAPI as a federation and not by the local
power to administer and enforce the CBA with the union, the signatories for KAMAPI consisted of its national
employer (NAFLU vs. Noriel) president and of the duly elected officers of the local union. Thus
8. In case of illegal strike, the Affiliate Union, not the the fact that KAMAPI was particularly mentioned as the
Mother Union, is liable for damages. (Filipino Pipe vs. bargaining party without specifying the local union cannot strip
NLRC) it of its authority to participate in the bargaining process. The
local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation
What is the significance of affiliation? with a larger national federation.
Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Jurisprudence provides that “the mother union acting for and in
Plastic National Workers Brotherhood vs. behalf of its affiliate ha(s) the status of an agent while the local
Secretary of Labor union remained the basic unit of the association free to serve the
G.R. No. 111836, February 1, 1996 common interest of all its members subject only to the restraints
imposed by the Constitution and By Laws of the association.
FACTS: Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey
Plastic (KAPATIRAN) is a local union formed by the rank and file
workers of Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY). On 22 April 1993,
KAPATIRAN filed a Petition for Certification Election with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Med-Arbiter
Division alleging that there was no existing and effective
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between FORMEY and
any union; neither was there any recognized union within the
company. Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union V. Liberty Cotton Mills
GR No. L-33987, 1975-09-04

PRINCIPLE: PAFLU, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had SC believes that the Company's liability should be limited to the
the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic immediate reinstatement of the workers.
unit of the association free to serve the common interest of all
its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when the Considering, however, that their dismissal was effected without
circumstances warrant. previous hearing, and at the instance of PAFLU, this mother
federation should be the payment of their back wages.
FACTS: Cotton Mills Workers Union, (Union) was affiliated with
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, otherwise RULING: The company is hereby ordered to immediately
known as PAFLU. reinstate complainant workers, within thirty (30) days from
notice of this decision and failure to so reinstate the workers
A CBA was entered into by and between the Company and the without valid and just cause shall make respondent company
Union represented by PAFLU where the duration shall be for 2 liable to the workers for the payment of their wages from and
years from November 2, 1963 up to November, 1965. after the expiration of such thirty-day period. The mother
federation respondent PAFLU is sentenced to pay complainants-
On March 13, 1964, while the CBA was in full force, Marciano workers the equivalent of three (3) years backwages without
Castillo and Rafael Nepomuceno, President and Vice- deduction or qualification.
President, respectively, of the local union, wrote PAFLU,
complaining about the legal counsel assigned by the PAFLU to July 9, 2020 – Dominic Estremos
assist them in a case they filed against the Company. In said Being an affiliate, you also have the right to disaffiliate.
letter, the local union expressed its dissatisfaction and loss of
confidence in the PAFLU lawyers, claiming that PAFLU never What is disaffiliation (a.k.a. breakaway)?
lifted a finger regarding this particular complaint. The right to disaffiliate by the local union from its mother union
or federation, is a constitutionally-guaranteed right which may
(32) out of the 36 members of the local union disaffiliated be invoked by the former at any time.
themselves from respondent PAFLU. A copy of the signed
resolution of disaffiliation was furnished the Company as well If you have the right to join, you have the right not to join. If you
as the Bureau of Labor Relations. The following day, the local have the right to affiliate, you have the right to disaffiliate.
union wrote the Company and required the turn-over of the
checked-off dues directly to its Treasurer. It is not an act of disloyalty on the part of the local union nor is
it a violation of the “union security clause” in the CBA.
PAFLU wrote the Company, this time requesting the termination
of the employment of Rafael Nepomuceno and Marciano NOTE: Disaffiliation should always carry the will of the majority.
Castillo et al (petitioners in this case). PAFLU at the same time It cannot be effected by a mere minority group of union
expelled the workers from their union membership in the members. (Villar vs. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444).
mother federation for allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation."
In the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s
The Company terminated the employment of the members constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of
expelled by the PAFLU. autonomy of a local union, or in the absence of restriction, a local
After due hearing, the Court rendered its decision dismissing the may disassociate with its parent union at any time. Thus, in one
complaint, but with a strong recommendation for the case, it was held that there can be no disloyalty to speak of since
reinstatement of complainant workers in respondent Company. there is no provision in the federation constitution in the first
place that specifically prohibits disaffiliation.
ISSUES: W/N the dismissal of the complaining employees, was
justified or not. No! Stated differently, the local union, by disaffiliating from the old
federation to join a new federation, is merely exercising its
HELD: For while it is correct to say that a union security clause primary right of a labor organization. To effectively enhance and
did exist, this clause was limited by the provision which states protect the common interest of its members. Absent enforceable
that membership shall continue as long as 10 or more provisions in the federation’s constitution expressly prohibiting
employees remain as affiliates. disaffiliation, a local union may sever its relationship with the
parent union anytime.
The process by which the workers were dismissed: We find that
it was hastily and summarily done. The Company then acting on In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs.
the request of the mother federation sent notices of termination Liberty Cotton Mills, the SC upheld the right of local unions to
to the officers of the local union immediately on the day separate from their mother federation on the ground that as a
following. separate and distinct association, local unions do not owe their
SC is of the opinion that such a stipulation does not bind the creation, existence or anything to their mother federation. They
courts much less release the Company from liability should a can exist independently.
finding for unfair labor practice be positive.
Disaffiliation of Independently-Registered Union and Local
Chapter, Distinguished. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled here that disaffiliation from a
The disaffiliation of an independently-registered union does not labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the
affect its legitimate status as a labor organization. freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. But a
closed shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision
However, the same thing may not be said of a union which is not in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the
independently-registered (Local Chapter). Once a Local Chapter right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
disaffiliates from the federation, it ceases to be entitled to the
rights and privileges granted to a legitimate labor organization. In the case at bar, the Company and the Amigo Employees
Thus, it can no longer file a petition for certification election. Union-PAFLU entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement
with a union security clause for closed-shop to dismiss the
Villar vs. Inciong employees for non- union membership. Villar et al became non-
G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983 union members upon their expulsion from the general
membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU pursuant to
FACTS: Villar et al. were members of the Amigo Employees the Decision of the PAFLU national president.
Union-PAFLU (AEU-PAFLU), a duly registered labor organization
which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in PAFLU had the authority to investigate Villar et al on the charges
Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (The Company). The Company and filed by their co-employees in the local union and to expel them
the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a collective bargaining from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-
agreement governing their labor relations. PAFLU after finding them guilty as charged. This is clear under
the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was
On February 7, 1977, Villar et al signed a joint resolution entitled: affiliated.
Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or

1. TUMIWALAG bilang kasaping Unyon ng Philippine mother union, or accepts a charter from a superior body, it
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) at kaalinsabay becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose
nito, inaalisan namin ang PAFLU ng kapangyarihan na authority the local union functions. The constitution, by-laws and
katawanin kami sa anumang pakikipagkasundo (CBA) sa rules of the parent body, together with the charter it issues
Pangasiwaan ng aming pinapasukan pursuant thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an
xxx
enforceable contract between the parent body and the
3. PANATILIHIN na nagsasarili (independent) ang aming
samahan, AMIGO EMPLOYEES' UNION, alinsunod sa
subordinate union, and between the members of the
Artikulo 240 ng Labor Code; subordinate union inter se.
xxx
It is undisputable that Villar et al were members of the Amigo
Immediately thereafter, Villar et al filed a petition for certification Employees Union at the time that said union affiliated with
election in the Company with the Amigo Employees Union as the PAFLU. Hence, under the afore-quoted principle, they are bound
petitioner. The petition was dismissed. by the laws and regulations of PAFLU.
PAFLU, after an investigation, rendered a decision finding the The court found out that the affiliate union is not actually
Villar et al guilty of the charges and ordered their expulsion from independently registered. Thus, when it disaffiliated, then the
the AMIGO EMPLOYEES UNION and requested the employer local chapter ceases to be an LLO. That is why previously I said
company to terminate them from their employment invoking that for you to be an affiliate, you have to be registered
the security clause of the collective bargaining agreement. Villar independently. In this case, a not independently-registered local
et al were terminated. chapter, once it disaffiliates, it effectively loses its charter
certificate and it cannot longer stand on its own.
Villar et al argue that neither the disaffiliation of the Amigo
Employees Union from PAFLU nor the act of filing the petition What are the effects of disaffiliation?
for certification election constitute disloyalty as these are in the Disaffiliation terminates the right to check-off federation dues.
exercise of their constitutional right to self-organization. And Once you disaffiliate, you do not need to pay that.
that the charges against them being intra-union problems,
should have been investigated in accordance with the Disaffiliation does not affect the CBA, it does not amend or
constitution and by-laws of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU change the administration of the contract.
and not of the PAFLU.
Both the affiliate and the mother union can enforce the CBA.
However, as to the renewal of the CBA, the mother union has to
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Villar et al upon demand participate in the renewal. Think first. If you like the CBA, then
of PAFLU which invoked the security clause of the collective don’t disaffiliate with the mother union. Otherwise, the CBA
bargaining agreement proper? Yes!

might not be renewed without the participation of the mother G.R. No. 127374 January 31, 2002
union.
FACTS: The Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA)
Once the fact of disaffiliation has been manifested beyond (Union A), a local labor union affiliated with the Philippine
doubt, a certification election is the most expeditious way of Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) September (PAFLU)
determining which labor organization is to be treated as the (Union B), won in the certification election conducted among
exclusive bargaining agent. the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI)
(Employer). Its rival union, Union b, immediately protested the
When can you disaffiliate? result of the election before the Secretary of Labor. Several
GR: Members < Association months later, pending settlement of the controversy, Union A
A member can only disaffiliate during the 60-day sent Union B a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason Union
freedom period. b's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of duty toward
its members. Union A subsequently affiliated itself with the
XPN: Local > Federation National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name and
The Local can disaffiliate at any time even if the allowed the former officers of Union B to continue occupying
constitution and by-laws of the CBA constitutes that their positions as elected officers PSEA-NCW.
the local can only disaffiliate during the 60-day
freedom period because the federation is merely an On 17 March 1994 Union A entered into a collective bargaining
agent of the Local. agreement with employer which was immediately registered
with DOLE. Union B’s Secretary General Serafin Ayroso wrote
If you are a member, and you want to disaffiliate with your union, Mariles C. Romulo requesting a copy of employer’s audited
follow the general rule. If you are an LLO who wants to disaffiliate financial statement. Ayroso explained that with the dismissal of
from a federation, then you follow the exception. Union A's election protest the time was ripe for the parties to
enter into a collective bargaining agreement.
Here in the exception, the local is favored. That is why the local
is greater than the federation. The local is favored by law than of The employer through its personnel manager Francisco Dakila
the federation because the law on agency applies. The denied the request citing as reason Union A’s disaffiliation from
federation is a mere agent, and the affiliation union is the Union B and its subsequent affiliation with NCW. Union B
principal. through Serafin Ayroso filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice against the employer, its president Mariles Romulo and
What is this freedom period? personnel manager Francisco Dakila.
It refers to the last 60 days preceding before the expiration of a
5-year CBA. A petition for certification election may be filed Labor Arbiter declared Union A's disaffiliation from Union B
during the freedom period. invalid and held the employer, Union A and their respective
officers guilty of unfair labor practice. NLRC upheld the Decision
If you are just a member and you want to disaffiliate, then you of the Labor Arbiter and conjectured that since an election
have to do it 60 days before a CBA expires. If you are a local protest questioning Union A’s certification as the sole and
disaffiliating from a federation, then anytime. exclusive bargaining agent was pending resolution before the
Secretary of Labor, Union A could not validly separate from
Does the act of the union in disaffiliating and entering into Union B, join another national federation and subsequently
a CBA with the employer constitute unfair labor practice? enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employer-
No. As far as the employer is concerned, it is entirely reasonable company.
for it to enter into a CBA with the local union which is now
affiliated with a new federation. As the local union had validly ISSUE: Whether or not Union A, which is an independent and
severed itself from the old federation, there would be no separate local union, may validly disaffiliate from Union B
restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently pending the settlement of an election protest questioning its
affiliating with the new federation and entering into a CBA in status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank
behalf of its members. (Philippine Skylanders, Inc. vs. NLRC, [G. R. and file employees? Yes!
No. 127374, January 31, 2002])
HELD: In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers
Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., the court 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. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by
collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions
Philippine Skylanders Inc. vs. NLRC for the effective enhancement and protection of their interests.

Admittedly, there are times when without succor and support was issued by the DOLE in the name of the Tropical Hut
local unions may find it hard, unaided by other support groups, Employees Union — NATU. NATU, however, as a labor
to secure justice for themselves. federation, was not registered with the Department of Labor.
Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to THEU-NATU and Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. entered into a
serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement which contained the following
constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also clear and unequivocal terms:
to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the
agreement which brought such affiliation into existence. Article I
Coverage and Effectivity
In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records nor is it Sec. 1. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole and
exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its workers and
claimed by Union B that the local union was expressly forbidden
employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work, and other
to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions terms and conditions of employment.
imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the pendency of an xxx xxx xxx
election protest involving both the mother federation and the Article III
local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation. Union Membership and Union Check-off
Neither was it disputed that 111 signatories out of the 120 Sec. 1 —. . . Employees who are already members of the UNION at
members of the local union, or an equivalent of 92.5% of the the time of the signing of this Agreement or who become so
total union membership supported the claim of disaffiliation and thereafter shall be required to maintain their membership therein as
a condition of continued employment.
had in fact deauthorized the mother union from instituting any
xxx xxx xxx
complaint in their behalf. Surely, this is not a case where one (1) Sec. 3—Any employee who is expelled from the UNION for joining
or two (2) members of the local union decided to disaffiliate another federation or forming another union, or who fails or refuses
from the mother federation, but it is a case where almost all local to maintain his membership therein as required, . . . shall, upon
union members decided to disaffiliate. written request of the UNION be discharged by the COMPANY.
xxx xxx xxx
It was entirely reasonable then for employer to enter into a
collective bargaining agreement with Union A. As Union A had There was also a check-off Authorization Form, the terms of
validly severed itself from Union B, there would be no restrictions which are as follows:
which could validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with
NCW and entering into a collective bargaining agreement in We, the undersigned, hereby designate the NATIONAL Association
behalf of its members. of Trade Unions, of which the TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION is
an affiliate as sole collective bargaining agent in all matters relating
to salary rates, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
Who filed this case for unfair labor practice? employment in the Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. xxx
It was the mother federation.
NATU received a jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the
What did the SC rule on the filing of the ULP? local union informing the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating
Because of the disaffiliation, the federation has no personality to from the NATU federation. An announcement was made in an
file ULP against the employer because it does not represent open letter to the general membership of the THEU, concerning
anybody anymore. It has no more affiliate. the latter's disaffiliation from the NATU and its affiliation with
the Confederation of General Workers (CGW). One hundred and
Is disaffiliation a violation of union security clause? thirty-seven (137) signatures appeared as having given their
No. In a situation where it does not involve the withdrawal of consent to and acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate
merely some employees from the union but the whole union the THEU from the NATU.
itself withdraws from the federation with which it was affiliated,
there can be no violation of the union security clause in the CBA THEU-CGW held its annual election of officers, with Jose Encinas
(Tropical Hut Employees Union - CGW, vs. Tropical Hut Food elected as President and informed the respondent company of
Market, Inc., [G. R. No. L-43495-99, Jan. 20, 1990]). the result of the elections. Encinas, however, was dismissed in
view of his violation of Section 3 of Article III of the Collective
Tropical Hut Employees Union - CGW, vs. Bargaining Agreement. Encinas was also advised in the letter
Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. that NATU was returning the letter of disaffiliation on the
G. R. No. L-43495-99, Jan. 20, 1990 ground, among others, that Article V, Section 1, of the NATU
Constitution provides that "withdrawal from the organization
FACTS: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food shall be valid provided three (3) months’ notice of intention to
Market Inc. organized a local union called the Tropical Hut withdraw is served upon the National Executive Council."
Employees Union or THEU. They elected their officers, adopted
their constitution and by-laws and sought affiliation with the In view of NATU's request, Tropical Hut Food Market Inc.
National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted suspended Encinas, pending the application for clearance with
the THEU application for affiliation and Registration Certificate the Department of Labor to dismiss him. Subsequently,
members of the THEU-CGW passed a resolution protesting the purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the
suspension of Encinas and reiterated their ratification and fundamental right of self-organization.
approval of their union's disaffiliation from NATU and their
affiliation with the Confederation of General Workers (CGW). ISSUE #2: Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees
Upon request of NATU, the company applied for clearance with resulting from their unions disaffiliation for the mother
the Secretary of Labor to dismiss the other officers and members federation was valid? No!
of THEU-CGW and suspended them effective that day.
HELD: It was not valid. There is no merit in the contention of the
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union respondents that the act of disaffiliation violated the union
from the national federation was valid? Yes! security clause of the CBA and that their dismissal as a
consequence thereof is valid. The collective bargaining
HELD: It was valid. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from agreements shows that the THEU-NATU, and not the NATU
its mother federation is well-settled. A local union, being a federation, was recognized as the sole and exclusive collective
separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest bargaining agent for all its workers and employees in all matters
of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when concerning wages, hours of work and other terms and
circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the conditions of employment. Although NATU was designated as
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. the sole bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form
attached to the CBA, this simply means it was acting only for and
(The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into in behalf of its affiliate. The NATU possessed the status of an
a common enterprise to increase by collective action the agent while the local union remained the basic principal union
common bargaining power in respect of the terms and which entered into contract with the respondent company.
conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the
association, free to serve their own and the common interest of former did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union
all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By- under the CBA.
Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation
for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement Moreover, the union security clause embodied in the
which brought it into existence.) agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted to
petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances
The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an
THEU in the registration with the Department of Labor is merely employee is expelled from the union for joining another
to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses
registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not
stand on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it involve the withdrawal of merely some employees from the
cannot pursue its own interests independently of the federation. union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly,
A local union owes its creation and continued existence to the since there is no violation of the union security provision in the
will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs. CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the
employment of petitioners.
When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a
new federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to labor In this case, the court just tackled on the union security clause.
organization for the effective enhancement and protection of Usually, union security clause is a provision that in a union
common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in contract requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to
the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local maintain union membership. Otherwise, they will be fired by the
union a local may sever its relationship with its parent. company. So it requires you to maintain union membership as a
condition for employment.
There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the
constitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was expressly It’s not just one or two employees who decided to disaffiliate or
forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation. The alleged non- transfer to another federation or union. It’s the whole affiliate
compliance of the local union with the provision in the NATU union disaffiliating from the mother union. That’s why the court
Constitution requiring the service of three months’ notice of would not say that it is a violation of the union security clause.
intention to withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the Consequently, there can be no sufficient basis to terminate the
disaffiliation for the following grounds: firstly, NATU was not employment of the said employees.
even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not
registered at that time with the DOLE, and therefore did not Union security clause, for me, it’s for an individual basis. You, as
possess and acquire, in the first place, the legal personality to an individual employee, would transfer to another, or leave from
enforce its constitution and laws, much less the right and your union, then you are effectively resigning from your
privilege under the Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters employment. But in case the whole affiliate disaffiliates from the
or locals within its group, and secondly, the act of non- federation, then that does not fall under the union security
compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on clause.

Additional Cases During Recitation HELD: The statutory authority for the exclusion of supervisory
employees in a rank-and-file union, and vice-versa, is Article 245
Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated of the Labor Code, to wit:
(THIGCI) v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)
G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003 Article 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
FACTS: THEU, a legitimate labor organization said to represent employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization
majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate
petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation- labor organizations of their own.
Arbitration Unit. THIGCI opposed THEU’s petition on the ground
that the list of union members submitted by it was defective and While above-quoted Article 245 expressly prohibits supervisory
fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of employees from joining a rank-and-file union, it does not
supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave provide what would be the effect if a rank-and-file union counts
(AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, supervisory employees among its members, or vice-versa.
Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that
out of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual Citing Toyota which held that "a labor organization composed of
rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor
organization at all," and the subsequent case of Progressive
Development Corp. – Pizza Hut v. Ledesma which held that:
THEU then asserted that it had complied with all the
requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of
"The Labor Code requires that in organized and unorganized
legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department establishments, a petition for certification election must be filed by a
Order No. 9, series of 1997 and that Section 5, Rule V of said legitimate labor organization. The acquisition of rights by any union or
Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification
cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as long as there is election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor
no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the rights organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.
accorded to a legitimate organization.
In the case before us, the Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the
DOLE Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the holding of a certification petitioner’s prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the
respondent Union by a sweeping declaration that the union was in the
election among the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI.
possession of a charter certificate so that ‘for all intents and purposes,
However, the Office of the DOLE Secretary dismissed the petition Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate
for certification election on the ground that there is a "clear organization,’"
absence of community or mutuality of interests," it finding that
THEU sought to represent two separate bargaining units ISSUE # 2: Whether or not THEU’s legal personality can be
(supervisory employees and rank-and-file employees) as well as
subject to a collateral attack. NO
employees of two separate and distinct corporate entities.
Held: After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its

DOLE Undersecretary Baldoz, ruled that the twenty percent
legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be
(20%) membership requirement is not necessary for it to acquire
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in
legitimate status, hence, "the alleged retraction and withdrawal
accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to
of support by 45 of the 70 remaining rank-and-file members . . .
cannot negate the legitimacy it has already acquired before the Implement the Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which section
petition;" that rather than disregard the legitimate status already reads:
conferred on THEU by the Bureau of Labor Relations, the names
Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers’
of alleged disqualified supervisory employees and employees of
association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality
the Country Club, Inc., a separate and distinct corporation,
on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal
should simply be removed from the THEU’s roster of personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be
membership; and that regarding the participation of alleged questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in
resigned and AWOL employees and those whose signatures are accordance with these Rules.
illegible, the issue can be resolved during the inclusion-exclusion
proceedings at the pre-election stage.
ISSUE # 1: Whether or not rank-and-file employees can be

joined with supervisory employees in a labor union. NO

The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of registration,
for under Article 239 of the Labor Code, as follows: should be considered to have already acquired juridical
personality which may not be assailed collaterally.
Article 239
Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) vs. Hon.
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union Pura Ferrer-Calleja
registration: G.R. No. 94716 November 15, 1991
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection

FACTS: Union of Concerned Employees of the Court of Appeals
with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
(UCECA) filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau
or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list
of Labor Relations alleging that the petitioner, Association of
of members who took part in the ratification;
Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) no longer enjoys the
(b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding support of the majority of the rank-and-file employees.
paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of
the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; ACAE filed its opposition. It charged the UCECA with
misrepresentation, forgery and perjury in attaching to its
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection petition, a copy of the names of members some of which were
with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, twice listed, written without consent or unsigned, and some of
the list of voters, or failure to subject these documents together the signatures of which were forged.
with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their
postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election; ACAE filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of
Registration of the UCECA on the ground of fraud and
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau
misrepresentation by UCECA in obtaining its Registration
within thirty (30) days after the losing of every fiscal year and
Certificate No. 159
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the
financial report itself;
BLR: BLR 6-19-90 (cancellation proceedings) is not a bar to the
(e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" holding of a certification election. The BLR found that UCECA
system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law; was supported by 303 or 40% percent of the 762 rank-and-file
employees of the court. Bureau conducted a pre-election
(f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide conference.
terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards
established by law; ISSUE: Whether the BLR has jurisdiction to handle disputes
among associations of employees in the judiciary (CA)? Yes!
(g) Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees
from employers;
HELD: The Solicitor General argues that the applicable law is
Executive Order No. 180. "Providing Guidelines for the Exercise of
(h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code,
the Right to Organize of Government Employees; Creating a
checking off special assessments or any other fees without duly
signed individual written authorizations of the members; Public Sector Labor-Management Council; and for other
Purposes."
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau
once a year or whenever required by the Bureau; and "SECTION 7. Government employees’ organizations shall register with
the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Labor and
(j) Failure to comply with the requirements under Articles 237 Employment …”
and 238, “SECTION 12. Where there are two or more duly registered employees’
organizations in the appropriate organizational unit, the Bureau of Labor
Relations shall, upon petition, order the conduct of a certification
while the procedure for cancellation of registration is provided
election and shall certify the winner as the exclusive representative of the
for in Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
rank-and-file employees in said organization unit."
The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among

The petitioner questions the validity of Executive Order No. 180
the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
but limits its challenge to an alleged violation of the separation
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article of powers doctrine.
239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code.
The argument is self-defeating because only this Court would
have the power to supervise certification elections in the Court

of Appeals. The task is not for us and we certainly have no ISSUE: Whether or not the certification proceedings should be
intention to undertake it. suspended pending its petition for the cancellation of the union
registration of the UCECA? No!
It is the function of this Court to regulate all activities of Judges
and court personnel, the Supreme Court included, to the end HELD: The act of the petitioner in charging commissions of fraud
that the independence, effectiveness, and integrity of the and misrepresentation against UCECA only after realizing the
judiciary as mandated by the Constitution. rising membership of the latter and the subsequent petition for
certification election raises grave suspicions as to whether or not
All this does not mean that the separation of powers doctrine it wants to subvert the right of the employees to determine the
requires us to supervise the details of self-organization activities proper exclusive representative or agent now that they are given
in the courts. In the same way that CSC validly conducts two unions from which to choose. Assuming for the sake of
competitive examinations to grant requisite eligibilities to court argument that the petitioner ACAE had lawful grounds to
employees. We see no constitutional objection to DOLE challenge the existence of the UCECA, it should have done so,
handling the certification process in the Court of Appeals, soon after the date it had notice or knowledge of the registration
considering its expertise, machinery, and experience in this of the latter to protect its own interests and not at a later time
particular activity. Executive Order No. 180 requires when its bargaining position was already at the risk of being lost.
organizations of government employees to register with both The Court applies the established rule correctly followed by the
CSC and DOLE. This ambivalence notwithstanding, the CSC has public respondent that an order to hold a certification election
no facilities, personnel, or experience in the conduct of is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation
certification elections. The BLR has to do the job. of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The
rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed
Executive Order No. 180 states that certificates of registration of its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act
the legitimate employee representatives must be jointly absent an order directing a cancellation.
approved by the CSC Chairman and the DOLE Secretary.
Are the employees from the private or public sector? Public.
ISSUE: Whether or not UCECA failed to prove that ACAE no Where do you register? CSC and BLR.
longer enjoys the support of the rank-and-file employees?
Why is the DOLE involved in the registration?
HELD: ACAE claims that it has 395 members. It states that if the There is no constitutional objection to DOLE handling the
fraudulently entered names numbering 88 are all deducted from certification process in the Court of Appeals, considering its
the 303 listed names for UCECA, there would actually be 215 expertise, machinery, and experience in this particular activity.
members only left. Executive Order No. 180 requires organizations of government
employees to register with both CSC and DOLE. This
Rule VI, Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the ambivalence notwithstanding, the CSC has no facilities,
Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization, no personnel, or experience in the conduct of certification elections.
election can be had if the incumbent bargaining representative The BLR has to do the job.
still has the clear majority. Nowhere in the rules is there a further
requirement for a petitioning union to prove the lack of a
majority status of the incumbent representative. What is merely Katipunan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Daungan
required for a petition for certification election is the filing of a (KAMADA), vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja and Associated
verified petition which is supported by the signatures of at least Skilled and Technical Employees Union (ASTEUO)
twenty (20%) percent of the covered employees. The public G.R. No. 104692 September 5, 1997
respondent has found the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance there being compliance with the twenty (20%) percent FACTS: KAMADA claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining
support signatures. agent for all workers in Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI). After
a certification election, it concluded a collective bargaining
Even assuming there were fraudulently included names or agreement with the company. Soon thereafter, in September
signatures, UCECA would still have complied with the twenty 1990, private respondent union (ASTEUO) — allegedly
(20%) percent requirement. The remaining membership, i.e. 215, composed also of OTSI workers — was registered.
alleged by petitioner ACAE constitutes twenty-eight (28%)
percent of the rank-and-file court employees. KAMADA filed a suit to cancel the registration of ASTEUO on the
ground that the latter's members were already covered by the
existing collective bargaining agreement. Private respondent, on
the other hand, claimed that its existence as a union could not
be disturbed, as its registration was made during the freedom exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from
period when there was no collective bargaining agreement taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided
concluded as yet. herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly
repealing this provision.
Private respondent's registration was cancelled by the med-
NOTE: Not every legitimate labor organization possesses the
arbiter in his resolution dated November 27, 1990, finding that
rights mentioned in Article 250 (242) of the Labor Code.
the "organization of another union covering the same workers
call no longer be considered as a labor protective [sic] activity
Inherent Rights of all LLOs
under P.D. 1391"7 and that "this will even be against the present
A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
policy of one union in one company."
a. To act as the representative of its members for the purpose
ISSUE: Whether or not there was already an existing certified of collective bargaining;
bargaining agent when respondent obtained its registration. b. To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
HELD: Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules collective bargaining;
Implementing the Labor Code, prohibits not the registration of c. To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with
a new union but the holding of a certification election "within its annual audited financial statements, including the balance
one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30)
result. Clearly, private respondent's registration is not covered calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after
by the prohibition. In any event, the union registration was the union has been duly recognized by the employer or
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
effected in September 1990, a month before the secretary of
of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60)
labor issued his decision on the result of the certification election
calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective
on October 31, 1990. Hence, there was yet no certified
bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining
bargaining agent when the private respondent was registered as negotiation;
a union. d. To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of
the labor organization and its members;
July 15, 2020 – Ella Jules Lastimosa
e. To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
Article 251
f. To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
Rights of Legitimate Labor Organizations
organization and its members, including cooperative,
housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose
of collective bargaining;
NOTE: Meaning, all LLOs have the right to: (b) to be certified
b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective
collective bargaining;
bargaining but not to (a) to act as the representative of its
c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with
members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (which can
its annual audited financial statements, including the balance
only be done by an EBA).
sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after
Right to Be Certified as The Exclusive Representative
the union has been duly recognized by the employer or
Representing its members primordially involves the right to be
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in
of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60)
the appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective
calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective
bargaining.
bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining
negotiation;
Only an LLO has the right to file for certification election.
d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of
Recall our lesson on chartered local having partial personality for
the labor organization and its members;
the purpose of certification. A chartered local is a kind of LLO.
e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
Right to Sue and Be Sued in Its Registered Name
housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. A labor union’s right to represent includes the power to
represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the
Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the provisions of the CBA.
contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor
organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations The LLO can only sue and be sued in behalf of their members
and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar and not in behalf of non-members. A labor union would go
organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and beyond the limits of its legitimate purposes if it is given the
unrestrained liberty to prosecute any case even for employees to be represented by LAKAS. However, it cannot do so because
who are not members of any union at all. the members constituting this split faction of MUEWA were still
members of MUEWA which was on its own right a duly registered
Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LAKAS) labor union. Hence, any suit to be brought for and in behalf of
vs. Marcelo Enterprises them can be made only by MUEWA, and not LAKAS. It appearing
G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 then that Carreon and his cohorts did not disaffiliate from
MUEWA nor signed any individual affiliation with LAKAS, LAKAS
• Once there is an LLO, the employer is only allowed to bears no legal interest in representing MUEWA or any of its
negotiate with the LLO and NOT the individual employees. members.
FACTS: A labor dispute started between Lakas ng Nor will the lower court's opinion be availing with respect to the
Manggagawang Makabayan [LAKAS] and the management of complaining employees belonging to UNWU and MFWU.
Marcelo Companies. Marcelo Companies had an existing CBA Although it is true, as alleged by LAKAS, that when it filed the
with the local unions then existing within the appropriate charge, the officers of the movant unions were not yet then the
bargaining units: MACATIFU, MFU, and UNWU. officers thereof, nevertheless, the moment MFWU and UNWU
separated from and disaffiliated with 'LAKAS to again
LAKAS declared a strike against all the Marcelo Companies. Acts exercise its rights as independent local unions, registered
of violence and vandalism attended the picketing. Ingress and before as such, they are no longer affiliates of LAKAS, as
egress at the respondents' premises were successfully blocked. what transpired here. Naturally, there would no longer be any
reason or occasion for LAKAS to continue representing them.
A "Return to Work Agreement" was executed by and among the Notable is the fact that the members purportedly represented
management and the local unions, together with complainant by LAKAS constitute the mere minority of the movant unions, as
LAKAS, and UNWU, MFWU and MUEWA, the representations of may be inferred from the allegations of the movant unions as
the latter two, however, being expressly subjected by well as the counter-allegations of LAKAS filed below. As such,
management to non-recognition. By virtue of this agreement, they cannot prevail or dictate upon the will of the greater
the Marcelo Companies resumed operations and the strikers majority of the unions to which they still belong, it appearing
went back to work. that they never disaffiliated from their unions; or stated in
another way, they are bound by the action of the greater
LAKAS, represented by its counsel, filed before CIR a charge majority.
for unfair labor practice against Marcelo Companies, alleging
non-readmission of the striking members of the three (3) A labor union would go beyond the limits of its legitimate
affiliated local unions despite the unconditional offer to return purposes if it is given the unrestrained liberty to prosecute any
to work after the strike. case even for employees who are not members of any union at
all. A suit brought by another in representation of a real party in
ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by LAKAS against Marcelo interest is defective. Under the facts herein, the ruling is
Companies can be sustained, in view of the alleged fact that its applicable, the only difference being that, here, a labor
authority to file and prosecute the same? federation seeks to represent members of a registered local
union never affiliated with it and members of registered local
HELD: In their petition Marcelo Companies maintain that the unions which, in the course of the proceedings before the
court erred in not dismissing the complaint even as it knew fully industrial court, disaffiliated from it.
well that the very authority of LAKAS to represent the labor
unions who had precisely disaffiliated from the LAKAS, was open This is not to say that the complaining employees were without
to serious question and was being ventilated before it. On the any venue for redress. Under the considerations, the court
other hand, the court rationalized the denial of the motions to should have directed the amendment of the complaint by
withdraw by holding that the complaint was filed by LAKAS on dropping LAKAS as the complainant and allowing the suit to
behalf of the individual employees whose names were attached be further prosecuted in the individual names of those who
to the complaint and hence, that the local unions who were not had grievances. A class suit under Rule 3, Section 12 of the Rules
so authorized by these individual employees, cannot withdraw of Court is authorized and should suffice for the purpose.
the said complaint. The lower court's opinion is erroneous.
In fairness to the complaining employees, however, we treated
Firstly, LAKAS cannot bring any action for and in behalf of their Motion for Reconsideration subject of appeal as curing the
the employees who were members of MUEWA because, the defect of the complaint as the said motion expressly
local union was never an affiliate of LAKAS. What appears manifested their collective desire to pursue the complaint for
clearly from the records is that it was Carreon and his followers and in their own behalves and disauthorizing LAKAS' counsel
who joined LAKAS, but then Carreon was not the recognized from further representing them. And We have also treated their
president of MUEWA and neither he nor his followers can claim petition before Us in the same manner, disregarding the fact that
any legitimate representation of MUEWA. Apparently, it is this LAKAS remained the petitioning party, as it appears from the
split faction of MUEWA, headed by Carreon, who is being sought verification that the petition was for and in behalf of the
complaining employees. The merits of their petition, however,
fall short of substantiating the charge of unfair labor practice HELD: No. The allegations of petitioner to the effect that “by
against the respondent Marcelo Companies. reason of the quitclaims there is nothing upon which the
attorney's lien attaches,” is not valid.
Judgment is rendered holding that the Marcelo Companies are
Firstly, said quitclaims were secured by petitioner after it lost its
not guilty of unfair labor practice.
case in the lower court. Obviously in its desire to deny what is
due the sugar workers concerned and frustrate the decision
Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. vs. Court of
of the lower court awarding benefits to them, it used its
Industrial Relations and Sugar Workers Association
moral ascendancy as employer over said workers to secure
G.R. No. L-39387 June 29, 1982
said quitclaims.
Secondly, while rights may be waived, the same must not be

FACTS: Sometime in February, 1956, the workers' affiliates of contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
respondent Union staged a strike against Petitioner Company. customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
This labor dispute was certified by the President to the Court of by law (Art. 6, New Civil Code). The quitclaim agreements contain
Industrial Relations (CIR). the following provisions in Paragraph 1, No. 3, thereof:
After six years, the CIR issued an order, directing Petitioner 3. Nothing herein stipulated shall be construed as an
Company to reinstate the members of respondent union. Some admission and/or recognition by the Party of The Second
88 union members were thus reinstated by petitioner. However, Part of its failure refusal and/or omission as employer, to
petitioner discriminated against the reemployed workers with faithfully comply with the pertinent laws, rules and
respect to wage rates, off-season pay, cost of living allowance, regulations and/or agreements, nor its liability therefor and
milling bonus and Christmas bonus by depriving them of thereunder.
aforesaid benefits or by granting to some members benefits
lesser than those given to members of the Pasudeco Workers The foregoing provisions are contrary to law. It exempts the
Union, another labor group in the service of petitioner. petitioner from any legal liability. The above- quoted provision
renders the quitclaim agreements void ab initio in their entirety
By reason of such denial and/or grant of lower benefits to since they obligated the workers concerned to forego their
respondent's members because of their union affiliation and benefits, while at the same time, exempted the petitioner from
union activities, respondent filed with the CIR a complaint for any liability that it may choose to reject. This runs counter to
unfair labor practice against petitioner. Article 22 of the New Civil Code which provides that no one shall
On December 4, 1972, the CIR rendered its decision, finding be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered petitioner Thirdly, the alleged quitclaim agreements are contrary to
to cease and desist from further committing the said unfair labor public policy. Once a civil action is filed in court, the cause of
practice acts. The CIR also ordered petitioner to pay wage action may not be the subject of compromise unless the same is
differentials to certain workers, and fringe benefits as would be by leave of the court concerned. Parties to litigations cannot be
found due and payable to them and to readmitted seasonal and allowed to trifle with the judicial system by coming to court and
casual members of respondent union totalling 88 with the later on agreeing to a compromise without the knowledge and
exception of 7 workers. approval of the court.
Respondent Union filed with the CIR a motion for computation In the case at bar, the lower court has already rendered a
of final judgment and a petition for attorney's lien. decision on the issues presented before the alleged quitclaims
On June 6, 1974, the CIR issued its order: (1) Approving and agreements were made. The quitclaim agreements taken
granting to respondent's counsel attorney's fees equivalent to together with the petitioner's petition for certiorari of the trial
20% of the total amount of final judgment or whatever recovery court's decision clearly and unmistakably shows the bad faith of
or settlement is made; and (2) directing its Examining Division to the petitioner and its outright refusal to comply with its legal
compute the wage and fringe benefits differentials due the 28 obligations.
individual workers who did not waive or quitclaim their rights The quitclaim agreements are not compromise agreements
established by the decision of December 4, 1972, as well as the This Court likewise rejects petitioner's allegation that the 53
attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the total wage and fringe quitclaim agreements were in the nature of a compromise.
benefits differentials due the fifty-three (53) individual workers
who executed agreements with the company, waiving and Petitioner's allegations apply only to compromises between the
quitclaiming their rights, benefits and privileges under the party-litigants done in good faith. In the case at bar, there was
aforesaid decision. Thus, this appeal from the subject order and no compromise between the petitioner and the respondent
resolution of the CIR. Sugar Workers Association. In respect of the 53 quitclaims,
ISSUES: Whether the lower court erred in ordering the these are not compromise agreements between the petitioner
computation of judgment on the ground that by and respondent union. They are separate documents of
reason of the quitclaim agreements, the computation renunciation of individual rights. Compromise involves the
of judgment has become academic. mutual renunciation of rights by both parties on a parity basis.
The quitclaims, however, bind the workers to renounce their
rights while the petitioner not only does not renounce anything ISSUE 2: Whether the employer can impugn the jurisdiction of
but also acquires exemption from any legal liability in the Secretary of Labor & Regional Director on appeal? No!
connection therewith.
HELD: Such contention was raised for the first time on appeal
Atty. Fabian’s Comments thus can no longer be considered by the Court at this stage,
Once there is an LLO, the employer is only allowed to negotiate consistent with the ruling in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. The active
with the LLO and not the respective employee. If you review your participation of the party against whom the action was brought,
Obligations and Contracts, when you compromise, you need to coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court
go with the party himself. Here they went immediately to the or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is
employees when they should have negotiated with the tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a
individual employees. willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar
said party from later on impugning the court or body's
Exception to Right to Sue and Be Sued in Its Registered jurisdiction. It should be noted that the various money claims of
Name: Money Claims the employees were never disputed by the employer during the
Money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of settlement proceedings before the Regional Director and the Secretary of
or compromise effected by the union, union officers or counsel Labor. What was sought was the reduction of the employer’s
without the specific individual consent of each laborer liability by entering into an amicable settlement with the
concerned because the aggrieved parties are the individual representative of the employees who turned out to be not
complainants themselves. Their representative can only assist authorized. Having failed in his attempt to reduce the claims of
but not decide for them. the employees, the ends of justice and equity require that the
employer be not allowed to defeat the employees' right by the
Alfredo S. Marquez V. Hon. Secretary of Labor expedient of raising the issue of jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 80685. March 16, 1989 For a waiver thereof to be legally effective, the individual consent
or ratification of the workers or employees involved must be
FACTS: Union, in behalf of 79 of its members who are employed shown. Neither the officers nor the majority of the union had any
at the Little Folks Snack Mobile owned by Marquez (employer), authority to waive the accrued rights pertaining to the dissenting
filed a complaint for money claims. After several hearings, both minority members, even under a collective bargaining
parties were required to submit their respective position papers. agreement which provided for a "union shop."
While the employees were able to submit a position paper, their
employer failed to do so. What money claim was involved?
As compared to the other case, there was bad faith on the part
Peran, the representative of the employees during the of the employer which was why the court did not allow such in
proceedings before the hearing officer filed a motion to dismiss this case.
claiming that the Union and the employer were able to settle
amicably their dispute through a compromise agreement. The General Rubber and Footwear Corporation v.
employees opposed the motion on the ground that Peran was Hon. Franklin Drilon
not authorized to enter into the alleged compromise agreement GR No. 76988 | January 31, 1989
and much less to move for the dismissal of the complaint.
FACTS: Wage Order No. 6 was issued, increasing the statutory
On appeal, the employer relies heavily on the amicable minimum wage rate (by P2.00) and the mandatory cost of living
settlement, claiming that upon its execution the employees' allowance in the private sector. General Rubber and Footwear
complaint was rendered moot and academic and the employer's Corporation applied to the National Wages Council for
submission of a position paper became unnecessary. exemption from the provisions of Wage Order No. 6 to which
the council has denied. The Corporation applied for a motion for
ISSUE 1: Whether the compromise agreement was valid? No! reconsideration.
HELD: Money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of

In 1985, some members of General Rubber Workers' Union-
settlement or compromise effected by the union, union
NATU (“Union”), led by Leopoldo Sto. Domingo, declared a strike
officers or counsel without the specific individual consent of
against the Corporation. After a few days, the Corporation and
each laborer concerned. This is so because the aggrieved
parties are the individual complainants themselves and their Sto. Domingo, who was representing the striking workers,
representative can only assist but not decide for them. In the light entered into a Return-to-Work Agreement, Article 4 of which
of the categorical denial by the employees that Peran was provided that the Corporation agrees to implement the full
authorized to enter into an amicable settlement as regards their Wage Order No. 6 and agree to withdraw the motion for
claims, the Court holds that Secretary of Labor ruled correctly in reconsideration. Additionally, the members would refrain from
upholding the Regional Director's rejection of the agreement. requiring the company to pay the differential pay (increase in pay)
due under Wage Order No. 6 corresponding to the preceding
seven-month period from 1 November 1984 to 29 May 1985.
The agreement was subsequently ratified by 268 members of the under a collective bargaining agreement which provided for a
union by signing individually. The Corporation also withdrawn "union shop." The members of the union need the protective
its MR with the Council. However, there were some 100 members shield of this doctrine not only vis-a-vis their employer but also,
of the union who opposed the Agreement, who took the view at times, vis-a-vis the management of their own union, and at
that the Council's Order of had become final and executory upon other times even against their own imprudence or
the withdrawal of petitioner's MR and who would not sign the impecuniousness.
instrument ratifying the Agreement. Thereafter, these minority
union members with respondent union acting on their behalf, The Court is not saying that accrued money claims can never be
applied for a writ of execution of the Council's Order. effectively waived by workers and employees. The Court
emphasizes that, in the present case, the private respondents
The Corporation opposed the writ of execution contending that never purported to waive their claims to accrued differential pay.
the Council's approval of its deferred compliance with the
implementation of the Wage Order, together with the majority What kinds of money claims were involved in this case?
ratification of the Agreement by the individual workers, bound Wage differential. In their agreement, the employees were
the non-ratifying union members represented by the union. prejudiced or underhanded in the negotiation. This is why the
Court concluded that they needed to obtain their consent.
The union countered that the Agreement, despite the majority
Moral Lesson: When it comes to waiving monetary benefits or
ratification, was not binding on the union members who had not
other benefits that can be reduced into monetary value, the
consented thereto, upon the ground that ratification or non-
union cannot waive such, it is only the individual employee who
ratification of the Agreement, involving as it did money claims, can waive the benefit.
was a personal right under the doctrine of "Kaisahan ng
Manggagawa sa La Campana v. Honorable Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento and Exception to The Exception
La Campana." of the Right to Sue and Be Sued in Its Registered Name
The individual members are not allowed to intervene in a case
ISSUE: Whether or not union members who did not ratify a when they are already represented by the union.
waiver of accrued wage differentials are bound by the ratification
made by a majority of the union members? No! The individual members are only allowed to intervene if there is
fraud or collusion or the union acted in bad faith. (Jerry E.
HELD: Article 4 of the Return-to-Work Agreement was not Acedera Vs. International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)
enforceable against the non-consenting union members, the [G.R. No. 146073 January 13, 2003]
Order of the National Wages Council dated 4 March 1985
requiring the Corporation to comply with Wage Order No. 6 Jerry E. Acedera vs. International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)
from 1 November 1984 onward must be regarded as having
G.R. No. 146073 January 13, 2003
become final and executory insofar as the non-consenting union
members were concerned.
FACTS: Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of ICTSI and are
officers/members of APCWU-ICTSI, a labor organization duly
Money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of
registered as a local affiliate of APCWU.
settlement or compromise effected by a union or counsel
without the specific individual consent of each laborer ICTSI entered into its first CBA with APCWU with a term of five
concerned. The beneficiaries are the individual complainants years effective and was renegotiated and renewed through a
themselves. The union to which they belong can only assist them second CBA effective for another five years. The CBA provided
but cannot decide for them. that the employees’ work week was reduced to five days or a
total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued using the
In the instant case, there is no dispute that private respondents 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the employees.
had not ratified the Return-to-Work Agreement. It follows, the
minority members cannot be held bound by the Return-to-Work Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB)
Agreement. The waiver of money claims, which in this case were decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers and
employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower in NCR. Pursuant
accrued money claims, by workers and employees must be
to this and in view of the request of APCWU members, ICTSI
regarded as a personal right, that is, a right that must be
stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in
personally exercised. For a waiver thereof to be legally effective,
determining the daily wage of its employees and other
the individual consent or ratification of the workers or consequential compensation, even if the employees’ work week
employees involved must be shown. Neither the officers nor the consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA.
majority of the union had any authority to waive the accrued
rights pertaining to the dissenting minority members, even

ICTSI went on a retrenchment program which prompted the gave them the best offer for them which is why the employees
APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike. This included as cause of were no longer allowed to intervene.
action ICTSI’s use of 365 days as divisor in the computation of
wages. This dispute was referred to the Labor Arbiter. Negotiation Phase vs. Administration Phase
APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees similarly Negotiation Phase Administration Proceedings
situated, filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against ICTSI. While in the negotiation During the administration
This was dismissed for APCWU’s failure to file its position paper phase, the union is the proceedings (i.e. filing
but upon the demand of Acedera et. al, APCWU filed a motion Exclusive Bargaining Agent complaints arising from the
to revive the case which was granted. Thereafter, Acedera et. al for the purpose of collective CBA) the union is no longer
filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint-in-Intervention with bargaining. the Exclusive Bargaining
Motion to Intervene. This was denied by the Labor Arbiter upon Agent because any group of
a finding that they are already well represented by APCWU. This employees or a single
was affirmed by the NLRC. Meanwhile, the case filed by APCWU employee can bring a
was elevated before the Court of Appeals after it was dismissed grievance to management.
by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the Employee can compel Employee cannot compel
dismissal. Acedera et al. also elevated the dismissal of their representation. representation; he can do so
motion to intervene via petition for certiorari but it was also by himself.
dismissed by the Court of Appeals, stating that petitioners are
already well represented by its employees union, APCWU.
The union can therefore absorb or exempt itself if it believes that
there is no grievance and the employee cannot compel the
ISSUE: Whether it was proper for the Court of Appeals to dismiss
union to bring the grievance for him because the employee has
Acedera et al.'s petition for certiorari? Yes!
the right under the LC to bring his own grievance.
HELD: A labor union is one such party authorized to represent

If the union negotiates the CBA and excludes an EE from the
its members under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code which
bargaining unit, the employee can complain because the union
provides that a union may act as the representative of its
is the EBA during negotiation.
members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority
includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of
But if the employee has a grievance (administration phase) and
enforcing the provisions of the CBA. That APCWU acted in a
the union does not defend him, the employee cannot force or
representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members
compel the union to defend him in his grievance.
and other employees similarly situated," the title of the case filed
by it at the Labor Arbiter’s Office so expressly states.
Rights Belonging Only to EBA
While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the
union, may be permitted to intervene in a case, ordinarily, a
purpose of collective bargaining;
person whose interests are already represented will not be
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
of fraud or collusion or that the representative will not act
purposes of collective bargaining;
in good faith for the protection of all interests represented
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request,
by him.
with its annual audited financial statements, including
the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement,
The dismissal of the main case first by the Labor Arbiter, and later
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt
by the Court of Appeals does not by itself show the existence of
of the request, after the union has been duly
fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU.
recognized by the employer or certified as the sole
There must be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or
and exclusive bargaining representative of the
collusion or lack of good faith independently of the dismissal.
employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60)
This, Acedera et al. failed to proffer. For a member of a class to
calendar days before the expiration of the existing
be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or
collective bargaining agreement, or during the
collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative
collective bargaining negotiation;
must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record and
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and
not just on mere assertions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’
benefit of the labor organization and its members;
dismissal of Acedera et al.’s petition for certiorari was proper.
(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
NOTE: This is about computation of the divisor, but still involved
a money claim. The Union tried its best to represent its
housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
employees. It did not waive anything for the employee which
may prejudiced them. They may be prejudiced but the Union

Letter (a) and (c) are refers only to the Exclusive Bargaining retirement benefits or application of the new retirement plan,
Agent. Letter (a) must be read in relation to Article 267 (255) signing bonus and grievance and arbitration machineries.
on Exclusive Bargaining Agent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed error
What is an Exclusive Bargaining Agent? in respecting the free and voluntary decisions of the employees
Also known as: “Exclusive Bargaining Representative” refers to a in regards to its opted retirement plans? Yes!
legitimate labor union duly recognized or certified as the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative or agent of all the HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that although the union has
employees in a bargaining unit. (IRR, Rule 1, Definition of Terms) every right to represent its members in the negotiation
regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, it
Article 267 (255). Exclusive Bargaining Representation and cannot negate their wishes on matters which are purely
Workers’ Participation in Policy and Decision-Making. – The personal and individual to them.
labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be In the case at bar, the 40 employees freely opted to be covered
the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for by the Old Plan. Thus, their decision should be respected. The
the purpose of collective bargaining. company gave them every opportunity to choose, and they
voluntarily exercised their choice. The union cannot pretend to
Therefore, only an EBA can (a) To act as the representative of its know better and it cannot impose its will on them.
members for the purpose of collective bargaining.
It must be the EBA for it to act as a representative of its members When can the Right to Request for Audited Financial
for purposes of collective bargaining. As EBA, it has the duty to Statement be used?
represent not only its members but the entire bargaining c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with
unit including those not members of the Union for purposes of its annual audited financial statements, including the balance
collective bargaining. This is different from the rule on filing sheet and the profit and loss statement:
cases in behalf of non-members (see Lakas case). 1. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of
the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the
Right to Act as The Representative of Its Members employer (by Voluntary Recognition) or
For The Purpose of Collective Bargaining 2. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of
Although the union has every right to represent its members in the request, after the union has been certified as the sole and
the negotiations regarding the terms and conditions of their exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
employment, it cannot negate their wishes on matters which are bargaining unit (by Certification Election), or
purely personal and individual to them. 3. Within sixty (60) calendar days’ freedom period before the
expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or
4. During the collective bargaining negotiation.
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA)
v. Hon. Jose S. Brillantes Therefore, only an EBA can request for Audited FS. While the law
G.R. No. 123782. September 16, 1997 just mentions BS and Income Statement, it may include other
supporting schedules or notes to financial statements.
FACTS: Anticipating the expiration of their CBA, Caltex Refinery
Employees Association (CREA) and Caltex negotiated the terms What’s the importance of a written request?
and conditions of employment to be contained in a new CBA. If there is no written request made, the employer cannot be held
Some items in the new CBA were amicably arrived at and agreed liable for ULP for refusal to furnish audited FS. (Standard Chartered
upon but others were left unresolved. Because the parties failed Bank Employees Unio (NUBE) v. The Honorable Ma. Nieves R. Confesor)
to reach any significant, CREA declared a deadlock and filed a
notice of strike. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) v.
The Honorable Ma. Nieves R. Confesor
CREA began a strike and set up a picket in the premises of Caltex. G.R. NO. 114974 June 16, 2004
Thereafter, several company notices directing the striking
employees to return to work were issued but the members of FACTS: Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank
CREA defied them and continued their mass action. and file employees of the Bank. The Union initiated the
negotiations with the Bank for its non-economic provisions.
After the intercession of the DOLE Undersecretary, the members
of the union to returned to work and entered into a Except for the provisions on signing bonus and uniforms, the
memorandum of agreement with Caltex. Union and the Bank failed to agree on the remaining economic
provisions of the CBA.
It appears that CREA questions that resolution of 5 issues in the
CBA, specifically on wage increase, union security clause,
The Union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP
before the NCMB. On the other hand, the Bank filed a complaint ART. 250. [241] of the Labor Code (a,b,c,d,h,i,l,m,n,o,p)
for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Damages before the NLRC.
a) Right Against Arbitrary or Excessive Initiation Fees,
HELD: Union failed to substantiate its claim that the Bank Fines, And Forfeiture
refused to furnish the information it needed. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the
members of a legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary,
While the refusal to furnish requested information is in itself an excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed.
unfair labor practice, and also supports the inference of surface
bargaining, in the case at bar, Umali, in a meeting, requested the Under Article 292. [277] Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) All unions
Bank to validate its guestimates on the data of the rank and file. are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees, union
However, Umali failed to put his request in writing as provided dues, assessments and fines and other contributions.
for in Article 242(c) of the Labor Code.
NOTE: Initiation fees – aka membership fees.
The Union, did not, as the Labor Code requires, send a written
request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the Bank’s Therefore, the yardstick to determine whether a membership fee
rank and file employees. Moreover, as alleged by the Union, the is arbitrary or excessive is its reasonableness.
fact that the Bank made use of the aforesaid guestimates,
amounts to a validation of the data it had used in its The excessiveness of the membership fee is not a question of
presentation. amount. It is in relation to the earnings of a particular employee.
The General Rule followed by BLR is that it membership fee
must not exceed one day’s pay; otherwise, the union has the
Right to Undertake Other Activities burden of proof to show that the imposition of such is justified
A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: by compelling reasons.
f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
organization and its members, including cooperative, b) Right to Full and Detailed Reports
housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from
their officers and representatives of all financial transactions as
Note on Letter F: This still requires the approval of the special provided for in the constitution and by-laws of the organization;
agencies for the same (i.e. HLURB).  Reports such as financial statements: balanced sheet
and income statements
Right to Tax Exemption
Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the The union may avail of technical assistance of a CPA or
contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor bookkeeper to make these reports.
organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and
contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar c) Right to Election of Officers by Secret Ballot
organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and The members shall directly elect their officers in the local union,
exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, as well as their national officers in the national union or
duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided herein federation to which they or their local union is affiliated, by
may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years.
provision.
1. No qualification requirement for candidacy to any
The exemption is interpreted strictly against the grantee Union. position shall be imposed other than membership in good
standing in subject labor organization.
Right Belonging to All Unions
All unions are authorized to collect reasonable amounts of: 2. The secretary or any other responsible union officer shall
 Membership fees; furnish the Secretary of Labor and Employment with a list of
 Union dues; the newly-elected officers, together with the appointive
 Assessments; officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of
 Fines; funds within thirty (30) calendar days:
 Contributions for:  after the election of officers or
1. labor education & research,  from the occurrence of any change in the list of
2. mutual death and hospitalization benefits, officers of the labor organization;
3. welfare fund,
4. strike fund, NOTE: The term of 5 years is to coincide with the term of a CBA.
5. credit and cooperative undertakings; and
6. [Article 241(o)] NOTE: The voting must be done directly by the members
 Agency Fees [Article 248 (e)] themselves even if it is a national union or federation. Therefore,
a national union shall ask that the president of the local unions since it is their policy not to participate in any form of union
will elect the over-all president for the national union. So, it is activities; the non-time card employees, that they are managerial
very difficult for national unions and federations to campaign for employees; and the employees of the cooperative as non-ITM
the election of their officers without the help of management. employees.
Who are entitled to vote in the election of officers?

BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56
Only members of the union can participate in the election of
employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis but
union officers.
set aside the challenged order on the ground that 51 of 56
The eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of
applicable payroll period and employee's status during the the election per list submitted before the Bureau.
applicable payroll period. (Tancinco Vs. Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja
[G.R. No. 78131 January 20, 1988]) The decision directed among others the proclamation of
Lacanilao's group as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA
Eduardo Tancinco Vs. Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja to absorb in the bargaining unit the challenged voters unless
G.R. No. 78131 January 20, 1988 proven to be managerial employees.
FACTS: Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM- ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of BLR is proper on the
MEA. With the Unions Vice President’s promotion with the ground that 51 of 56 challenged voters were not yet union
position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for members at the time of the election per list submitted before
union membership. Said incident, among others led to a strike the Bureau. No!
spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents herein. Another
group however, led by herein petitioners staged a strike inside HELD: Submission of the employee’s names with the BLR as
the company premises. After four (4) days the strike was settled. qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua
They agreed the following terms: non to enable said members to vote in the election of union's
officers. It finds no support in fact and in law.
1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be United under one union, the
ITM Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA), to be affiliated with Per public respondent's findings, the April 24, 1986 list consists
ANGLO; of 158 union members only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged
2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO as the sole and
voters' names do not appear. Adopting however a rough
exclusive bargaining agent of all the monthly-paid employees;
estimate of a total number of union members who cast their
votes of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged
A pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to
votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the union members
agree on the list of voters. ANGLO made a unilateral ruling
are then public respondent should have also disqualified some
excluding some 56 employees consisting of the Manila office
175 of the 333 voters. It is true that under article 242(c) of the
employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card
Labor Code, as amended, only members of the union can
employees, drivers of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative
participate in the election of union officers. The question
employees of Mrs. Salazar.
however of eligibility to vote may be determined through
the use of the applicable payroll period and employee's
The election of officers was conducted under the supervision of
status during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the
MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question participated but
month next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular
whose votes were segregated without being counted.
employees and the Payroll period at or near the peak of
Lacanilao's group won. Lacanilao garnered 119 votes with a
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries.
margin of 3 votes over Tancinco prompting petitioners to make
a protest. Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the
In this case, considering that none of the parties insisted on the
Ministry of Labor Regional Office claiming that the
use of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering
determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the
further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to
competence of ANGLO.
be qualified for membership, their act of joining the election by
casting their votes on after the agreement is a clear
MOLE's Med Arbiter issued an order directing the opening and
manifestation of their intention to join the union.
counting of the segregated votes. From the said order private
respondents appealed to the BLR justifying the
They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof
disenfranchisement of the 56 votes. Private respondents
Said employees having exercised their right to unionism by
categorized the challenged voters into four groups namely, the
joining ITM-MEA their decision is paramount. Their names
Manila Employees, that they are personal employees of Mr. Lee;
could not have been included in the list of employee submitted
the Iglesia ni Kristo, that allowing them to vote will be anomalous
on April 24, 1986 to the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to a. Those expressly provided by its constitution and by-
join the union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed, laws or
the election was supervised by the Department of Labor where b. Those expressly authorized by written resolution
said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private respondents adopted by the majority of the members at a general
never challenged their right to vote then. meeting duly called for the purpose;
See letter p). For this purpose, registered labor organizations
may assess reasonable dues to finance (c) labor relations
It is however the position of private respondents that since a
seminars and other labor education activities.
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) has been concluded
between the local union and ITM management the 3 Ways by Which Union Funds Shall Be Directed
determination of the legal question raised herein may not serve 1. Expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws or
the purpose which the union envisions and may destroy the 2. Expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by
cordial relations existing between the management and the the majority of the members at a general meeting duly
union. called for the purpose
3. Mandatory activities of the union under letter (p): labor
Further, Existence of a CBA and cordial relationship developed relations seminar, labor education activities
between the union and the management should not be a
justification to frustrate the decision of the union members as to l) Right to a Report from The Treasurer of Other Responsible
who should properly represent them in the bargaining unit. Officer to Render an Account
The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof
d) Right to Vote in Determination of Major Policies who is responsible for the account of such organization or for
by Secret Ballot the collection, management, disbursement, custody or control
of the funds, moneys and other properties of the organization,
The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due
shall render to the organization and to its members a true and
deliberation, any question of major policy affecting the entire
correct account of all moneys received and paid by him since he
membership of the organization, unless the nature of the
assumed office or since the last day on which he rendered such
organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot
account, and of all bonds, securities and other properties of the
impractical, in which case, the Board of Directors of the
organization entrusted to his custody or under his control.
organization may make the decision in behalf of the general
membership.
The rendering of such account shall be made:
1. At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the
Examples of Major Policy
close of its fiscal year;
 Amount of union dues (most unions already
2. At such other times as may be required by a resolution
circumvent this by placing it in their by-law a fixed
of the majority of the members of the organization;
percentage for union dues),
and
 Going to strike/strike rule,
3. Upon vacating his office.
 Whether or not to affiliate with a federation.
The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and

h) Right to a Receipt for Any Payment to The Union
a copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor.
Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a Member
shall be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent The audit need not be done by an external auditor. If it was not
making the collection and entered into the record of the audited by an external auditor; the account must be verified by
organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose. an affidavit. If it is audited by an external auditor, there is no
need for an affidavit because it is done by virtue of his office as
NOTE: The duty to issue a receipt to a paying union member he is licensed and it states “in accordance with GAAP” (generally
exists even if receipt is not asked. accepted accounting principles).
If there is a check-off provision in the CBA and the management m) Right to Inspect Financial Records During Office Hours
deducts the union dues from the payroll, the receipt is issued to
The books of accounts and other records of the financial
the union and not to each member. This is not violative of the
activities of any labor organization shall be open to inspection
provision because the management does not actually give one
by any officer or member thereof during office hours.
receipt, it gives one receipt but with a list of employees covered
by the deduction, and it should appear in the payroll slip of the
Please read IRR: Rule XIII Administration of Trade Union Funds
employee.
and Actions Arising Therefrom.
i) Right Against Unauthorized Expenditures

Just like any other request for FS – the member must request in
The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any writing first. This right also includes the right to copy but at the
purpose or object other than: member’s own expense.
money which was paid in installments. Thereafter, he distributed
NOTE: The member is allowed to be accompanied by a CPA. the amount among the union members.
n) Right Against Unauthorized Assessment or Fees Vengco, et al., who are union members, noted that Timbungco
No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied was not authorized by the union workers to get the money; and
upon the members of a labor organization unless authorized by that 10% of the P150K had been deducted to pay for attorney's
a written resolution of a majority of all the members in a fees without their written authorization in violation of Article
general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. 241(o) of the Labor Code. Vengco et al. demanded from
Timbungco an accounting of how the P150K was distributed to
NB: A withdrawal of individual authorization is equivalent to no the members. Timbungco did not give in to their demand.
authorization at all. Hence, the present recourse by Vengco, et al.
o) Right Against Unauthorized Deductions from Salary ISSUE: Whether Timbungco is correct in deducting 10% of
Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no attorney's fees from petitioner’s back wages? No!
special assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any
other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount RULING: Article 241 (o) of the Labor Code provides that other
due to an employee without an individual written than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special
authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization assessment, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other
should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due an
the deduction employee without an individual written authorization duly
signed by an employee. The authorization should specifically
Even if this says employee, this applies to members only as you state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.
will see in Article 259. [248].
It is very clear from the provision that attorney's fees may not
The purpose of the individual written authorization is to protect be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an
the employees from unwarranted practices that diminish their employee without his written consent except for mandatory
compensation without their knowledge or consent. activities under the Code.
What is the Rule on Individual Written Authorization? A mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of
settling dispute laid down by the law. In the instant case, the
If mandatory activities: amicable settlement entered into by the management and the
No need for individual authorization, may be automatically union cannot be considered as a mandatory activity under
checked off. the Code. It is true that the union filed a claim for emergency
EX: labor relations seminar, labor education activities, cost of living allowance and other benefits before the Ministry
printing and distribution of the CBA etc. (Ambrocio of Labor. But this case never reached its conclusion in view of
Vengco Vs. Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano [G.R. No. 74453 the parties' agreement. Moreover, the law is explicit. It requires
May 5, 1989]) the individual written authorization of each employee
concerned, to make the deduction of attorney's fees valid.
If for special assessment, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees
and other extraordinary fees: In the case at bar, the absence of such authority, Timbungco
Requires both to be automatically checked-off: should not have kept the money to himself but should have
1. Written resolution of the majority of all members at a turned it over to the Union Treasurer. He, therefore, exceeded
general membership meeting called for the purpose his authority as President of the Union. Moreover, Book III, Rule
(letter n); and VIII, Section II of the Implementing Rules cited by Timbungco
2. Individual written authorizations for check-off duly which dispenses with the required written authorization from the
signed by the employee concerned (letter o). employees concerned does not apply in this case. This provision
envisions a situation where there is a judicial or administrative
Ambrocio Vengco vs. Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano proceedings for recovery of wages. Upon termination of the
G.R. No. 74453 May 5, 1989 proceedings, the law allows a deduction for attorney's fees of
10% from the total amount due to a winning party.
FACTS: The Management of the Anglo-American Tobacco

In the herein case, the fringe benefits received by the union
Corporation and the FOI-TAF entered into a compromise
members consist of back payments of their unpaid emergency
agreement whereby the company will pay to the union members
cost of living allowances which are totally distinct from their
the sum of P150K for their claims arising from the unpaid
wages. Allowances are benefits over and above the basic salaries
emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) and other benefits
of the employees. We have held that such allowances are
which were the subject of their compliant before the Ministry of
excluded from the concept of salaries or wages. In addition, the
Labor. Timbungco, who is the union president, received the
payment of the fringe benefits was effected through an amicable

settlement and not in an administrative proceeding. Hence, the
deduction was incorrect. NOTE ON A: A union is entitled to collect union service fees if it
successfully prosecutes a case in behalf of its members. The
NOTE: The attorney merely negotiated and there is no judicial appearance of labor federations and local unions as counsel in
or administrative settlement. Further, it did not involve wages as labor proceedings has been given legal sanctions as the Art.
it involves only cost of living allowance. 228(222) Labor Code allows non-lawyers to represent their
organization or member thereof.
For mandatory activities, there is no actual enumeration NOTE ON B: Clearly, what is prohibited is the payment of
provided by law. attorney’s fees when it is effected through forced contributions
from the workers from their own funds as distinguished from the
The member who votes in favor of the minority, even if defeated union funds.
in the general resolution regarding special assessment, can still
refuse to be checked off the special assessment if he does not If the attorney’s fees are charged against union funds – then it
execute an individual written authorization. However, if such fees becomes a valid claim of the lawyer against the union.
are without individual authorization, it shall be charged to the
union funds. What is Agency Fee?
Agency Fee means a fee deducted by an employer from the
When Individual Authorization not required? salary or wages of an employee who is not a member of an
 Assessment form non-members of the bargaining agent of employee organization, which is paid to the employee
“agency fees;” organization that is the exclusive bargaining agent for the
 Deductions for fees for mandatory activities; bargaining unit of the employee. (See ART. 259. [248] (e) of Labor
 Check-off for union service fees authorized by law; Code and IRR RULE XXV GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 4)
 Deductions for withholding tax (NIRC);
 Deductions for withholding of wages because of EE’s debt to It is called “Agency Fee” because by availing of the benefits of
the ER which is already due; (Art. 1706 CC) the CBA, they, in effect, recognize and accept the bargaining
 Deductions made pursuant to a judgment against the worker union as their “Agent” as well.
under circumstances where the wages may be subject to
attachment or execution but only for debts incurred for food, When is it collected?
clothing, shelter, and medical attendance; (Art. 1708 CC) Agency fee is collected when the bargaining agent successfully
 Deductions from wages ordered by the court; negotiates a CBA with the ER.
 Deductions authorized by law such as premiums for
PhilHealth, SSS, Pag-IBIG, ECC and the like. It is imposed on non-members who are employees covered
by the bargaining unit being represented by the bargaining
NOTE: agent – in case they accept the benefits under the CBA.
• Check-off for a special assessment is not valid after the
withdrawal of the individual written authorization Is he required to accept?
• Unlike authorizations, disauthorization does not have to be No. There is no law that compels a non-union member to accept
individual. It may be done collectively. the benefits provided in the CBA. Consequently, if he does not
• The right of the incumbent bargaining agent to check-off accept or refuses to avail of the CBA benefits, then he is not
union dues is not affected by the pendency of a under any obligation to pay the agency fees.
representation case or an intra-union dispute. Union dues is
the lifeblood of the union. What is the Nature of Agency Fee?
• It is neither contractual nor statutory but quasi-contractual.
Attorney’s Fees, Negotiation Fees, or Other Similar Charges • Payment of agency fee to the bargaining union/agent which
The union can claim this attorney’s fees if it represents a case in negotiated the CBA is but a reasonable requirement
behalf of its members. recognized by law, to prevent non-union members from
enriching themselves at the expense of union members. (Holy
ART. 228. [222] Appearances and Fees. Cross of Davao College V. Joaquin [G.R. No. 110007, October
(a) Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor 18, 1996])
Arbiter only:
1. If they represent themselves; or Holy Cross of Davao College v. Joaquin
2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.
G.R. No. 110007, October 18, 1996
(b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind
from any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any FACTS: Holy Cross of Davao College entered into a CBA with
individual member of the collecting union; Provided, however that the Holy Cross of Davao College Union-KAMAPeI (KAMAPI). Before
attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to the expiration of the agreement, the KAMAPI President wrote to
be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement Holy Cross expressing his union’s desire to renew the
of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.
agreement, seeking its extension for two months. This was The employer’s failure to make the requisite deductions may
granted by Holy Cross. constitute a violation of a contractual commitment for which it
may incur liability for unfair labor practice. But it does not by that
Subsequently, there was an election of officers, and Rodolfo omission, incur liability to the union for the aggregate of dues
Gallera won as president. Gallera initiated discussions for the or assessments uncollected from the union members, or agency
union’s disaffiliation from the KAMAPI Federation. Gallera’s fees for non-union employees. The obligation to pay union
group subsequently formed a separate organization known as dues and agency fees obviously devolves not upon the
the Holy Cross of Davao College Teachers Union, and elected its employer, but the individual employee. It is a personal
own officers. The existing union, KAMAPI, sent to the School its obligation not demandable from the employer upon default
proposals for a new collective bargaining contract. Thereafter, or refusal of the employee to consent to a check-off. The only
Holy Cross stopped deducting from the salaries and wages of obligation of the employer under a check-off is to effect the
its teachers and employees the corresponding union dues and deductions and remit the collections to the union.
special assessments, and agency fees, in accordance with the
check-off clause of the CBA. This prompted KAMAPI to demand The principle of unjust enrichment necessarily precludes
an explanation. recovery of union dues or agency fees from the employer, these
being obligations pertaining to the individual worker in favor of
In the meantime, there ensued an action on the basic issue of the bargaining union.
representation between the two unions. After its success in the
certification election case, KAMAPI presented a revised Where the employer fails or refuses to implement a check-off
bargaining proposal to Holy Cross and asked for its counter- agreement, logic and prudence dictate that the union itself
proposal. However, Holy Cross refused to submit its counter- undertake the collection of union dues and assessments from its
proposal. members, without prejudice to suing the employer for unfair
labor practice.
Several conciliation meetings were held between them. When
these failed to bring about any amicable settlement, the parties Wherefore, the requirement imposed on Holy Cross to pay
agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary KAMAPI the amount equivalent to the uncollected union dues
Arbitrator ruled in favor of KAMAPI. Hence, the instant petition. and agency fees is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
Holy Cross contended that it could not comply with the check- NOTE: If the employer doesn’t deduct the union and agency
off provision because KAMAPI failed to submit a list of employees fees, you can file an unfair labor practice case but the employee
from whom union dues and agency fees were to be deducted. cannot demand the payment from the employer.
Moreover, it contended that the arbitrator’s order for it to pay
the uncollected employees’ dues or agency fees would amount So, based on principle of solutio indebiti on unjust enrichment:
to the union’s unjust enrichment. On the other hand, KAMAPI Article 2142 of Civil Code. Certain lawful, voluntary and
alleged that the check-off issue was raised in the paper it unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract
submitted in the voluntary arbitration proceedings, and that said to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or
paper alleged the manifest bad faith of management in not benefited at the expense of another.
providing information as to who were regular employees,
thereby precluding determination of those eligible for union Does a non-member become a member when he pays the
membership. Agency Fee?
No. It must be emphasized that non-members of the certified
ISSUE: Whether or not an employer is liable to pay to the union bargaining agent which successfully concluded the CBA are not
of its employees, the amount it failed to deduct from their required to become members of the latter. Their acceptance of
salaries — as union dues or agency fees — in accordance with the benefits flowing from the CBA and their act of paying the
the check-off provisions of CBA which it claims to have been agency fee does not make them members thereof.
automatically extended? No.
How much is the Agency Fee?
HELD: A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, Article 259. [248] Labor Code
on agreement with the union recognized as the proper Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not
bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from its members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be
employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter’s assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
wages and remits them directly to the union. The Court paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if
acknowledged that the system of check-off is primarily for the such non-union members accept the benefits under the
benefit of the union. No provision of law makes the employer collective bargaining agreement:
directly liable for the payment to the labor organization of union
dues and assessments that the former fails to deduct from its Provided, That the individual authorization required under
employees’ salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the
stipulation. non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;

Limitations Exclusive Bargaining Agent and not to other unions. Other
1. It should be in a reasonable amount; and unions are called “Minority Unions” because they didn’t win the
2. It should be equivalent to the dues and other fees paid certification election.
by members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent. p) Right to Information
It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to
Any Agency fee collected in excess of this limitation is a nullity. inform its members on the provisions of its constitution and by-
laws, collective bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor
What is “Check-off”? relations system and all their rights and obligations under
“Check-off” of agency fee is a process or device whereby the existing labor laws.
employer, upon agreement with the bargaining union, deducts
Agency Fees from wages of the non-union members who avail CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
the benefits of the CBA and remits them directly to the ART. 250. [241] of the Labor Code (e, f, g, j, k)
bargaining union.
e) No admission or continued membership of any individual who
The bargaining union can demand check-off from the moment belongs to a subversive organization or who is engaged directly
the non-bargaining union member accepts and receives the or indirectly in any subversive activity;
benefits from the CBA. This is the operative fact that would
trigger such a liability. No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or
continue in membership any individual who belongs to a
NOTE: It is a duty of the ER to check of the agency fee from the subversive organization or who is engaged directly or indirectly
non-bargaining union. Otherwise violation of ART. 259. [248] in any subversive activity;
Unfair Labor Practices of Employers.
This is no longer operative because the Anti-Subversion Act or
Is an Individual Written Authorization required from the Republic Act (RA) 1700 which was passed in June 1957 during
non-member? the presidency of Carlos P. Garcia and which made it a crime to
No. To effect the check-off of agency fees, no individual be a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines, was
authorization is necessary unlike members under Art 250 (o). already repealed in 1992 during the administration of former
President Fidel Ramos when he began a peace process with the
ARTICLE 259 [248]. xxx the individual authorization required communist insurgents.
under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to
the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent; f) No person convicted of crime involving moral turpitude shall
be eligible for election or appointment;
NOTE: Article 242 actually refers to Article 250. [241] (o).
No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral
What if the Non-Member is also paying Union Dues to their turpitude shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for
own unions? Are they still required to pay Agency Fee? appointment to any position in the union;
Yes. The fact that they are paying their own union dues to their
own unions does not free them from their obligations to pay NOTE: If only charged not yet convicted, can still be eligible for
agency, and vice versa. election or appointment. Also, this serves as a permanent
disqualification. Even if one has already served sentence or
They are obliged to pay 2 kinds of dues: pardoned, the fact of conviction remains and his disqualification
1. Union Dues and special assessments of their own remains. To be an officer of the union requires a higher
union; and requirement than that of the president of the Philippines.
2. Agency Fee to the bargaining agent.
g) No collection or disbursement of funds unless authorized by
NOTE: There is no law exempting you from paying the union the constitution and by-laws;
dues just because you are paying agency fee. In fact, the Union
dues are required for the continued existence of your won union. No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect
any fees, dues, or other contributions in its behalf or make any
Union dues do not stop just because your own union is disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized
unsuccessful in becoming the next Sole and Exclusive Bargaining pursuant to its constitution and by-laws;
Agent of the employees in the bargaining unit to which you
belong. Therefore, only one who is authorized by the constitution
and by-laws can collect any fees, dues, or other contributions.
Is the minority union allowed to Check off? It may also be delegated to another if authorized by the
No. The minority union cannot demand from the employer to constitution and by-laws.
grant to the right to check-off union dues and assessments even
from its members. The ER’s duty to Check-off only applies to the
j) Any action involving the funds of the organization shall concerned may file a complaint or petition involving disputes or issues
prescribe after three (3) years enumerated in Section 1 hereof. Any party-in-interest may file a
complaint or petition involving disputes or issues enumerated in Section
1.B hereof
Any action involving the funds of the organization shall
prescribe after three (3) years: Where the issue involves the entire membership of the labor
 From the date of submission of the annual financial organization, the complaint or petition shall be supported by at
report to the Department of Labor and Employment or least thirty percent (30%) of its members.
 From the date the same should have been submitted
as required by law, Please read IRR:
 Whichever comes earlier.  RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS
Provided, that this provision shall apply only to a AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM
legitimate labor organization which has submitted the financial  RULE XI INTER/INTRA-UNION DISPUTES AND OTHER
report requirements under this Code: RELATED LABOR RELATIONS DISPUTES
Provided, further, That failure of any labor organization k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any
to comply with the periodic financial reports required by law and compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their
such rules and regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) positions
months after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically result
in the cancellation of union registration of such labor The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any
organization; compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their
positions as specifically provided for:
NOTE: The last “provided” is no longer applicable. Failure to file  in its constitution and by-laws, or
FS is no longer a ground for cancellation of union  in a written resolution duly authorized by a majority
registration as amended by RA 9481. The penalty is on the of all the members at a general membership meeting
treasurer/auditor/officers for failure to file FS. duly called for the purpose.
Can one member file a complaint the action or must there EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
be 20% of the entire membership? AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
ART. 250. [241] Last Paragraph
If it is a general complaint:
The complaint must be under oath with written consent Effect of Violation of Rights and Conditions of Membership
of at least 20% of the total membership of the labor Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership
organization, or it may be exercised by the Secretary of DOLE shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or
motu proprio. (also see Art. 289. [274] Visitorial Power) expulsion of officers from office, whichever is appropriate.
Section 2. Visitorial Power under Article 289 (renumbered) – The

Actually, this is no longer a ground for cancellation of union
Regional or Bureau Director may inquire into the financial activities of
registration. There are only 3 grounds as we discussed before.
any legitimate labor organization and examine their books of accounts
and other records to determine compliance with the law and the
organization’s constitution and by-laws. Such examination shall be made Who can report violation?
upon the filing of a request or complaint for the conduct of an The following may report such violation:
accounts examination by any member of the labor organization, (1) At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a
supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of its union; or
total membership. (2) any member or members specially concerned
Please read IRR: Rule XIII Administration of Trade Union Funds NOTE: The 30% support requirement needed to report
and Actions Arising Therefrom violations of rights and conditions of union membership found
in the last paragraph of Article 429(421) is not mandatory. The
If it is a specific complaint: use of the permissive "may" in the provision at once negates the
 If involves the member only – no need 20% notion that the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory.
 If involves the entire membership – need 30% More decisive is the fact that the provision expressly declares
that the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or
IRR: RULE XIII Section 4. Actions arising from Article 250
members specially concerned.” (see Rodriguez vs Director)
(renumbered). – Any complaint or petition with allegations of
mishandling, misappropriation or non-accounting of funds in
violation of Article 250(renumbered) shall be treated as an intra-union
dispute. It shall be heard and resolved by the Mediator-Arbiter pursuant
to the provisions of Rule XI.
IRR RULE XI Section 3. Inter/Intra Union Disputes, Who may file. –

Any legitimate labor organization or member(s) thereof specially
Who has jurisdiction over violations of the rights and July 22, 2020 Part 1 – ZU Ugdang
conditions of membership? PART I. BARGAINING UNIT
If violation warrants the expulsion of
BLR & Med Arbiter Bargaining Unit
union membership. (see chart for jurisdiction)
If violation constitutes Criminal and Refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within
Regular Courts
Civil offenses under General Laws a given employer unit, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific
occupational or geographical grouping within such employer
Quiz 2
unit.
1. Disaffiliation for purposes of forming a new union does not
terminate the status of the members thereof as employees of
the company. True. A bargaining unit is defined as “a group of employees of a given
2. The registration of a union that reports a winning vote on the employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
amendment of the articles and by-laws, may be cancelled when employees, which the collective interest of all the employees
in fact no voting took place. True. consistent with the equity to the employer, indicated to be best
3. The mother federation can compel a local to admit as one of its suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under
bargaining panel in CBA negotiations an officer of the the collective bargaining provisions of the law” (Belyca Corp. vs.
federation. False.
Dir. Pura Ferrer, G.R 77395)
4. The registration of a local that files a report of the election of its
officers together with the list of its new officers, when no such
election occurred, may not be cancelled. False. It may also refer to a group or a cluster of jobs or positions within
5. A union of supervisors and a union of rank-and-file employees, the employer’s establishment that supports the labor
both of the same employer, can be locals of the same organization which is applying for registration.
federation. True.
6. An affiliate is a local chapter who did not disaffiliate from the How to Determine a Bargaining Unit
federation. False. There are no specific criteria under the law, but any of the
7. The legal personality as a union begins, for a local, with the following four (4) modes may be used:
issuance by a federation of a charter certificate. True.
1. Substantial Mutual Interest Principle or, Community or
8. Labor federations can effect union registration by simply
chartering as a local the workers of an employer. True. Mutuality of Interests Rule
9. The local cannot delegate the entire bargaining panel and 2. Globe Doctrine [Will of The Employees]
process to the mother Federation. False. 3. Collective Bargaining History
10. The legal personality of an independent union is upon the 4. Employment Status
issuance of a Certificate of Incorporation under the Corporation
Code. False. BEST WAY TO DETERMINE – ABLE TO EXERCISE
There’s no hard and fast rule that is to determine a bargaining
Quiz 3
unit. The test whether the designation of a bargaining unit is
1. A union cannot file a grievance if it is not the exclusive
bargaining agent of the bargaining unit. False. appropriate is whether it will best assure to employees that they
2. Agency fee is automatically checked-off from a non-union are able to exercise their collective bargaining rights.
member, without the need of individual written authorization, if
such employee accepted the benefits under the CBA. True. COMMUNITY OF INTEREST – SIMILARITY
3. Violations of the rights and conditions of membership in a labor To be appropriate, there should be community of interest
organization can be the grounds for cancellation of union reflected by the groups substantial similarity of work and duties,
registration. False. or similarity of compensation and working conditions among
4. The minority union can demand that the employer check-off the
others.
union dues from their members’ wages provided they obtained
the employee's individual written authorization. False.
5. No complaint against the union can be entertained by the Med- The application of these tests may result to the formation of an
arbiter if unaccompanied by signature support of at least 20% employer unit or in the fragmentation of an employer unit. So, it
of the union members. False. can make or disassemble of an employer unit.
6. An employee who files a grievance under the CBA may be
represented by a union other than the exclusive bargaining EMPLOYER UNIT
representative. True.
Is a generalized union. It is a large union. As compared to a
7. A non-union member is not required to pay "agency fee" if they
bargaining unit or craft unit.
do not avail of the benefits under the CBA negotiated by the
bargaining agent. They are however, still obligated to pay their
union's annual union dues. True. CRAFT UNIT OR UNION
8. Check-off for a special assessment is no longer valid if the Which is an association or conglomeration of workers that have
employee withdraws his individual written authorization. True. the same type of skill or marketability.
9. Only members of the union and those who are not, but who pay
the union the equivalent of union dues, are covered by the CBA. Do you become a member of the bargaining unit?
False.
No. You become a member of the union not the bargaining unit.
10. Agency fee is paid by a local union to the mother labor
Your position falls under the positions covered by the bargaining
federation. False
unit being represented by the union.
So, don’t make the mistake in saying that you are a member of The adage “there is strength in numbers” is the very rationale
the bargaining unit, you are the member of the union. underlying the formation of a labor union.
BARGAINING UNIT Here, there are different sales offices, and the employer wants to
Bargaining unit is the list of positions that are covered by or divide each sales person as one bargaining unit but, the union
being represented by the union. wants to lump it all up as a sales division. So, the Court ruled that
the number of sales personnel, each of the Magnolia sales office
(1) SUBSTANTIAL MUTUAL INTEREST RULE in Northern Luzon is already so small.
Under the substantial mutual interest rule, the employees
sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent The fact that the three plants comprising the bargaining unit are
must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment located in three different places, namely in Cabuyao, Laguna, in
and working conditions as evidenced by the type of work they Otis, Pandacan, Metro Manila and in San Fernando, Pampanga
perform. was declared immaterial.
It is characterized by similarity of employment status, same duties The geographical location can be completely disregarded if the
and responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and communal or mutual interest of the employees are not
working conditions. sacrificed. The distance among the three plants is not productive
of insurmountable difficulties in the administration of union
Characterized by Similarities affairs. Neither are there regional differences that are likely to
1. Status, duties, responsibilities; and impede the operations of a single bargaining representative.
2. Compensation and working conditions
Just because the plants are located in three different areas, they
This is the number one criterion out of all of the 4. This is also have been lumped again by the courts to better represent the
known as community or mutuality of interest doctrine. employees. Again, the adage, there is strength in numbers, that’s
why there were lumped together.
Since it is impossible for all employees in one company to
perform the exact same work, there should be a logical basis for UP v. Ferrer
the formation of a bargaining unit. There is substantial mutual interest. All non-academic rank-and-
file employees of the UP Diliman, Quezon City, Padre Faura,
Logical Basis for Substantial Mutual Interest Rule Manila, Los Banos, Laguna and Visayas were allowed to
Certainly, in a company, it is highly fragmentize for typists and participate in a certification election as one bargaining unit.
clerks to organize on a bargaining unit, janitors on another unit,
accountant on another unit, messengers on another unit, and so All of the non-academic rank-and-file employees. So, they were
on and so forth. lumped, for there to be a representation because again, there is
strength in numbers.
That is why the court found it, in the case of PhilTranco v. BLR:
All Cases Where There Was No Substantial Mutual Interest
All Cases with Substantial Mutual Interest
San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. Confesor
PhilTranco v. BLR There was no merit in the in Union’s assertion that the
There is actually commonality of interests among these employees of Magnolia and SMFI should still be considered part
individuals which is the progress of their company and their of the bargaining unit of SMC.
desire to share equitably in the profits and fruits of their
endeavors. Magnolia and SMFI were spun-off to operate as distinct
companies on October 1, 1991. Considering the spin-offs, the
San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma companies would consequently have their respective and
There is substantial mutual interest in this case. The union seeks distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of the work, wages,
to represent the sales personnel in the various Magnolia sales hours of work and other conditions of employment, interest of
offices in the Northern Luzon, contrary to the position taken by employees in the different companies perforce differ.
the company that each sales office consists of one bargaining
unit. The number of sales personnel in each of the Magnolia SMC engaged in the business of beer manufacturing. Magnolia
sales office in Northern Luzon is so small. is involved in the manufacturing and processing of dairy
products while SMFI is involved in the production of feeds and
Even the bargaining unit sought to be represented by the Union the processing of chicken. The nature of their products and sales
in the entire North Luzon sales area consist only of of business may require different skills which must necessarily
approximately 55 employees only. Surely, to further fractionalize be commensurate by different compensation packages. The
this would not be for the best interests of the employee.
different companies may have different volumes of work and efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituents enjoying a
different working conditions. community or mutuality of interest.
For such reason, the employees of the different companies see They divided the supermart division and the agro division. What
the need to group themselves together and organize themselves is to be noted here is the working conditions. There would be
into distinctive and different groups. It would then be best to little in common with the employees of supermarts and cinema
have separate bargaining units for the different companies because they are usually permanent.
where the employees can bargain separately according to their
needs and according to their working conditions. (2) GLOBE DOCTRINE
This principle is based on the will of the employees. Bargaining
They have different business types of business. Beer and dairy. units may be formed through separation of new units from
So, see how they separated them here, beer manufacturing existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers
versus personnel of dairy products because they are different desire to have their own representative.
companies, plus they have different working conditions.
It is called the Globe Doctrine because it was first enunciated in
UP v Ferrer-Calleja the US case of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. v. NLRB.
There is no community or mutuality of the interests which
justifies the formation of a single collective bargaining unit Globe Machine and Stamping Co. v. NLRB
between the academic and non-academic personnel of the The petitioning union claimed that there were three separate
university. bargaining units in the plant, whereas an intervening union
argued for treating the plant as one overall unit.
The employees may be categorized into two general classes
(1) the non-academic, i.e janitors, messengers, typists, clerks, The Board found that either arrangement would result in
receptionist, carpenters, electricians, ground-keepers, appropriate bargaining units, and concluded that the question
chauffers, mechanics, plumbers was so evenly balanced that the determining factor should
(2) academic, i.e full-time professors, associate professors, be the desire of the employees themselves.
assistant profs., instructors – who may be judges or
government executives – and research, extension and Each of the three separate units was given the opportunity to
professional staff. vote for the petitioning union (and representation as a separate
unit), the intervening union (and representation as an overall
It would seem obvious that teachers would find very little in unit) or no union.
common with the University clerks and other non-academic
employees as regards [to their] responsibilities and functions, The globe procedure thereby allows employees “to determine
working conditions, compensation rates, social life and interests, the scope of a unit by allowing them to cast a vote for each of
skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural activities, etc. the several potential units which the Board has determined are
appropriate.”
Actually, yes, the professors do different jobs than the
messengers. So, the interests of the ordinary worker are far If it is appropriate, let the employees decide, if they want to
different. It is unbelievable and unimaginable that there is a divide or that they want to work together.
community of interest between a highly educated professor and
an ordinary worker. (3) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HISTORY
The prior collective bargaining history and affinity of the
Belyca Corp. Dir. Ferrer Calleja employees should be considered in determining the appropriate
It is beyond question that the employees of the livestock and bargaining unit.
agricultural division of Belyca perform work entirely different
from those performed by employees in the supermarts and This principle puts a premium thereto, to the prior collective
cinema. bargaining and the affinity of the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit.
The noted differences are: their working conditions, hours of
work, rates of pay, including the categories of their positions and NOT DECISIVE NOR CONCLUSIVE
employment status. Due to the nature of the business in which However, the SC has categorically ruled that the existence of a
its livestock-agro division is engaged very few of its employees prior collective bargaining history is neither decisive nor
in the division are permanent, the overwhelming majority of conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an
which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees. appropriate bargaining unit. Other factors must be considered.
Definitely, they have very little in common with the employees It is not conclusive immediately, that if you are considered as
of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the employees of one bargaining unit then it is forever that you will be considered
petition in its integrated business concerns cannot result in an as one bargaining unit.

How do you change collective bargaining history? (4) EMPLOYMENT STATUS DOCTRINE
The determination of the appropriate bargaining unit is based
Substantial Intervening & Supervening – Cause Changes on the employee’s employment status: whether probationary,
In order to change it, there must be an intervening substantial daily paid, monthly paid, regular, seasonal, project workers, etc.
cause carrying with it a supervening compelling reason as to
cause substantial changes in the bargaining unit. EXAMPLE
1. Casual employees and day-to-day basis employees v.
To change it: regular and permanent employees – the same with agro
1. Intervening substantial cause division and supermarkets division (previous case)
2. Supervening compelling reason 2. Confidential employees v. rank-and-file employees
3. To cause substantial change 3. Foreign-hires v. local-hires
National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit FOREIGN HIRES v. LOCAL-HIRES

The court used the community or mutuality of interests rule
despite their collective bargaining history as treated separately. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing
(a) Have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. (b)
In this case, they were treated as separate bargaining units. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the
There was a sawmill and logging division. That was the CB same working condition as local-hires, foreign hires are
History, one for logging and one for sawmill. Here, the court said accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These
that we can adjust this and use the mutuality of interest rule benefits, such as housing, transportation, shipping cost, taxes,
instead to see that there is just one. and home leave travel allowance are reasonably related to their
status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former
It ruled that there is now a mutuality of interest among the from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with
employees of the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their
Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the respective collective bargaining rights.
other in the same way that the company needs them both.
They found out that foreign hires have a different situation that
There may be differences to the nature of the duties involved, local-hires. Of course, the foreign hires would want more benefit
but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the separation of for their housing and they would not push; they would want
the bargaining unit. more housing and the local hires would be like ‘we don’t have
that benefit” so it would be better to divide the groups into
What happened here was that the logging and sawmill division separate bargaining units.
merged because there were no more logs to be logged by the
logging division. What they did was they imported logs and the July 22, 2020 Part 2A – Lexa Athena Gador
logging division would then deliver the same to the sawmill Who determines the appropriate bargaining unit?
division for processing. So, instead of doing the logging, the  The Med-Arbiter because it involves certification
logging division merely imported logs and delivered it to the elections. (see chart)
sawmill division. It became one continuous process.
A certification election proceeding directly involves two (2)
The logging division lost its logging essence and it became a issues namely:
support group to the sawmill division only. 1. Proper composition and constituency of the bargaining
unit; and
Can one become two?
2. Validity of majority representation claims.
Yes. Because in the previous
discussion in the Globe doctrine. If the
employees want to conduct a It is therefore incumbent upon the Med-Arbiter to rule on the
plebiscite for the separation of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit once its composition and
bargaining unit? Then, so be it. they constituency is questioned. (Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon.
can decide if they want to divide Patricia Sto. Tomas [GR 179146, July 23, 2013])
themselves, again there is power in
numbers.  The Med-Arbiter has discretion to choose the
“appropriate” bargaining unit, not the “most
appropriate” bargaining unit.
NOTE: The only requirement for the Med-Arbiter is to see that

it is appropriate or not.

May excluded employees be included in the bargaining unit PART II
under a new CBA? BARGAINING AGENT
In De la Salle University v. De la Salle University Employees
Association, [GR 109002, Apr. 12, 2000], it was held that the What is meant by “sole and exclusive bargaining agent”?
express exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit The term “sole and exclusive bargaining agent” refers to any
of rank-and-file employees in the past CBA does not bar any legitimate labor organization (LLO) duly recognized or
re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
in the bargaining unit. employees in a bargaining unit.
There is nothing wrong in correcting a mistake. You can re- An unorganized establishment becomes an “Organized
negotiate if you want those excluded employees to be back in Establishment” where there exists a recognized or certified sole
the bargaining unit. and exclusive bargaining agent (EBA).
During the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the NOTE: It is an organized establishment even if the EBA still has
existing CBA but may also propose and discuss modifications or not concluded a CBA. So, it is organized as long as there is an
amendments thereto. More so in this case where they found out EBA, no matter if it already has a CBA or not yet.
that the previous exclusion was incorrect. They found out that
the computer operators were not actually confidential It is unorganized establishment if there is no EBA, even if there
employees, but merely performs clerical and non-confidential are unions or LLOs existing. Therefore, the reckoning point of
duties. being an organized establishment is that it should be an
exclusive bargaining agent duly recognized or certified, not only
May employees of one entity join a union of another entity? if there is just a union or LLO.
No. The employees of the College of St. Benilde should be
excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file An establishment may be partly organized and partly
employees of De la Salle University, because the two educational unorganized.
institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no
sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil How?
of corporate fiction. If there are still some bargaining units which are not represented.
In a company, there can be many bargaining units. If one of
If you don’t know, De la Salle and St. Benilde are like sister those bargaining units are not represented, like if the rank-and-
schools. Their rank-and-file employees are trying to join file did not have their own EBA, then it is partly organized and
together for some reason because there is power in numbers. partly unorganized.
But then the Court said that these entities have separate juridical
personalities and there would be no piercing of the corporate If all the bargaining units already have their own EBA, then you
veil. So, separate entities cannot mix their employee unions could fully say that the establishment is already fully organized.
because they have different employers.
Who does the exclusive bargaining agent represent?
Can the union reject an employee for not being part of the It is not correct to say that the EBA represents all the workers of
Bargaining Unit? an employer. The EBA merely represents the employees
Yes, if the employee does not belong to that community of covered by the bargaining unit.
interest represented by the bargaining unit, then the Union has
the freedom to reject him. If the employees are not included in the bargaining unit, then he
is not represented by the EBA. If the EBA accepts him, he will not
The union may, however, accept him but he is not covered by be bound by the CBA entered into with the employer because
the benefits of the CBA. he is not under the bargaining unit.
NOTE: The union can choose who will it accept or deny, but as Exclusive Bargaining Agent (EBA); How Determined?
to the application of the CBA, then it only applies to the Four (4) ways of determining a bargaining agent:
employees of the bargaining unit. 1. Voluntary recognition in cases where there is only
one legitimate labor organization operating within the
bargaining unit; or
NOTE: This voluntary recognition was already removed by EO

111 Series of 1986.
2. Certification Election; Or Nature of Certification Election
3. Consent Election; Or
4. Run-Off Election Is a certification election an adversarial proceeding?
(Where you have to go to court, or you have to be technical)
1) VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION No. It is a fact-finding proceeding. It is a well-settled rule that
Refers to the free and voluntary act of the employer of extending a certification proceeding is not a litigation in the sense that the
and conferring full recognition to a union as the sole and term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a non-
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in an adversarial and fact-finding character.
appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective
bargaining. In previous cases, there are some who will file before the DOLE
contending that the latter is not using the Rules on Evidence or
However, see IRR, RULE VII REQUEST FOR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE not using proper rules and not following strictly, so the Court
BARGAINING AGENT (SEBA) CERTIFICATION: held that:
There is a conference conducted to verify if the names of The DOLE plays the part of a disinterested investigator seeking
employees who signify their support for the certification is merely to ascertain the desires of the employees as to the matter
covered by the bargaining unit and if the said employees of representation. It is not, therefore, bound by technical
comprise at least majority of the number of employees in the rules of evidence.
covered bargaining unit.
In case of doubt, the petition should be resolved in favor of
NOTE: Under the old rules, the employer and the said union holding a certification election.
could just file a Notice of Voluntary Recognition. It was so easy.
So, they just file this notice, then if all the requirements are there, What are the facts to be determined in a Certification
then the Regional Office just has to approve and such LLO is now Election?
the recognized EBA. 1. Whether the Bargaining Unit wants representation; and
2. Who will represent them if they want representation.
Now, for the protection of the employees, because of these fly-
by-night unions, they removed that provision. Instead of a These are related wherein: A certification election proceeding
Notice of Voluntary Recognition, the LLO must request for a directly involves two issues: (a) the proper composition and
SEBA Certification. This requires the Regional Office to verify constituency of the bargaining unit; and (b) the validity of
the consent of the employees represented by the applying LLO. majority representation claims.
The Regional Office now has more participation as they have to If the bargaining unit is right and who won, the election.
look on it and not as before where only a Notice of Voluntary
Recognition is enough. NOTE: Multiple certification elections may be conducted in one
establishment in any given day because if a company is huge like
2) CERTIFICATION ELECTION San Miguel, then it has so many bargaining units and thus, so
Refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the many certification elections to be had. So different bargaining
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees units may at the same time, conduct certification election.
in an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective
bargaining. Who may file a petition for certification election?
It may be filed by:
NOTE: This is the most well-discussed topic in Labor Relations. 1. A legitimate labor organization, which may be an
independent union, national union or federation, or a
July 22, 2020 Part 2B – Jelaine Añides local chapter; or
You have to know that there’s a thing before called “direct
2. An employer, but only when requested by a labor
certification”. Direct certification is no longer allowed because
organization to bargain collectively and the status of
it has to go to certification election already. The same with
the union in doubt.
voluntary recognition wherein giving notice only is not allowed.
Nowadays, you really have to have certification election and
NOTE: If it is a national union or a federation, it is not required
there is no need for direct certification which essence is to
to disclose the names of the local chapters. Please read the Labor
directly certify it without election. Now, there is an election all
Code on Article 268 and 269. So please read the rules on the
the time.
certification election specifically on the LC as to who may file,
where to file, when to file, form and contents of petition, etc.
Art. 268. [256] Representation Issue in Organized Establishments. In NOTE: There is always the choice of no union. The orders of the
organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the union may differ in real-life as to how they are printed in order
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any but those I have mentioned; they are always in the choice.
legitimate labor organization including a national union or federation
which has already issued a charter certificate to its local chapter
Equal Votes Casts (Unorganized Establishment)
participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation If there are equal votes cast in case of an unorganized
before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)- establishment, only one union filed for certification of election.
day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, So, the choices will be the union and “no union”. In case of equal
the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot votes, the status quo will win which is the “no union” because
when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least
the union must win by a majority.
twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to
ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
What is the role of the employer in a certification election?
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 In Issues as to Who Should Be The EBA
of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three
or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid General Rule: The employer is a mere bystander.
votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor
Art. 271. [258-A] Employer as Bystander. In all cases, whether
unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the
the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a
total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent
(50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be
by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a
names of the local chapter’s officers and members. petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in
such proceedings shall be limited to:
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election
no petition for certification election is filed.
conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the
petition.
Art. 269. [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- Exception: The only time when the employer is forced to file for
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor organization, a petition for certification election is when the employer was
including a national union or federation which has already issued a filed with Unauthorized Labor Practice because he refuses to
charter certificate to its local/chapter participating in the certification collectively bargain by reason of the doubt of the existing union.
election or a local/chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by
the national union or federation. In cases where the petition was filed by
In Issues as to The Appropriateness of Employee to Be
a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the
Included in the Bargaining Unit
names of the local chapter’s officers and members.
The employer has a proper role. The employer can object to the
Rules on Certification Election appropriateness of a bargaining unit through a motion or
manifestation. Once the bargaining unit is already established,
Just remember that the signatures of 25% is only a requirement
neither the employer nor the employees can change the
for organized establishments. If it is an unorganized
configuration.
establishment, there is an automatic certification election. This is
subject to abuse of fly-by-night unions that is why the petition
Thus, the employer has a say only as to the bargaining unit
has to be verified so that they may be charged with perjury.
aspect but as to the voting, tallying of votes and opposing the
petition for certification election, the employer is only a
Example of What a Ballot Looks Like
 Union 1 - Petitioning Union bystander.
 Union 2 – Incumbent Union/ forced intervention (this is
present when the establishment is an organized What is the effect of a pending Petition for Cancellation of
establishment) Union Registration on the Union’s Petition for Certification
 Union 3 – 2nd intervenor union Election?
 Union 4 – 3rd Intervenor union The union here is a registered LLO but its registration as an LLO
 Union 4 – 4th intervenor union
is being attacked by a petition for cancellation and while it is
 No Union
being attacked for cancellation, it wants to file a petition for
certification election, it wants to be EBA.

Nothing. The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union for Certification Election again after one (1) year that there is no
registration does not preclude certification election or collective EBA. So, the same applies with the choice of “No Union”.
bargaining.
Negotiations-Bar Rule
July 22, 2020 Kemarie Manligoy Jessalyn Puerin Under this rule, a certification election petition may not be filed
Vicco Piodos Keziah Sioson
while the EBA and the ER have commenced and sustained
WHEN DO YOU FILE A
negotiations in good faith in accordance with Article 262 (250)
PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR ELECTION?
LC within one (1) year from the date of entry of SEBA
Let’s go to when do you file your Petition for Certification for
certification, or from the date of valid certification, consent or
Election. If the world was perfect, no CBA, competition, no other
run-off election.
EBA, then you can file it anytime. In the absence of a CBA duly
registered in accordance with Art. 237 (231) LC, a petition for CE
This is a continuation of the certification year bar rule. Once you
may be filed at any time.
elect an EBA, the EBA starts negotiations with the employer. If
there is an EBA, its job is to negotiate with the employer. If it has
However, no certification election may be held under the
started negotiations with the employer, then no challenging
following bar rules. There are four (4) that you need to
union is allowed to file a petition for certification election that
remember. These are very important bar rules that will be tested
would disturb the process and unduly forestall the early
not only in your examination but also in the bar exam.
completion of the agreement.
1. Certification Year-Bar Rule

Meaning, other unions are not allowed to disturb or disrupt the
2. Negotiations-Bar Rule
3. Bargaining Deadlock-Bar Rule negotiations. However, those negotiations should be in good
4. Contract-Bar Rule faith such that efforts are being exerted in making or coming up
with a CBA. The Negotiations-Bar rule intends to prevent the
Certification Year-Bar Rule changing of EBA if the CBA is not yet finalized.
Under this rule, a certification election may not be filed within
It must be noted, however, that there is no law or rule that
one (1) year from:
1. Date of entry of the SEBA certification; or imposes a particular period within which the parties should
2. Date of a valid certification, consent or run-off election conclude the CBA. In other words, this Negotiations-Bar rule can
continue for months or even year. Until there are still
You need to give the winner of the previous certification one (1) negotiations, a petition for certification election is not allowed.
year to prove itself on how good it is in negotiation with the Hopefully, not forever because it will affect the employee who
employer. You give them one (1) year before you change them waits for the CBA. Hence, the negotiations should be in good
again if there was no negotiation or if there was no effort on the faith. There is a qualification of “good faith”. One could argue
part of the EBA to make a CBA, then you can file another that there are on-going negotiations, but you can debate that
certification election to elect another EBA. Just give them one (1) the Negotiations Bar Rule does not apply because the
year once they are certified or once there is EBA to prove negotiations are in bad faith for that matter in relation to the
themselves. Bargaining Deadlock bar rule.
If, however the results are challenged, the one-year period shall Bargaining Deadlock-Bar Rule
begin from the date the decision on that challenge has become Under this Rule, no Petition for Certification Election can be filed
final and executory. This statement falls under item 2 above, when a bargaining deadlock arises in which an incumbent EBA
“from the date of valid certification, consent or run-off election.” is a party. If that bargaining deadlock:
Meaning, if the certification, consent or run-off election was 1. had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration; or
contested, then the one (1) year period within which you cannot 2. had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
file a Petition for Certification Election starts from when that lockout.
decision becomes final and executory. A “valid certification,
consent or run-off election” presupposes that there is a winner, If it is indeed a legitimate bargaining deadlock to the point that
meaning there is already an EBA. So, it has one (1) year to prove they reached for Med-Arbiter or employees are on strike, then
itself. no Petition for Certification Election may still be filed. This is
beyond the Certification Bar Rule.
In certification election, you can vote for Union A, Union B, Union
C or again no union. If “No Union” wins, then the no union So, the Certification Bar Rule applies first, an EBA is elected and
choice also has a one (1) year period. You can file a Petition is given one year. Then there will be negotiations, the
Negotiation Bar Rule applies. It cannot be interrupted. Then, if

there is still no agreement, there is already a deadlock. You still
cannot file a Petition for Certification Election. The important thing in Bargaining Deadlock Bar rule is that the
bargaining deadlock was submitted for arbitration and there is
Note that a bargaining deadlock is also called an “impasse”. An a Notice of Strike or Lock-out.
impasse is the counteraction of things producing entire
stoppage. A state of inaction or neutralization caused by the Contract-Bar Rule
opposition of persons or a faction, a standstill. It means there is Under this rule, a certification election petition may not be filed
a reasonable effort to negotiate in good faith but to no avail. when a CBA between the ER and EBA has been registered in
They tried their best but not good enough. accordance with Article 237 (231) of the Labor Code. Where such
CBA is registered, the petition may be filed only within sixty
Where Bargaining Deadlock Bar Rule Was Not Applied (60) days prior to its expiry. This “sixty (60) days prior to its
expiry” is also known as the “60-day freedom period”.
Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
(Kampil-Katipunan) v. Trejano If there is already a CBA, you can no longer file a Petition for
GR No. 75819, September 9, 1991 Certification Election to change the EBA which manages the CBA
except for that last 60 days of the CBA.
FACTS: National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) was
declared by the BLR the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank- What are the exceptions to the Contract Bar Rule?
and-file employees of Viron Garments. More than 4 years after, So there are 5 here enumerated:
another union, KAMPIL-Katipunan, filed with the BLR a “petition 1. During the 60-fay freedom period
for certification election” with the support of more than 30% of 2. When the CBA is not registered with the BLR or Dole
the workers VIRON. Despite NAFLU’s opposition, the Med- Regional Office
Arbiter ordered the holding of a certification election, citing the a. Obviously because the law requires that it has
fact that since the certification of NAFLU in 1981 as the sole to be registered in accordance with Article 237
bargaining agent, no CBA has been concluded. NAFLU appealed, of the Labor Code.
contending that at the time the petition for certification election
was filed, it was in the process of collective bargaining with ART. 237. [231] Registry of Unions and File of Collective Bargaining
Agreements.180 The Bureau shall keep a registry of legitimate labor
VIRON; that in fact a deadlock in negotiations prompted it to file
organizations. The Bureau shall also maintain a file of all collective
a notice of strike; that these circumstances barred a petition for
bargaining agreements and other related agreements and records of
certification election, pursuant to the Rules Implementing the settlement of labor disputes and copies of orders and decisions of
Labor Code. BLR upheld NAFLU’s contentions and dismissed the voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary arbitrators. The file shall be
petition for certification election. open and accessible to interested parties under conditions prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, provided that no specific
ISSUE: Whether KAMPIL’s petition for certification election is information submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless
barred by the alleged bargaining deadlock between NAFLU and authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in any judicial litigation,
or when public interest or national security so requires.
VIRON? No!
Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a Collective Bargaining

HELD: For a bargaining deadlock to bar a petition for Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the
certification election, such deadlock must have been submitted Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and
to conciliation or arbitration or must have been the subject of a Employment for registration accompanied with verified proofs of its
valid strike or lockout notice before – not after – the filing of the posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification
petition for certification election. by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
Regional Offices shall act upon the application for registration of such
Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) calendar days from
The records do not show that there was a bargaining deadlock
receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy
prior to the filing of the petition for certification election. When
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from its
NAFLU was proclaimed the exclusive bargaining representative submission.
of all VIRON employees up to when KAMPIL filed its petition for
certification election or a period of more than four (4) years, no The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for every
collective bargaining agreement was ever executed, and no Collective Bargaining Agreement a registration fee of not less than one
deadlock ever arose from negotiations between NAFLU and thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be deemed
VIRON resulting in conciliation proceedings or the filing of a appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
for the effective and efficient administration of the Voluntary Arbitration
valid strike notice. In the case, the strikes and submission to
Program. Any amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the
compulsory arbitration took place after the filing of the petition
Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
for certification election.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file, and shall undertake or assist in the union without fear of getting fired. However, they are not free
publication of all final decisions, orders and awards of the Secretary of from paying union dues and agency fees because the EBA
Labor and Employment, Regional Directors and the Commission. representation status is still conclusive up to the expiration of
the CBA term.
3. When the CBA, although registered, contains
provisions lower that the standards fixed by law, or The reason why you pay union dues and agency fees until the
does not contain any of the requisite provisions which expiration of the CBA because you are still receiving benefits
the law requires; or the documents supporting its from the CBA. The reason why you pay agency fees because you
registration are falsified, fraudulent or tainted with get benefits from the CBA. Until the expiration of the CBA you
misrepresentation. are required to pay union dues and agency fees.
4. When the CBA is entered into prior to the 60-day free; Upon the expiration of the period, the ER should continue to
a. Meaning, there is already an existing CBA. so, recognize the majority status of the incumbent EBA where no
this 2nd CBA was entered while the 1st CBA is petition for CE challenging such majority status is filed by any
in effect so that is something sketchy, kind of. other union.
For that 2nd CBA which was entered into prior
to the 60-day freedom period of the 1st CBA, Schism
you can file a certification election.
In Tropical Hut Employees Union- CGW vs Tropical Hut, you learned
that the right of the local union to disaffiliate from its mother
5. When there is a Schism in the union resulting in a
federation is well-settled. In effect, a local can change allegiance
massive disaffiliation by its members.
midstream if there is a massive discontent and disaffiliation from
the EBA.
In these 5 instances you can file a petition for Certification
Election just note on the 2nd one because you can file a
Schism is a split or division between strongly opposed sections
Certification Election because the CBA is not a Certified CBA but
or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
just, in effect a de facto CBA. Under the Law, it is just an ordinary
contract that bind parties and not 3rd parties. Such that, another
This happens when there is a massive disaffiliation by a
union may file for a petition for certification election because as
majority of the members of the union. Most importantly, a
a rule that Unregistered CBA is just an ordinary contract that
schism gives rise the application of the substitutionary doctrine.
binds the parties and not 3rd parties. So, anyone can just file for
(Associated Workers Union-PTGWO vs NLRC G.R No. 87266-69, July 30,
a petition for Certification Election. 1990
However, if that de facto CBA grants substantial benefits, it is Associated Workers Union – PTGWO v. NLRC
already a good CBA (not just minimum wage) and it has been G.R. No. 87266-69 | July 30, 1990
accepted as the law between the parties for a considerable
period of time in short it has become a company practice, so that FACTS: Associated Workers Union (AWU)—PTGWO, the then
de facto CBA bars the filing of a Certification Election by the bargaining representative of the dockworkers at South Harbor,
principle of estoppel. Port Area, Manila. They filed a notice of strike against Metro Port
Services, demanding that Metro terminate the employment of
60-DAY FREEDOM PERIOD 11 employees who disaffiliated from AWU and formed the
The 60-day freedom period is superior to all other rules. It is Associated Workers Union in Metroport (AWUM) among the
rank and file employees of Metro, as a local chapter of AWU.
superior to the negotiations-bar rule, deadlock bar rule, and
They contend that such act can be considered as disloyalty which
contract bar rule.
should be a valid ground for their termination.
If there is a deadlock during the freedom period (Pseudo- ISSUE: WON the disaffiliation by the 11 employees is proper and
Deadlock – intended by the incumbent to perpetuate its status can be considered as a protected activity. No!
as an incumbent), a petition for CE can still be filed.
RULING: Although AWUM, a local union and an entity separate
and distinct from AWU, is free to serve the interests of all its
During this period, a petition for CE and a motion for members and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right to
intervention can be filed. Outside of this, the petition should disaffiliate may only be considered as a protected labor activity
be dismissed outright. when warranted by circumstances such as when it is made
during the 60-day freedom period. Nevertheless, such right may
During this period, the union security clause is not effective still be exercised before the freedom period but it must be
and the employees are free from forming or joining another effected by a majority of the members in the bargaining unit.
This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on
the part of the members of the union. In such case, however, the In answer to BENGUET’s complaint, UNION-PAFLU and their
CBA still continues to bind the members of the new or respective presidents raised, among others, that they were not
disaffiliated and independent union until the expiration of the bound by the CONTRACT which BBWU, the defeated union, had
CBA. executed with BENGUET.
In this case, the disaffiliation was not made during the freedom
period. Also, among the 4,000 employees of Metro, around ISSUE: Whether or not UNION-PAFLU, as the new EBA, is
2,000 of these are members of AWU, but only 11 of them contractually bound by the No-Strike Clause in the CBA
disaffiliated and organized AWUM. It is thus clear that these 11 executed between BENGUET and BBWU? No!
members failed to reach the majority in order to justify their
disaffiliation. This is also supported by the fact that in a They are not contractually bound by the No-Strike Clause.
referendum attended by 1695 AWU members, more than 70%
voted for the expulsion of the 11 AWUM members. Hence, the RULING: The Doctrine of Substitution merely states that even
disaffiliation made by the 11 members from AWU and the effort during the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement
to organize a new union did not constitute as a protected activity executed between employer and employees thru their agent, the
and their expulsion is justified.
employees can change said agent but the contract continues to
NOTE: Their dismissal was void. bind them up to its expiration date. They may bargain however
for the shortening of said expiration date. It only provides that
Substitutionary Doctrine the employees cannot revoke the validly executed collective
Under this doctrine, employees are allowed to change their EBA, bargaining contract with their employer by the simple expedient
but the CBA continues to bind them up to its expiration date. of changing their bargaining agent. It cannot also be invoked to
They may bargain however for the shortening of said expiration support the contention that a newly certified collective
date. bargaining agent automatically assumes all the personal
undertakings like the no-strike stipulation in the collective
Thus, the new EBA cannot negotiate a new CBA, it can only bargaining agreement made by the deposed union.
administer the old CBA, but the new EBA is not bound by the
personal obligations imposed by the old CBA such as the “new When BBWU bound itself and its officers not to strike, it could
strike, no lockout rule”. not have validly bound also all the other rival unions existing in
the bargaining units in question. BBWU was the agent of the
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. vs BCI Employees and Workers employees, not of the other unions which possess distinct
Union-PAFL personalities.
G.R. No L-24711, April 30, 1968
UNION, as the newly certified bargaining agent, could always
FACTS: Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union (“BBWU”), for and in voluntarily assume all the personal undertakings made by the
behalf of all BENGUET employees in its mines and milling displaced agent. However, there was no showing at all that, prior
establishment entered into a CBA with BENGUET. The CBA to the strike, UNION formally adopted the existing CONTRACT
became effective for a period of four and a half (4–1/2) years, or as its own and assumed all the liabilities imposed by the same
from June 23, 1959 to December 23, 1963. It also embodied a upon BBWU.
No-Strike, No-Lockout clause.
There is nothing then, in law as well as in fact, to support plaintiff
About three years later, or on April 6, 1962, a certification BENGUET’s contention that UNION-PAFLU are contractually
election was conducted among all the rank and file employees bound by the CONTRACT. They are not signatories nor
of BENGUET in the same collective bargaining units. UNION participants in the CONTRACT. It was the previous agent who
defeated BBWU and was certified as the sole and exclusive expressly bound itself to the other party, BENGUET. UNION, the
collective bargaining agent of all BENGUET employees. Three new agent, did not assume this undertaking of BBWU. Since
months later UNION members who were BENGUET employees UNION-PAFLU were not contractually bound by the no-strike
in the mining camps, went on strike. clause in the CONTRACT, for the simple reason that they were
not parties thereto, they could not be liable for breach of
As a result of the strike, BENGUET incurred expenses for the contract to plaintiff.
rehabilitation of mine openings, and other miscellaneous
expenses. So, BENGUET sued UNION, PAFLU and their respective NOTE: This doctrine was conceived during the time when the
Presidents to recover said amount on the sole premise that said law has not yet fixed the lifetime of the CBA – now it is 5 years
UNIONS, and PAFLU breached their undertaking in the existing under Art. 265 (253-A).
CONTRACT not to strike during the effectivity thereof. BENGUET
invoked the Doctrine of Substitution against UNION-PAFLU.
If there is schism or disaffiliation of union members under CBA, CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
you know that schism is an exception to the contract bar rule, so
there is spilt and you file a petition for certification and you elect 2 Kinds of Majority Votes Necessary
and able to substitute the old EBA with a new EBA and since 1. To conduct a valid CE:
there is still a governing CBA, the new EBA should still respect  Majority of the eligible voters in the
the existing CBA that was bargained or negotiated by the old appropriate bargaining unit must appear and
EBA. The new EBA can still bargain but for the shortening of the vote. If it is under the Corporation Code, it is
expiration date of the existing CBA. So CBA is still effective. You a quorum. (50%+1)
cannot renege in your contract but you can manage the old or  Failure of Election: when the number of votes
existing CBA and negotiate or renegotiate thee shortening of the cast is less that the majority of the number of
CBA. eligible voters and there are no challenged
votes that could materially change the results
In case of a schism which affects the majority status of the EBA, of the election.
a petition for the CE may be thus filed (as an exception to the
contract rule) to determine which of the unions has the majority 2. To win as the EBA:
status.  Majority of the valid votes cast. It is the
majority of the quorum. (50%+1)
The union certified as the new EBA will thus substitute the
previous one as a party to the existing CBA. Please read Rule 9 of the IRR of the Labor Code.
RULE IX, IRR
CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
SECTION 1. Employer as By-Stander. – Subject to the provisions of
paragraph 3, Section 1 of Rule VIII, the principle of the employer as
by-stander shall be strictly observed throughout the conduct of
certification election. The employer shall not harass, intimidate, threat
or coerce employees before, during and after elections. (inserted by
D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
NOTES: Section 2. Raffle of the case. – Within twenty-four (24) hours from
 Under the Contract Bar Rule, No Filing of Petition for receipt of the notice of entry of final judgment granting the conduct
of a certification election, the Regional Director shall cause the raffle
Certification Election is allowed.
of the case to an Election Officer who shall have control of the pre-
 Under the 60-Day Freedom Period, Filing of Petition for election conference and election proceedings. (renumbered by D.O.
Certification Election is allowed. There is no Union 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
Security Clause applies.
 If NO NEW EBA ELECTED, old EBA still recognized. Old Section 3. Pre-election conference. – Within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of the assignment for the conduct of a certification
CBA may be renewed.
election, the Election Officer shall cause the issuance or notice of pre-
 Take note 60-day freedom period is important. election conference upon the contending unions, which shall be
Otherwise, the Old EBA will prolonged their life and scheduled within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the
they will renegotiate and again a deadlock bargain. assignment. The employer shall be required to submit the certified
list of employees in the bargaining unit, or where necessary, the
 What if the EBA and employers have early
payrolls covering the members of the bargaining unit at the time of
renegotiations for their next CBA regardless if there is the filing of the petition. (as amended by D.O. 40-F-03. 30 October
negotiation for 2nd CBA or there is deadlock that is 2008 and renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
prolonged for 10 years and even during the existence
of the current CBA or the Contract- Bar Rule, this will Section 4. Waiver of right to be heard. – Failure of any party to appear
during the pre-election conference despite notice shall be considered
not stop the Petition for Certification Election during
as a waiver of its right to be present and to question or object to any
the 60-day freedom period of the current CBA. of the agreements reached in the pre-election conference. However,
this shall not deprive the non-appearing party of the right to be
Remember 60-day period is superior to any other bar rules. The furnished notices of and to attend subsequent pre-election
right to self-organization during the last 60-day freedom period conferences. (as amended by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and
renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
is superior to the existing contract that is pre-negotiated. The
employer can pre-negotiated the next CBA but does so at its Section 5. Minutes of pre-election conference. – The Election Officer
own risk. shall keep the minutes of matters raised and agreed upon during the
pre-election conference. The parties shall acknowledge the
completeness and correctness of the entries in the minutes by affixing
their signatures thereon. Where any of the parties refuse to sign the
minutes, the Election Officer shall note such fact in the minutes,

including the reason for refusal to sign the same. In all cases, the
parties shall be furnished a copy of the minutes. Section 10. Casting of votes. – The voter must put a cross (x) or check
(/) mark in the square opposite the name of the chosen union or “No
The pre-election conference shall be completed within thirty (30) days Union” if she does not want to be represented by any union.
from the date of the first hearing. (renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7
September 2015) If the voter inadvertently spoils a ballot, he/she shall return it to the
Election Officer who shall destroy it and give him/her another ballot.
Section 6. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion. – All employees
who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit three (3) months Any member of the bargaining unit who is untentionally [(yes, the
prior to the filing of the petition/request shall be eligible to vote. An spelling is wrong)] omitted in the master list of voters may be allowed
employee who has been dismissed from work but has contested the to vote if both parties agree, otherwise, he/she will be allowed to vote
legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the but the ballot is segregated. (as amended and renumbered by D.O.
time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal
was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of Section 11. Procedure in the challenge of votes. – The ballot of the
the certification election. voter who has been properly challenged during the pre-election
conferences, shall be placed in an envelope which shall be sealed by
In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the eligibility of the Election Officer in the presence of the voter and the
voters, all contested voters shall be allowed to vote. But their votes representatives of the contending unions. The Election Officer shall
shall be segregated and sealed in individual envelopes in accordance indicate on the envelope the voter’s name. the union challenging the
with Sections 11 and 12 of this Rule. (as amended and renumbered voter, and the ground for the challenge. The sealed envelope shall
by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) then be signed by the Election Officer and the representatives of the
contending unions. The Election Officer shall note all challenges in
Section 7. Posting of Notices. – The Election Officer and/or authorized the minutes of the election proceedings and shall have custody of all
DOLE personnel shall cause the posting of notice of election at least envelopes containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be
ten (10) days before the actual date of the election in two (2) most opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the
conspicuous places in the company premises. The notice shall Mediator-Arbiter only if the number of segregated votes will
contain: materially alter the results of the election. (renumbered and amended
by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15,
(a) the date and time of the election; 7 September 2015)
(b) names of all contending unions;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit and the list of eligible and Section 12. On-the-spot questions. – The Election Officer shall rule on
challenged voters. any question relating to and raised during the conduct of the election.
In no case, however, shall the Election Officer rule on any of the
The posting of the list of employees comprising the bargaining unit grounds for challenge specified in the immediately preceding section.
shall be done by the DOLE personnel. (renumbered by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7
September 2015).
The posting of the notice or election, the information required to be
included therein and the duration of posting cannot be waived by the Section 13. Protest; When perfected. – Any party-in-interest may file
contending unions or the employer. (as amended and renumbered a protest based on the conduct or mechanics of the election. Such
by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) protests shall be recorded in the minutes of the election proceedings.
Protests not so raised are deemed waived.
Section 8. Secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. – To ensure secrecy of
the ballot, the Election Officer, together with the authorized General reservation to file a protest shall be prohibited. The
representatives of the contending unions and the employer, shall protesting party shall specify the grounds for protest.
before the start of the actual voting, inspect the polling place, the
ballot boxes and the polling booths. The protesting party must formalize its protest with the Med-Arbiter,
with specific grounds, arguments and evidence, within five (5) days
No device that could record or identify the voter or otherwise after the close of the election proceedings. If not recorded in the
undermine the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot shall be allowed minutes and formalized within the prescribed period, the protest shall
within the premises, except those devices brought in by the election be deemed dropped. (renumbered by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008
officer. Any other device found within the premises shall be and amended and renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
confiscated by the election officer and returned to its owner after the
conduct of the certification election. (as amended and renumbered Section 14. Canvassing of votes. – The votes shall be counted and
by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) tabulated by the Election Officer in the presence of the
representatives of the contending unions. Upon completion of the
Section 9. Preparation of ballots. – The Election Officer shall prepare canvass, the Election Officer shall give each representative a copy of
the ballots in English and Filipino or the local dialect. The number of the minutes of the election proceedings and results of the election.
ballots should correspond to the number of voters in the bargaining The ballots and the tally sheets shall be sealed in an envelope and
unit plus a reasonable number or extra ballots for contingencies. All signed by the Election Officer and the representatives of the
ballots shall be signed at the back by the Election Officer and an contending unions and transmitted to the Med-Arbiter, together with
authorized representative each of the contending unions. A party the minutes and results of the election, within twenty-four (24) hours
who refuse or fails to sign the ballots waives its right to do so and the from the completion of the canvass.
Election Officer shall enter the fact of refusal and the reason therefor
in the records of the case. (as amended by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October Where the election is conducted in more than one region,
2008 and renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) consolidation of results shall be made within fifteen (15) days from
the conduct thereof. (renumbered by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 proclaiming the results of the election and certifying the union which
and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) obtained a majority of the valid votes cast as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent in the subject bargaining unit, under any of the
Section 15. Conduct of election and canvass of votes. – The election following conditions:
precincts shall open and close on the date and time agreed upon
during the pre-election conference. The opening and canvass of votes (a) no protest was filed or, even if one was filed, the same was not
shall proceed immediately after the precincts have closed. Failure of perfected within the five-day period for perfection of the protest;
the representative/s of the contending unions to appear during the
election proceedings and canvass of votes shall be considered a (b) no challenge or eligibility issue was raised or, even if one was
waiver of the right to be present and to question the conduct thereof. raised, the resolution of the same will not materially change the
(renumbered and amended by D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and results of the elections.
renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
The winning union shall have the rights, privileges and obligations of
Section 16. Certification of Collective Bargaining Agent. – The union a duly certified collective bargaining agent from the time the
which obtained a majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as certification is issued.
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit within five (5) days from the day of the Where majority of the valid votes cast results in “No Union” obtaining
election, provided no protest is recorded in the minutes of the the majority, the Med-Arbiter shall declare such fact in the order.
election. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-
I-15, 7 September 2015)
When the winning choice is a local chapter without a certificate of
creation of chartered local, such local chapter shall submit its DOLE- Section 22. Appeal; finality of decision. – The decisions of the Med-
issued certificate of creation within five (5) days from the conclusion Arbiter may be appealed to the Secretary within ten (10) days from
of election. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 receipt by the parties of a copy thereof.
and amended and renumbered by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
The appeal shall be under oath and shall consist of a memorandum
Section 17. Failure or election. – Where the number of votes cast in a of appeal, specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the
certification or consent election is less than the majority of the appellant with the supporting arguments and evidence.
number of eligible voters and there are no material challenged votes,
the Election Officer shall declare a failure of election in the minutes Where no appeal is filed within the ten-day period, the order/decision
of the election proceedings. (renumbered pursuant to D.O 40-F-03, shall become final and executory and the Med-Arbiter shall enter this
30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) fact into the records of the case. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-
03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
Section 18. Re-Run Election. – When a certification, consent or run-
off election results to a tie between the two (2) choices, the election Section 23. Where to file appeal. – The memorandum of appeal shall
officer shall immediately notify the parties of a re-run election. The be filed in the Regional Office where the petition originated, copy
election officer shall cause the posting of the notice of re-run election furnished the contending unions and the employer, as the case may
within five (5) days from the certification, consent or run-off election. be. Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appeal, the
The re-run election shall be conducted within ten (10) days after the Regional Director shall cause the transmittal thereof together with the
posting of notice. entire records of the case to the Office of the Secretary. (renumbered
pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7
The choice receiving the highest votes cast during the re-run election September 2015)
shall be declared the winner and shall be certified accordingly.
(inserted by D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) Section 24. Period to Reply. – A reply to the appeal may be filed by
any party to the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of the
Section 19. Effect of failure of election. – A failure of election shall not memorandum of appeal. The reply shall be filed directly with the
bar the filing of a motion for the immediate holding of another Office of the Secretary. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30
certification or consent election within six (6) months from date of October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
declaration of failure of election. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-
03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) Section 25. Decision of the Secretary. – The Secretary shall have
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the entire records of the petition
Section 20. Action on the motion. – Within twenty-four (24) hours within which to decide the appeal.
from receipt of the motion, the Election Officer shall immediately
schedule the conduct of another certification or consent election The decision of the Secretary shall become final and executory after
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the motion and cause the ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the parties. No motion for
posting of the notice or certification election at least ten (10) days reconsideration of the decision shall be entertained. (renumbered
prior to the scheduled date of election in two (2) most conspicuous pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7
places in the establishment. The same guidelines and list of voters September 2015)
shall be used in the election. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03,
30 October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015) Section 26. Transmittal of records to the Regional Office. – Within
forty-eight (48) hours from notice of receipt of decision by the parties
Section 21. Proclamation and certification of the result of the election. and finality of the decision, the entire records of the case shall be
– Within twenty-four (24) hours from final canvass of votes, there remanded to the Regional Office of origin for implementation.
being a valid election, the Election Officer shall transmit the records Implementation of the decision shall be stayed unless restrained by
of the case to the Med-Arbiter who shall, within the same period from the appropriate court. (renumbered pursuant to D.O. 40-F-03, 30
receipt of the minutes and results of election, issue an order October 2008 and D.O. 40-I-15, 7 September 2015)
Who determines appropriate bargaining unit?
RULE X The Med-Arbiter because it involves Certification elections.
RUN-OFF ELECTIONS
Section 1. When proper. – When an election which provides for three
A certification election proceeding directly involves two
(3) or more choices results in none of the contending unions receiving
a majority of the valid votes cast, and there are no objections or issues:
challenges which if sustained can materially alter the results, the a. The proper composition and constituency of the
Election Officer shall motu propio conduct a run-off election within bargaining unit; and
ten (10) days from the close of the election proceedings between the b. The validity of majority representation claims
labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes; provided,
that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least
fifty (50%) percent of the number of votes cast. “No Union” shall not Consent election is like a certification election minus letter (a).
be a choice in the run-off election. Notice of run-off elections shall be No question as to the bargaining unit anymore just who is the
posted by the Election Officer at least five (5) days before the actual bargaining agent, that is a consent election. So, it’s easier on the
date of run-off election.
parties.
Section 2. Qualification of voters. – The same voters’ list used in the
certification election shall be used in the run-off election. The ballots What is the distinction between consent election and
in the run-off election shall provide as choices the unions receiving certification election?
the highest and second highest number of the votes cast. The Certification Election Consent Election
D.O.40-03 (amended by A-I) Page 25 labor union receiving the
Ordered by the DOLE. Mutually agreed upon by the
greater number of valid votes cast shall be certified as the winner,
subject to Section 21, Rule IX. parties, with or without the
intervention by the DOLE.
The purpose is to determine: The purpose is only to determine:
NOTE:
1. WON the bargaining unit 1. Who has the majority
wants representation, and representation of all the
1. The pendency of the petition to cancel the certificate of 2. Who will represent them if workers in the already
registration of a union is not a bar to a conduct of certification they want representation determined appropriate
election. The same as the pendency of the ULP, the fact that a collective bargaining unit
ULP case is filed against a union does not prevent the conduct
of certification election. That’s why the article says, “in the appropriate collective
bargaining unit” since they have already decided as to the
2. The right to vote start on the first day of employment because composition of the bargaining unit.
your right to self-organization shall start on the first day of the
employment. 4. RUN-OFF ELECTION
Refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the two
3. Only a party in interest can file a protest on the conduct or (2) highest number of votes when a certification election which
mechanics of the election. A union who is not a participant in the provides for three (3) or more choices results in no choice
certification election because it did not file a motion to receiving a majority of the valid votes cast; Provided, that the
intervene, is not a party in interest. total number of votes cast for all contending unions is at least
fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.
Third Type On How to Determine an EBA:
In the run-off election:
3. CONSENT ELECTION  The same voters’ list in the CE shall be used.
Refers to the election voluntarily agreed upon by the parties,  The choices are between the highest and second
with or without the intervention of the Department of Labor and highest union. No more “No Union” choice.
Employment, to determine the issue of majority representation  The labor union receiving the greater number of valid
of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. votes cast shall be certified as the winner.
Is it possible that management and the union can just agree Illustration
as to the appropriate bargaining unit? There are 150 employees in the BU.
Yes, of course. They can agree as to the scope of the bargaining  110 voted.
unit and they will conduct what we call as consent election.  Union A - 60
Consent election is still a certification election but the  Union B - 40
management can spot question the appropriateness of the  No Union - 10
bargaining unit. They directly go to the voting, counting of votes
and see who has the majority representation. Is there a valid CE? Yes. Only 76 votes needed to be valid.
Is there a winner? Yes, A. Only 56 votes needed to win.

What if: vote for Yes Union wins over No Union. Limited, you choose
 Union A - 30 between the two.
 Union B – 10
 No Union - 70 Can you say that the most number of elections that will
happen can only be two?
Is there a winner? Yes, “No Union.” No, because again there can be a failure of elections in the first
Again, No Union also has the one-year certification bar one, and then there can be certification election on the second,
rule. If No union won, you cannot file for certification election for and there can be a Run-off election on the third. Also, possibly
one year. there can be a re-run elections on the fourth.
What if: Re-Run Election

 Union A - 40 The rule on re-run election is not expressly provided in the Labor
 Union B – 40 Code or the IRR. A re-run election may be justified if certain
 No Union - 30 irregularities have been omitted during the conduct of the
certification election such as: disenfranchisement of the
Is there a winner? No. voters, lack of secrecy of voting, fraud, or bribery. In which
You have to add all the votes who voted for a union versus case, the CE should be invalidated and a re-run election will be
no union, and that the total number of votes for contending necessary.
unions is at least fifty (50%) of the number of votes cast. It is like,
you really wanted to be represented but you don’t know by Re-Run Election Failure of Election
whom. So, you go to a run-off election to determine that. There is a valid certification There is no valid certification
election but because of election because the number
Should there be a Run-off? Yes, between Union A and Union certain circumstances, the of votes cast is less than the
B. Only 56 is needed to vote for a union (either A or B). Here, 80 election is nullified and majority of the number of
voted for Union v. 30 for “No Union”. So, the BU will be another one is ordered to eligible voters and there are
represented by a union. The Run-off election will determine truly reflect the will and no challenged votes that
which one sentiment of the electorate could materially change the
employees. results.
In the Run-off election, 140 voted.
 Union A - 80 When you say valid certification election, meaning majority went
 Union B – 60 to your election.
Is there a valid RE? Yes. Only 76 votes needed to be valid. Quiz 4

Is there a winner? 1. The employer need not be served a copy of a petition for
certification election since its ideal posture is that of a bystander.
Yes, A, because it got the greater number of votes. In
False.
the Run-off election, easier because you will only determine who
2. The remedy for failure of a certification election is run-off election.
got the higher number of votes.
False.
3. Retractions of signature support in petitions for certification
Steps to Remember elections are best resolved by hearing and cross-examining each of
1. Determine WON there is a valid CE. the retractors before the Med-arbiter. False.
2. Determine WON there is a winner. 4. There are 80 eligible voters for sales department. The canvas of
3. Determine WON Run-off Election is necessary. votes for the sales personnel employees revealed the following
results: total number of those who voted 70; stray votes 0;
challenged votes 20; No union 36; Union AA 10; Union BB 3; Union
If here, the No union wins, the bargaining unit essentially reverts
CC 1. No run-off election is necessary. True.
to the status of an unorganized establishment, if only one
5. There are 300 eligible voters for production department. The
bargaining unit is present with the employer. Again, it may be canvass of votes for the production employees revealed the
partially organized, and partially unorganized. That’s why it is following results: total number of those who voted 160; stray votes
also called as Decertification Election if No Unions wins. 10; challenged votes 20; no union 40 votes; Union A 40 votes; Union
B 40 votes; Union C 10 votes. There must be a run-off election
Are all second elections considered as Run-off elections? between Union A and Union B. True.
6. Outside the freedom period, the exclusive bargaining status of the
No, because there may be a failure of elections on the first one,
incumbent cannot be challenged by a petition for certification
so necessarily the second election is a certification election not
election. True.
a run-off election. Again, run-off elections only happen if the
7. The filing of cancellation of registration against a union which is a
petitioner or intervenor a certification election proceeding does not

justify postponement of the holding of a certification election.
True.
8. There are 300 eligible voters for production department. The
canvass of votes for the production employees revealed the
following results: total number of those who voted 160; stray votes
10; challenged votes 20; no union 40 votes; Union A 40 votes; Union
B 40 votes; Union C 10 votes. The election is valid. True.
9. The employer is allowed to file a motion to intervene with prayer
for joint hearings in a petition for certification election filed by two
unions because although not a party to the proceedings, the
employer has a right to be heard. False.
10. The union, certified as winner of a certification election, has one
year to forge a collective bargaining agreement with the employer.
True.
END OF FIRST EXAM COVERAGE


Manresa Labor Relations B TSN First Exam PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Manresa Labor Relations B TSN First Exam PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manresa Labor Relations B TSN First Exam PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY

ALAG, MIGUEL ALLEANDRO DELGADO, MIKEL HOFILEÑA

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Article IX-B (CSC), Section 2 (1) (5) Right to Freedom of

What does the right to self-organization include?

4. The right to file a petition for cancellation of union

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

B. IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

The recent amendments to the Labor Code contain separate

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

RULING: The bank failed to show that the employees in question

Moreover, Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section

Thus, BLR has jurisdiction over the conduct of election of officers

Based on the case, KKMK-MWSS is a national federation. Intra-

What about Employees of International Organizations or

Not allowed to join or form a union because the exercise of

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

What is a Legitimate Labor Organization?

Classification as to Components Such legal personality may be questioned only through an

The approval of registration of a labor organization is not

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Held: After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its

ISSUE # 1: Whether or not rank-and-file employees can be

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection

The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Secondly, while rights may be waived, the same must not be

HELD: Money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

HELD: A labor union is one such party authorized to represent

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Who are entitled to vote in the election of officers?

The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and

i) Right Against Unauthorized Expenditures

FACTS: The Management of the Anglo-American Tobacco

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Alag, Amistad, Añides, Arellano, Estremos, Gador, Lastimosa, Manligoy, Piodos,

Section 2. Visitorial Power under Article 289 (renumbered) – The

IRR RULE XI Section 3. Inter/Intra Union Disputes, Who may file. –