kaso III.docx

8/18/2019 kaso III.docx

1/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989.BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERTI!E, INC., petitioner,vs.

"ON. PUR #ERRER$CLLE%, D&rec'or o( ')e B*re+* o( L+borRe+'&o-, +-/ BENECO EMPLOEES LBOR UNION, respondents.E.L. Gayo & Associates for petitioner. CORTES, J.:On une !", "#$% &eneco 'or(er)s *abor +nion-ssociation of Deocratic*abor Or/ani0ations 1hereinafter referred to as &'*+ -D*O2 3led a petition fordirect certi3cation as the sole and e4clusive bar/ainin/ representative of all theran( and 3le eplo5ees of &en/uet 6lectric 7ooperative, Inc. 1hereinafterreferred to as &6N67O2 at -lapan/, *a Trinidad, &en/uet alle/in/, inter alia,that &6N67O has in its eplo5 t8o hundred and fourteen 1!"92 ran( and 3leeplo5ees: that one hundred and ninet5ei/ht 1"#$2 or #!.%; of theseeplo5ees have supported the 3lin/ of the petition: that no certi3cationelection has been conducted for the last "! onths: that there is no e4istin/collective bar/ainin/ representative of the ran( and 3le eplo5ees sou/ht torepresented b5 &'*+ -D*O: and, that there is no collective bar/ainin/

a/reeent in the cooperative.-n opposition to the petition 8as 3led b5 the &eneco 6plo5ees *abor +nion1hereinafter referred to as &6*+2 contendin/ that it 8as certi3ed as the sole ande4clusive bar/ainin/ representative of the sub


2/126

resolved and clari3ed in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc.vs. Ferrer Calleja, et al. F.R. No. @@#%, Septeber !,"#$$G and reiterated inthe cases of Batanas!Electric Cooperative La"or #nion v. $oun, et al. F.R.Nos. !?$, @=$$= and @9%= Noveber #, "#$$G and %an ose City Electric%ervice Cooperative, Inc. v. 'inistry of La"or an( E)ploy)ent, et al. F.R. No.@@!?", Ma5 ?", "#$#G 8herein the 7ourt had stated that the ri/ht to collectivebar/ainin/ is not available to an eplo5ee of a cooperative 8ho at the saetie is a eber and coo8ner thereof. 'ith respect, ho8ever, to eplo5ees8ho are neither ebers nor coo8ners of the cooperative the5 are entitled toe4ercise the ri/hts to selfor/ani0ation, collective bar/ainin/ and ne/otiation asandated b5 the "#$@ 7onstitution and applicable statutes.Respondent director ar/ues that to den5 the ebers of petitioner cooperativethe ri/ht to for, assist or


3/126

e4clusive bar/ainin/ representative of the ran( and 3le eplo5ees of petitionercooperative.'H6R6BOR6, the petition is hereb5 R-NT6D and the assailed resolution ofrespondent director is -NN+**6D. The certi3cation election conducted onOctober ", "#$, is S6T -SID6. The Re/ional OKce No. " of San Bernando, *a+nion is hereb5 directed to iediatel5 conduct ne8 certi3cation electionproceedin/s aon/ the ran( and 3le eplo5ees of the petitioner 8ho are notebers of the cooperative.SO ORD6R6D.


4/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaBIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 8291 %*-e 20, 1988PTIRN S MET ND CNNING DI!ISION 3TUPS Loc+ C)+4'er No.1027, petitioner,vs.T"E "ONORBLE BLR DIRECTOR PUR #ERRER CLLE%, MET NDCNNING DI!ISION UNI!ERSL ROBIN CORPORTION +-/ MET NDCNNING DI!ISION NE6 EMPLOEES ND 6ORERS UNITED LBORORGNITION, respondents. Alar, Co)ia, 'analo an( Associates for petitioner.Danilo Bolos for respon(ent Ro"ina Corporation.R 6 S O * + T I O N GRIO$UINO, J.:

The petitioner, apatiran sa Meat and 7annin/ Division T+P-S *ocal 7hapterNo. "=!@2 hereinafter referred to as JT+P-S,J see(s a revie8 of the resolutiondated anuar5 !@, "#$$ 1-nne4 D2 of public respondent Pura Berrer7alle


5/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaBIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 80887 Se4'ember :0, 199BLISS DE!ELOPMENT CORPORTION EMPLOEES UNION 3BDCEU$SENTRO NG DEMORTIONG MNGGG6 3SDM, petitioner,vs.

"ON. PUR #ERRER CLLE% +-/ BLISS DE!ELOPMENTCORPORTION, respondents.Capulon, 'apantay, La(ri(o, Canilao an( 'ala"anan for private respon(ent. PUNN, J.:

The focal issue in the case at bench is 8hether or not &liss Developent7orporation 1&D72 is a /overnento8ned controlled corporation subuestionof 8hether or not petitioner is covered b5 64ecutive Order No. "$= and ustre/ister under Section @ thereof as a precondition for 3lin/ a petition forcerti3cation election.

The antecedents of the case areAOn October "=, "#$, petitioner, a dul5 re/istered labor union, 3led 8ith theDepartent of *abor, National 7apital Re/ion, a petition for certi3cationelection of private respondent &liss Developent 7orporation 1&D72.&ased on the position papers subitted b5 the parties, Med-rbiter Napoleon V.Bernando, in an order dated anuar5 !, "#$@, disissed the petition for lac( of


6/126

and bar/ain collectivel5. This, therefore, renders acadeic the order subuentl5, this &ureau hereb5 enuired the parties to 3le their respective eoranda 8hich 8ascoplied 8ith. The Solicitor eneral be//ed leave to be relieved fro 3lin/ acoent on the petition and a eorandu, averrin/ that he could notsustain the position of respondent Director.

The petition is ipressed 8ith erit.Section " of 64ecutive Order No. "$= e4pressl5 liits its application to onl5/overnento8ned or controlled corporations it/ oriinal c/arters. Hence,public respondent)s order dated -u/ust @, "#$@ re>uirin/ petitioner to re/isterin accordance 8ith Section @ of e4ecutive Order No. "$= is 8ithout le/al basis.'ithout cate/oricall5 sa5in/ so, public respondent sustained the Med-rbiter)sinvocation of the case of 0ational 1ousin Corporation v. uco, 8hich rulesthat the inclusion of J/overnento8ned or controlled corporationsJ 8ithin theebrace of the civil service sho8s a deliberate eLort of the fraers of the "#@?7onstitution to plu/ an earlier loophole 8hich allo8ed /overnento8ned orcontrolled corporations to avoid the full conse>uences of the all encopassin/covera/e of the civil service s5ste. In said case, 8e stressed thatA

Section " of -rticle II&, 7onstitution uses the 8ord Jever5J to odif5 thephrase J/overnento8ned or controlled corporation.J6ver5 eans each one of a /roup, 8ithout e4ception. It eans all possible andall, ta(en one b5 one. Of course, our decision in this case refers to a corporationcreated as a /overnento8ned or controlledentit5. . . . . 5

Ho8ever, our rulin/ in 01C v. uco ; case, 8hich 8as decided under the "#@?7onstitution, lost its applicabilit5 8ith the advent of the "#$@ 7onstitution.

Thus, in 0ational %ervice Corporation v. 0LRC, 7 8e held thatA. . . 1I2n the atter of covera/e b5 the civil service of /overnento8ned orcontrolled corporations, the "#$@ 7onstitution star(l5 varies fro the "#@?7onstitution, upon 8hich National Housin/ 7orporation vs. uco is based. +nderthe "#@? 7onstitution, it 8as provided thatA

The civil service ebraces ever5 branch, a/enc5, subdivision, andinstruentalit5 of the overnent, includin/ ever5 /overnento8ned or

controlled corporation. . . . F7onstitution, "#@?, -rt. II&, Sec. I1"2G

On the other hand, the "#$@ 7onstitution provides thatA The civil service ebraces all branches, subdivisions, instruentalities, anda/encies of the overnent, includin/ /overnento8ned or controlledcorporations it/ oriinal c/arter . 16phasis supplied2 F7onstitution 1"#$@2,-rt. I&, Sec. !1"2.

Thus the situations sou/ht to be avoided b5 the "#@? 7onstitution ande4pressed b5 the 7ourt in the0ational 1ousin Corporation case in thefollo8in/ anner

The in3rit5 of the respondents) position lies in its perittin/ a circuventionor easculation of Section ", -rticle II& of the 7onstitution. It 8ould bepossible for a re/ulate inistr5 of /overnent to create a host of subsidiar5corporations under the 7orporation 7ode funded b5 a 8illin/ le/islature. -/overnento8ned corporation could create several subsidiar5 corporations.

These subsidiar5 corporations 8ould enuired b5 the 7ivil Service Decree and the re/ulations of the7oission on -udit. Their incoes 8ould not be subuires a uireents of 8hich ust be coplied 8ith b5 those 8ishin/ to incorporate.Onl5 upon such copliance 8ill the corporation coe into bein/ and ac>uire a


7/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila6N &-N7 G.R. No. 1250 No


8/126

IssuesPetitioners raise the follo8in/ /rounds for their appealAI. The Respondent 7ourt of -ppeals coitted /rave abuse of discretion 8henit upheld the resolutions of the 7ivil Service 7oission that penali0ed all thepetitioners 8hose onl5 JoLenseJ 1e4cept acinto2 8as to e4ercise theirconstitutional ri/ht peaceabl5 to asseble and petition the /overnent forredress of /rievances.II. The Respondent 7ourt of -ppeals coitted /rave abuse of discretion 8henit upheld the resolutions of the 7ivil Service 7oission that penali0edPetitioner acinto for an alle/ed oLense 8hich has no basis 8hatsoever thereb5violatin/ her ri/ht to securit5 of tenure.III. The Respondent 7ourt of -ppeals coitted /rave abuse of discretion 8henit upheld the resolutions of the 7ivil Service 7oission that denied petitionerstheir ri/ht to bac(8a/es coverin/ the period 8hen the5 8ere ille/all5 notallo8ed to teach. 10

Preliinaril5, 8e note that the reed5 resorted to b5 petitioners is a petitionfor revie8 under Rule 9% of the Rules of 7ourt 8hich, ho8ever, allo8s Jonl5>uestions of la8.J 11 urisprudence has e4tended this reed5 to >uestions offact in e4ceptional cases. 12 'here the issues raised involve lac( of


9/126

re/ard the deonstration a/ainst police oKcers, not a/ainst the eplo5er, asevidence of bad faith in collective bar/ainin/ and hence a violation of thecollective bar/ainin/ a/reeent and a cause for the disissal froeplo5ent of the deonstratin/ eplo5ees, stretches undul5 the copass of the collective bar/ainin/ a/reeent, is Ja potent eans of inhibitin/ speechJand therefore inicts a oral as 8ell as ortal 8ound on the constitutional/uarantees of free e4pression, of peaceful assebl5 and of petition. 25

Speci3call5, the ri/ht of civil servants to or/ani0e theselves 8as positivel5reco/ni0ed in Association of Court of Appeals E)ployees 7ACAE8 vs. Ferrer!Calleja. 2; &ut, as in the e4ercise of the ri/hts of free e4pression and ofassebl5, there are standards for allo8able liitations such as the le/itiac5of the purposes of the association,27 the overridin/ considerations of nationalsecurit5 and the preservation of deocratic institutions. 28

-s re/ards the ri/ht to stri(e, the 7onstitution itself >uali3es its e4ercise 8iththe proviso Jin accordance 8ith la8.J This is a clear anifestation that the statea5, b5 la8, re/ulate the use of this ri/ht, or even den5 certain sectors suchri/ht. 64ecutive Order "$= 29 8hich provides /uidelines for the e4ercise of theri/ht of /overnent 8or(ers to or/ani0e, for instance, iplicitl5 endorsed anearlier 7S7 circular 8hich Jen


10/126

ineluctabl5 resultin/ in the nonholdin/ of classes and in the deprivation ofstudents of education, for 8hich the5 8ere responsible. Had petitioners availedtheselves of their free tie recess, after classes, 8ee(ends or holida5s to draati0e their /rievances and to dialo/ue 8ith the proper authorities 8ithinthe bounds of la8, no one not the D67S, the 7S7 or even this 7ourt couldhave held the liable for the valid e4ercise of their constitutionall5 /uaranteedri/hts. -s it 8as, the teporar5 stoppa/e of classes resultin/ fro their activit5necessaril5 disrupted public services, the ver5 evil sou/ht to be forestalled b5the prohibition a/ainst stri(es b5 /overnent 8or(ers. Their act b5 its nature

8as enuires 1"2 the 3lin/ of the application for sic( leave on theprescribed for iediatel5 upon the eplo5ee)s return fro sic( leave and1!2 a notice of absence to be sent to the iediate supervisor andCor oKcehead. &ut the 7oission found that Jthe records are bereft of an5 sho8in/that acinto as(ed perission fro school authorities to /o out of school

preises and see( edical attention outside nor did she 3le an application forsic( leave . . .J 51 Hence, its conclusion that petitioner violated reasonable oKcerules and re/ulations.

The totalit5 of the evidence on record sustains the 3ndin/s and conclusions ofthe 7oission, as aKred b5 the 7ourt of -ppeals. 'e have no reason toreverse the. The 7ivil Service rules clearl5 provide that violation ofreasonable oKce rules and re/ulations, on 3rst oLense, carries the penalt5 ofrepriand. 52

3/ir( IssueA 0o Ri/t to BackaesPetitioners anchor their clai for bac(8a/es on the supposed ille/alit5 of 1"2their preventive suspension upon the 3lin/ of the char/es a/ainst the and 1!2the iediate e4ecution of the D67S Secretar5)s decisions orderin/ theirdisissal.

The char/es a/ainst petitioners consisted of the follo8in/A 1"2 /raveisconduct: 1!2 /ross ne/lect of dut5: 1?2 /ross violation of 7ivil Service la8,rules and re/ulations and reasonable oKce re/ulations: 192 refusal to perforoKcial dut5: 1%2 /ross insubordination: 12 conduct pre


11/126

thirt5 da5s) salar5. In case the decision rendered b5 a bureau or oKce head isappealable to the 7oission, the sae a5 be initiall5 appealed to thedepartent and 3nall5 to the 7oission and pendin/ appeal, the sae shallbe e4ecutor5 e4cept 8hen the penalt5 is reoval, in 8hich case the sae shallbe e4ecutor5 onl5 after con3ration b5 the Secretar5 concerned.-s can be /leaned fro the above, the departent secretar5)s decisioncon3rin/ the reoval of an oKcer or eplo5ee under his uitted of the char/e a/ainst the. 5; 6ven a pardoned convictedeplo5ee is not autoaticall5 entitled to bac(pa5. 'onsanto vs. Factoran r . 57 established the /eneral rule that 8hile pardon has been coonl5re/arded as eliinatin/ the e4istence of /uilt so that in the e5es of the la8 theoLender is as innocent as thou/h he never coitted the oLense suche4oneration does not operate for all purposes. It does not erase the fact of thecoission of the oLense and the conviction therefor. It frees the convict froall penalties and le/al disabilities and restores to hi all his civil ri/hts: butunless e4pressl5 /rounded on the person)s innocence, it does not ipsofacto restore hi to public oKce necessaril5 relin>uished or forfeited b5 reasonof the conviction. Pardon does not /enerall5 result in autoatic reinstateentbecause the oLender has to appl5 for reappointent: neither is he entitled tobac(pa5. 58

Thus, in %a"ello vs. DEC%, 59 althou/h 8e reinstated the petitionerpardonee tohis previous position in the interest of Juit5,J 8e did not /rant hibac(8a/es since he J8as la8full5 separated fro the /overnent service uponhis conviction for an oLense.J 'e reiterated that the ri/ht to bac(8a/es 8asaLorded onl5 to those 8ho 8ere ille/all5 disissed but thereafter orderedreinstated, or to those other8ise ac>uitted of the char/e a/ainst the.-/ain, in City 'ayor of


12/126

1@2 8hen the 7ourt of -ppeals fails to notice certain relevant facts 8hich, ifproperl5 considered, 8ill uence of the coent or utterance ust be)e4treel5 serious and the de/ree of iinence e4treel5 hi/h) before theutterance can be punished. The dan/er to be /uarded a/ainst is the)substantive evil) sou/ht to be prevented. -nd this evil is priaril5 the)disorderl5 and unfair adinistration of uestion in ever5 case, accordin/ to ustice HolesFin Schenc( vs. +.S., !9# +.S. 9@G, is 8hether the 8ords used are used in suchcircustances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present dan/erthat the5 8ill brin/ about the substantive evils that F7Gon/ress has a ri/ht toprevent. It is a >uestion of pro4iit5 and de/ree.J!? J. . . The applicants for a perit to hold an assebl5 should infor thelicensin/ authorit5 of the date, the public place 8here and the tie 8hen it 8illta(e place. If it 8ere a private place, onl5 the consent of the o8ner or the oneentitled to its le/al possession is re>uired. Such application should be 3led 8ellahead in tie to enable the public oKcial concerned to appraise 8hether therea5 be valid ob


13/126

%! Sec. !", par. 9 1c2 of the Rules ipleentin/ the -dinistrative 7ode andother pertinent civil service la8s.%? Petition, p. ?!: rollo, p. 9?.%9 Subtitle -, Title I, &oo( V of 6.O. !#!, 8hich too( eLect


14/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaS67OND DIVISION G.R. No. 85750 Se4'ember 28, 1990INTERNTIONL CT"OLIC IMMIGRTION COMMISSION, petitionervs"ON. PUR CLLE% IN "ER CPCIT S DIRECTOR O# T"E BUREU

O# LBOR RELTIONS ND TRDE UNIONS O# T"E P"ILIPPINES NDLLIED SER!ICES 3TUPS 6#TU respondents.G.R. No. 89::1 Se4'ember 28, 1990PISNN NG MNGGG6 T TC S IRRI$ORGNIED LBORSSOCITION IN LINE INDUSTRIES ND GRICULTURE, petitioner,vsSECRETR O# LBOR ND EMPLOMENT ND INTERNTIONL RICERESERC" INSTITUTE, INC.,respondents. Araullo, ?@?.Do)inue+, Ar)a)ento, Ca"ana & Associates for petitioner in G.R. 0o. >. i)ene+ & Associates for IRRI. Alfre(o L. Bentulan for private respon(ent in >?@?. MELENCIO$"ERRER, J.:7onsolidated on "" Deceber "#$#, these t8o cases involve the validit5 of theclai of iunit5 b5 the International 7atholic Mi/ration 7oission 1I7M72and the International Rice Research Institute, Inc. 1IRRI2 fro the application ofPhilippine labor la8s.IFacts an( Issues-. .R. No. $%@%= t/e International Cat/olic 'iration Co))ission 7IC'C8Case.-s an afterath of the Vietna 'ar, the pli/ht of Vietnaese refu/ees eein/fro South Vietna)s counist rule confronted the international counit5.In response to this crisis, on !? Bebruar5 "#$", an -/reeent 8as for/edbet8een the Philippine overnent and the +nited Nations Hi/h 7oissionerfor Refu/ees 8hereb5 an operatin/ center for processin/ Indo7hinese refu/eesfor eventual resettleent to other countries 8as to be established in &ataan1-nne4 J-J, Rollo, pp. !!?!2.I7M7 8as one of those accredited b5 the Philippine overnent to operate therefu/ee processin/ center in Moron/, &ataan. It 8as incorporated in Ne8 Eor(,+S-, at the re>uest of the Hol5 See, as a nonpro3t a/enc5 involved ininternational huanitarian and voluntar5 8or(. It is dul5 re/istered 8ith the+nited Nations 6conoic and Social 7ouncil 167OSO72 and en


15/126

7onstitution, infra: and -rticles !9? and !9 of the *abor 7ode, as aended,i"i(. In addition, she contends that a certi3cation election is not a liti/ation buta ere investi/ation of a nonadversar5, fact3ndin/ character. It is not a suita/ainst I7M7 its propert5, funds or assets, but is the sole concern of the8or(ers theselves.&. .R. No. $#??" 73/e International Rice Researc/ Institute IRRI Case8.&efore a Decision could be rendered in the I7M7 7ase, the Third Division, on ""Deceber "#$#, resolved to consolidate .R. No. $#??" pendin/ before it 8ith.R. No. $%@%=, the lo8ernubered case pendin/ 8ith the Second Division,

upon anifestation b5 the Solicitor eneral that both cases involve siilarissues.

The facts disclose that on # Deceber "#%#, the Philippine overnent andthe Bord and Roc(efeller Boundations si/ned a Meorandu of +nderstandin/establishin/ the International Rice Research Institute 1IRRI2 at *os &aos,*a/una. It 8as intended to be an autonoous, philanthropic, ta4free, nonpro3t, nonstoc( or/ani0ation desi/ned to carr5 out the principal obuantit5 of rice.JInitiall5, IRRI 8as or/ani0ed and re/istered 8ith the Securities and 64chan/e7oission as a private corporation subuestion that diploatic iunit5 has, in fact, been /rantedI7M7 and IRRI.-rticle II of the Meorandu of -/reeent bet8een the Philippine overnentand I7M7 provides that I7M7 shall have a status Jsiilar to that of a speciali0eda/enc5.J -rticle III, Sections 9 and % of the 7onvention on the Privile/es and

Iunities of Speciali0ed -/encies, adopted b5 the +N eneral -ssebl5 on


16/126

!" Noveber "#9@ and concurred in b5 the Philippine Senate throu/hResolution No. "# on "@ Ma5 "#9#, e4plicitl5 providesA-rt. III, Section 9. The speciali0ed a/encies, their propert5 and assets, 8hereverlocated and b5 8hosoever held, shall enjoy i))unity fro) every for) ofleal process e4cept insofar as in an5 particular case the5 have e4pressl58aived their iunit5. It is, ho8ever, understood that no 8aiver of iunit5shall e4tend to an5 easure of e4ecution.Sec. %. The preises of the speciali0ed a/encies shall be inviolable. Thepropert5 and assets of the speciali0ed a/encies, 8herever located and b5

8hosoever held shall be iune fro search, re>uisition, con3scation,e4propriation and an5 other for of interference, 8hether b5 e4ecutive,adinistrative,


17/126

I7M7)s and IRRI)s iunit5 fro local


18/126

Section $. /ere to 9le appeal appellant shall 3le his appeal 8hich shall beunder oath, in the Re/ional OKce 8here the case ori/inated, cop5 furnishedthe appellee.Section #. 4erio( to Appeal. The appeal shall be 3led 8ithin ten 1"=2 8or(in/da5s fro receipt of the Order b5 the appellant. *i(e8ise, the appellee shall 3lehis ans8er thereto 8ithin ten 1"=2 8or(in/ da5s fro receipt of the appeal. TheRe/ional Director shall iediatel5 for8ard the entire records of the case tothe &ureau.Section "=. Decision of t/e Bureau is 9nal an( unappeala"le. The &ureau

shall have t8ent5 1!=2 8or(in/ da5s 8ithin 8hich to decide the appeal froreceipt of the records of the case. The decision of the &ureau in all cases shallbe 3nal and unappealable.? 'orld Health Or/ani0ation and Dr. *eonce Verstu5ft v. Hon. &enuino, et al., *?%"?", !# Noveber "#@!, 9$ S7R- !9!.9 MI7H-6* -6H+RST - MOD6RN INTROD+7TION TO INT6RN-TION-* *-'1"#$92 at #.% The leadin/


19/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 12000 %+-*+r> 22, 200:TGT "IG"LNDS INTERNTIONL GOL# CLUBINCORPORTED, petitioner,vs.TGT "IG"LNDS EMPLOEES UNION$PGT6O, respondent.

CRPIO$MORLES, J.?&efore this 7ourt on certiorari under Rule 9% is the petition of the Ta/a5ta5Hi/hlands International olf 7lub Incorporated 1THI7I2 assailin/ the Bebruar5"%, !==! decision of the 7ourt of -ppeals den5in/ its petition to annul theDepartent of *abor and 6plo5ent 1DO*62 Resolutions of Noveber "!,"##$ and Deceber !#, "##$.On October ", "##@, the Ta/a5ta5 Hi/hlands 6plo5ees +nion 1TH6+2Philippine Transport and eneral 'or(ers Or/ani0ation 1PT'O2, *ocal 7hapterNo. @@, a le/itiate labor or/ani0ation said to represent a


20/126

t8ent5 percent 1!=;2 ebership re>uireent is not necessar5 for it toac>uire le/itiate status, hence, Jthe alle/ed retraction and 8ithdra8al ofsupport b5 9% of the @= reainin/ ran(and3le ebers . . . cannot ne/atethe le/itiac5 it has alread5 ac>uired before the petition:J that rather thandisre/ard the le/itiate status alread5 conferred on TH6+ b5 the &ureau of*abor Relations, the naes of alle/ed dis>uali3ed supervisor5 eplo5ees andeplo5ees of the 7ountr5 7lub, Inc., a separate and distinct corporation, shouldsipl5 be reoved fro the TH6+s roster of ebership: and that re/ardin/the participation of alle/ed resi/ned and -'O* eplo5ees and those 8hose

si/natures are ille/ible, the issue can be resolved durin/ the inclusione4clusionproceedin/s at the preelection sta/e.

The records of the case 8ere thus ordered reanded to the OKce of the Med-rbiter for the conduct of certi3cation election.

THI7Is Motion for Reconsideration of the Noveber "!, "##$ Resolutionhavin/ been denied b5 the DO*6 +ndersecretar5 b5 Resolution of Deceber!#, "##$,"" it 3led a petition for certiorari before this 7ourt 8hich, b5 Resolutionof -pril "9, "###,"! referred it to the 7ourt of -ppeals in line 8ith itspronounceent in 0ational Fe(eration of La"or 70FL8 v. 1on. Bienveni(o E.Laues)a, et al.,"? and in strict observance of the hierarch5 of courts, asephasi0ed in the case of %t. 'artin Funeral 1o)e v. 0ational La"or RelationsCo))ission."9

&5 Decision of Bebruar5 "%, !===,"% the 7ourt of -ppeals denied THI7IsPetition for 7ertiorari and aKred the DO*6 Resolution dated Noveber "!,"##$. It held that 8hile a petition for certi3cation election is an e4ception to the

innocent b5stander rule, hence, the eplo5er a5 pra5 for the disissal ofsuch petition on the basis of lac( of utualit5 of interests of the ebers ofthe union as 8ell as lac( of eplo5ereplo5ee relationship follo8in/ this7ourts rulin/ in 3oyota 'otor 4/ilippines Corporation v. 3oyota 'otor4/ilippines Corporation La"or #nion et al." and Dunlop %la+ener 4/ils. v.1on. %ecretary of La"or an( E)ploy)ent et al,"@ 4e'&'&o-er (+&e/ 'o +//*ce*b'+-'&+ euent case of Pro/ressive Developent 7orp. 4i++a 1ut v.Le(es)a!= 8hich held thatAJThe *abor 7ode re>uires that in or/ani0ed and unor/ani0ed establishents, a

petition for certi3cation election ust be 3led b5 a le/itiate laboror/ani0ation. The ac>uisition of ri/hts b5 an5 union or labor or/ani0ation,particularl5 the ri/ht to 3le a petition for certi3cation election, Fr' +-/(oremo', /e4e-/on 8hether or not the labor or/ani0ation has attained thestatus of a le/itiate labor or/ani0ation.In the case before us, the Med-rbiter suaril5 disre/arded the petitionerspra5er that the forer loo( into the le/itiac5 of the respondent +nion b5 as8eepin/ declaration that the union 8as in the possession of a chartercerti3cate so that Ufor all intents and purposes, Suasa(la8 sa Man//a/a8a saPi00a Hut 18as2 a le/itiate or/ani0ation,J!" 1+nderscorin/ and ephasissupplied2,petitioner contends that, >uotin/ 3oyota, JFiGt becoes necessar5 . . ., anteriorto the /rantin/ of an order allo8in/ a certi3cation election, to in>uire into thecoposition of an5 labor or/ani0ation 8henever the status of the laboror/ani0ation is challen/ed on the basis of -rticle !9% of the *abor 7ode.J!!

7ontinuin/, petitioner ar/ues that 8ithout resolvin/ the status of TH6+, theDO*6 +ndersecretar5 Jconvenientl5 deferred the resolution on the seriousin3rit5 in the ebership of FTH6+G and ordered the holdin/ of thecerti3cation electionJ 8hich is fro8ned upon as the follo8in/ rulin/ of this 7ourtsho8sA'e also /o -o' +@ree 8ith the rulin/ of the respondent Secretar5 of *abor thatthe in3rit5 in the ebership of the respondent union c+- be reme/&e/ inJthe 4re$eec'&o- co-(ere-ce thru the e4clusioninclusion proceedin/s8herein those eplo5ees 8ho are occup5in/ ran(and3le positions 8ill bee4cluded fro the list of eli/ible voters.J Public respondent /ravel5isappreciated the basic antipath5 bet8een the interest of supervisors and theinterest of ran(and3le eplo5ees. Due to the irreconcilabilit5 of their interest8e held in 3oyota 'otor 4/ilippines v. 3oyota 'otors 4/ilippines CorporationLa"or #nion,vi+ AU4 4 4J7learl5, based on this provision F-rticle !9%G, a labor or/ani0ation coposed of both ran(and3le and supervisor5 eplo5ees is no labor or/ani0ation at all. Itcannot, for an5 /uise or purpose, be a le/itiate labor or/ani0ation. Not bein/one, an or/ani0ation 8hich carries a i4ture of ran(and3le and supervisor5eplo5ees cannot posses an5 of the ri/hts of a le/itiate labor or/ani0ation,includin/ the ri/ht to 3le a petition for certi3cation election for the purpose ofcollective bar/ainin/. It becoes necessar5, therefore, anterior to the /rantin/of an order allo8in/ a certi3cation election, to in>uire into the coposition ofan5 labor or/ani0ation 8henever the status of the labor or/ani0ation ischallen/ed on the basis of -rticle !9% of the *abor 7ode.J 16phasis b5petitioner2 1Dunlop Sla0en/er 1Phils.2, v. Secretar5 of *abor, ?== S7R- "!=F"##$G: +nderscorin/ and ephasis supplied b5 petitioner.2

The petition fails. -fter a certi3cate of re/istration is issued to a union, its le/alpersonalit5 cannot be subuestioned onl5 inan independent petition for cancellation in accordance 8ith Section % of Rule V,


21/126

&oo( IV of the JRules to Ipleent the *abor 7odeJ 1Ipleentin/ Rules28hich section readsASec. %. EJect of reistration. The labor or/ani0ation or 8or(ers associationshall be deeed re/istered and vested 8ith le/al personalit5 on the date ofissuance of its certi3cate of re/istration. Such le/al personalit5 cannotthereafter be sub &- +-&-/e4e-/e-' 4e'&'&o- (or c+-ce+'&o- in accordance 8ith these Rules.16phasis supplied2

The /rounds for cancellation of union re/istration are provided for under -rticle

!?# of the *abor 7ode, as follo8sA-rt. !?#. Groun(s for cancellation of union reistration. The follo8in/ shallconstitute /rounds for cancellation of union re/istrationA1a2 Misrepresentation, false stateent or fraud in connection 8ith the adoptionor rati3cation of the constitution and b5la8s or aendents thereto, theinutes of rati3cation, and the list of ebers 8ho too( part in the rati3cation:1b2 Bailure to subit the docuents entioned in the precedin/ para/raph8ithin thirt5 1?=2 da5s fro adoption or rati3cation of the constitution and b5la8s or aendents thereto:1c2 Misrepresentation, false stateents or fraud in connection 8ith the electionof oKcers, inutes of the election of oKcers, the list of voters, or failure tosubuired b5 the &ureau: and1uireents under -rticles !?@ and !?$,16phasis supplied2,8hile the procedure for cancellation of re/istration is provided for in Rule VIII,&oo( V of the Ipleentin/ Rules.

The inclusion in a union of dis>uali3ed eplo5ees is not aon/ the /rounds forcancellation, unless such inclusion is due to isrepresentation, false stateentor fraud *-/er ')e c&rc*m'+-ce e-*mer+'e/ &- Sec'&o- 3+ +-/ 3c o(r'&ce 2:9 o( +bo


22/126

S67OND DIVISIONHG.R. No. 1250:8. Noue II 8hich disissed and reanded for further proceedin/sthe case for unfair labor practice 3led b5 private respondent Hon/(on/ andShan/hai &an(in/ 7orporation, *td. 1the &an(W2 a/ainst petitioner Hon/(on/and Shan/hai &an(in/ 7orporation 6plo5ees +nion 1the +nionW2, thereco/ni0ed bar/ainin/ representative of the &an(s re/ular ran( and 3leeplo5ees. This petition for certiorariipu/ns the aforesaid Order ofrespondent coission.

The case at bar arose fro the issuance of a none4ecutive uiescin/ thereto, the &an( 3led on -pril %, "##?F%G 8ith the-rbitration &ranch of the N*R7 a coplaint for unfair labor practice a/ainst the+nion alle/edl5 for en/a/in/ in the contrived activities a/ainst the on/oin/ 7&-ne/otiations bet8een the &an( and the +nion in an attept to undul5 coerce

and pressure the &an( into a/reein/ to the +nions deand for the suspensionof the ipleentation of the 6P. It averred that such concerted activities,despite the on/oin/ 7&- ne/otiations, constitute unfair labor practice 1+*P2and a violation of the +nions dut5 to bar/ain collectivel5 under -rticles !9# 1c2and !%! of the *abor 7ode.

The +nion 3led a Motion to DisissFG on the /round that the coplaint statesno cause of action. It alle/ed that its united activities 8ere actuall5 bein/8a/ed to protest the &an(s arbitrar5 iposition of a


23/126

the arbitration branch of ori/in for further proceedin/s in accordance 8ith the/uidelines provided for therein.Hence, this petition.

The +nion asserts that respondent N*R7 coitted /rave abuse of discretionin failin/ to decide that it is not /uilt5 of unfair labor practice considerin/ thatthe concerted activities 8ere actuall5 directed a/ainst the ipleentation ofthe 6P and not at the on/oin/ 7&- ne/otiations since the sae 8ere launchedeven before the start of ne/otiations. Hence, it cannot be deeed to haveen/a/ed in badfaith bar/ainin/. It clais that respondent N*R7 /ravel5 erred

in reandin/ the case for further proceedin/s to deterine 8hether theobue cannot be considered to have e4ceeded his authorit5 in orderin/ theparties to proceed 8ith the 7&- ne/otiations because it 8as precisel5 acoplaint for +*P 8hich the &an( 3led a/ainst the +nion.'e 3nd no erit in the petition.

The ain issue involved in the present case is 8hether or not the labor arbitercorrectl5 ordered the disissal 8ith preuirin/ the &an( to furnish the +nion 8ith the


24/126

divisions of the N*R7 nor in the courts ana/erial authorit5.F"G The hirin/,3rin/, transfer, deotion, and prootion of eplo5ees has been traditionall5identi3ed as a ana/eent prero/ative subuali3cations and aptitude of petitioner, thecoittee and, subse>uentl5, private respondents, deeed it best to appointpetitioner as Secretar5 of the 6n/ineerin/ Departent. 'e cannot eddle insuch a decision lest 8e interfere 8ith the private respondents ri/ht toindependentl5 control and ana/e their operations absent an5 unfair orine>uitable acts.If the purpose of a reor/ani0ation is to be achieved, chan/es in positions andran(in/ of eplo5ees should be e4pected. To insist on ones old position andran(in/ after a reor/ani0ation 8ould render such endeavor ineLectual. Here, tocopel private respondents to /ive petitioner her old ran(in/ 8ould deprivethe of their ri/ht to adopt chan/es in the cooperatives personnel structure as

proposed b5 the Steerin/ 7oittee.4 4 44 4 4 -s 8e have held, securit5 of tenure, 8hile constitutionall5 /uaranteed,cannot be used to deprive an eplo5er of its prero/atives under the la8. 6venif the la8 is solicitous of the 8elfare of the eplo5ees, it ust also protect theri/ht of an eplo5er to e4ercise 8hat are clearl5 ana/eent prero/atives.WF!=G

Not8ithstandin/ the relevance of the fore/oin/ dis>uisition, considerin/ho8ever the factual antecedents in this case, or the lac( of a copletepresentation thereof, 8e are constrained to refrain fro rulin/ outri/ht in favorof the &an(. 'hile it 8ould appear that reandin/ the case 8ould ean afurther dela5 in its disposition, 8e are not inclined to sacri3ce e>uit5 and


25/126

ne/otiations, there is a coentar5 to the eLect that, as one of the reliefs8hich a5 be /ranted in +*P cases, the 7ourt a5, in addition to the usualcease and desist orders, issue an aKrative order to the eplo5er to bar/ainW8ith the bar/ainin/ a/ent, as the e4clusive representative of its eplo5ees,8ith respect to the rate of pa5, hours of 8or(, and other conditions ofeplo5ent.F!"G On this aspect, respondent N*R7 stands to bereversed. Nevertheless, its directive on this point is deeed vacated andineLectual b5 our decision to reand the case for further proceedin/s.6"ERE#ORE, sub


26/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaBIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L$87;72 Oc'ober 1:, 19896ISE ND CO., INC., petitioner,vs.6ISE J CO., INC. EMPLOEES UNION$NTU ND "ONORBLEBIEN!ENIDO G. LGUESM, &- )& c+4+c&'> +


27/126

8ithout fear of an5 liabilit5 so lon/ as it is e4ercised in /ood faith for theadvanceent of the eplo5ers) interest and not for the purpose of defeatin/ orcircuventin/ the ri/hts of eplo5ees under special la8s or valid a/reeentand are not e4ercised in a alicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive or 8antonanner or out of alice or spite. 7

The /rant b5 petitioner of pro3t sharin/ bene3ts to the eplo5ees outside theJbar/ainin/ unitJ falls under the abit of its ana/erial prero/ative. It appearsto have been done in /ood faith and 8ithout ulterior otive. More so 8hen asin this case there is a clause in the 7&- 8here the eplo5ees are classi3ed into

those 8ho are ebers of the union and those 8ho are not. In the case of theunion ebers, the5 derive their bene3ts fro the ters and conditions of the7&- contract 8hich constitute the la8 bet8een the contractin/ parties. 8 &oththe eplo5er and the union ebers are bound b5 such a/reeent.Ho8ever, the court serves notice that it 8ill not hesitate to stri(e do8n an5 actof the eplo5er that tends to be discriinator5 a/ainst union ebers. It isonl5 because of the peculiar circustances of this case sho8in/ there is nosuch intention that this court ruled other8ise.'H6R6BOR6, the petition is R-NT6D and the a8ard of respondent Voluntar5-rbitrator dated March !=,"#$# is hereb5 R6V6RS6D -ND S6T -SID6 bein/ nulland void, 8ithout pronounceent as to costs.SO ORD6R6D.


28/126

BIRST DIVISIONHG.R. No. 1171. Se4'ember 18, 2000COLEGIO DE SN %UN DE LETRN, petitioner, vs. SSOCITION O#EMPLOEES ND #CULT O# LETRN +-/ ELEONORMBS,respondents.D E C I S I O NPUNN, J.?

This is a petition for revie8 on certiorari see(in/ the reversal of the Decision ofthe 7ourt of -ppeals, proul/ated on # -u/ust "###, disissin/ the petition

3led b5 7ole/io de San uan de *etran 1hereinafter, JpetitionerJ2 and aKrin/the Order of the Secretar5 of *abor, dated Deceber !, "##, 3ndin/ thepetitioner /uilt5 of unfair labor practice on t8o 1!2 counts.

The facts, as found b5 the Secretar5 of *abor and aKred b5 the 7ourt of-ppeals, are as follo8sAJOn Deceber "##!, Salvador -btria, then President of respondent union,-ssociation of 6plo5ees and Bacult5 of *etran, initiated the rene/otiation of its7ollective &ar/ainin/ -/reeent 8ith petitioner 7ole/io de San uan de *etranfor the last t8o 1!2 5ears of the 7&-)s 3ve 1%2 5ear lifetie fro "#$#"##9. Onthe sae 5ear, the union elected a ne8 set of oKcers 8herein privaterespondent 6leanor -bas eer/ed as the ne8l5 elected President 1Secretar5of *abor and 6plo5ent)s Order dated Deceber !, "##, p. "!2.-bas 8anted to continue the rene/otiation of the 7&- but petitioner, throu/hBr. 6d8in *ao, claied that the 7&- 8as alread5 prepared for si/nin/ b5 theparties. The parties subitted the disputed 7&- to a referendu b5 the union

ebers, 8ho eventuall5 reuestedana/eent to subit the issue to a /rievance achiner5 under the old 7&-1Ibid, p. !?2.Due to petitioner)s inaction, the union 3led a notice of stri(e on March "?, "##.

The parties et on March !@, "## before the N7M& to discuss the /roundrules for the ne/otiation. On March !#, "##, the union received petitioner)sletter disissin/ -bas for alle/ed insubordination. Hence, the union aendedits notice of stri(e to include -bas) disissal. 1Ibid, p. !?2.On -pril !=, "##, both parties a/ain discussed the /round rules for the 7&-rene/otiation. Ho8ever, petitioner stopped the ne/otiations after it purportedl5received inforation that a ne8 /roup of eplo5ees had 3led a petition forcerti3cation election 1Ibid, p. ?2.On une "$, "##, the union 3nall5 struc(. On ul5 !, "##, public respondentthe Secretar5 of *abor and 6plo5ent assued


29/126

-s re/ards the 3rst issue, -rticle !%! of the *abor 7ode de3nes the eanin/ ofthe phrase Jdut5 to bar/ain collectivel5,J as follo8sA-rt. !%!. Meanin/ of dut5 to bar/ain collectivel5. The dut5 to bar/aincollectivel5 eans the perforance of a utual obli/ation to eet andconvene proptl5 and e4peditiousl5 in /ood faith for the purpose of ne/otiatin/an a/reeent 8ith respect to 8a/es, hours of 8or( and all other ters andconditions of eplo5ent includin/ proposals for aduestions arisin/ under such a/reeent and e4ecutin/ a contract incorporatin/such a/reeents if re>uested b5 either part5 but such dut5 does not copel

an5 part5 to a/ree to a proposal or to a(e an5 concession.Note8orth5 in the above de3nition is the re>uireent on both parties of theperforance of the utual obli/ation to eet and convene proptl5 ande4peditiousl5 in /ood faith for the purpose of ne/otiatin/ ana/reeent. +ndoubtedl5, respondent -ssociation of 6plo5ees and Bacult5 of*etran 1-6B*2 1hereinafter, JunionJ2 lived up to this re>uisite 8hen it presentedits proposals for the 7&- to petitioner on Bebruar5 @, "##. On the other hand,petitioner devised 8a5s and eans in order to prevent the ne/otiation.Petitioner)s utter lac( of interest in bar/ainin/ 8ith the union is obvious in itsfailure to a(e a tiel5 repl5 to the proposals presented b5 the latter. Morethan a onth after the proposals 8ere subitted b5 the union, petitioner stillhad not ade an5 counterproposals. This inaction on the part of petitionerpropted the union to 3le its second notice of stri(e on March "?,"##.Petitioner could onl5 oLer a feeble e4planation that the &oard of Trusteeshad not 5et convened to discuss the atter as its e4cuse for failin/ to 3le its

repl5. This is a clear violation of -rticle !%= of the *abor 7ode /overnin/ theprocedure in collective bar/ainin/, to 8itA-rt. !%=. Procedure in collective bar/ainin/. The follo8in/ procedures shall beobserved in collective bar/ainin/A1a2 'hen a part5 desires to ne/otiate an a/reeent, it shall serve a 8rittennotice upon the other part5 8ith a stateent of its proposals. The other part5shall a(e a repl5 thereto not later than ten 1"=2 calendar da5s fro receipt ofsuch notice. F9G

4 4 4-s 8e have held in the case of =iok Loy vs. 0LRC,F%G the copan5)s refusal toa(e counterproposal to the union)s proposed 7&- is an indication of its badfaith. 'here the eplo5er did not even bother to subit an ans8er to thebar/ainin/ proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the dut5 tobar/ain collectivel5.FG In the case at bar, petitioner)s actuation sho8 a lac( ofsincere desire to ne/otiate renderin/ it /uilt5 of unfair labor practice.

Moreover, the series of events that transpired after the 3lin/ of the 3rst noticeof stri(e in anuar5 "## sho8 petitioner)s resort to dela5in/ tactics to ensurethat ne/otiation 8ould not push throu/h. Thus, on Bebruar5 "%, "##, or barel5a fe8 da5s after the union proposals for the ne8 7&- 8ere subitted, theunion president 8as infored b5 her superior that her 8or( schedule 8as bein/chan/ed fro Monda5s to Brida5s to Tuesda5s to Saturda5s. - re>uest fro theunion president that the issue be subitted to a /rievance achiner5 8assubse>uentl5 denied. Thereafter, the petitioner and the union et on March !@,"## to discuss the /round rules for ne/otiation. Ho8ever, uent odi3cations of an5 7&-earlier entered into b5 the in /ood faith and for the stipulated ori/inal period.F""G

In the case at bar, the lifetie of the previous 7&- 8as fro "#$#"##9. Thepetition for certi3cation election b5 -767, alle/edl5 a le/itiate laboror/ani0ation, 8as 3led 8ith the Departent of *abor and 6plo5ent 1DO*62onl5 on Ma5 !, "##. 7learl5, the petition 8as 3led outside the si4t5da5

freedo period. Hence, the 3lin/ thereof 8as barred b5 the e4istence of a validand e4istin/ collective bar/ainin/ a/reeent. 7onse>uentl5, there is nole/itiate representation issue and, as such, the 3lin/ of the petition forcerti3cation election did not constitute a bar to the on/oin/ne/otiation. Reliance, therefore, b5 petitioner of the rulin/ in Lakas 0'anaaan 'aka"ayan v. 'arcelo Enterprises F"!G is isplaced since thatcase involved a le/itiate representation issue 8hich is not present in the caseat bar.Si/ni3cantl5, the sae petition for certi3cation election 8as disissed b5 theSecretar5 of *abor on October !%, "##. The disissal 8as upheld b5 this 7ourtin a Resolution, dated -pril !", "##@. F"?G

In vie8 of the above, there is no doubt that petitioner is /uilt5 of unfair laborpractice b5 its stern refusal to bar/ain in /ood faith 8ith respondent union.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141471.htm#_edn13


30/126

7oncernin/ the issue on the validit5 of the terination of the union president,8e hold that the disissal 8as eLected in violation of the eplo5ees) ri/ht toselfor/ani0ation.

To


31/126

THIRD DIVISIONHG.R. No. 1;;50. %+-*+r> 1:, 200:DOLE P"ILIPPINES, INC., petitioner , vs. P6IS NG MBNGOBRERO 3PMO$N#L, respondent .D E C I S I O NCORON, J.?&efore us is a petition for revie8 3led under Rule 9% of the "##@ Rules of 7ivilProcedure, assailin/ the anuar5 #, !==" resolution of the 7ourt of -ppeals8hich denied petitioners otion for reconsideration of its Septeber !!, !===

decisionF"G

8hich in turn upheld the Order issued b5 the voluntar5arbitratorF!G dated "! October "##$, the dispositive portion of 8hich readsA'H6R6BOR6, preises considered, ualif5 the aount of overtie 8or( to beperfored b5 an eplo5ee to entitle hi to the free eal.

To arrive at a correct interpretation of the disputed provision of the 7&-, arevie8 of the pertinent section of past 7&-s is in order.

The 7&- coverin/ the period !" Septeber "#$% to != Septeber "#$$providedASection ?. M6-* -**O'-N76. The 7OMP-NE a/rees to /rant a M6-*-**O'-N76 of BO+R 1P9.==2 P6SOS to all eplo5ees 8ho render at least T'O1!2 hours or ore of actual overtie 8or( on a 8or(da5, and BR66 M6-*S, aspresentl5 practiced, after THR66 1?2 hours of actual overtie 8or(.WF%G

The 7&- for "9 anuar5 "##= to "? anuar5 "##% li(e8ise providedA

Section ?. M6-* -**O'-N76. The 7OMP-NE a/rees to /rant a M6-*-**O'-N76 of 6IHT P6SOS 1P$.==2 to all eplo5ees 8ho render at least T'O1!2 hours or ore of actual overtie 8or( on a 8or(da5, and BR66 M6-*S, aspresentl5 practiced, not e4ceedin/ SIT66N P6SOS 1P".==2 after THR66 1?2hours of actual overtie 8or(.WFG

The provision above 8as later aended 8hen the parties rene/otiated theeconoic provisions of the 7&- pursuant to -rticle !%?- of the *abor7ode. Section ? of -rticle VIII of the "9 anuar5 "##? to "? anuar5 "##%Suppleent to the "##="##% 7&- readsASection ?. M6-* -**O'-N76. The 7OMP-NE a/rees to /rant a M6-* S+&SIDEof NIN6 P6SOS 1P#.==2 to all eplo5ees 8ho render at least T'O 1!2 hours orore of actual overtie 8or( on a 8or(da5, and BR66 M6-*S, as presentl5practiced, not e4ceedin/ T'6NTE ON6 P6SOS 1P!".==2 after ore than THR661?2 hours of actual overtie 8or( 1Section ?, as aended2.WF@G

'e note that the phrase ore thanW 8as neither in the "#$%"#$$ 7&- nor in

the ori/inal "##="##% 7&-. It 8as inserted onl5 in the "##?"##% 7&-Suppleent. &ut said phrase is a/ain absent in Section ? of -rticle VIII of the"##!==" 7&-, 8hich reverted to the phrase after three 1?2 hoursW.Petitioner asserts that the phrase after three 1?2 hours of actual overtie8or(W does not ean after e5actly t/ree /ours of actual overtie 8or(: iteans after )ore t/an t/ree /ours of actual overtie 8or(. Petitioner insiststhat this has been the interpretation and practice of Dole for the past thirteen5ears.Respondent, on the other hand, aintains that after three 1?2 hours of actualovertie 8or(W sipl5 eans after ren(erin e5actly, or no less t/an, t/ree/ours of actual overtie 8or(.

The 7ourt 3nds lo/ic in private respondents interpretation. The oission of the phrase ore thanW bet8een afterW and three hoursW inthe present 7&- spells a bi/ diLerence.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn7


32/126

No aount of le/al seantics can convince the 7ourt that after ore thanWeans the sae as afterW.Petitioner asserts that the ore thanW in the "##?"##% 7&- Suppleent 8asere surplusa/e because, re/ardless of the absence of said phrase in all thepast 7&-s, it had al8a5s been the polic5 of petitioner corporation to /ive theeal allo8ance only after )ore t/an /ours of overtie 8or(. Ho8ever, if this8ere true, 8h5 8as it included onl5 in the "##?"##% 7&- Suppleent and theparties had to ne/otiate its deletion in the "##!==" 7&-X7learl5 then, the reversion to the 8ordin/ of previous 7&-s can onl5 ean that

the parties intended that free eals be /iven to eplo5ees after e5actly, or noless t/an, t/ree /ours of actual overtie 8or(.

The disputed provision of the 7&- is clear and unabi/uous. The ters aree4plicit and the lan/ua/e of the 7&- is not susceptible to an5 otherinterpretation. Hence, the literal eanin/ of free eals after three 1?2 hoursof overtie 8or(W shall prevail, 8hich is sipl5 that an eplo5ee shall beentitled to a free eal if he has rendered e4actl5, or no less than, three hoursof overtie 8or(, not after ore thanW or in e4cess ofW three hours overtie8or(.Petitioner also invo(es the 8ellentrenched principle of ana/eentprero/ative that the po8er to /rant bene3ts over and be5ond the iniustandards of la8, or the *abor 7ode for that atter, belon/s to the eplo5er 44 4W. -ccordin/ to this principle, even if the la8 is solicitous of the 8elfare ofthe eplo5ees, it ust also protect the ri/ht of the eplo5er to e4ercise 8hatclearl5 are ana/eent prero/atives.F$G Petitioner clais that, bein/ the

eplo5er, it has the ri/ht to deterine 8hether it 8ill /rant a free ealWbene3t to its eplo5ees and, if so, under 8hat conditions. To see it other8ise8ould aount to an ipairent of its ri/hts as an eplo5er.'e do not thin( so.

The e4ercise of ana/eent prero/ative is not unliited. It is sub to une , . 1ence, t/e free(o) perio( for purposes of suc/ representation s/all "e si5ty 7M8 (ays prior to une, .Sec. ?. %i5ty 7M8 (ays prior to une , K eit/er party )ay initiate

neotiations of all provisions of t/is Aree)ent, e5cept insofar as t/erepresentation aspect is concerne(. If no aree)ent is reac/e( in suc/neotiations, t/is Aree)ent s/all nevert/eless re)ain in force up to t/e ti)ea su"seuent aree)ent is reac/e( "y t/e parties. 1

In (eepin/ 8ith their vision and lon/ ter strate/5 for business e4pansion, SM7ana/eent infored its eplo5ees in a letter dated -u/ust "?, "##" 2 thatthe copan5 8hich 8as coposed of four operatin/ divisions nael5A 1"2 &eer,1!2 Pac(a/in/, 1?2 Beeds and *ivestoc(s, 192 Ma/nolia and -/ribusiness 8ouldunder/o a restructurin/. :

6Lective October ", "##", Ma/nolia and Beeds and *ivestoc( Division 8erespunoL and becae t8o separate and distinct corporationsA Ma/nolia7orporation 1Ma/nolia2 and San Mi/uel Boods, Inc. 1SMBI2. Not8ithstandin/ thespinoLs, the 7&- reained in force and eLect.-fter une ?=, "##!, the 7&- 8as rene/otiated in accordance 8ith the ters ofthe 7&- and -rticle !%?- of the *abor 7ode. Ne/otiations started soetie in

ul5, "##! 8ith the t8o parties subittin/ their respective proposals andcounterproposals.Durin/ the ne/otiations, the petitionerunion insisted that the bar/ainin/ unit of SM7 should still include the eplo5ees of the spunoL corporationsA Ma/noliaand SMBI: and that the rene/otiated ters of the 7&- shall be eLective onl5 forthe reainin/ period of t8o 5ears or until une ?=, "##9.SM7, on the other hand, contended that the ebersCeplo5ees 8ho hadoved to Ma/nolia and SMBI, autoaticall5 ceased to be part of the bar/ainin/unit at the SM7. Burtherore, the 7&- should be eLective for three 5ears inaccordance 8ith -rt. !%?- of the *abor 7ode.+nable to a/ree on these issues 8ith respect to the bar/ainin/ unit andduration of the 7&-, petitionerunion declared a deadloc( on Septeber !#,"##=.On October !, "##!, a Notice of Stri(e 8as 3led a/ainst SM7.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm#_ftn10


33/126

In order to avert a stri(e, SM7 re>uested the National 7onciliation andMediation &oard 1N7M&2 to conduct preventive ediation. No settleent 8asarrived at despite several eetin/s held bet8een the parties.On Noveber ?, "##!, a stri(e vote 8as conducted 8hich resulted in a J5esvoteJ in favor of a stri(e.On Noveber 9, "##!, private respondents SM7, Ma/nolia and SMBI 3led apetition 8ith the Secretar5 of *abor pra5in/ that the latter assue uestioned Order of Bebruar5 "%, "##?ruled that the rene/otiated ters of the 7&- at SM7 should run for a period ofthree 1?2 5ears.'e a/ree 8ith the Secretar5 of *abor.

Pertinent to the 3rst issue is -rt. !%?- of the *abor 7ode as aended 8hichreadsA-rt. !%?-. 3er)s of a Collective Barainin Aree)ent . Any CollectiveBarainin Aree)ent t/at t/e parties )ay enter into s/all, insofar as t/erepresentation aspect is concerne(, "e for a ter) of 9ve 7?8 years. No petition>uestionin/ the a


34/126

Eou (no8, for us na na/nene/otiate, an/ ha0ard tala/a sa ne/otiation, 8hen8e ne/otiate 8ith soebod5 na hindi natin (ilala, then, 8e are /overned b5 ourbiases na ito a5 destro5er n/ *abor: an/ /a eplo5er, ito ba5aran (o lan/ itoo(a5 na.)Ean an/ nan/5a5ari, but let us /ive that allo8ance for the one 5ear to let the(no8. Actually, an t/rust natin ay in(ustrial peace, an( t/ere can "e no in(ustrial peace if you encourae union to 9/t eac/ ot/er . )Ean an/ problea. 12

444 444 444

HON. ISIDROA Madali i5an, (asi these t8o periods that are entioned in the 7&-see to provide soe doubts later on in the ipleentation. Sabi (asi rito,insofar as representation issue is concerned, seven 5ears and lifetie. . .HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Bive 5ears.HON. ISIDROA Bive 5ears, all the others three 5ears.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A 0o. An t/ree years (uon sa ter)s an( con(itions,not later t/an t/ree years.HON. ISIDROA Not later than three 5ears, so 8ithin three 5ears 5ou have toa(e a ne8 7&-.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Ees.HON. ISIDROA That is a/ain for purposes of rene8in/ the ters, three 5ears nanaan i5an then, seven 5ears. . .HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Not later than three 5ears.HON. ISIDROA -ssuin/ that the5 usuall5 follo8 the period three 5ears nan/three 5ears, but under this la8 8ith respect to representation 3ve 5ears,

anoX No8, after three 5ears, na/(aroon n/ ba/on/ ters, tapos na i5on/ ter,rene8ed na i5on/ ters, an/ (arapatan noon sa representation issue a5roonpan/ t8o 5ears left.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A One 5ear na lan/ because si4 5ears nan/ lahat,three plus three.HON. ISIDROA Hindi, t8o 5ears pa rin an/ natitira, eh. Three 5ears pa lan/ an/natatapos. So, another 7&- 8as fored and this 7&- a5roon na naansi5an/ ba/on/ 3ve 5ears 8ith respect to representation issue.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Hindi. Hindi na. anito i5an. I5on/ ters andconditions for three 5ears.HON. ISIDROA Ees.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A 6ne t/e t/ir( year you can start neotiatin toc/ane t/e ter)s an( con(itions.HON. ISIDROA Ees.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A -ssuin/ 5ou 8ill follo8 the practice . . .

HON. ISIDROA Oo.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A But on t/e 9ft/ year, an representation status nocan "e uestione(, so "aka pue(en )akaroon n certi9cation election. Ift/e incu)"ent union loses, t/en t/e ne union a()inisters t/e contract for one year to ive /i) ti)e to kno /is counterpart N t/e e)ployer, "efore /e canneotiate for a ne ter). Iyan an a(vantae.HON. ISIDROA asi, 8hen the 7&- has onl5 a three5ear lifetie 8ith respect tothe ters and conditions and then, so 5ou have to rene8 that in three 5ears 5ou rene8 for another three 5ears, a5roon na naan another 3ve 5ears i5on/ano . . .HON. -NI-A Hindi, an/ natitira duon sa representation t8o 5ears na lan/.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A T8o 5ears na lan/ sa representation.HON. -NI-A So that if the5 chan/ed the union, i5on/ last 5ear . . .HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A I5on lan/, that 5ou have to adinister the contract.

Then, voluntar5 arbitration na (a5o and then a5roon (a nan/ probis5on

Jretroact on the date of the e4pir5 dateJ. Pa/natalo an/ incubent un5on,a/aassue an/ ne8 union, adinister the contract. As far as t/e ter) an(con(ition, for one year, an( t/at ill ive /i) ti)e an( t/e e)ployer to knoeac/ ot/er .HON. -&-RA &o5, let us be realistic. I thin( if a ne8 union 8ins a certi3cationelection, it 8ould not 8ant to adinister a 7&- 8hich has not been ne/otiatedb5 the union itself.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A That is not true, Hon. This is true because 8hat ishappenin/ no8 in the countr5 is that the ter n/ contract natin, duon din

a/ee4pire an/ representation. I5on an/ nan/5ari. That is 8here 5ou have the/ulo. anoon an/ nan/5ari. So, an/ nan/5ari di5an, pa/a5roon certi3cationelection, e4pire an/ contract, ano an/ usual issue copan5 union. I can 5ou1sic2 /ive 5ou ore 8hat the incubent union is /ivin/. So an/ an/5a5aridi5an, pa/ne/otiate o hardline na a/ad.HON. 7H-IRM-N V6*OSO A Mon, for four 5earsXHON. ISIDROA -n/ tin/in (o lan/ dito, i5on/ distinction bet8een the ters andthe representation aspect 8h5 do 8e have to distin/uish bet8een three and3veX 'hat)s 8ron/ 8ith havin/ a unifor e4piration periodXHON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Bive 5ears.HON. ISIDROA Puro three 5ears.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A That is 8hat 8e are tr5in/ to avoid because an/realit5 di5an, Mart, pa/paso( o sa (upan5a, a/nene/otiate (a n/ si4onths, that)s the avera/e, aabot pa insan n/ one 5ear. Pa/(tapos n/ne/otiation o, si/nin/ (a5o. There 8ill be an allo8ed period of one 5ear. Third

5ear na, uupisahan naan an/ or/ani0ations, papaso( na an/ iban/ un5onbecause the realit5 in Trade +nion coittee, the5 or/ani0e, 8e or/ani0e. So,actuall5, 5ou have onl5 industrial peace for one 5ear, eLective industrial peace.

That is 8hat 8e are tr5in/ to chan/e. Other8ise, 8e 8ill continue to discoura/ethe investors and the union 8ill never /ro8 because ever5 other 5ear it has touse its one5 for the certi3cation election. -n/ /rabe pan/ practice di5an,a/aadvance an/ federation for three 5ears union dues para pan//astos lan/sa certi3cation election. That is 8hat 8e are tr5in/ to avoid.HON. -&-RA -lthou/h there are unions 8hich reall5 /et advances.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Pa/ na/surve5 ta5o sa /a un5on, /anoon an/an/5a5ari. An( I t/ink our responsi"ility /ere is to create a leal fra)eorkto pro)ote in(ustrial peace an( to (evelop responsi"le an( fair la"or)ove)ent .HON. 7H-IRM-N V6*OSOA In ot/er or(s, t/e loner t/e perio( of t/eeJectivity . . .

444 444 444HON 7H-IRM-N V6*OSO. 1continuin2 . . . in ot/er or(s, t/e loner t/e perio(of eJectivity of t/e CBA, t/e "etter for in(ustrial peace.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A representation status.HON. 7H-IRM-N V6*OSOA Onl5 on HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A the representations.HON. 7H-IRM-N V6*OSOA But on t/e econo)ic issues.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A $ou /ave to revie t/at . 3/e parties ill /ave torevie t/at .HON. 7H-IRM-N V6*OSOA -t least on second 5ear.HON. 7H-IRM-N H6RR6R-A Not later than ? 5ears, an/ (araihan n/ /a a/ne/otiate 8hen the copan5is 1interrupted2 1:

Bro the aforesaid discussions, the le/islators 8ere ore inclined to have theperiod of eLectivit5 for three 1?2 5ears insofar as the econoic as 8ell as noneconoic provisions are concerned, e4cept representation.


35/126

Obviousl5, the fraers of the la8 8anted to aintain industrial peace andstabilit5 b5 havin/ both ana/eent and labor 8or( haroniousl5 to/ether8ithout an5 disturbance. Thus, no outside union can enter the establishent8ithin 3ve 1%2 5ears and challen/e the status of the incubent union as thee4clusive bar/ainin/ a/ent. *i(e8ise, the ters and conditions of eplo5ent1econoic and noneconoic2 can not be >uestioned b5 the eplo5ers oreplo5ees durin/ the period of eLectivit5 of the 7&-. The 7&- is a contractbet8een the parties and the parties ust respect the ters and conditions ofthe a/reeent. 1 Notabl5, the fraers of the la8 did not /ive a 34ed ter as

to the eLectivit5 of the ters and conditions of eplo5ent. It can be /leanedfro their discussions that it 8as left to the parties to 34 the period.In the instant case, it is not diKcult to deterine the period of eLectivit5 for thenonrepresentation provisions of the 7&-. Ta(in/ it fro the histor5 of their7&-s, SM7 intended to have the ters of the 7&- eLective for three 1?2 5earsrec(oned fro the e4piration of the old or previous 7&- 8hich 8as on une ?=,"#$#, as it providesASec. ". This -/reeent 8hich shall be bindin/ upon the parties hereto and theirrespective successorsininterest, shall becoe eLective and shall reain inforce and eLect until une ?=, "##!.

The ar/uent that the PR7 case is applicable is indeed isplaced. 'e >uote8ith favor the Order of the Secretar5 of *abor in the li/ht of SM7)s peculiarsituation as copared 8ith PR7)s copan5 situation.It is true that in the Philippine Re3nin/ 7opan5 case 1OS-==?"#"2 1sic2,*abor Dispute at Philippine Re3nin/ 7opan52, 8e ruled that the ter of the

rene/otiated provisions of the 7&- should coincide 8ith the reainin/ ter ofthe a/enc5. In doin/ so, 8e placed preiu on the fact that PR7 has onl5 t8o1!2 unions and no other union had 5et e4ecuted a rene8ed ter of ? 5ears.Nonetheless, in rulin/ for a shortened ter, 8e 8ere /uided b5 our consideredperception that the said ter 8ould iprove, rather than ruin, the /eneral8elfare of both the 8or(ers and the copan5. It is e>uall5 true that once theeconoic provisions of the 7&- e4pire, the residual representative status of theunion is eLective for onl5 ! ore 5ears. Ho8ever, if circustances 8arrant thatthe contract duration 8hich it is solicitin/ fro the copan5 for the bene3t ofthe 8or(ers, shall be a little bit lon/er than its lifespan, then this OKce cannotstand in the 8a5 of a ore ideal situation. 'e ust not lose si/ht of the factthat the priordial purpose of a collective contract is to proote industrialharon5 and stabilit5 in the ters and conditions of eplo5ent. To our ind,this obue characteristics of the eplo5er. In the case at bar,

there is no dispute that the other corporation 1SM72 spunoL t8o of itsdivisions and thereb5 /ave birth to t8o 1!2 other entities no8 (no8n asMa/nolia 7orporation and San Mi/uel Boods, Inc. In order to eLect a soothtransition, the copanies concerned continued to reco/ni0e the e4istin/ unionsas the bar/ainin/ a/ents of their respective bar/ainin/ units. In the eantie,the other unions in these copanies eventuall5 concluded their 7&-ne/otiations on the reainin/ ter and all of the a/reed on a ?5ear c5cle.Notabl5, the follo8in/ 7&-s 8ere for/ed incorporatin/ a ter of ?5ears on therene/otiated provisions, to 8itA". SM7 dail5paid eplo5ees union 1I&M2!. SMBI onthl5paid eplo5ees and dail5paid eplo5ees at the 7abu5aoPlant.

There is a direct lin( bet8een the voluntar5 reco/nition b5 the copan5 of thecontinuin/ representative status of the unions after the aforeentioned spinoLs and the stand of the copan5 for a ?5ear rene/otiated c5cle 8hen the

econoic provisions of the e4istin/ 7&-s e4pired, i.e., the aintain stabilit5and avoid confusion 8hen the ubilical cord of the t8o divisions 8ere severedfro their parent. These t8o cannot be considered independentl5 of each otherfor the5 8ere intended to reinforce one another. Precisel5, the copan5conceded to face the sae union not8ithstandin/ the spinoLs in order topreserve industrial peace durin/ the infanc5 of the t8o corporations. If theunion 8ould insist on a shorter rene/otiated ter, then all the advanta/es/ained b5 both parties in this re/ard, 8ould have /one to nau/ht. 'ith this inind, this oKce feels that it 8ill betra5 its andate should 8e order the parties

to e4ecute a !5ear rene/otiated ter for then chaos and confusion, ratherthan tran>uillit5, 8ould be the order of the da5. 'orse, there is a stron/li(elihood that such a rulin/ i/ht spa8n discontent and possible ass actionsa/ainst the copan5 coin/ fro the other unions 8ho had alread5 a/reed toa ?5ear rene/otiated ters. If this happens, the purpose of this OKce)sintervention into the parties) controvers5 8ould have been defeated. 15

The issue as to the ter of the nonrepresentation provisions of the 7&- neednot belabored especiall5 8hen 8e ta(e note of the Meorandu of theSecretar5 of *abor dated Bebruar5 !9, "##9 8hich 8as entioned in theResolution of +ndersecretar5 &ienvenido *a/uesa on anuar5 ", "##% in thecerti3cation election case involvin/ the SM7 eplo5ees. 1; In saideorandu, the Secretar5 of *abor had occasion to clarif5 the ter of therene/otiated ters of the 7&- vis!a!vis the ter of the bar/ainin/ a/ent, to8itA-s a atter of polic5 the parties are encoura/es 1sic2 to enter into a

rene/otiated 7&- 8ith a ter 8hich 8ould coincide 1sic2 8ith the aforesaid 3ve1%2 5ear ter of the bar/ainin/ representative.In the event ho8ever, that the parties, b5 utual a/reeent, enter into arene/otiated contract 8ith a ter of three 1?2 5ears or one 8hich does notcoincide 8ith the said %5ear ter, and said a/reeent is rati3ed b5 a


36/126

444 444 444'e onl5 have to loo( at the e4perience of 7oca7ola &ottlers Philippines, Inc.,since this copan5 8as or/ani0ed about ten 5ears a/o, to see the bene3ts thatarise fro restructurin/ a division of San Mi/uel into a ore copetitiveor/ani0ation. -s a standalone enterprise, 77&PI en/ineered a draaticturnaround and has sustained its sales and ar(et share leadership ever since.'e are con3dent that histor5 8ill repeat itself, and the transforation ofMa/nolia and B*D 8ill be successful as that of 77&PI. 17

+ndeniabl5, the transforation of the copanies 8as a ana/eent

prero/ative and business uestion or >uestionsthat a5 arise in a /iven case. 'hat are these factorsX Rothenber/ entions a/ood nuber, but the ost pertinent to our case areA 1"2 8ill of the eplo5ees1lobe Doctrine2: 1!2 aKnit5 and unit of eplo5ees) interest, such assubstantial siilarit5 of 8or( and duties, or siilarit5 of copensation and8or(in/ conditions: 1?2 prior collective bar/ainin/ histor5: and 192 eplo5entstatus, such as teporar5, seasonal and probationar5 eplo5ees. . . .444 444 444-n enli/htenin/ appraisal of the proble of de3nin/ an appropriate bar/ainin/unit is /iven in the "=th -nnual Report of the National *abor Relations &oard8herein it is ephasi0ed that the factors 8hich said board a5 consider and8ei/h in 34in/ appropriate units areA the histor5, e4tent and t5pe ofor/ani0ation of eplo5ees: the histor5 of their collective bar/ainin/: thehistor5, e4tent and t5pe of or/ani0ation of eplo5ees in other plants of the

sae eplo5er, or other eplo5ers in the sae industr5: the s(ill, 8a/es,8or(, and 8or(in/ conditions of the eplo5ees: the desires of the eplo5ees:the eli/ibilit5 of the eplo5ees for ebership in the union or unions involved:and the relationship bet8een the unit or units proposed and the eplo5er)sor/ani0ation, ana/eent, and operation . . .. . . In said report, it is li(e8ise ephasi0ed that the basic test in deterinin/the appropriate bar/ainin/ unit is that a unit, to be appropriate, ust aLect a/roupin/ of eplo5ees 8ho have substantial, utual interests in 8a/es, hours,8or(in/ conditions and other sub


37/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaS67OND DIVISION G.R. No. 10085 Se4'ember 21, 199SN MIGUEL CORPORTION, petitioner,vs.T"E "ONORBLE BIEN!ENIDO E. LGUESM +-/ NORT" LUON

MGNOLI SLES LBOR UNION$INDEPENDENT, respondents.%iuion Reyna, 'ontecillo & 6nsiako for petitioner.E.0.A. Cru+ & Associates for private respon(ent. PUNO, J.:Petitioner San Mi/uel 7orporation 1SM72 pra5s that the Resolution dated March"#, "##" and the Order dated -pril "!, "##" of public respondent+ndersecretar5 &ienvenido 6. *a/uesa declarin/ respondent union as the soleand e4clusive bar/ainin/ a/ent of all the Ma/nolia sales personnel in northern*u0on be set aside for havin/ been issued in e4cess of


38/126

eplo5ees if the5 8ould further be fractionali0ed. The ada/e Jthere is stren/thin nuberJ is the ver5 rationale underl5in/ the foration of a labor union.-nent the second issue, petitioner clais that -tt5. &atalla 8as erel5 asubstitute la85er for -tt5. 7hristine Ona, 8ho /ot stranded in *e/aspi 7it5. -tt5.&atalla 8as alle/edl5 unfailiar 8ith the collective bar/ainin/ histor5 of itsestablishent. Petitioner clais it should not be bound b5 the ista(ecoitted b5 its substitute la85er.'e are not persuaded. -s discussed earlier, the collective bar/ainin/ histor5 ofa copan5 is not decisive of 8hat should coprise the collective bar/ainin/

unit. Insofar as the alle/ed Jista(eJ of the substitute la85er is concerned, 8e3nd that this ista(e 8as the direct result of the ne/li/ence of petitioner)sla85ers. It 8ill be noted that -tt5. Ona 8as under the supervision of t8o 1!2other la85ers, -tt5s. acinto de la Rosa, r. and eor/e 7. No/rales. There isnothin/ in the records to sho8 that these t8o 1!2 counsels 8ere li(e8iseunavailable at that tie. Instead of deferrin/ the hearin/, petitioner)s counselschose to proceed there8ith. Indeed, prudence dictates that, in such case, thela85ers alle/edl5 activel5 involved in SM7)s labor case should have ade>uatel5and suKcientl5 briefed the substitute la85er 8ith respect to the attersinvolved in the case and the speci3c liits of his authorit5. +nfortunatel5, this8as not done in this case. The ne/li/ence of its la85ers binds petitioner. -sheld b5 this 7ourt in the case of *illa R/ecar Bus v. De la Cru+ A 10

. . . -s a /eneral rule, a client is bound b5 the ista(es of his counsel. Onl58hen the application of the /eneral rule 8ould result in serious injustice shouldan e4ception thereto be called for.

In the case at bench, petitioner insists that each of the sales oKces in northern*u0on should be considered as a separate bar/ainin/ unit for ne/otiations8ould be ore e4peditious. Petitioner obviousl5 chooses to follo8 the path ofleast resistance. It is not, ho8ever, the convenience of the eplo5er thatconstitutes the deterinative factor in forin/ an appropriate bar/ainin/ unit.6>uall5, if not ore iportant, is the interest of the eplo5ees. In choosin/ andcraftin/ an appropriate bar/ainin/ unit, e4tree care should be ta(en toprevent an eplo5er fro havin/ an5 undue advanta/e over the eplo5ees)bar/ainin/ representative. Our 8or(ers are 8ea( enou/h and it is not our socialpolic5 to further debilitate their bar/ainin/ representative.In su, 8e 3nd that no arbitrariness or /rave abuse of discretion can beattributed to public respondents certi3cation of respondent union as the soleand e4clusive bar/ainin/ a/ent of all the re/ular Ma/nolia sales personnel ofthe north *u0on sales area.'H6R6BOR6, preises considered, the challen/ed Resolution and Order of

public respondent are hereb5 -BBIRM6D in toto, there bein/ no sho8in/ of/rave abuse of discretion or lac( of 2;, 199GOLDEN #RMS, INC., petitioner,vs.T"E "ONORBLE SECRETR O# LBOR +-/ T"E PROGRESSI!E#EDERTION O# LBOR, respondents. .*. $ap La 6;ce for petitioner.

PUNO, J.:

The sole issue for resolution in this Petition for Certiorari 8ith pra5er for theissuance of preliinar5 in


39/126

TH6 PROR6SSIV6 B6D6R-TION OB *-&OR &6IN TH6 67*+SIV6 &-R-ININ-6NT OB TH6 S+P6RVISORE 6MP*OE66S IS DISQ+-*IBI6D BROMR6PR6S6NTIN TH6 OBBI76 -ND T67HNI7-* 6MP*OE66S.

The petition is devoid of erit. The onthl5 paid oKce and technical ran(and3le eplo5ees of petitionerolden Bars enuit5 to the eplo5er, indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocalri/hts and duties of the parties under the collective bar/ainin/ provisions of thela8. 5 The counit5 or utualit5 of interest is therefore the essential criterionin the /roupin/. J-nd this is so because )the basic test of an assertedbar/ainin/ unit)s acceptabilit5 is 8hether or not it is fundaentall5 thecobination 8hich 8ill best assure to all eplo5ees the e4ercise of theircollective bar/ainin/ ri/hts.) ;

In the case at bench, the evidence established that the onthl5 paid ran(and3le eplo5ees of petitioner priaril5 perfor adinistrative or clerical 8or(. Incontradistinction, the petitioner)s dail5 paid ran(and3le eplo5ees ainl58or( in the cultivation of bananas in the 3elds. It is cr5stal clear the onthl5paid ran(and3le eplo5ees of petitioner have ver5 little in coon 8ith itsdail5 paid ran(and3le eplo5ees in ters of duties and obli/ations, 8or(in/conditions, salar5 rates, and s(ills. To be sure, the said onthl5 paid ran(and3le eplo5ees have even been e4cluded fro the bar/ainin/ unit of the dail5

paid ran(and3le eplo5ees. This dissiilarit5 of interests 8arrants theforation of a separate and distinct bar/ainin/ unit for the onthl5 paid ran(and3le eplo5ees of the petitioner. To rule other8ise 8ould den5 this distinctclass of eplo5ees the ri/ht to selfor/ani0ation for purposes of collectivebar/ainin/. 'ithout the shield of an or/ani0ation, it 8ill also e4pose the to thee4ploitations of ana/eent. So 8e held in #niversity of t/e 4/ilippines vs.Ferrer!Calleja, 7 8here 8e sanctioned the foration of t8o 1!2 separatebar/ainin/ units 8ithin the establishent, vi+OFTGhe dichoto5 of interests, the dissiilarit5 in the nature of the 8or( andduties as 8ell as in the copensation and 8or(in/ conditions of the acadeicand nonacadeic personnel dictate the separation of these t8o cate/ories ofeplo5ees for purposes of collective bar/ainin/. The foration of t8o separatebar/ainin/ units, the 3rst consistin/ of the ran(and3le nonacadeiceplo5ees, and the second, of the ran(and3le acadeic eplo5ees, is thesetup that 8ill best assure to all the eplo5ees the e4ercise of their collective

bar/ainin/ ri/hts.Petitioner ne4t contends that these onthl5 paid oKce and technicaleplo5ees are ana/erial eplo5ees. The5 alle/edl5 include those in theaccountin/ and personnel departent, cashier, and other eplo5ees holdin/positions 8ith access to classi3ed inforation.'e are not persuaded. -rticle !"!, para/raph 12 of the *abor 7ode, asaended, de3nes as ana/erial eplo5ee as follo8sAJMana/erial eplo5eeJ is one 8ho is vested 8ith po8er or prero/atives to la5do8n and e4ecute ana/eent policies andCor to hire, transfer, suspend, la5oL, recall, dischar/e, assi/n or discipline eplo5ees. Supervisor5 eplo5eesare those 8ho, in the interest of the eplo5er, eLectivel5 recoend suchana/erial actions if the e4ercise of such authorit5 is not erel5 routinar5 orclerical in nature but re>uires the use of independent


40/126

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila6N &-N7D67ISIONNoveber !#, "#=.R. No. *"9%P"ILIPPINE LND$IR$SE LBOR UNION 3PLSLU, petitioner,vs.

COURT O# INDUSTRIL RELTIONS, ET L., respondents.E)ilio Lu)onta( for petitioner. %i)eon %. An(res for respon(ent CIR. %everino,Ferrer, Revira an( Benino for respon(ent AA. 1ila(o an( 1ila(o forrespon(ent %an Carlos 'illin Co.GUTIERRE D!ID, J.?

This is a petition to revie8 on certiorari an order of the 7ourt of IndustrialRelations in 7ase No. ?$ M77ebu certif5in/ the -llied 'or(ers) -ssociation ofthe Philippines, San 7arlos 7hapter, as the sole collective bar/ainin/representative of the eplo5ees of the San 7arlos Millin/ 7o., Inc.

The record sho8s that in said 7ase No. ?$ M77ebu the Industrial 7ourt on Ma5!%, "#% ordered the holdin/ of a certi3cation election to deterine 8hich ofthe t8o contendin/ labor unions therein, herein petitioner Philippine *and-irSea *abor +nion 1P*-S*+2or respondent -llied 'or(ers) -ssociation of thePhilippines 1-'-2, shall be the sole collective bar/ainin/ a/ent to theeplo5ees of the San 7arlos Millin/ 7o. The pertinent portions of the court)s

order read as follo8sA7onsiderin/ the histor5 of bar/ainin/ relations in this case 8here there has onl5been one bar/ainin/ unit, and for purposes of eLectuatin/ the policies of the-ct, the sae should be aintained. In other 8ords, t/e appropriate "araininunit is t/e E)ployer unit co)pose( of MK e)ployees inclu(in so)e K piece ork 7pakiao8 orkers an( steve(ores appearin in t/e E)ployer-s payrolls (urin t/e )illin an( oJ t/e seasoninus the alle/ed laborers andoperators of far tractors 8ho are hired and paid b5 the su/ar cane planters.16phasis supplied.2-ll the fore/oin/ considered, the 7ourt hereb5 directs the Departent of *aborto conduct a certi3cation election in the preises of the San 7arlos Millin/7opan5, *td. at San 7arlos, Ne/ros Occidental for the purpose of deterinin/,under e4istin/ rules and re/ulations on the atter, 8hich of the t8o 1!2contendin/ labor unions herein, the P*-S*+ or the -'- shall be the solecollective bar/ainin/ a/ent in accordance 8ith the provisions of the -ct. The

6plo5er is hereb5 ordered to subit a list of e)ployees appearin in its payroll (urin )illin season for t/e year ?? to t/e Depart)ent of La"or/ic/, toet/er it/ t/e HE5/i"it P!CourtH no part of t/e recor(s of t/is cases/all "e use( as t/e list of elii"le voters inus eplo5ees 8ho are perforin/functions of supervisors and securit5 /uards 8ho are e4cluded froparticipatin/ in said election. 16phasis supplied.2SO ORD6R6D.Prior to the holdin/ of the election, respondent -'- 3led an ur/ent otion toe4clude "99 eplo5ees fro participatin/ in the election. The otion,ho8ever, 8as denied, the Industrial 7ourt holdin/ that the 8or(ers sou/ht to bee4cluded 8ere eli/ible to vote since the5 8ere actual eplo5ees of /oodstandin/ of the respondent copan5 durin/ the illin/ season of "#%% and8ere included in the copan5)s pa5roll as of that date.On Septeber !", "#%, the certi3cation election 8as held in the preises ofthe San 7arlos Millin/ 7o., P*-S*+ receivin/ $$ votes 8hile -'- /arnered "9#,

8ith ?#= ballots recorded as challen/ed, !9! of the b5 the petitioner P*-S*+and "9$ b5 the respondent -'- 3led 8ith the Industrial 7ourt a petitioncontestin/ the election on the /round of the ineli/ibilit5 of the voters cast the"9$ ballots is challen/ed b5 P*-S*+ 8ere cast b5 le/itiate eplo5ee of thecopan5, as the5 8ere the votes of Jpiece 8or( 1pa(iao2 8or(ers andstevedores appearin/ in the eplo5er)s pa5roll durin/ the illin/ and oLseasonJ of "#%%. P*S*+, on the other hand, in an ur/ent otion 3led onOctober 9, "#%, >uestioned the validit5 of the !9! ballots cast b5 stevedoresand piece 8or(ers. The otion 8as opposed b5 -'- on the /round that as a

protest of the election it 8as 3led late. The Industrial 7ourt, ho8ever,considered the sae as an ans8er to -'-)S petition, and on Septeber 9,"#%@, after hearin/ the ar/uents of the parties, ordered that all the ?#=challen/ed ballots 8ere opened. -fter the canvass, "9$ votes challen/ed b5-'- 8ere counted in favor of P*-S*+. Of the !9! votes challen/ed b5 P*-S*+,? 8ere counted in its favor, !!$ credited in favor of -'-, and "" declaredeither for no union or spoiled ballots. -ddin/ the votes to the results of thecerti3cation election, the 3nal count sho8ed that respondent -'- /arnered atotal of ?@@ votes as a/ainst !?# for P*-S*+. -ccordin/l5, said respondent 8ascerti3ed b5 the Industrial 7ourt in its order dated March "!, "#%$ as the solecollective bar/ainin/ a/ent of the eplo5ees of the San 7arlos Millin/ 7o. -s itsotion for reconsideration of the order 8as denied b5 the court en "anc 8ith

ud/e Beliciano Tabi/ne dissentin/ the petitioner P*-S*+ 3led the presentpetition for revie8, contendin/ that Industrial 7ourt erred in not e4cludin/ the!9! votes challen/ed b5 it fro the total nuber of votes credited to

respondent -'-.'e 3nd petitioner)s contention to be eritorious.In order of Ma5 !%, "#% authori0in/ the certi3cation election, the trial


41/126

Manufacturin/ 7o. vs. -lhabra 6plo5ee)s -ssociation, "=@ Phil. !?.2 Itappearin/ that the !9! stevedores and piece 8or(ers, 8hose votes have beenchallen/ed, 8ere eplo5ed on casual or da5 to da5 basis and have noreasonable basis for continued or rene8ed eplo5ent for an5 appreciablesubstantial tie not to ention the nature of 8or( the5 perfor the5 cannotbe considered to have such utualit5 of interest as to


42/126

THIRD DIVISIONHG.R. No. 1:12:5. No


43/126

ebers of +STB+, so uch so that non+STB+ ebers 8ere allo8ed to votein violation of Section ", -rticle V of the 7&*.On !9 October "##, appellees 3led another ur/ent e4parte otion for ateporar5 restrainin/ order, this tie alle/in/ that appellants had served theforer a notice to vacate the union oKce. Bor their part, appellants oved todisiss the ori/inal petition and the subse>uent otion on uestionsAF"=G

1"2 'hether the 7ollective &ar/ainin/ +nit of all the facult5 ebers in thateneral Bacult5 -ssebl5 had the ri/ht in that eneral Bacult5 -ssebl5 tosuspend the provisions of the 7onstitution and &5*a8s of the +STB+ re/ardin/the elections of oKcers of the unionF.G1!2 'hether the suspension of the provisions of the 7onstitution and &5*a8sof the +STB+ in that eneral Bacult5 -ssebl5 is valid pursuant to theconstitutional ri/ht of the 7ollective &ar/ainin/ +nit to en/a/e in peacefulconcerted activitiesW for the purpose of oustin/ the corrupt re/ie of theprivate respondentsF.G

1?2 'hether the over8helin/ rati3cation of the 7ollective &ar/ainin/-/reeent e4ecuted b5 the petitioners in behalf of the +STB+ 8ith the+niversit5 of Santo Toas has rendered oot and acadeic the issue as to thevalidit5 of the suspension of the 7onstitution and &5*a8s and the elections ofOctober 9, "## in the eneral Bacult5 -ssebl5F.GWT)e Co*r' R*&-@

The petition is not eritorious. Petitioners fail to convince this 7ourt thatDirector &itonio /ravel5 abused his discretion in aKrin/ the edarbiter andin refusin/ to reco/ni0e the bindin/ eLect of the October 9, "## /eneralassebl5 called b5 the +ST adinistration.#&r' I*e? Right to Self-Organization and Union Membership

-t the outset, the 7ourt stresses that 0ational Fe(eration of La"or 70FL8 v.Laues)aF""G has held that challen/es a/ainst rulin/s of the labor secretar5 andthose actin/ on his behalf, li(e the director of labor relations, shall be actedupon b5 the 7ourt of -ppeals, 8hich has concurrent


44/126

over petitions for certiorari. Ho8ever, inasuch as the eoranda in theinstant case have been 3led prior to the proul/ation and 3nalit5 of ourDecision in 0FL, 8e dee it proper to resolve the present controvers5 directl5,instead of reandin/ it to the 7ourt of -ppeals. Havin/ disposed of thefore/oin/ procedural atter, 8e no8 tac(le the issues in the presentcase seriati).Selfor/ani0ation is a fundaental ri/ht /uaranteed b5 the Philippine7onstitution and the *abor 7ode. 6plo5ees have the ri/ht to for,


45/126

conspicuous places, preferabl5 inside 7opan5 preises, said notices. Thedate, tie and place for the eetin/s shall be deterined b5 the &oard ofOKcers.WF!?G

+n>uestionabl5, the assebl5 8as not a union eetin/. It 8as in fact a/atherin/ that 8as called and participated in b5 ana/eent and nonunionebers. &5 no le/al 3at 8as such assebl5 transfored into a union activit5b5 the participation of soe union ebers.%econ(, there 8as no coission on elections to oversee the election, asandated b5 Sections " and ! of -rticle I of the +STB+s 7&*, 8hich provideA

-RTI7*6 I +NION 6*67TIONSection ". There shall be a 7oittee on 6lection 17OM6*672 to be created b5the &oard of OKcers at least thirt5 1?=2 da5s before an5 re/ular or specialelection. The functions of the 7OM6*67 include the follo8in/Aa2 -dopt and proul/ate rules and re/ulations that 8ill ensure a free, clean,honest and orderl5 election, 8hether re/ular or special:b2 Pass upon >uali3cations of candidates:c2 Rule on an5 >uestion or protest re/ardin/ the conduct of the electionsubuestioned election 8as held is an iplied adissionthat the election held on that date FOctober 9, "##G could not be consideredvalid under the e4istin/ +STB+ constitution 444.WF!#G

The rati3cation of the ne8 7&- e4ecuted bet8een the petitioners and the+niversit5 of Santo Toas ana/eent did not validate the void October 9,

"## election. Rati3ed 8ere the ter)s of t/e ne CBA, not theissue of unionlea(ers/ip a atter that should be decided onl5 b5 union ebers in theproper foru at the proper tie and after observance of proper procedures.Epilog%e

In disissin/ this Petition, 8e are not passin/ upon the erits of theisana/eent alle/ations iputed b5 the petitioners to the privaterespondents: these are not at issue in the present case. Petitioners can brin/their /rievances and resolve their diLerences 8ith private respondents intiel5 and appropriate proceedin/s. 7ourts 8ill not tolerate the unfairtreatent of union ebers b5 their o8n leaders. 'hen the latter abuse andviolate the ri/hts of the forer, the5 shall be dealt 8ith accordin/l5 in theproper foru after the observance of due process.6"ERE#ORE, the Petition is hereb5 DI%'I%%ED and the assailedResolutions AFFIR'ED. 7osts a/ainst petitioners.SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/131235.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudenc

kaso III.docx

Documents