Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU) FACTS: Petitioner Eagle Ridge is a corporation engaged in the business of maintaining golf courses. It had, at the end of CY 2005, around 112 rank-and-file employees. The instant case is an off-shot of the desire of a number of these employees to organize themselves as a legitimate labor union and their employers opposition to their aspiration.

Petitioner had 112 rank-and-file employees. On 06 December 2005, at least 20%1 organized themselves into an independent labor union. After being issued a registration certificate, it filed a petition for certification election (CE). Petitioner opposed it, followed by the filing of a petition for cancellation of the registration certificate. It claimed that EREU declared in its application for registration that it had 30 members when the minutes of its organizational meeting only showed 26. However, only 25 signed the certification that ratified the constitution and by-laws while 26 signed the document, thereby making one signature a forgery. Also, petitioner contended that 5 employees wanted to withdraw from the union, executing affidavits2 claiming that (1) the meeting was a drinking spree, (2) they didnt know the documents they signed were for the organization of a union, and (3) they wish to withdraw from it. This withdrawal reduces the membership to 20 to 21 (below minimum). Eagle Ridges petition ascribed misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to EREU in
connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the Union, and the election of its officers. Conversely, the union presented duly accomplished membership forms of 4 additional members dated 08

December 2005.3
ISSUE: Whether or not EREU misrepresented, gave false statements and committed fraud in the adoption of its constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the union and the election of officers for the application for registration.

RULING: NO. It had 30 members when it applied for registration on 19 December 2005. It has sufficiently explained that the 4 discrepancy was due to the 4 additional members. Admission of new members is neither prohibited by law nor was it concealed in its application. Art 234(b) required submission of the minutes and list of participants while par (c) merely required the list of all members. Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission of membership, especially in 5 independent unions, must be viewed in favor of valid membership. The 26-25 difference is merely a typographical error and an insignificant mistake. The affidavits of retraction of 6 were not presented in the hearing and are, therefore, hearsay while those affidavits presented by the union were duly reaffirmed in the hearing by the affiants. The employees withdrawal from a labor union made before filing of the petition for CE is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after is considered involuntary. Hence, withdrawal from a union after filing the Petition for CE does not affect it. The retraction did not retroact to the time of the application for registration or even to the organizational meeting. Prior to their withdrawal, they were bona fide union members. They also never disputed affixing their signatures. Well settled is that where the company seeks the cancellation of a unions registration d uring the pendency of a petition for certification election, the same grounds invoked to cancel should not be used to bar the certification election. This is because a CE is the most appropriate procedure for the desired goal of ascertaining which of the competing organizations should represent the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.

20% of 112 is 22.4 Dated 15 February 2006. 3 NOTE: It also presented two sama-samang sinumpaang salaysay and the union legal counsels sworn statement attesting to the orderly and properly proceedings of the organizational meeting. 4 between those who attended the meeting and the total members 5 It was alleged by petitioner that the applications for membersh ip did not comply with (what petitioner called) sine qua non requirements in the constitution and by-laws. 6 Facts stated 5 but the ruling stated 6 members.
1 2

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE) vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Philippines, Standard Chartered Bank G.R. No. 161933 April 22, 2008 Petitioner and the Standard Chartered Bank (Bank) began negotiating for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in May 2000 as their 1998-2000 CBA already expired. Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The CBA provisions in dispute are the exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit and the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for one month. In their proposal, petitioner sought the exclusion of only the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff. In the previous 1998-2000 CBA, the excluded employees are as follows: A. All covenanted and assistant officers (now called National Officers) B. One confidential secretary of each of the: 1. Chief Executive, Philippine Branches 2. Deputy Chief Executive/Head, Corporate Banking Group 3. Head, Finance 4. Head, Human Resources 5. Manager, Cebu 6. Manager, Iloilo 7. Covenanted Officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits. C. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo, and in any other branch that the BANK may establish in the country. D. Personnel of the Telex Department E. All Security Guards F. Probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or emergency employees; and G. One (1) HR Staff ISSUE: Whether or not the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees, such that they should be excluded. Whether or not additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one month. HELD: NO. Petitioner insists that the foregoing employees are not confidential employees; however, it failed to buttress its claim. Aside from its generalized arguments and despite the Secretary's finding that there was no evidence to support it, petitioner still failed to substantiate its claim. Petitioner did not even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees, depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed confidential employees. As aptly stated by the CA: While We agree that petitioner's proposed revision is in accordance with the law, this does not necessarily mean that the list of exclusions enumerated in the 1998-2000 CBA is contrary to law. As found by public respondent, petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should, accordingly, be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex department and one (1) HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file employees, then they are rightfully 21 excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner cannot simply rely on jurisprudence without explaining how and why it should apply to this case. Allegations must be supported by evidence. In this case, there is barely any at all. YES. There is likewise no reason for the Court to disturb the conclusion of the Secretary and the CA that the additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one month. The Secretary agreed with the Bank's position that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, and at the same time, recognized that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation.


FACTS: Petitioner De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine (DLSUMCCM) is a hospital and medical school at Dasmarias, Cavite. Private respondent Federation of Free Workers-De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC), on the other hand, is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. On April 17, 1991, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a national federation of labor unions, issued a certificate to private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local chapter. On the same day, it filed on behalf of private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. Its petition was opposed by petitioner DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees who signed the petition for certification election were managerial employees and that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company. In its reply dated May 29, 1991, private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC denied petitioner's allegations. It contended that 2. Herein petition seeks for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of herein respondent. It does not intend to include managerial employees. xxx xxx xxx 6. It is not true that supervisory employees are joining the rank-and-file employees' union. While it is true that both regular rank-and-file employees and supervisory employees of herein respondent have affiliated with FFW, yet there are two separate unions organized by FFW. The supervisory employees have a separate charter certificate issued by FFW. On July 5, 1991, respondent Rolando S. de la Cruz, med-arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. IV, issued an order granting respondent union's petition for certification election. He said; . . . [petitioner] . . . claims that based on the job descriptions which will be presented at the hearing, the covered employees who are considered managers occupy the positions of purchasing officers, personnel officers, property officers, cashiers, heads of various sections and the like. [Petitioner] also argues that assuming that some of the employees concerned are not managerial but mere supervisory employees, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) cannot extend a charter certificate to this group of employees without violating the express provision of Article 245 which provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own" because the FFW had similarly issued a charter certificate to its rank-and-file employees. In its position paper, [petitioner] stated that most, if not all, of the employees listed in . . . the petition are considered managerial employees, thereby admitting that it has supervisory employees who are undoubtedly qualified to join or form a labor organization of their own. The record likewise shows that [petitioner] promised to present the job descriptions of the concerned employees during the hearing but failed to do so.

ISSUE: Whether or not the rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM who compose a labor union are directly under the supervisory employees whose own union is affiliated with the same national federation (Federation of Free Workers) and whether such national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company so as to make the two unions in the same company, in reality, just one union. HELD: NO. Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same national federation, the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the 17 authority of the supervisory employees. As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, the fact that the two groups of workers are employed by the same company and the fact that they are affiliated with a common national federation are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that their organizations are actually just one. Their immediate professional 18 relationship must be established. To borrow the language of Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR: We find without merit the contention of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that there would be a merging of the two bargaining units; and that the respondent union will lose its independence because it 19 becomes an alter ego of the federation. Mention has already been made of the fact that the petition for certification election in this case was filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. This circumstance, while showing active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company, is by itself insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. 245 since there is no proof that the supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees composing the other local union which is 20 also affiliated with the FFW. This fact differentiates the case from Atlas Lithographic Services. Inc. v. Laguesma, in which, in addition to the fact that the petition for certification election had been filed by the national federation, it was shown that the rank-and-file employees were directly under the supervisors organized by the same federation.