Labor Law 3rd Set

7/24/2019 Labor Law 3rd Set

1/116

Republic of the Philippines

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

Vigan City

COLLEGE OF LAW

LABOR LAW CASES 3 RD SET

ATTY. ALWYN S. ARROCENA

1.HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. VS. JOAQUINGR NO. 110007, OCTOBER 18, 1996

2.BARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR NGBARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC.GR NO. 113204-05, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996

3.BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION VS. SANCHEZGR NO. 74425, OCTOBER 7, 1986

4.BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. VS. FERRER-CALLEJA

GR NO. 79025, DECEMBER 29, 1989

5.MERALCO VS. SECRETARY OF LABORGR NO. 91902, MAY 20, 1991

6.GSIS VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSISGR NO. 170132, DECEMBER 6, 2006

7.PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

LAGUESMAGR NO. 101738, APRIL 12, 2000

8.DLSU MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE VS.

LAGUESMAGR NO. 102084, AUGUST 12, 1998


2/116

9.PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION VS. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL

COMMUNICATIONSGR NO. 144315, JULY 17, 2006

10. MABEZA VS. NLRCGR NO. 118506, APRIL 18, 1997

11. TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION VS. NLRCGR NO. 75037, APRIL 30, 1987

12. LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC. VS. BLANCOGR NO. L-27029, NOVEMBER 12, 1981

13. FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES VS. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC.,

PHIL. LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL (PLAC)GR NOS. 58768-70, DECEMBER 29, 1989

14. REYES VS. TRAJANOGR NO. 8443, JUNE 2, 1992


3/116

HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. VS. JOAQUIN

GR NO. 110007, OCTOBER 18, 1996

NARVASA,C.J.: p

A collective bargaining agreement, effective from June 1, 1986 to May 31, 1989 was entered into betweenpetitionerHoly Cross of Davao College, Inc. !ereafter "oly #ross$, an educational institution, and t!eaffiliate labor organi%ation representing its employees, respondentHoly Cross of Davao College Union-KAMAPI !ereafter &AMA'($. )!ortly before t!e e*piration of t!e agreement, &AMA'( 'resident, Jose+aga!it, wrote "oly #ross under date of April 1 , 1989 e*pressing !is union-s desire to renew t!eagreement, wit!al see ing its e*tension for two mont!s, or until July 31, 1989, on t!e ground t!at t!eteac!ers were still on summer vacation and union activities necessary or incident to t!e negotiation of anew agreement could not yet be conducted.1 "oly #ross 'resident /milio '. 'alma0 il replied t!at !e !ad

no ob2ection to t!e e*tension soug!t, it being allowable under t!e collective bargaining agreement.2

n July 4, 1989, Jose +aga!it convo ed a meeting of t!e &AMA'( members!ip for t!e purpose of electinga new set of union officers, at w!ic! 5odolfo allera won election as president. o t!e surprise of many,and wit! resultant dissension among t!e members!ip, allera fort!wit! initiated discussions for t!e union-sdisaffiliation from t!e &AMA'( 7ederation.

allera-s group subse uently formed a separate organi%ation nown as t!eHoly Cross of Davao CollegeTeachers Union, and elected its own officers. 7or its part, t!e e*isting union, &AMA'(, sent to t!e )c!ool itsproposals for a new collective bargaining contract t!is it did on July 31, 1989, t!e e*piry date of t!e two0

mont! e*tension it !ad soug!t. 3

"oly #ross t!ereafter stopped deducting from t!e salaries and wages of its teac!ers and employees t!ecorresponding union dues and special assessments payable by union members$, and agency fees

payable by non0members$, in accordance wit! t!e c!ec 0off clause of t!e #:A,4 prompting &AMA'(, on)eptember 1, 1989, to demand an e*planation.


4/116

(n t!e meantime, t!ere ensued between t!e two unions a full0blown action on t!e basic issue ofrepresentation, w!ic! was to last for some two years. (t began wit! t!e filing by t!e new union !eaded by

allera$ of a petition for certification election in t!e ffice of t!e Med0Arbiter.5 &AMA'( responded by filinga motion as ing t!e Med0Arbiter to dismiss t!e petition. n August 31, 1989, &AMA'( also advised "oly#ross of t!e election of a new set officers w!o would also comprise its negotiating panel.6

!e Med0Arbiter denied &AMA'(-s motion to dismiss, and ordered t!e !olding of a certification election. nappeal, !owever, t!e )ecretary of +abor reversed t!e Med0Arbiter-s ruling and ordered t!e dismissal of t!epetition for certification election, w!ic! action was eventually sustained by t!is #ourt in appropriateproceedings.

After its success in t!e certification election case &AMA'( presented, on April 11, 1991, revised bargainingproposals to "oly #ross 7 and on July 11, 1991, it sent a letter to t!e )c!ool as ing for its counter0proposals. !e )c!ool replied, t!at it did not now if t!e )upreme #ourt !ad in fact affirmed t!e +abor)ecretary-s decision in favor of &AMA'( as t!e e*clusive bargaining representative of t!e )c!oolemployees, w!ereupon &AMA'(-s counsel furnis!ed it wit! a copy of t!e #ourt-s resolution to t!at effectand on )eptember ;, 1991, &AMA'( again wrote to "oly #ross as ing for its counter0proposals as regardst!e terms of a new #:A.

(n response, "oly #ross declared t!at it would ta e no action towards a new #:A wit!out a


5/116

b. !et!er or not t!ere was refusal to negotiate on t!e part of t!e "oly #ross of =avao#ollege.

n bot! issues, Boluntary Arbitrator Jerome #. Joa uin found in favor of &AMA'(.

5especting t!e matter of t!e automatic renewal of t!e bargaining agreement, t!e Boluntary Arbitrator ruledt!at t!e re uest for e*tension filed by &AMA'( constituted seasonable notice of its intention to renew,modify or amend t!e agreement, w!ic! it could not !owever pursue because of t!e absence of t!eteac!ers w!o were t!en on summer vacation. 11 "e re2ected t!e contention of "oly #ross t!at &AMA'( !adunreasonably delayed until July 31, 1989$ t!e submission of bargaining proposals, opining t!at t!e delay was partly attributable to t!e )c!ool-s prolonged inaction on &AMA'(-s re uest for e*tension of t!e #:A."e also ruled t!at "oly #ross was estopped from claiming automatic renewal of t!e #:A because it ceasedto implement t!e c!ec 0off provision embodied in t!e #:A, declaring said )c!ool-s argument C t!at a+5#, 5egion E(, =avao #ity, toma e t!e proper computation of t!e union dues to be paid by management to t!e complainantunion.

=issatisfied, "oly #ross filed t!e petition at bar, c!allenging t!e Boluntary Arbitrator-s decision on t!efollowing grounds,viz.@13

1. !at t!e voluntary arbitrator erred and acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting tolac or e*cess of 2urisdiction in ordering petitioner to pay t!e union t!e uncollected uniondues to private respondent w!ic! was not even an issue submitted for voluntaryarbitration, resulting in serious violation of due process.


6/116

. !at t!e voluntary arbitrator erred in considering t!at petitioner refused to negotiate wit!t!e$ Dnion, contrary to t!e records and evidence presented in t!e case.

!e Boluntary Arbitrator-s conclusion C t!at petitioner "oly #ross !ad, in lig!t of t!e evidence on record,failed to negotiate wit! &AMA'(, ad2udged as t!e collective bargaining agent of t!e sc!ool-s permanent andregularteac!ers C is a conclusion of fact t!at t!e #ourt will not review, t!e in uiry at bar being limited to t!e issueof w!et!er or not said Boluntary Arbitrator !ad acted wit!out or in e*cess of !is 2urisdiction, or wit! graveabuse of discretion nor does t!e #ourt see its way clear, after analy%ing t!e record, to pronouncing t!atreasoned conclusion to !ave been made so w!imsically, capriciously, oppressively, or un2ustifiably C inot!er words, attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e*cess of 2urisdiction C as to callfor e*tension of t!e #ourt-s correcting !and t!roug! t!e e*traordinary writ ofcertiorari . )aid finding s!ouldt!erefore be, and is !ereby, sustained.

>ow, concerning its alleged failure to observe t!e c!ec 0off provisions of t!e collective bargainingagreement, "oly #ross contends t!at t!is was not one of t!e issues raised in t!e arbitration proceedingst!at said issue was t!erefore e*traneous and improper and t!at even assuming t!e contrary, it "oly#ross$ !ad not in trut! violated t!e #:A.

"oly #ross asserts t!at it could not comply wit! t!e c!ec 0off provision because contrary to establis!edpractice prior to August, 1989, &AMA'( failed to submit to t!e college comptroller every 8t! day of t!emont!, a list of employees from w!om union dues and t!e corresponding agency fees were to be deductedfurt!er, t!at t!ere was an uncertainty as to t!e recogni%ed bargaining agent wit! w!om it would deal C amatter settled only upon its receipt of a copy of t!is #ourt-s 5esolution on July 18, 1991 C and in any case,

t!e Boluntary Arbitrator-s order for it to pay to t!e union t!e uncollected employees- dues or agency fees C would amount to t!e union-s un2ust enric!ment.14

&AMA'( maintains, on t!e ot!er !and, t!at t!e c!ec 0off issue was raised in t!e position paper it submittedin t!e voluntary arbitration proceedings and t!at in any case, t!e issue was intimately connected wit! t!osesubmitted for resolution and necessary for complete ad2udication of t!e rig!ts and obligations of t!eparties 15 and t!at said position paper !ad alleged t!e manifest bad fait! of management in not providinginformation as to w!o were regular employees, t!ereby precluding determination of teac!ers eligible forunion members!ip.

=isregarding t!e ob2ection of failure to seasonably set up t!e c!ec 0off uestion C t!e factual premisest!ereof not being indisputable, and tec!nical ob2ections of t!is sort being generally inconse uential in

uasi02udicial proceedings C t!e issues !ere ultimately boil down to w!et!er or not an employer is liable topay to t!e union of its employees, t!e amounts it failed to deduct from t!eir salaries C asunion ues wit!respect to union members$ oragency fees as regards t!ose not union members$ C in accordance wit! t!ec!ec 0off provisions of t!e collective bargaining contract #:A$ w!ic! it claims to !ave been automaticallye*tended.


7/116

A c!ec 0off is a process or device w!ereby t!e employer, on agreement wit! t!e union recogni%ed as t!eproper bargaining representative, or on prior aut!ori%ation from its employees, deducts union dues oragency fees from t!e latter-s wages and remits t!em directly to t!e union.16 (ts desirability to a labororgani%ation is uite evident by it, it is assured of continuous funding. (ndeed, t!is #ourt !as ac nowledgedt!at t!e system of c!ec 0off is primarily for t!e benefit of t!e union and, only indirectly, of t!e individuallaborers. 17 !en so stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement, or aut!ori%ed in writing by t!eemployees concerned C t!e +abor #ode and its (mplementing 5ules recogni%e it to be t!e duty of t!eemployer to deduct sums e uivalent to t!e amount of union dues from t!e employees- wages for directremittance to t!e union, in order to facilitate t!e collection of funds vital to t!e role of t!e union asrepresentative of employees in a bargaining unit if not, indeed, to its very e*istence. And it may bementioned in t!is connection t!at t!e rig!t to union dues deducted pursuant to a c!ec 0off, pertains to t!elocal union w!ic! continues to represent t!e employees under t!e terms of a #:A, and not to t!e parentassociation from w!ic! it !as disaffiliated.18

!e legal basis of c!ec 0off is t!us found in statute or in contract.19

)tatutory limitations on c!ec 0offsgenerally re uire written aut!ori%ation from eac! employee to deduct wages !owever, a resolutionapproved and adopted by a ma2ority to t!e union members at a general meeting will suffice w!en t!e rig!tto c!ec 0off !as been recogni%ed by t!e employer, including collection of reasonable assessments inconnection wit! mandatory activities of t!e union, or ot!er special assessments and e*traordinary fees.20

Aut!ori%ation to effect a c!ec 0off of union dues is co0terminous wit! t!e union affiliation or members!ip ofemployees. 21 n t!e ot!er !and, t!e collection of agency fees in an amount e uivalent to union dues andfees, from employees w!o are not union members, is recogni%ed by Article 48 e$ of t!e +abor #ode. >ore uirement of written aut!ori%ation from t!e non0union employee is imposed. !e employee-s acceptance

of benefits resulting from a collective bargaining agreement 2ustifies t!e deduction of agency fees from !ispay and t!e union-s entitlement t!ereto. (n t!is aspect, t!e legal basis of t!e union-s rig!t to agency fees isneit!er contractual nor statutory, but uasi0contractual, deriving from t!e establis!ed principle t!at non0union employees may not un2ustly enric! t!emselves by benefiting from employment conditions negotiatedby t!e bargaining union.22

>o provision of law ma es t!e employer directly liable for t!e payment to t!e labor organi%ation of uniondues and assessments t!at t!e former fails to deduct from its employees- salaries and wages pursuant to ac!ec 0off stipulation. !e employer-s failure to ma e t!e re uisite deductions may constitute a violation of acontractual commitment for w!ic! it may incur liability for unfair labor practice.23 :ut it does not by t!at

omission, incur liability to t!e union for t!e aggregate of dues or assessments uncollected from t!e unionmembers, or agency fees for non0union employees.

#!ec 0offs in trut! impose an e*tra burden on t!e employer in t!e form of additional administrative andboo eeping costs. (t is a burden assumed by management at t!e instance of t!e union and for its benefit,in order to facilitate t!e collection of dues necessary for t!e latter-s life and sustenance. :ut t!e obligationto pay union dues and agency fees obviously devolvesnot upon t!e employer, but t!e individual employee.


8/116

(t is a personal obligation not demandable from t!e employer upon default or refusal of t!e employee toconsent to a c!ec 0off. !e only obligation of t!e employer under a c!ec 0off is to effect t!e deductions andremit t!e collections to t!e union. !e principle of un2ust enric!ment necessarily precludes recovery ofunion dues C or agency fees C from t!e employer, t!ese being, to repeat, obligations pertaining to t!eindividual wor er in favor of t!e bargaining union. !ere t!e employer fails or refuses to implement ac!ec 0off agreement, logic and prudence dictate t!at t!e union itself underta e t!e collection of union duesand assessments from its members and agency fees from non0union employees$ t!is, of course, wit!outpre2udice to suing t!e employer for unfair labor practice.

!ere was t!us no basis for t!e Boluntary Arbitrator to re uire "oly #ross to assume liability for t!e uniondues and assessments, and agency fees t!at it !ad failed to deduct from its employees- salaries on t!eproffered plea t!at contrary to establis!ed practice, &AMA'( !ad failed to submit to t!e college comptrollerevery 8t! day of t!e mont!, a list of employees from w!ose pay union dues and t!e corresponding agencyfees were to be deducted.

"/5/7 5/, t!e re uirement imposed on petitioner "oly #ross by t!e c!allenged decision of t!eBoluntary Arbitrator, to pay respondent &AMA'( t!e amount e uivalent to t!e uncollected union dues andagency fees from August 1989 up to t!e time a new collective bargaining agreement is concluded, is>D++(7(/= and )/ A)(=/ but in all ot!er respects, t!e decision of t!e Boluntary Arbitrator is !erebyA77(5M/=.

BARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR NG

BARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC.NAFLU

GR NO. 113204-05, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996KAPUNAN,J.:


9/116

!is is a petition forcertiorari and pro!ibition under 5ule 6F of t!e 5evised 5ules of #ourt to set aside andannul t!e decision and orders of t!e public respondent dated 11 7ebruary 1993, 4 Marc! 1993, 16 June1993 and F >ovember 1993, respectively.

!e facts w!ic! gave rise to t!e present petition are as follows@

n ; June 1988, petitioner formerly t!e '!ilippine +ingerie #orporation$ filed a petition for certificationelection among its ran 0and0file employees doc eted as >#50 =0M060349088$. As a conse uence t!ereof,two $ unions soug!t recognition, namely@ '"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: and:D&+ = > MA> A A A > '"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ # 5' 5A ( >.

(n one of t!e pre0election conferences, '"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: moved for t!ee*clusion of a number of employees w!o were allegedly !olding supervisory positions.

nly 8 July 1988, Med0Arbiter 5asidali #. Abdulla! issued an order denying t!e motion of '"(+(''(>/+(> /5(/ # 5' 5A ( > 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: for lac of merit. )aid order was appealed to t!e:ureau of +abor 5elations :+5$ w!ic! issued an rder on 16 >ovember 1988, t!e dispositive portion of w!ic! declares@

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, t!e rder dated 8 July 1988 is !ereby affir!e .Accordingly, to ensure fairness to all t!e parties and in order to !asten t!e proceedings, lett!e election be conducted under t!e supervision of t!e +abor rgani%ation =ivision, t!is

ffice, w!ic! is !ereby directed to immediately set t!is case for pre0election conference.

) 5=/5/=. 1

'"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: filed two $ separate motions for reconsideration of t!eabove order w!ic! were consolidated and treated in an rder dated =ecember 1988, t!e decretalportion of w!ic! reads@

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, t!e twin motions for reconsideration are !erebydeemed denied for lac of merit. Accordingly, let t!e pre0election conference preparatory tot!e certification election proceed wit!out furt!er delay.

>o furt!er motion of similar nature s!all be !ereafter entertained.

) 5=/5/=. 2

>o furt!er appeal of t!e above0 uoted order was interposed, t!us it became final and e*ecutory.

n 3 May 1989, a certification election was conducted wit! t!e votes of


10/116

1. '!ilippine +ingerie or ers Dnion0A+A: 318 votes. :u lod >g Manggagawa >g '!ilippine

+ingerie #orporation 41 votes3 >o Dnion 1; votes

4. #!allenged )upervisorsG#onfidential/mployees 99 votes

CCCC

A+ BA+(= B /) #A) 8FF votes)' (+/= :A++ ) 1 votes

'"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: filed an election protest w!ic! was later formali%ed onF May 1989. (n t!e meantime, on 9 May 1989, :D&+ = moved for t!e opening of t!e c!allenged ballots.

n H July 1989, t!e :+5, t!roug! its director 'ura 7errer0#alle2a, issued an rder, t!e dispositive portionof w!ic! reads@

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, t!e protest and c!allenged sic$ of t!e Alyansang+i !a >g Mga Ana >g :ayan A+A:$ are !ereby denied for lac of merit.

Accordingly, let t!e c!allenged votes of t!e supervisors and confidential employees beopened in t!e presence of t!e parties under t!e supervision of t!e +abor rgani%ation=ivision + =$ on 6 July 1989 at 9@HH A.M., :ureau of +abor 5elations.

) 5=/5/=. 3

it! t!e above0 uoted order, t!e c!allenged votes were opened on 3 August 1989 and t!e results were asfollows@

'!ilippine +ingerie or ers Dnion0A+A: 4 votes:u lod >g Manggagawa >g '!il. +ingerie

#orp. 84 votes>o Dnion 6 votes)poiled F votes

A+ B /) #A) 99 votes

'"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: filed a motion for reconsideration of t!e :+5-s rder ofH July 1989 w!ic!, !owever, was denied in an rder dated August 1989, t!e pertinent portion of w!ic!

states@


11/116

!is time movant s!ould now be convinced t!at t!e alleged supervisory and confidentialemployees are more ran 0and0file employees.

As early as 5esolution dated 16 >ovember 1988, t!e :ureau !ad already ruled t!at t!ealleged supervisors are not managerial employees rec. p. 1F4, 7irst 7older$. n motionfor reconsideration t!e :ureau affirmed t!e aforementioned 5esolution in its rder dated

=ecember 1988 rec. p. 3H . 7irst 7older$. And on H July 1989, w!en 5.A. 6;1F wasalready in full force and effect, t!e :ureau in resolving t!e protest of A+A: declared t!att!e 2ob descriptions of t!e alleged supervisors and confidential employees do not in any way suggest t!at t!ey are indeed supervisors or managerial employees rec. p. 39,)econd 7older$.

"/5/7 5/, t!e motion for reconsideration is !ereby denied and t!e :u lod >gManggagawa >g '!ilippine +ingerie #orporation now, :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc.$ is!ereby certified as t!e sole and e*clusive bargaining representative of all t!e regular ran 0and0file employees of :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. formerly '!ilippine +ingerie #orporation$.

!e management of :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. is !ereby directed to immediately startnegotiating for a collective bargaining agreement #:A$ wit! t!e said union.

>o furt!er motion of any nature s!all !ereinafter be entertained by t!is ffice.

) 5=/5/=. 4

>ot satisfied wit! t!e afore uoted order, '"(+(''(>/ +(> /5(/ 5&/5) D>( >0A+A: appealed to t!e)ecretary of +abor but on 6 )eptember 1989, t!e same was wit!drawn and a motion to dismiss appeal wit! pre2udice was filed by t!e same union. !ere being no more obstacle to collective bargaining,petitioner negotiated wit! :D&+ = as t!e sole and e*clusive bargaining representative.

A #ollective :argaining Agreement #:A$ was signed by petitioner and :D&+ = w!ic! was effective forfive F$ years or until 18 >ovember 1994. 5

!ile t!e #:A was still in force, several employees organi%ed t!emselves into t!e >ag a aisang)upervisors >g :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. >):'($ and t!e H>ag a aisang /*cluded Mont!ly 'aid/mployees >g :arbi%on, '!ilippines, (nc. >/M'/:'($ allegedly because t!ey were e*cluded from t!ecoverage of t!e e*isting #:A between petitioner and :D&+ =.

wo $ separate petitions for certification election were filed by >):'( and >/M'/:'(. !e petition of t!eformer was raffled to Med0Arbiter 5enato =. 'arungo and t!e latter to Med0Arbiter 'aterno =. Adap. :ot!cases were dismissed 6


12/116

>):'( appealed to t!e ffice of t!e )ecretary of +abor. n 9 =ecember 199 , public respondentDndersecretary :ienvenido +aguesma denied t!e same for lac of merit. >):'( moved for reconsiderationon 1F January 1993.

n 11 7ebruary 1993, t!e ffice of t!e )ecretary of +abor, t!roug! public respondent rendered t!euestioned =ecision, t!e dispositive portion of w!ic! reads@

"/5/7 5/ t!e Motion for 5econsideration of >ag a aisang )uperbisor ng :arbi%on'!ilippines, (nc. >):'($ and t!e appeal of >ag a aisang /*cluded Mont!ly 'aid/mployees ng :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. >/M'/:'($ are !ereby granted and t!e rdersof t!is ffice and t!e Med0Arbiter dated 9 =ecember 199 and H1 )eptember 199 ,respectively, are !ereby )/ A)(=/.

Accordingly, a new rder is !ereby entered in t!e above0captioned cases directing t!econduct of certification election among t!e sub2ect employees e*cluded from t!e coverageof t!e bargaining unit of t!e e*isting #:A of ran and file employees aforestated, notot!erwise e*cludedGdis ualified by law. !e c!oices are as follows@

1. >ag a aisang )uperbisor ng :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. >):'($

. >ag a aisang /*cluded Mont!ly 'aid /mployees ng :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc.>/M'/:'($ and,

3. >o Dnion.

+et, t!erefore, t!e entire records of t!ese consolidated cases be forwarded to t!e 5egionalffice of origin for t!e immediate conduct of certification election, sub2ect to t!e usual pre0

election conference.

) 5=/5/=. 7

'etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but t!e same was denied 8 A second motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but it was li ewise denied, t!is time, wit! finality. 9 Dndaunted, petitioner filed a t!irdmotion for reconsideration w!ic! was also denied for lac of merit.10

"ence, t!is petition w!erein t!e following issues were raised@

A. "/ 5/)' >=/> ( >, "/> "/(5 M/M:/5) A5/ (># M'A (:+I &0A>=07(+/ /M'+ I//)< MD#"+/)), #A> ( )//& 5/'5/)/> A ( > ) A D) 7 5 )D'/5B() 5), "/> "//M'+ I//) "/I A> 5/'5/)/> 7 5 # ++/# (B/ :A5 A(>(> 'D5' )/):/+ > (> "/


13/116

"/ '/ ( ( > 11

:arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. alleges t!at t!is petition only assails t!e resolution of t!e public respondentregarding >):'( and does not include t!e >/M'/:'(, t!e union of t!e e*cluded mont!ly paid employeesbecause t!e separate motion for reconsideration it filed in connection wit! t!e latter !as not yet beenresolved by t!e >+5#.

n 8 7ebruary 1994, t!is #ourt issued a temporary restraining order, en2oining t!e :ureau of +abor5elations from setting t!e pre0election conference in #ase >o. )0MA0A0 1F09 093 entitled ag a aisang)upervisor >g :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. C :5/5 < and from conducting furt!er proceedings in t!eaforesaid cases. 12

=uring t!e pendency of t!e petition, t!e #:A e*pired. "owever, no ot!er agreement between t!e parties was made nown to t!is #ourt, t!us, in accordance wit! Article EE of t!e #:A, it continues to be in forceand s!all govern t!e relations between t!e parties t!ereto. 13

e find no merit in t!e petition.

'etitioner maintains its stance t!at t!e petition for certification election filed by t!e >ag a aisang)upervisor ng :arbi%on '!ilippines, (nc. C >A7+D >):'($ must necessarily fail because t!e employeesdesignated as ):'(-s petition for certification election as t!is was tantamount to an un2ustifiable reversal of t!e :+5-sfinal ruling t!at t!e sub2ect employees are not supervisory employees, but merely ran and file, due to t!enature of t!eir duties and functions.

'etitioner-s reasoning is flawed, proceeding as it does from t!e wrong premise. 'etitioner obstinatelybelieves t!at >):'(-s petition for certification election was granted because t!e employees carrying t!eappellation


14/116

!owever, is not t!e issue in t!e case at bar. !eir status as ):'(. 14 >):'(-s petition for certificationelection was granted because t!e sub2ect employees, including petitioner-s mont!ly paid employees, weree*pressly e"clu e from t!e bargaining unit and from t!e coverage of t!e #:A e*ecuted between petitionerand :D&+ =, as clearly stated t!erein. 15 !is is t!e real reason be!ind t!e certification election in

uestion. Dnfortunately, t!is was not successfully debun ed by petitioner, w!ic! c!ose to focus, albeiterroneously, on t!e status of t!e sub2ect employees.

!e e*clusion of petitioner-s


15/116

As clearly indicated in t!e afore uoted decision, t!e /M'/:'( aree*cluded from t!e coverage of t!e e*isting #:A entered into between t!e respondent :'(and :u lod ng mga Manggagawa ng :arbi%ons '!ilippines, (nc. :D&+ =$ pp. 8408F,folder ((, records$. !us, respondent :'( being privy to t!e said e*clusion !as to accept t!einescapable conse uences of its act of depriving t!e e*cluded employees of t!eir rig!t toself0organi%ation for t!e purpose of collective bargaining. e find immaterial and irrelevantt!e allegation of !ereby respondent :'( to t!e effect t!at t!e benefit being en2oyed by t!e

ran and file employees covered by t!e e*isting #:A are e*tendedGaccorded to t!ee*cluded employees. (ndeed, w!at is crucial and of paramount consideration is t!e factt!at t!e e*cluded ran and file employees are afforded t!e rig!t to bargain collectively.

!e )upreme #ourt in t!e cases of #eneral /u''er an $oot)ear Corporation vs* 0ureauof &a'or /elations, et al*, #*/* 1o* 23454, .cto'er 46, 76829 an Manila 0ay %pinningMills, : an P Coats, Manila 0ay, Inc* vs* Hon* Pura $errer-Calle a, .5. >o. 8H91H, August


16/116

1, 1988, ruled t!at t!e employees e*cluded from t!e coverage of t!e #:A, )ho not 'einge"clu e 'y la), have the right to 'argain collectively . 7urt!er, t!e )upreme #ourt aptlystated t!at@

The allegation that so!e 'enefits un er the e"isting C0A )ere e"ten e to the !onthly pai e!ployees, even if true )ill not preclu e the! fro!entering into a C0A of their o)n* 1either is the inconvenience that !ay 'efall petitioner for having to a !inister t)o C0As an e"cuse for eprivingthe !onthly pai e!ployees of their constitutionally guarantee right tocollective 'argaining. /mp!asis supplied.$22

!e petition for certification election cannot li ewise be deterred by t!e


17/116

!e rig!t to self organi%ation and collective bargaining is an integral part of t!e protection to labor provisionembodied in our #onstitution, t!e essence of w!ic! is aptly e*pressed inTropical Hut ;!ployees Union-C#+ v .Tropical Hut $oo Mar(et, Inc.@25

All employees en2oy t!e rig!t to self0organi%ation and to form and 2oin labor organi%ationsof t!eir own c!oosing for t!e purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concertedactivities for t!eir mutual aid or protection. !is is a fundamental rig!t of labor t!at derivesits e*istence from t!e #onstitution. (n interpreting t!e protection to labor and social 2usticeprovisions of t!e #onstitution and t!e labor laws or rules or regulations, we !ave alwaysadopted t!e liberal approac! w!ic! favors t!e e*ercise of labor rig!ts.

7inally, we ta e t!is opportunity to reiterate t!e standing rule t!at a certification election is t!e sole concernof t!e wor ers, !ence, an employer lac s t!e personality to dispute t!e same. (n#ol en $ar!s,Inc. v . %ecretary of &a'or , 26 we !eld@

7inally, we note t!at it was petitioner company t!at filed t!e motion to dismiss t!e petitionfor election. !e general rule is t!at an employer !as no standing to uestion a certificationelection since t!is is t!e sole concern of t!e wor ers. +aw and policy demand t!atemployers ta e a strict, !ands0off stance in certification elections. !e bargainingrepresentative of employees s!ould be c!osen free from any e*traneous influence ofmanagement. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to t!eemployees alone and to no ot!er.

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, t!e petition for certiorari is =()M())/= and t!e emporary

5estraining rder issued on 8 7ebruary 1994 is !ereby +(7 /=.

BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION VS. SANCHEZGR NO. 74425, OCTOBER 7, 1986

ALAMPAY,J.:

'etitioner :ulletin 'ublis!ing #orporation invo es t!e e uity 2urisdiction of t!is #ourt in t!is case for certiorari,pro!ibition, and for preliminary in2unction, wit! a plea for t!e issuance of ane"-parte restraining order pro!ibitingprivate respondents from declaring a stri e. !e purpose of 'etitioner is to prevent t!e private respondents, members


18/116

of t!e :ulletin 'ublis!ing #orporation )upervisors Dnion :)D$, from staging a stri e against t!e said publis!ingcompany.

'etitioner also prays t!at t!is #ourt declare null and void 5egistration #ertificate >o. 1HF4; issued by t!e Ministry of+abor and /mployment to t!e aforestated )upervisors Dnion or :)D.

!e cru* of t!e dispute in t!e present case is w!et!er or not supervisors in petitioner company may, for purposes ofcollective bargaining, form a union separate and distinct from t!e e*isting union organi%ed by t!e ran 0and0fileemployees of t!e same company.

'etitioner corporation !as been engaged in t!e business of newspaper and maga%ine publis!ing for over !alf acentury. its current publications include t!e national daily


19/116

'etitioner invo es t!e e uity 2urisdiction of t!is #ourt, claiming t!at a stri e by t!e :)D w!ic! it considers a bogusunion and w!ose registration and operation is c!allenged as against public policy and legal pro!ibitions, will causeuntold !arm on !erein petitioner w!ic! is engaged in publis!ing daily periodicals.

(n accordance wit! our 5esolution dated May 1 , 1986, a !earing of petitioner-s motion for preliminary in2unction was

sc!eduled for May 14, 1986, wit! a temporary restraining order being t!en issued. !is #ourt en2oined t!e privaterespondents from proceeding wit! t!eir contemplated stri e. 5espondents were li ewise re uired to comment on t!epetition. !e corresponding separate #omment of t!e public and private respondents were later timely submitted tot!e #ourt.

#onsidering t!e allegations contained in t!e petition, t!e issues raised, and t!e arguments adduced by t!e parties,t!e #ourt resolves to give due course to t!e petition, and to consider t!e separate #omment of bot! private andpublic respondents as t!eir Answer to t!e petition.

(n t!e lig!t of t!e factual bac ground of t!is case, e are constrained to !old t!at t!e supervisory employees ofpetitioner firm may not, under t!e law, form a supervisors union, separate and distinct from t!e e*isting bargainingunit :/D$, composed of t!e ran 0and0file employees of t!e :ulletin 'ublis!ing #orporation. (t is evident t!at most oft!e private respondents are considered managerial employees. Also it is distinctly stated in )ection 11, 5ule ( (, of t!e

mmibus 5ules (mplementing t!e +abor #ode, t!at supervisory unions are presently no longer recogni%ed norallowed to e*ist and operate as suc!.

Article 46 of t!e +abor #ode e*plicitly e*cludes managerial employees from t!e rig!t of self0organi%ation, t!e rig!t toform, 2oin and assist labor organi%ations. A perusal of t!e 2ob descriptions corresponding to t!e private respondentsas outlined in t!e petition, clearly reveals t!e private respondents to be !anagers, purchasing officers, personnel officers, property officers, supervisors, cashiers, hea s of various sections an the li(e*!e nature of t!eir dutiesgives rise to t!e irresistible conclusion t!at most of t!e !erein private respondents are performing managerial

functions 'etition, pp. F06 5ollo, pp. 60;$. !eir responsibilities in!erently re uire t!e e*ercise- of discretion andindependent 2udgment as supervisors. !ey possess t!e power and aut!ority to lay down or e*ercise managementpolicies. Managerial employees are t!ose vested wit! powers or prerogatives to lay down and e*ecute managementpolicies andGor to !ire, transfer, suspend, lay0off, recall, disc!arge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectivelyrecommend suc! managerial actions. All employees not falling wit!in t!is definition are considered ran 0and fileemployees Article 1 $, +abor #ode$. e furt!er find very plainly stressed in )ection 11, 5ule ((, :oo B of t!e

mnibus 5ules implementing t!e same +abor #ode, t!at


20/116

(t follows as a logical conclusion t!at t!e members of t!e :ulletin )upervisory Dnion, w!olly composed of supervisorsemployed by petitioner corporation, are not DA+(7(/= to organi%e a +abor Dnion of t!eir own. Aside from t!isreason, is t!e fact t!at t!ere is already an e*isting legitimate labor union, t!e :/D, w!ic! en2oys a current collectivebargaining agreement wit! t!e petitioner publis!ing company.

!at is pointed out under t!e law, is t!at employees w!o disc!arge managerial functions, as well as t!e supervisoryemployees w!o do not yet fall wit!in t!e definition of managerial employees, are pro!ibited from organi%ingt!emselves into a labor union constituted for t!e purpose of acting as a collective bargaining unit. o sanction t!erecognition of t!e )upervisors Dnion of private respondents, w!ic! parado*ically or inadvertently received aregistration certificate from t!e Ministry of +abor, would be for t!is #ourt to accept and tolerate a manifest violation oft!e +abor #ode. !e rationale for t!is in!ibition !as been stated to be, because if t!ese managerial employees wouldbelong to or be affiliated wit! a Dnion, t!e latter mig!t not be assured of t!eir loyalty to t!e Dnion in view of evidentconflict of interests. !e Dnion can also become company0 dominated wit! t!e presence of managerial employees inDnion members!ip.

!e submission of t!e private respondents t!at t!ey do not actually perform duties w!ic! are managerial in c!aracteris untenable. 7irstly, t!e status of respondents as


21/116

. Adamson Adamson vs. #(5, 1 ; )#5A 68. (n uoting from t!is decision of t!is "onorable#ourt, private respondents intentionally deleted t!e p!rase ew +abor #ode recogni%es two principal groups ofemployees, namely, managerial and t!e ran 0and0 file group. !us, Art. 1 $ provides@

Managerial employee- is one w!o is vested wit! powers or prerogatives to lay down and e*ecutemanagement policies andGor to !ire, transfer, suspend, lay0off, recall,, disc!arge, assign ordiscipline employees, or to effectively recommend suc! managerial actions. All e!ployees not falling )ithin this efinition are consi ere ran( an file e!ployees for purposes of this 0oo( .

/mp!asis supplied$

(n amplification of t!e afore uoted provisions of t!e law, )ec. 11 of 5ule ((, :oo B of t!e mnibus5ules (mplementing t!e +abor #ode did away wit! e*isting )upervisors Dnion, classifying t!emembers t!ereof as neit!er managerial or ran 0and0file employees depending on t!e wor t!eyperform. (f t!ey disc!arge managerial functions t!ey are pro!ibited from forming or 2oining anylabor organi%ation. (f t!ey do not perform managerial wor , t!ey may 2oin or assist t!e ran 0 and0fileunion and, if none e*ists, t!ey may form one suc! ran 0and0file organi%ation. 7rom t!ese, one canreadily infer t!at t!e law no longer recogni%es supervisory Dnions.

A perusal of t!e 2ob descriptions of private respondents as outlined in t!e petition s!ows t!at mostof t!em do not perform managerial wor . "ence, alt!oug! not ualified to organi%e a labor union of

t!eir own, t!ey may 2oin t!e certified ran 0and0file organi%ation in t!e #ompany, w!ic! !as acurrent collective bargaining agreement to e*pire on July 1F, 198;.

n t!e uery of t!is "onorable #ourt regarding t!e new policy of t!e M +/, if any, wit! respect to)upervisory Dnions,the 0&/ Director in his reply letter ate May 47, 7685 to our letter of May 73,7685 copy of said letter is !ereto attac!ed as Anne*


22/116

"owever, !e points out t!at on a number of occasions, t!e :ureau !as allowed t!e registration ofcertain categories of non0managerial employees w!ic! include supervisors w!o are not performingmanagerial functions similar to t!at of t!e non0managerial members of t!e :ulletin 'ublis!ing#orporation )upervisors Dnion :'#)D$ At any rate, !e states t!at


23/116

5espondents ma e muc! ado t!at petitioner does not !ave a definite policy regarding t!e retirement of supervisoryemployees. 'etitioner !as satisfactorily s!own to t!is #ourt t!at it !as been management policy to li ewise apply t!eprovisions of t!e #ollective :argaining Agreement #:A$ between petitioner and t!e ran 0and0file union :/D$, alsoto supervisors. According to t!e uncontroverted submission of petitioner, t!e provisions of )ection 4 in relation to)ection 1 of Article E of t!e said #:A, !ave been repeatedly applied to supervisory personnel even if t!ey are not

included in t!e scope of t!e #:A. !e pertinent. provisions on retirement are as follows@

)ection 4. C !e # M'A>I, at its option retire an employee or wor er w!o !as rendered Fyears of service or w!o !as reache the age of 5> years in !is last birt!day by paying !im fullbenefits provided in )ection 1 of t!is Article.

)ection 1. C Any e!ployee in t!e active service of t!e # M'A>I as of t!e date of signing of t!isAgreement w!ose service wit! t!e # M'A>I is ter!inate for any reason other than thoseenu!erate in A article 48? of Presi ential Decree 1o* 334 as amended, s!all be entitled togratuity pay in an amount e uivalent to one mont!-s pay for every year of continuous service basedon t!e salary as of t!e date of termination. )uc! gratuity s!all not be in addition to, but s!all be inlieu of, t!e termination pay benefits to w!ic! t!e employee or wor er is entitled under t!e +abor#ode of t!e '!ilippines, or any similar legislation, provided t!at if t!e benefits to w!ic! t!eemployee or wor er may be entitled under suc! statute are greater t!an t!at provided in t!e Article,t!e employee or wor er s!all receive t!e greater amount. /mp!asis ours$.

!e aforestated sections e*plicitly declare, in no uncertain terms, t!at retirement of an employee may be done uponinitiative and option of t!e management. And w!ere t!ere are cases of voluntary retirement, t!e same is effectiveonly upon t!e approval of management. !e fact t!at t!ere are some supervisory employees w!o !ave not yet beenretired after F years wit! t!e company or !ave reac!ed t!e age of si*ty merely confirms t!at it is t!e singularprerogative of management,at its option,to retired supervisors or ran 0and0file members w!en it deems fit. !ere

s!ould be no unfair labor practice committed by management if t!e retirement of private respondents were made inaccord wit! t!e agreed option. !at t!ere were numerous instances w!erein management e*ercised its option toretire employees pursuant to t!e aforementioned provisions, appears to be a fact w!ic! private respondents !ave notcontroverted. (t seems only now w!en t!e uestion of t!e legality of a supervisors union !as arisen t!at privaterespondents attempt to in2ect t!e dubious t!eory t!at t!e private respondents are entitled to form a union or go onstri e because t!ere is allegedly no retirement policy provided for t!eir benefit. As above noted, t!is assertion doesnot appear to !ave any factual basis.

(t is even more untenable for private respondents to suggest t!at t!e


24/116

e find not!ing improper in t!e promotions made by t!e petitioner company. !ese were but in implementation ofpetitioner-s well0considered policy on retirement and promotions intended to improve t!e morale of lower and middlemanagement ran s by promoting t!ose specially deserving before t!ey are eventually retired. !is t!en would allowsubse uent promotions of t!eir replacements from lower ran s. As petitioner e*plains, t!ese retirements andpromotions were but in accord wit! a carefully studied and pre0establis!ed policy w!ic! !ad been implemented

during t!e past years and unrelated to and wit!out connection wit! t!e organi%ation of private respondents- Dnion,:)D.

(n sum, w!ere concerted activities are aimed at compelling an employer to ignore t!e clear mandate of t!e +abor#ode, as in t!e instant case, grounds based on e uity may be invo ed from t!e courts in order to restrain t!e

uestioned activities. e cannot remain oblivious to t!e fact t!at a stri e, as t!at contemplated by t!e supervisorsunion against petitioner can cause irreparable in2ury to its publications, diminis! goodwill and seriously affect itscontinuity wit! its regular readers.

rade unionism and stri es are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. :ut w!en t!ese instruments areutili%ed by managerialGsupervisory employees in violation of e*isting labor laws, t!e misuse of t!ese tactics can bet!e sub2ect of 2udicial intervention to forestall grave in2ury to a business enterprise.

"/5/7 5/, t!e temporary restraining order issued by t!is #ourt, dated May 1 , 1986, en2oining t!e privaterespondents from declaring or staging a stri e against t!e petitioner !erein, in all its forms, including wal 0out, massleave, or any ind of activity t!at will lead to a wor stoppage, is !ereby made permanent. !e public respondentsare also directed to act upon and resolve, at t!e earliest possible time and in t!e lig!t of t!e discussion andpronouncements made by t!e #ourt in t!is case, t!e petition dated April F, 1986, submitted by t!e petitioner !ereinfor t!e cancellation of :ulletin 'ublis!ing #orporation )upervisors Dnion 5egistration #ertificate >o. 1HF04;0+#.


25/116

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. VS. FERRER-CALLEJAGR NO. 79025, DECEMBER 29, 1989

CORTES,J.:

n June 1, 198F :eneco or er-s +abor Dnion0Association of =emocratic +abor rgani%ations!ereinafter referred to as : +D0 A=+ $ filed a petition for direct certification as t!e sole and e*clusive

bargaining representative of all t!e ran and file employees of :enguet /lectric #ooperative, (nc.!ereinafter referred to as :/>/# $ at Alapang, +a rinidad, :enguet alleging, inter alia, t!at :/>/#

!as in its employ two !undred and fourteen 14$ ran and file employees t!at one !undred and ninety0eig!t 198$ or 9 .FN of t!ese employees !ave supported t!e filing of t!e petition t!at no certificationelection !as been conducted for t!e last 1 mont!s t!at t!ere is no e*isting collective bargaining


26/116

representative of t!e ran and file employees soug!t to represented by : +D0 A=+ and, t!at t!ere is nocollective bargaining agreement in t!e cooperative.

An opposition to t!e petition was filed by t!e :eneco /mployees +abor Dnion !ereinafter referred to as:/+D$ contending t!at it was certified as t!e sole and e*clusive bargaining representative of t!e sub2ect wor ers pursuant to an order issued by t!e med0arbiter on ctober H,198H t!at pending resolution by t!e>ational +abor 5elations #ommission are two cases it filed against :/>/# involving bargaining deadlocand unfair labor practice and, t!at t!e pendency of t!ese cases bars any representation uestion.

:/>/# , on t!e ot!er !and, filed a motion to dismiss t!e petition claiming t!at it is a non0profit electriccooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron0consumers in t!e #ity of:aguio and :enguet 'rovince and, t!at t!e employees soug!t to be represented by : +D0A=+ are noteligible to form, 2oin or assist labor organi%ations of t!eir own c!oosing because t!ey are members and 2ointowners of t!e cooperative.

n )eptember , 198F t!e med0arbiter issued an order giving due course to t!e petition for certificationelection. "owever, t!e med0arbiter limited t!e election among t!e ran and file employees of petitioner w!oare non0members t!ereof and wit!out any involvement in t!e actual owners!ip of t!e cooperative. :asedon t!e evidence during t!e !earing t!e med0arbiter found t!at t!ere are t!irty0seven 3;$ employees w!oare not members and wit!out any involvement in t!e actual owners!ip of t!e cooperative. !e dispositiveportion of t!e med0arbiter-s order is as follows@

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, a certification election s!ould be as it is !erebyordered to be conducted at t!e premises of :enguet, /lectric #ooperative, (nc., at

Alapang, +a rinidad, :enguet wit!in twenty H$ days from receipt !ereof among all t!eran and file employees non0membersGconsumers and wit!out any involvement in t!eactual owners!ip of t!e cooperative$ wit! t!e following c!oices@

1. :/>/# 5&/5) +A: 5 D>( >0A=+

. :/>/# /M'+ I//) +A: 5 D>( >

3. > D>( >

!e payroll for t!e mont! of June 198F s!all be t!e basis in determining t!e ualifiedvoters w!o may participate in t!e certification election to be conducted.

) 5=/5/=. K5ollo, pp. 0 3.L

:/+D and :/>/# appealed from t!is order but t!e same was dismissed for lac of merit on Marc!F,1986. !ereupon :/>/# filed wit! t!is #ourt a petition for certiorari wit! prayer for preliminary


27/116

in2unction and Gor restraining order, doc eted as .5. >o. ;4 H9, w!ic! t!e )upreme #ourt dismissed forlac of merit in a minute resolution dated April 8, 1986.

!e ordered certification election was !eld on ctober 1, 1986. 'rior to t!e conduct t!ereof :/>/# -scounsel verbally manifested t!at /# could form, assist or 2oin alabor union !as been answered in t!e affirmative by t!e )upreme #ourt in .5. >o. ;4 H9, t!e med0arbiterdismissed t!e protest on 7ebruary 1;, 198;. n June 3, 198;, :ureau of +abor 5elations :+5$ director'ura 7errer0#alle2a affirmed t!e med0arbiter-s order and certified :/+D as t!e sole and e*clusivebargaining agent of all t!e ran and file employees of :/>/# .

Alleging t!at t!e :+5 director committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e*cess of 2urisdiction :/>/# filed t!e instant petition for certiorari. (n !is #omment t!e )olicitor eneral agreed wit! :/>/# -s stance and prayed t!at t!e petition be given due course. (n view of t!is respondent director!erself was re uired by t!e #ourt to file a #omment. n April 19, 1989 t!e #ourt gave due course to t!epetition and re uired t!e parties to submit t!eir respective memoranda.

!e main issue in t!is case is w!et!er or not respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion incertifying respondent :/+D as t!e sole and e*clusive bargaining representtative of t!e ran and fileemployees of :/>/# .

Dnder Article F6 of t!e +abor #ode K'res. =ecree 44 L to !ave a valid certification election,


28/116

!e issue of w!et!er or not employees of a cooperative are ualified to form or 2oin a labor organi%ation forpurposes of collective bargaining !as already been resolved and clarified in t!e case ofCooperative /ural 0an( of Davao City, Inc* vs* $errer Calle a, et al* K .5. >o. ;;9F, )eptember 6,1988L and reiterated in t!ecases of0atangas-;lectric Cooperative &a'or Union v* @oung, et al* K .5. >os. 6 386, ;H88H and ;4F6H>ovember 9, 1988L and%an :ose City ;lectric %ervice Cooperative, Inc* v* Ministry of &a'or an ;!ploy!ent, et al* K .5. >o. ;; 31, May 31, 1989L w!erein t!e #ourt !ad stated t!at t!e rig!t to collectivebargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative w!o at t!e same time is a member and co0owner t!ereof. it! respect, !owever, to employees w!o are neit!er members nor co0owners of t!ecooperative t!ey are entitled to e*ercise t!e rig!ts to self0organi%ation, collective bargaining and negotiationas mandated by t!e 198; #onstitution and applicable statutes.

5espondent director argues t!at to deny t!e members of petitioner cooperative t!e rig!t to form, assist or 2oin a labor union of t!eir own c!oice for purposes of collective bargaining would amount to a patentviolation of t!eir rig!t to self0organi%ation. )!e points out t!at@

Albeit a person assumes a dual capacity as ran and file employee and as member of acertain cooperative does not militate, as in t!e instant case, against !isG!er e*ercise of t!erig!t to self0organi%ation and to collective bargaining guaranteed by t!e #onstitution and+abor #ode because, w!ile so doing, !eGs!e is acting in !isG!er capacity as ran and fileemployee t!ereof. (t may be added t!at w!ile t!e employees concerned became membersof petitioner cooperative, t!eir status employment as ran and filers w!o are !ired for fi*edcompensation !ad not c!anged. !ey still do not actually participate in t!e management oft!e cooperative as said function is entrusted to t!e :oard of =irectors and to t!e elected orappointed officers t!ereof. !ey are not vested wit! t!e powers and prerogatives to lay

down and e*ecute managerial policies to !ire, transfer, suspend, lay0off, recall, disc!arge,assign or discipline employees andGor to effectively recommend suc! managerial functionsK#omment of 5espondent =irector, p. 4 5ollo, p. 1 F.L

'rivate respondent :/+D concurs wit! t!e above contention of respondent director and, additionally, claimst!at since members!ip in petitioner cooperative is only nominal, t!e ran and file employees w!o aremembers t!ereof s!ould not be deprived of t!eir rig!t to self0organi%ation.

!e above contentions are untenable. #ontrary to respondents- claim, t!e fact t!at t!e members0employees of petitioner do not participate in t!e actual management of t!e cooperative does not ma e

t!em eligible to form, assist or 2oin a labor organi%ation for t!e purpose of collective bargaining wit!petitioner. !e #ourt-s ruling in t!e =avao #ity case t!at members of cooperative cannot 2oin a labor unionfor purposes of collective bargaining was based on t!e fact t!at as members of t!e cooperative t!ey are co0owners t!ereof. As suc!, t!ey cannot invo e t!e rig!t to collective bargaining for


29/116

degree of t!eir participation in t!e actual management of t!e cooperative, all members t!ereof cannot form,assist or 2oin a labor organi%ation for t!e purpose of collective bargaining.

5espondent union furt!er claims t!at if nominal owners!ip in a cooperative is


30/116

originally non0members of t!e cooperative can still vote in t!e certification election since t!ey were only


31/116

MERALCO VS. SECRETARY OF LABORGR NO. 91902, MAY 20, 1991

MEDIALDEA,J.:

!is petition see s to review t!e 5esolution of respondent )ecretary of +abor and /mployment 7ran lin M.=rilon dated >ovember 3, 1989 w!ic! affirmed an rder of Med0Arbiter 5enato '. 'arungo #ase >o.>#50 0=0M010;H$, directing t!e !olding of a certification election among certain employees of petitionerManila /lectric #ompany !ereafter


32/116

A5 (#+/ (

)# '/

)ec. . /*cluded from t!e appropriate bargaining unit and t!erefore outside t!e scope of t!is

Agreement are@

a$ /mployees in 'atrol =ivision

b$ /mployees in reasury )ecurity )ervices )ection

c$ Managerial /mployees and

d$ )ecretaries.

Any member of t!e Dnion w!o may now or !ereafter be assigned or transferred to 'atrol =ivision

or reasury )ecurity )ervices )ection, or becomes Managerial /mployee or a )ecretary, s!all beconsidered automatically removed from t!e bargaining unit and e*cluded from t!e coverage of t!isagreement. "e s!all t!ereby li ewise be deemed automatically to !ave ceased to be member oft!e union, and s!all desist from furt!er engaging in union activity of any ind.

)ec. 3. 5egular ran 0and0file employees in t!e organi%ation elements !erein below listed s!all becovered wit!in t!e bargaining unit, but s!all be automatically dis ualified from becoming unionmembers@

1. ffice of t!e #orporate )ecretary

. #orporate )taff )ervices =epartment

3. Managerial 'ayroll ffice

4. +egal )ervice =epartment

F. +abor 5elations =ivision

6. 'ersonnel Administration =ivision

;. Manpower 'lanning 5esearc! =ivision

8. #omputer )ervices =epartment

9. 7inancial 'lanning #ontrol =epartment

1H. reasury =epartment, e*cept #as! )ection

11. eneral Accounting )ection


33/116

p. 19,/ollo $

M/5A+# moved for t!e dismissal of t!e petition on t!e following grounds@

(. !e employees soug!t to be represented by petitioner are eit!er 1$ managerial w!o are

pro!ibited by law from forming or 2oining supervisory union $ security services personnel w!o are pro!ibited from 2oining or assisting t!e ran 0and0file union 3$ secretaries w!o donot consent to t!e petitioner-s representation and w!om petitioner can not represent and4$ ran 0and0file employees represented by t!e certified or duly recogni%ed bargainingrepresentative of t!e only ran 0and0file bargaining unit in t!e company, t!e Meralco/mployees or ers Association M/ A$, in accordance wit! t!e e*isting #ollective:argaining Agreement wit! t!e latter.

((. !e petition for certification election will disturb t!e administration of t!e e*isting #ollective:argaining Agreement in violation of Art. 3 of t!e +abor #ode.

(((. !e petition itself s!ows t!at it is not supported by t!e written consent of at least twentypercent HN$ of t!e alleged ,FHH employees soug!t to be represented. 5esolution, )ec.

of +abor, pp. 30 4,/ollo $:efore Med0Arbiter 5. 'arungo, M/5A+# contended t!at employees from 'ay rades B(( and above areclassified as managerial employees w!o, under t!e law, are pro!ibited from forming, 2oining or assisting alabor organi%ation of t!e ran and file. As regards t!ose in t!e 'atrol =ivision and reasury )ecurity )ervice)ection, M/5A+# maintains t!at since t!ese employees are tas ed wit! providing security to t!ecompany, t!ey are not eligible to 2oin t!e ran and file bargaining unit, pursuant to )ec. c$, 5ule B, :oo Bof t!e t!en (mplementing 5ules and 5egulations of t!e +abor #ode 1988$ w!ic! reads as follows@

)ec. . +ho !ay file petition . C !e employer or any legitimate labor organi%ation may file t!epetition.

!e petition, w!en filed by a legitimate labor organi%ation, s!all contain, among ot!ers@

c$ description of t!e bargaining unit w!ic! s!all be t!e employer unit unless circumstancesot!erwise re uire, and provi e , further @ t!at t!e appropriate bargaining unit of t!e ran and fileemployees s!all not include security guards As amended by )ec. 6, (mplementing 5ules of /111$

p. 111, +abor #ode, 1988 /d.$

As regards t!ose ran and file employees enumerated in )ec. 3, Art. (, M/5A+# contends t!at since t!ey

are already beneficiaries of t!e M/ A0#:A, t!ey may not be treated as a separate and distinct appropriatebargaining unit.

M/5A+# raised t!e same argument wit! respect to employees soug!t to be represented by ) /AM0'# 7, claiming t!at t!ese were already covered by t!e M/ A0#:A.

n Marc! 1F, 1989, t!e Med0Arbiter ruled t!at !aving been e*cluded from t!e e*isting #ollective:argaining Agreement for ran and file employees, t!ese employees !ave t!e rig!t to form a union of t!eir


34/116

own, e*cept t!ose employees performing managerial functions. it! respect to t!ose employees w!o !adresented t!eir alleged involuntary members!ip in t!e e*isting #:A, t!e Med0Arbiter stated t!at t!e !oldingof a certification election would allow t!em to fully translate t!eir sentiment on t!e matter, and t!us directedt!e !olding of a certification election. !e dispositive portion of t!e 5esolution provides as follows@

"/5/7 5/, premises considered, a certification election is !ereby ordered conducted amongt!e regular ran 0and0file employees of M/5A+# to wit@

1. >on0managerial employees wit! 'ay rades B(( and above

. >on0managerial employees of 'atrol =ivision, reasury )ecurity )ervices )ection and)ecretaries and

3. /mployees pro!ibited from actively participating as members of t!e union.

wit!in H days from receipt !ereof, sub2ect to t!e usual pre0election conference wit! t!e following

c!oices@

1. )taff and ec!nical, /mployees Association of M/5A+# ) /AM0'# 7$

. >o Dnion.

) 5=/5/=. p. , /ollo $

n April 4, 1989, M/5A+# appealed, contending t!at


35/116

)upervisory /mployees. !ereafter 7+AM/)$ filed a similar petition >#50 =0M090;31089$ see ing torepresent t!ose employees wit! 'ay rades B(( to E(B, since =/> )/#5/ A5I A# /= ( " 5AB/ A:D)/ 7 =()#5/ ( > A>=G 5 (>/E#/)) 7 JD5()=(# ( > AM D> (> +A#& 7 JD5()=(# ( > (> 5D+(> "A @

(. A> "/5 5A>&0A>=07(+/ :A5 A(>(> D>( #A> :/ /) A:+()"/= (>=/'/>=/> ,=() (># A>= )/'A5A / 75 M "/ /E() (> 5A>&0A>=07(+/ :A5 A(>(> D>( .

((. "/ /M'+ I//) 75 M 'AI 5A=/) B(( A>= A: B/ A5/ 5A>&0A>=07(+/ /M'+ I//).

(((. "/ )/#D5( I DA5=) 5 '/5) >>/+ MAI :/ +DM'/= / "/5 ( " "/5A>&0A>=07(+/ D>( > A>=G 5 "/ )D'/5B() 5I D>( >. p. 8, /ollo $

n 7ebruary 6, 199H, e issued a temporary restraining order 5 $ against t!e implementation of t!edisputed resolution.

(n its petition, M/5A+# !as relented and recogni%ed respondents ) /AM0'# 7 and 7+AM/)- desiredrepresentation ofsupervisory e!ployees from rades B(( up. "owever, it believes t!at all t!at t!e)ecretary of +abor !as to do is to establis! a demarcation line between supervisory and managerial ran ,and not to classify outrig!t t!e group of employees represented by ) /AM0'# 7 and 7+AM/) as ranand file employees.

(n uestioning t!e )ecretary of +abor-s directive allowing security guards reasuryG'atrol )ervices )ection$to be represented by respondents, M/5A+# contends t!at t!is contravenes t!e provisions of t!e recently


36/116

passed 5A 6;1F and its implementing rules specifically par. , )ec. 1, 5ule ((, :oo B$ w!ic! dis ualifiessupervisory employees and security guards from members!ip in a labor organi%ation of t!e ran and file p.11, /ollo $.

!e )ecretary of +abor-s 5esolution was obviously premised on t!e provisions of Art. 1 , t!en par. $, of

t!e 1988 +abor #ode defining


37/116

ran and file, t!e condition in t!e #:A deemed as not !aving been written into t!e contract, as undulyrestrictive of an employee-s e*ercise of t!e rig!t to self0organi%ation$. e s!all discuss t!e rig!ts of t!ee*cluded employees or t!ose covered by )ec. , Art. (, M/ A0#:A later.

Anent t!e instant petition t!erefore, ) /AM0'# 7, and 7+AM/) would t!erefore represent supervisory

employees only. (n t!is regard, t!e aut!ority given by t!e )ecretary of +abor for t!e establis!ment of twolabor organi%ations for t!e ran and file will !ave to be disregarded since e !ereby up!old certificationelections only for supervisory employees from 'ay rade B(( and up, wit! ) /AM0'# 7 and 7+AM/) asc!oices.

As to t!e alleged failure of t!e )ecretary of +abor to establis! a demarcation line for purposes ofsegregating t!e supervisory from t!e managerial employees, t!e re uired parameter is really not necessarysince t!e law itself, Art. 1 0m, as amended by )ec. 4 of 5A 6;1F$ !as already laid down t!ecorresponding guidelines@

Art. 1 . =efinitions. . . .

m$


38/116

)ec 1. !o may 2oin unions. . . .

)upervisory employeesan security guar s s!all not be eligible for members!ip in a labororgani%ation of t!e ran 0and0file employees but may 2oin, assist or form separate labororgani%ations of t!eir own . . .

'aragrap! , )ec. 1, 5ule ((, :oo B, is similar to )ec. c$, 5ule B, also of :oo B of t!eimplementing rules of 5A 6;1F@

5ule B.5/'5/)/> A ( > #A)/) A>=(> /5>A+0D>( > # >7+(# )

)ec. 1. . . .

)ec. . +ho !ay file .CAny legitimate labor organi%ation or t!e employer, w!en re uested

to bargain collectively, may file t!e petition.

!e petition, w!en filed by a legitimate labor0organi%ation s!all contain, among ot!ers@

c$ description of t!e bargaining unit w!ic! s!all be t!e employer unit unlesscircumstances ot!erwise re uire and provi e further , t!at t!e appropriate bargaining unitof t!e ran 0and0file employees s!all not include supervisory employeesan Bor security guar s

:ot! rules, barring security guards from 2oining a ran and file organi%ation, appear to !ave been carriedover from t!e old rules w!ic! implementedthen Art* 43< of t!e +abor #ode, and w!ic! provided t!us@

Art. 4F.Ineligi'ility of security personnel to oin any la'or organization.C)ecurity guards andot!er personnel employed for t!e protection and security of t!e person, properties and premises oft!e employer s!all not be eligible for members!ip in any labor organi%ation.

n =ecember 4, 1986, 'res. #ora%on #. A uino issued /. . >o. 111 w!ic! eli!inate t!e above0citedprovision on t!e dis ualification of security guards. !at was retained was t!e dis ualification ofmanagerial employees, renumbered as Art. 4F previously Art. 46$, as follows@

Art. 4F. Ineligi'ility of !anagerial e!ployees to oint any la'or organization.CManagerialemployees are not eligible to 2oin, assist or form any labor organi%ation.

it! t!e elimination, security guards were t!us free to 2oin a ran and file organi%ation.

n Marc! , 1989, t!e present #ongress passed 5A 6;1F. )ection 18 t!ereof amended Art. 4F, to readas follows@

Art. 4F. (neligibility of!anagerial e!ployees to 2oin any labor organi%ation rig!t of supervisoryemployees.CManagerial employees are not eligible to 2oin, assist or form any labor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2


39/116

organi%ation.%upervisory e!ployees shall not 'e eligi'le for members!ip in a labor organi%ation oft!e ran 0and0file employees but may 2oin, assist, or form separate labor organi%ations of t!eir own.

emp!asis ours$

As will be noted, t!e second sentence of Art. 4F embodies an amendment dis ualifyingsupervisory

e!ployees from members!ip in a labor organi%ation of t!e ran 0and0file employees. (toes not inclu esecurity guar s in t!e dis ualification.

!e implementing rules of 5A 6;1F, t!erefore, insofar as t!ey dis ualify security guards from 2oining a ranand file organi%ation are null and void, for being not germane to t!e ob2ect and purposes of / 111 and 5A6;1F upon w!ic! suc! rules purportedly derive statutory moorings. (n%hell Philippines, Inc* vs* Central 0an( , .5. >o. F13F3, June ;, 1988, 16 )#5A 6 8, e stated@

!e rule0ma ing power must be confined to details for regulating t!e mode or proceeding to carryinto effect t!e law as it !as been enacted. !e power cannot be e*tended to amending ore*panding t!e statutory re uirements or to embrace matters not covered by t!e statute. 5ules t!at

subvert t!e statute cannot be sanctioned. citing Dniversity of )to. omas vs. :oard of a* Appeals,93 '!il. 3;6$.

!ile t!erefore under t!e old rules, security guards were barred from 2oining a labor organi%ation of t!eran and file, under 5A 6;1F, t!ey may now freely 2oin a labor organi%ation of t!e ran and file or t!at of t!esupervisory union, depending on t!eir ran . :y accommodating supervisory employees, t!e )ecretary of+abor must li ewise apply t!e provisions of 5A 6;1F to security guards by favorably allowing t!em freeaccess to a labor organi%ation, w!et!er ran and file or supervisory, in recognition of t!eir constitutionalrig!t to self0organi%ation.

e are aware !owever of possible conse uences in t!e implementation of t!e law in allowing security

personnel to 2oin labor unions wit!in t!e company t!ey serve. !e law is apt to produce divided loyalties int!e fait!ful performance of t!eir duties. /conomic reasons would present t!e employees concerned wit! t!etemptation to subordinate t!eir duties to t!e allegiance t!ey owe t!e union of w!ic! t!ey are members,aware as t!ey are t!at it is usually union action t!at obtains for t!em increased pecuniary benefits.

!us, in t!e event of a stri e declared by t!eir union, security personnel may neglect or outrig!tly abandont!eir duties, suc! as protection of property of t!eir employer and t!e persons of its officials and employees,t!e control of access to t!e employer-s premises, and t!e maintenance of order in t!e event ofemergencies and untoward incidents.

(t is !oped t!at t!e corresponding amendatory andGor suppletory laws be passed by #ongress to avoid

possible conflict of interest in security personnel.7 )phi7A## 5=(> +I, t!e petition is !ereby =()M())/=. e A77(5M wit! modification t!e 5esolution of t!e)ecretary of +abor dated >ovember 3, 1989 up!olding an employee-s rig!t to self0organi%ation. Acertification election is !ereby ordered conducted among supervisory employees of M/5A+# , belongingto 'ay rades B(( and above, using as guideliness an employee-s power to eit!er recommend or e*ecutemanagement policies, pursuant to Art. 1 m$, of t!e +abor #ode, as amended by )ec. 4 of 5A 6;1F, wit!respondents ) /AM0'# 7 and 7+AM/) as c!oices.


40/116

/mployees of t!e 'atrol =ivision, reasury )ecurity )ervices )ection and )ecretaries may freely 2oin eit!ert!e labor organi%ation of t!e ran and file or t!at of t!e supervisory union depending on t!eir employeeran . =is ualified employees covered by )ec. 3, Art. ( of t!e M/ A0#:A, s!all remain wit! t!e e*istinglabor organi%ation of t!e ran and file, pursuant to t!e )ecretary of +abor-s directive@

:y t!e parties- own agreement, t!ey find t!e bargaining unit, w!ic! includes t!e positionsenumerated in )ection 3, Article ( of t!eir #:A, appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.!e composition of t!e bargaining unit s!ould be left to t!e agreement of t!e parties, and unless

t!ere are legal infirmities in suc! agreement, t!is ffice will not substitute its 2udgment for t!at oft!e parties. #onsistent wit! t!e story of collective bargaining in t!e company, t!e members!ip ofsaid group of employees in t!e e*isting ran 0and0file unit s!ould continue, for it will en!ancestability in t!at unit already well establis!. "owever, we cannot approve of t!e condition set in)ection 3, Article ( of t!e #:A t!at t!e employees covered are automatically dis ualified frombecoming union members. !e condition unduly restricts t!e e*ercise of t!e rig!t to selforgani%ation by t!e employees in uestion. (t is contrary to law and public policy and, t!erefore,s!ould be considered to !ave not been written into t!e contract. Accordingly, t!e option to 2oin or

not to 2oin t!e union s!ould be left entirely to t!e employees t!emselves. p. 9,/ollo $!e emporary 5estraining rder 5 $ issued on 7ebruary 6, 199H is !ereby +(7 /=. #osts against

petitioner.


41/116

GSIS VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSISGR NO. 170132, DECEMBER 6, 2006

GARCIA,J .

(n t!is petition for review on certiorari under 5ule 4F of t!e 5ules of #ourt, t!e overnment )ervice(nsurance )ystem )()$ and its 'resident and eneral Manager inston 7. arcia arcia, for s!ort$assail and see to nullify t!e =ecision1 dated June 16, HHF of t!e #ourt of Appeals #A$ inCA-#*/* %P1o* 8244>, as reiterated in its 5esolution of ctober 18, HHF denying arcia-s motion for reconsideration.

!e recourse is cast against t!e following setting@

A four0day ctober HH4 concerted demonstration, rallies anden !asse wal out wagedG!eld in front of t!e)() main office in 5o*as :oulevard, 'asay #ity, started it all. 7orming a !uge part of t!e ctober 4 toctober ;, HH4 mass action participants were )() personnel, among t!em members of t!e !erein

respondent &apisanan >g Mga Manggagawa sa )()


42/116

n or about ctober 1H, HH4, t!e manager of t!e )() (nvestigating Dnit issued a memorandum directing131 union and non0union members to s!ow cause w!y t!ey s!ould not be c!arged administratively for t!eirparticipation in said rally. (n reaction, &M -s counsel, Atty. Manuel Molina, soug!t reconsideration of saiddirective on t!e ground, among ot!ers, t!at t!e sub2ect employees resumed wor on ctober 8, HH4 inobedience to t!e return0to0wor order t!us issued. !e plea for reconsideration was, !owever, effectively

denied by t!e filing, on ctober F, HH4, of administrative c!arges against some 11H &M members forgrave misconduct and conduct pre2udicial to t!e best interest of t!e service.4

!at !appened ne*t is summari%ed by t!e #A in its c!allenged decision of June 16, HHF, albeit t!e !ereinpetitioners would e*cept from some of t!e details of t!e appellate court-s narration@

(gnoring said formal c!arges, &M , t!ru its 'resident, Albert Belasco, commenced t!e instant suiton >ovember , HH4, wit! t!e filing of t!e 'etition for 'ro!ibition at benc!. n t!e ground t!at itsmembers s!ould not be made to e*plain w!y t!ey supported t!eir union-s cause, petitioner K&M Lfaulted respondent K arciaL wit! blatant disregard of #ivil )ervice 5esolution >o. H 1316,ot!erwise nown as t!e uidelines for 'ro!ibited Mass Action, )ection 1H of w!ic! e*!orts

government agencies to

(n !is =ecember 14, HH4 comment to t!e foregoing petition, respondent K arciaL averred t!at t!ecase at benc! was filed by an unaut!ori%ed representative in view of t!e fact t!at Albert Belasco!ad already been dropped from t!e )() rolls and, by said to en, !ad ceased to be a member Pmuc! less t!e 'resident P of &M . (nvo ing t!e rule against forum s!opping, respondent K arciaLcalled Kt!e #A-sL attention to t!e supposed fact t!at t!e allegations in t!e sub2ect petition merelyduplicated t!ose already set fort! in two petitions for certiorari and pro!ibition earlier filed by AlbertBelasco O. :ecause said petitions are, in point of fact, pending before t!is court as #A0 .5. )'>os. 8613H and 8636F, respondent K arciaL prayed for t!e dismissal of t!e petition at benc!O .F ords in brac et added.$

(t appears t!at pending resolution by t!e #A of t!e &M petition for pro!ibition in t!is case, t!e )()management proceeded wit! t!e investigation of t!e administrative cases filed. As represented in apleading before t!e #A, as of May 18, HHF, two !undred seven H;$ out of t!e two !undred seventy eig!t

;8$ cases filed !ad been resolved, resulting in t!e e*oneration of twenty H$ respondent0employees, t!ereprimand of one !undred eig!ty two 18 $ and t!e suspension for one mont! of five F$.6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt6


43/116

n June 16, HHF, t!e #A rendered t!e !erein assailed decision; !olding t!at arcia-s


44/116

t!e respondent-s argument, assumed t!e view and !eld t!at t!e organi%ed demonstrating employees didnot!ing more t!an air t!eir grievances in t!e e*ercise of t!eir


45/116

as t!e appellate court urgedQ t!at t!e freedom of e*pression and assembly and t!e rig!t to petition t!egovernment for a redress of grievances stand on a level !ig!er t!an economic and ot!er liberties. Anysuggestion, !owever, about t!ese rig!ts as including t!e rig!t on t!e part of government personnel to stri eoug!t to be, as it !as been, tras!ed. e !ave made t!is abundantly clear in our past determinations. 7orinstance, in Alliance of #overn!ent +or(ers v* Minister of &a'or an ;!ploy!ent ,18 a case decided under

t!e aegis of t!e 19;3 #onstitution, an en 'anc #ourt declared t!at it would be unfair to allow employees ofgovernment corporations to resort to concerted activity wit! t!e ever present t!reat of a stri e to wringbenefits from overnment. !en came t!e 198; #onstitution e*pressly guaranteeing, for t!e first time, t!erig!t of government personnel to self0organi%ation19 to complement t!e provision according wor ers t!erig!t to engage in < peaceful concerte activities, inclu ing the right to stri(e in accor ance )ith la) .< H

(t was against t!e bac drop of t!e aforesaid provisions of t!e 198; #onstitution t!at t!e #ourtresolved0angalisan v* Court of Appeals. 1 (n it, we !eld, citingMP%TA v* &aguio, :r*, t!at employees in t!epublic service may not engage in stri es or in concerted and unaut!ori%ed stoppage of wor t!at t!e rig!tof government employees to organi%e is limited to t!e formation of unions or associations, wit!out includingt!e rig!t to stri e.

:acinto v* Court of Appeals3 %&'( )(*+ &) +-( ( /( (* & )( @

)pecifically, t!e rig!t of civil servants to organi%e t!emselves was positively recogni%ed inAssociation of #ourt of Appeals /mployees vs. 7errer0#ale2a. :ut, as in t!e e*ercise of t!e rig!ts offree e*pression and of assembly,+-( ( & ( +&) & & /& ( ' +&+ ) suc! as t!elegitimacy of t!e purpose of t!e association, KandL t!e overriding considerations of national security. . . .

As regards t!e rig!t to stri e, t!e #onstitution itself ualifies its e*ercise wit! t!e provision


46/116

)ignificantly, 1986 #onstitutional #ommission member /ulogio +erum, answering in t!e negative t!e poserof w!et!er or not t!e rig!t of government employees to self0organi%ation also includes t!e rig!t to stri e,stated@

!en we proposed t!is amendment providing for self organi%ation of government employees, it

does not mean t!at because t!ey !ave t!e rig!t to organi%e, t!ey !ave also t!e rig!t to stri e. !atis a different matter. ***F

it! t!e view we ta e of t!e events t!at transpired on ctober 40;, HH4, w!at respondent-s memberslaunc!ed or participated in during t!at time partoo of a stri e or, w!at conte*tually amounts to t!e samet!ing, a pro!ibited concerted activity. !e p!rase < prohi'ite concerte activity < refers to any collectiveactivity underta en by government employees, by t!emselves or t!roug! t!eir employees- organi%ation, wit! t!e intent of effecting wor stoppage or service disruption in order to reali%e t!eir demands or forceconcessions, economic or ot!erwise it includes mass leaves, wal outs, pic ets and acts of similarnature. 6 (ndeed, forfour straight ays, participating &M members and ot!er )() employees staged a wal out and waged or participated in a mass protest or demonstration rig!t at t!e very doorstep of t!e

)() main office building. !e record of attendance;

for t!e period material s!ows t!at, on t!e first day oft!e protest, 8F1 employees, orforty eight per cent F38G of the total nu!'er of e!ployees in t!e mainoffice 1,;F6$ too to t!e streets during office !ours, from 6 a.m. to p.m.,8leaving t!e ot!er employees tofend for t!emselves in an office w!ere a !ost of transactions ta e place every business day. n t!e secondday, ;H; employees left t!eir respective wor stations, w!ile F38 participated in t!e mass action on t!e t!irdday. A smaller number, i.e.,?>5 e!ployees , but by no means an insignificant few, 2oined t!e fourt! dayactivity.

o say t!at t!ere was no wor disruption or t!at t!e delivery of services remained at t!e usual level ofefficiency at t!e )() main office during t!ose four 4$ days of massive wal outs and w!olesale absences would be to understate t!ings. And to place t!e erring employees beyond t!e reac! of administrative

accountability would be to triviali%e t!e civil service rules, not to mention t!e compelling spirit ofprofessionalism e*acted of civil servants by t!e #ode of #onduct and /t!ical )tandards for 'ublic fficialsand /mployees. 9

!e appellate court made specific reference to t!e


47/116

!e #ourt can concede !ypot!etically t!at t!e protest rally and gat!ering in uestion did not involve somespecific material demand. :ut t!en t!e absence of suc! economic0related demand, even if true, did not,under t!e premises, ma e suc! mass action less of a pro!ibited concerted activity. 7or, as articulatedearlier, any collective activity underta en by government employees wit! t!e intent of effecting worstoppage or service disruption in order to reali%e t!eir demands or force concessions, economic or

ot!erwise, is a pro!ibited concerted mass action31

and doubtless actionableadministratively.0angalisan even went furt!er to say t!e following@= iEn the a'sence of statute, pu'lice!ployees o not have the right to engage in concerte )or( stoppages for any purpose*=

o petitioner arcia, as 'resident and eneral Manager of )(), rests t!e aut!ority and responsibility,under )ection 4F of 5epublic Act >o. 8 91, t!e#%I% Act of 7662 , to remove, suspend or ot!erwisediscipline )() personnel for cause.3 At bottom t!en, petitioner arcia, by filing or causing t!e filing ofadministrative c!arges against t!e absenting participants of t!e ctober 40;, HH4 mass action, merelyperformed a duty e*pected of !im and en2oined by law. 5egardless of t!e mood petitioner arcia was in w!en !e signed t!e c!arge s!eet, !is act can easily be sustained as legally correct and doubtless wit!in !is 2urisdiction.

(t bears to reiterate at t!is point t!at t!e )() employees concerned were proceeded against 0 andeventually eit!er e*onerated, reprimanded or meted a one0mont! suspension, as t!e case may be 0 not fort!e e*ercise of t!eir rig!t to assemble peacefully and to petition for redress of grievance, but for engagingin w!at appeared to be a pro!ibited concerted activity. 5espondent no less admitted t!at its members andot!er )() employees mig!t !ave disrupted public service. 33

o be sure, arbitrariness and w!imsical e*ercise of power or, in fine, grave abuse of discretion on t!e partof petitioner arcia cannot be simplistically inferred from t!e s!eer number of t!ose c!arged as well as t!egravity or t!e dire conse uences of t!e c!arge of grave misconduct and conduct pre2udicial to t!e bestinterest of t!e service, as t!e appellate court made it to appear. !e principle of accountability demands

t!at every erring government employee be made answerable for any malfeasance or misfeasancecommitted. And lest it be overloo ed, t!e mere filing of formal administrative case, regardless of t!e gravityof t!e offense c!arged, does not overcome t!e presumptive innocence of t!e persons complained of nordoes it s!ift t!e burden of evidence to prove guilt of an administrative offense from t!e complainant.

Moreover, t!e #ourt invites attention to its !olding inMP%TA v* &aguio, :r ., a case involving over 8HH publicsc!ool teac!ers w!o too part in mass actions for w!ic! t!e t!en )ecretary of /ducation filedadministrative complaints on assorted c!arges, suc! as gross misconduct. f t!ose c!arged, 6FH weredismissed and 19F suspended for at least si* 6$ mont!s !e #ourt, !owever, did not consider t!e elementof number of respondents t!ereat andGor t!e dire conse uences of t!e c!argeGs as fatally vitiating orbeclouding t!e 'ona fi esof t!e )ecretary of /ducation-s c!allenged action. !en as now, t!e #ourt findst!e filing of c!arges against a large number of persons andGor t!e li eli!ood t!at t!ey will be suspended or, worse, dismissed from t!e service for t!e offense as indicating a strong and clear case of grave abuse ofaut!ority to 2ustify t!e issuance of a writ of pro!ibition.

!e appellate court faulted petitioner arcia for not first taping e*isting grievance mac!inery and ot!ermodes of settlement agreed upon in t!e )()0&M #ollective >egotiations Agreement #A>$ before goingfull steam a!ead wit! !is formal c!arges.34
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_170132_2006.html#fnt34


48/116

!e #ourt can plausibly accord cogency to t!e #A-s angle on grievance procedure but for t!e fact t!at itconveniently disregarded w!at appears to be t!e more relevant provision of t!e #>A. e refer to Article B( w!ic! reads@

!e )() Management and t!e &M !ave mutually agreed to promote t!e principle of s!ared

responsibility O on all matters and decisions affecting t!e rig!ts, benefits and interests of all )()employees O. Accordingly, O t!e parties also mutually agree t!at t!e &M s!all not declare astri e nor stage any concerted action w!ic! will disrupt public service and t!e )() managements!all not loc outemployees w!o are members of t!e &M during t!e term of t!is agreement. )()Management s!all also respect t!e rig!ts of t!e employees to air t!eir sentiments t!roug! peacefulconcerted activities during allowable !ours, sub2ect to reasonable office rules ....3F Dnderscoringadded$

(f t!e finger of blame, t!erefore, is to be pointed at someone for non0e*!austion of less confrontationalremedies, it s!ould be at t!e respondent union for spear!eading a concerted mass action wit!out resortingto available settlement mec!anism. As it were, it was &M , under Atty. Alberto Belasco, w!ic! opened fire

first. !at none of t!e parties bot!ered to avail of t!e grievance procedures under t!e )()0&M #>As!ould not be ta en against t!e )(). At best, bot! )() management and t!e Dnion s!ould beconsidered as in pari elicto.

it! t!e foregoing dis uisitions, t!e #ourt finds it unnecessary to discuss at lengt! t!e legal standing ofAlberto Belasco to represent t!e !erein respondent union and to initiate t!e underlying petition forpro!ibition. )uffice it to state t!at Belasco, per Joint 5esolution >o. H401H0H1 approved on ctober F, HH4by t!e &M Joint /*ecutive0+egislative Assembly, !ad ceased to be member, let alone president, of t!e&M , !aving previously been dropped from t!e rolls of )() employees.36 !ile t!e dropping from t!erolls is alleged to !ave been t!e sub2ect of a #A0issued temporary restraining order 5 $, t!e in2unctioncame after Atty. Belasco !ad in fact been separated from t!e service and it appears t!at t!e 5 !ad

already e*pired.As a final consideration, t!e #ourt notes or reiterates t!e following relevant incidents surrounding t!edisposition of t!e case below@

1. !e #A !ad invo ed as part of itsratio eci en i a dissenting opinion inMP%TA, even going tot!e e*tent of describing as


49/116

ot!er formal c!arges arising from t!e same events. !e in2unction was predicated on a finding t!atgrave abuse of discretion attended t!e e*ercise of petitioner arcia-s disciplinary power vested !imunder )ection 4F of 5A 8 91.38 At bottom t!en, t!e assailed decision struc down as a nullity,owing to t!e alleged attendant arbitrariness, not only acts t!at !ave already been done, but t!oseyet to be done. (n net effect, any formal c!arge arising from t!e ctober 40;, HH4 incident is,

under any and all circumstances, pre2udged as necessarily tainted wit! arbitrariness to be slain atsig!t.

!e absurdities and ironies easily deducible from t!e foregoing situations are not lost on t!e #ourt.

e close wit! t!e observation t!at t!e assailed decision and resolution, if allowed to remain undisturbed, would li ely pave t!e way to t!e legitimi%ation of mass actions underta en by civil servants, regardless oft!eir deleterious effects on t!e interest of t!e public t!ey !ave sworn to serve wit! loyalty and efficiency.

orse still, it would permit t!e emergence of a system w!ere public sector wor ers are, as t!e petitionersaptly put it,


50/116

n August 9, 1989, ':) )/D instituted a 'etition 8 for #ertification /lection to determine t!e sole ande*clusive bargaining agent of t!e supervisory and tec!nical staff employees of '(# ' for collectivebargaining agreement #:A$ purposes.

(n a >otice9 dated August 1H, 1989, t!e initial !earing of t!e petition was set on August 18, 1989 but it was

reset to August F, 1989, at t!e instance of '(# ', as it re uested a fifteen 1F$ day period wit!in w!ic! tofile its comments andGor position paper. :ut '(# ' failed to file any comment or position paper. Meanw!ile,private respondents 7ederation of 7ree or ers 77 $ and Associated +abor Dnion A+D$ filed t!eirrespective petitions for intervention.

n )eptember 14, 1989, Med0Arbiter Arturo +. amolo issued an rder 1H granting t!e petitions forinterventions of t!e 77 and A+D. Anot!er rder 11 issued on t!e same day set t!e !olding of acertification election among '(# '-s supervisory and tec!nical staff

Labor Law 3rd Set

Documents

Transcript of Labor Law 3rd Set