ISSUE:

BAUTISTA VS. INCIONG

158 SCRA 665 8
Whether or not there can be employer-employee relationship between a labor union
and its member.

RULING:

Yes. There is nothing in the records which support the conclusion that the petitioner is
not an employee of respondent ALU. The mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does
not mean that it cannot be considered an employer of the persons who work for it.

Moreover, the four elements in determining the existence of an employer-employee

relationship was present in the case at bar. The Regional Director correctly found that the
petitioner was an employee of the respondent union as reflected in the latters individual payroll
sheets and shown by the petitioners membership with the Social Security System (SSS) and
the respondent unions share of remittances in the petitioners favor. Bautista was selected and
hired by the union. ALU had the power to dismiss him as indeed it dismissed him. And
definitely, the Union tightly controlled the work of Bautista as one of its organizers.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS S/Y 2017-2018

ISSUE:
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION VS. BORROMEO
26 SCRA 88 9
Whether or not CIR has the jurisdiction over a case wherein there is no employer-
employee relationship between the parties.

RULING:

Yes, CIR has the jurisdiction over the case even if there is the absence of employer-
employee relationship. To begin with, Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 875 vests in the Court
of Industrial Relations exclusive jurisdiction over the prevention of any unfair labor practice.
Moreover, for an issue concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning
the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment to partake of the nature of a labor
dispute, it is not necessary that the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer
and employee.

Then, again, in order to apply the provisions of Sec. 9 of Republic Act No. 875,
governing the conditions under which any restraining order or temporary or permanent
injunction may issue in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, it is not
indispensable that the persons involved in the case be employees of the same employer,
although this is the usual case. Sec. 9, likewise, governs cases involving persons: 1) who are
engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation; or 2) who . have direct or indirect
interests therein; or 3) who are members of the same or an affiliated organization of
employers or employees; or 4) when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests
in a `labor dispute (as hereinbefore defined) or `persons participating or interested therein (as
hereinafter defined). Furthermore, a person or association shall be held to be a person
participating or interested in a labor dispute if relief is sought against him or it and he or it is
engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation in which such dispute occurs, or has
a direct or indirect interest therein, or is a member, officer, or agent of any association
composed in whole or in part of employees or employers engaged in such industry, trade, craft,
or occupation.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS S/Y 2017-2018

ISSUE:
PHILTRANCO VS. BLR
(G.R. No. 85343, June 28, 1989) 10
Whether or not professional, technical, administrative and confidential employees be
entitled to form a separate union from the rank-and-file employees in a company?

RULING:

No. The Labor Code recognizes two principal groups of employees, namely, the
managerial and the rank-and-file groups. The IRR did away with existing supervisors unions
classifying the members either as managerial or rank-and-file employees depending on the
work they perform.
If they discharge managerial functions, supervisors are prohibited from forming or
joining any labor organization. If they do not perform managerial work, they may join the rank-
and-file union and if none exists, they may form one such rank-and-file organization.
It, therefore, follows that the members of the KASAMA KO who are professional,
technical, administrative and confidential personnel of Philtranco performing managerial
functions are not qualified to join, much less form a union.
This rationalizes the exclusion of managers and confidential employees exercising
managerial functions from the ambit of the collective bargaining unit.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS S/Y 2017-2018

ISSUE:
FRANKLIN BAKER CO. VS. TRAJANO
157 SCRA 416 11
May employees exercising the power to hire, suspend, or dismiss other employees
subject to a review be considered managerial employees for the purpose of inclusion in the
bargaining unit of the company?

RULING:

No. The test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses
authority to act in the interest of his employer as specified by the Labor Code and its IRR, and
whether such authority is not merely routinely or clerical in nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment.
Where such recommendatory powers are subject to evaluation, review, and final action
of department heads and other higher executives, the same, although present, are not effective
and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
It was shown that the aforementioned employees are exercising the power to hire.
However, in the performance of their functions and duties and in the exercise of
recommendatory powers, subject employees may only recommend, as the ultimate power to
hire, fire or suspend, rests upon the plant personnel manager. Hence, the Court did not consider
them as managerial employees.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS S/Y 2017-2018

ISSUE:
BULLETIN PUBLISHING CO. VS. SANCHEZ
144 SCRA 628 12
May supervisors in a company, for purposes of collective bargaining, form a union
separate and distinct from the existing union organized by the rank-and-file employees of the
same company?

RULING:

No. Managerial employees are explicitly excluded from the right to self-organization,
the right to form, join, and assist labor unions. The rationale for the inhibition has been stated
to be, because if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a union, the
latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests.
The Union can also become company dominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the Union membership.

RENE M. GOMEZ I BLOCK 2A LAW ON LABOR RELATIONS S/Y 2017-2018