Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

MC Jim Capiendo

Topic: LLO VS UNION VS WORKERS ASSCOCIATION

La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory


v. Dir. of BLR

Facts:
La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory Provincial (the Company) and Metro
Manila Sales Force Association (the local union) applied for and was granted
chapter status by the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU).

Sometime later, 31 local union members signed a joint letter withdrawing their
membership in NATU.

The local union and NATU filed a petition for certification election which alleged
that 48 of the 60 sales personnel of the company were members of the local
union. The petition is supported by no less than 75% of the sales force.

Moreover, there is no existing recognized labor union in the company


representing the said sales personnel. Likewise, there is no existing CBA and
no certification election in the last 12 months preceding the filing of the
petition.

The company opposed on the ground that it was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y a t


l e a s t 3 0 % ( n o w 2 5 % ) o f t h e proposed bargaining unit because:
(a) of the alleged 48 members of the local union, 31 had withdrawn
prior to the filing of the petition, and

(b)14 of the alleged members of the union were not employees of the company
but were independent contractors. The BLR (Bureau of Labor Relations)
director denied the companys objection

Issue:
WON the withdrawal of 31 union members from NATU affected the petition
for certification election (insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned)

Held:
YES
The SC reversed the decision of BLR, it appearing that the 31 union members
has withdrawn their support to the petition BEFORE the filing of said
petition.

It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made AFTER the filing of the
petition for it would then be presumed that the said withdrawal was not free
and voluntary (may be procured through duress, coercion or for valuable
consideration).

In other words, distinction must be made whether the withdrawals were made
before or after filing of the petition. Before= presumed to be voluntary.
After=involuntary

Reason for distinction is that if the withdrawal was made before filing of the
petition, the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be
held secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction
shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not given consent to
the filing of the petition; hence the subscription requirement has not been met.

SC held that 14 members of the respondent local union are dealers and
independent contractors, thus they are not employees of the Company.

With the withdrawal by 31 members of their support to the petition before the
filing thereof, making a total of 45, the remainder of 3 out of 48 alleged to have
supported the petition. Such number can hardly be said to represent the
union.

People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Panis

GR No. L5867477, July 11, 1990


FACTS:

On January 9, 1981, four information were filed in the in the Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that herein private
respondent Serapio Abug, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of
Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee
charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and
promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals. Abug filed
a motion to quash contending that he cannot be charged for illegal recruitment
because according to him, Article 13(b) of the Labor Code says there would be
illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner
promised or offered any employment for a fee.

Denied at first, the motion to quash was reconsidered and granted by the Trial
Court in its Orders dated June 24, 1981, and September 17, 1981. In the
instant case, the view of the private respondents is that to constitute
recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this article should
involve dealings with two or more persons as an indispensable requirement. On
the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more
persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an
offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of
a fee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Article 13(b) of the Labor Code provides for the innocence or
guilt of the private respondent of the crime of illegal recruitment

COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the CFIs Orders and reinstated all four
information filed against private respondent.

The Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely intended to create a
presumption, and not to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an
exception thereto.

Where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to


two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them
shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The
words "shall be deemed" create the said presumption.