1 MSMG – UWP v.

Ramos GR NO/DATE: 113907
TOPIC: Local Unions and Federation

FACTS:

• MSMG (local union) held a general membership meeting wherein several union members failed to attend the meeting 


MSMG wrote M. Greenfield, Inc. (respondent company) requesting it to deduct the union fines from the 
wages/salaries of
those union members who failed to attend the general membership meeting pursuant to Secs. 4 and 
5, Article V of the
Constitution and By-Laws of the union (those who fails to attend or are late would be fined) 


The secretary General of ULGWP (national federation) disapproved the MSMG’s resolution of imposing the fine 


Since the imposition of the fine became the subject of disagreement between MSMG and ULGWP, MSMG declared 
its
general autonomy from ULGWP through Resolution No. 10 which was passed by the local executive board 


Officials of ULGWP placed MSMG under trusteeship and appointed an administrator 


Petitioner union officers received letters from the administrator requiring them to explain why they should not be

removed from their office and be expelled from union membership 


However, the officers were expelled from ULGWP even before ULGWP received the officers’ reply 


ULGWP advised M. Greenfield, Inc. of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from

employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause in their collective bargaining agreement 


ULGWP filed a Notice of Strike to compel M. Greenfield, Inc. to effect the immediate termination of the expelled 
union
officers 


Under the pressure of the threatened strike, M. Greenfield, Inc. terminated the 30 union officers from employment 


ISSUE(S): M. Greenfield, Inc. justly dismissed the petitioner employees based on ULGWP’s demand for the enforcement of the union
security clause in their collective bargaining agreement

HELD: No

RATIO:

Although union security clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and 
dismissals pursuant
thereto may be likewise valid, due process must still be observed 
Upon demand by ULGWP, M. Greenfield, Inc. terminated the
petitioners without conducting a separate and 
independent investigation 
Moreover, the termination letters received by the
petitioners state that the dismissal shall be immediately effective 


A local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such 
disaffiliation cannot be
considered disloyalty 
In the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the
declaration of 
autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union 


The evidence presented does not show that there is such a provision in ULGWP’s constitution 
Thus, there is no disloyalty to speak
of 
Consequently, there cannot be any valid dismissal because Article II, Sec. 4 of the union security clause in the 
CBA limits the
dismissal to only 3 grounds: failure to maintain membership in the union (1) for non-payment of union dues; (2) for resignation; and
(3) for violation of the union’s Constitution and By-Laws (again, no disloyalty to speak of, so no violation of the union’s
Constitution). 


CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

• Although union security clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and 
dismissals
pursuant thereto may be likewise valid, due process must still be observed 


• In the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of 
autonomy of a
local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union 

2 Philippine Skylanders v. NLRC
GR 127374, January 31, 2002

FACTS:
 The Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with the Philippine Association of
Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) September, won in the certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of
Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association —WATU (PSEA-WATU)
immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.

 Several months later, pending settlement of the controversy, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation. PSEA subsequently
affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name to Philippine Skylanders Employees
Association-National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW).

 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI which was immediately registered with the Department
of Labor and Employment. Meanwhile, PAFLU filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI for the latter's refusal to
bargain collectively against its workers and for its recognition of PSEA-NCW.

 Labor Arbiter: declared PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, PSEA-PAFLU and their respective officers
guilty of unfair labor practice.

 On appeal to the NLRC: the latter upheld the decision of the Labor Arbiter

ISSUE:
WoN PSEA, which is an independent and separate local union, validly disaffiliate from PAFLU pending the settlement of an election
protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file employees?
Ruling:

YES.

There is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the
federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the pendency of an election protest involving both
the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation
Not disputed: 111 signatories out of the 120 members of the local union, or an equivalent of 92.5% of the total union membership
supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized PAFLU from instituting any complaint in their behalf.

It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had validly severed
itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW and entering
into a collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its members.

Doctrine:
Local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the
constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the
agreement which brought such affiliation into existence.
3 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa SAMMA-Lakas sa Industriya Ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) vs. SAMMA
Corporation [March 13, 2009]
Topic: Cancellation of Registration

FACTS:

 In July 2001, petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election before DOLE.
 It claimed that: (1) it was a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE; (2)
it sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate
labor organization representing these rank-and-file employees; (4) respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining
agreement and (5) no certification or consent election had been conducted within the employer unit for the last 12 months
prior to the filing of the petition.
 Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality;
(2) petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4)
it had a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
 Med-arbiter: dismissed the petition
 Petitioner moved for reconsideration so the case was forwarded to the Secretary of Labor.
 Meanwhile, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner’s union registration before DOLE.
 The Acting Secretary, treating the MR as an appeal, reversed the order of the med-arbiter.
o He ruled that the legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an independent
petition for cancellation of registration.
 The Regional Director of DOLE issued a resolution revoking the charter certificate of petitioner as local chapter of LIKHA
Federation on the ground of prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees
 CA: reversed the decision of the Labor Secretary. Petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for certification election
because its members were a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

ISSUES: Whether petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election.

RATIO: YES, the erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file employees was not a ground to
impugn its legitimacy as a legitimate labor organization, which had the right to file a petition for certification election.

 With certificates of registration issued to LIKHA Federation and petitioner, they are clothed with legal personality as legitimate
labor organizations.
 Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation of certificate of registration.
 Unless petitioner’s union registration is cancelled in independent proceedings, it shall continue to have all the rights of
a legitimate labor organization, including the right to petition for certification election.
 Furthermore, the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor
organization are the following: (a) petitioner is not listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry
of legitimate labor organizations or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in accordance with the
rules.
 Neither of the parties alleged that the DOLE resolution revoking petitioner’s charter certificate had attained finality.
 However, in this petition, petitioner prayed that its charter certificate be reinstated in the roster of active legitimate labor
organizations. This cannot be granted here.
 The proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration are independent of those of a petition for certification
election. This case originated from the latter.
 If it is shown that petitioner’s legal personality had already been revoked or cancelled with finality in accordance with the
rules, then it is no longer a legitimate labor organization with the right to petition for a certification election.
 Furthermore, in certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material interest to assail the certification
election.
4 SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA-
LIKHA), Petitioner, vs. SAMMA CORPORATION, Respondent.

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari

Plaintiff Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industria ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA)
Defendant Samma Corporation
Ponente Corona, J.

FACTS.
1. Petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election in the DOLE, Regional Office IV claiming that: (1) it was a local
chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE; (2) it sought to represent all the rank-
and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate labor organization representing these rank-
and-file employees; (4) respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement and (5) no certification or consent
election had been conducted within the employer unit for the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition.
2. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality; (2)
petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had a
prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
3. Med-arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco ordered the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds: (1) lack of legal personality for
failure to attach certificate of registration purporting to show its legal personality; (2) prohibited mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees and (3) failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping. Petitioner moved for reconsideration.
4. Meanwhile, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner’s union registration in the DOLE. Crispin D. Dannug, Jr.,
Officer-in-Charge/Regional Director of DOLE, issued a resolution dated April 14, 2003, revoking the charter certificate of petitioner
as local chapter of LIKHA Federation on the ground of prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and non-
compliance with attestation clause under par.2, Art 235 of Labor Code.
5. Treating the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners as an appeal, Acting Secretary Manuel G. Imson reversed the order of
the med-arbiter. He ruled that the legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an
independent petition for cancellation of registration and directed the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file
employees. Respondents filed a motion for consideration however, it was denied
6. Respondent brought the case to the CA via petition for certiorari. The CA reversed the above decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S and RULING:

MAIN ISSUE: whether or not petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election? YES.

OTHER ISSUES:
(1) whether or not a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a petition for certification election? NO.

(2) whether or not petitioner’s motion for reconsideration which was treated as an appeal should not have been given due course for
failure to attach proof of service on respondent? NO.

HELD:

The erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file employees is not a ground to impugn the
legitimacy of a legitimate labor organization which had the right to file a petition for certification election.

SAMMA-LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under certificate of registration no. 92-1015-032-11638-FED-LC.
Subsequently, petitioner as its local chapter was issued its charter certificate no. 2-01. With certificates of registration issued in their
favor, they are clothed with legal personality as legitimate labor organizations. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to
collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of certificate of registration.

On the argument that petitioner has lost its legal personality due to the revocation or cancellation of its charter certificate, it was held
that even though the DOLE initially revoked the petitioner’s charter certificate, petitioner has moved for the reconsideration of such
resolution and it has not yet attained its finality. However, the SC cannot order the reinstatement of its charter certificate because it is
well settled that proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration are independent of those of petition for certification
election. This case originated from the latter.

In this case, respondent has been opposing the holding of certification election. The SC here held that the employer is a mere
bystander; it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election.

OTHERS ISSUES:
(1) The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints, counter-claims, cross-claims, petitions or
applications where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant,
petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a "petition," is not a litigation but an investigation of a
non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Therefore, there is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping in a petition
for certification election.

(2) According to the implementing rules as amended by D.O. No. 9, “the appeal shall be under oath and shall consist of a
memorandum of appeal specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the appellant with the supporting arguments and evidence.
The appeal shall be deemed not filed unless accompanied by proof of service thereof to appellee.” The motion for reconsideration
was properly treated as an appeal because it substantially complied with the formal requisites of the latter. The lack of proof of
service was not fatal as respondent had actually received a copy of the motion.

DOCTRINE.

SECTION 5, RULE 5 of D.O NO. 9:

Section 5. Effect of registration. - The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with
legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration.Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject
to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.
7 MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

FACTS
1. On May 4, 2005, respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was
issued a Certi cate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
Region IV-A.

2. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. led a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against respondent, claiming that the
latter violated Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement, and that it committed massive
fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code.
3. Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the registration of respondent, and delisting
it from the roster of active labor unions.

4. Respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). The appeal by Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was GRANTED.

5. Petitioner led a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it in a Resolution dated February 2, 2007.
Petitioner sought
recourse with the Court of Certiorari; but the CA denied the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration
of the CA Decision was likewise denied,

ISSUE(S): Whether or not SMMSC-Independent fail to comply with the 20% requirement?

HELD: No. The petitioners insist that the respondent failed to comply with the 20% requirement because of the disaffiliation of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership (after the union filed a petition for certification election)

Art. 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application for union registration, it does not
mandate that a union maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.

The total number of members at the time of registration was 169 of 528 rank-and-file employees which was 32% of the total number,
still very much above the minimum required by law.

For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection
with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
The Court held that the respondent union met the required 20% minimum membership requirement, and did not commit
misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements

The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our
mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondent's certi cate of registration. The cancellation of a union's registration doubtless has
an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self- organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of
union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to
vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.

In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have possibly committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false
statements. The alleged failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the total number of employees in the
bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if the
total number of rank-and- le employees of petitioner is 528, while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be
denied that the latter would have more than complied with the registration requirement.

PETITION DENIED.

ART. 239 GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION.

The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;

Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of
voters, or failure to

submit these documents together with the list of the newly-elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30)
days from election.
6 Legend International Resorts v. KML-Independent
G.R. 169754 February 23, 2011

FACTS:
 Respondent Kilusang Mangagawa ng Legenda KML Independent filed a Petition for Certification Election (CE) with the Med-
Arbitration Unit. Petitioner Legend International Resorts seeks to dismiss the petition alleging that Respondent is not a
legitimate labor organization due to its membership having a mixture of supervisory and rank & file employees violating Art.
245 of the Code. Respondent argues that even if some of these employees are supervisors, they are excluded from its
membership; the Certification Election could still proceed due to the numbers required for such is still sustained.
Furthermore, respondent argues that the organization’s legitimacy cannot be collaterally attacked in the CE Proceedings and
can only be questioned in an independent action for cancellation of registration.
 Med- Arbiter: dismiss for lack of merit since Art. 245 expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a union of
rank & file employees; KML-respondent is not a legitimate union.
 Secretary of DOLE (SDOLE): grants respondent’s appeal setting aside Med-Arbiter’s decision. KML’s legitimacy cannot be
collaterally attacked.
 Petitioner files certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of SDOLE. CA held that the issues of
KML’s legitimacy has been finalized with finality and the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations upholding its legitimacy
has become final and executory for failure of Petitioner to appeal on time
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition of Legend
HELD:
 PARTLY MERITORIOUS; CA affirms SDOLE decision
 Records show that Petitioner has timely filed a petition for certiorari before CA.
 However, a Certification Election may still be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is
because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality
to file the same. There is therefore no basis for petitioner’s allegation that the cancellation of respondent’s certificate of
registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all respondent’s activities, including its
filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to collectively bargain. Also, the legitimacy of the legal
personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election proceeding.
 Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the
cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union is
presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same. There is therefore no basis for LEGENDs assertion that the
cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of
KMLs activities, including its filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to collectively bargain.

 In Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, the Court
ruled that such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted
particularly for the purpose of assailing it.

 [T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear
on this matter. x x x The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with
legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union,
its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. In may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied, Private respondent won.

DOCTRINE: [T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very
clear on this matter. x x x The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with
legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal
personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. In may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in
accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
7 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),Petitioner, vs.
KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS:

KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of
145 rank-and-file employees of respondent. Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss8 the petition on the ground that KFWU
did not acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article 245
of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development
Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment.

Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for certification election, stating that, Since
petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees, petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not
attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory employees from it membership
before it can attain the status of a legitimate labor organization.

Respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU,13 the final
outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the records.
KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal;
ordered the case be remanded to the office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election xxx CA reversed. MR denied.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Wwhether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election in view of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule
that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security
guards”
Whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification
election through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile Manufacturing Phils., Inc.

HELD: The petition is imbued with merit, and was granted by the Supreme Court.

DISCUSSION:

The key to the closure that petitioner seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 [AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE WORKERS’
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF- ORGANIZATION, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES] Sections 8 and 9.

However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007;26 hence, it applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after said
date.27 As the petition for certification election subject matter of the present petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000,28 R.A.
No. 9481 cannot apply to it. There may have been curative labor legislations29 that were given retrospective effect,30 but not the
aforecited provisions of R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already vested would be impaired in the
process.

Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for certification election on January 24, 2000 are
R.A. No. 6715,32 amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor Code),33as amended, and the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 6715,34 as amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.

One area of contention has been the composition of the membership of a labor organization, specifically whether there is a mingling
of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and how such questioned mingling affects its legitimacy.

Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the questioned mingling in one labor organization, viz: Sec. 18. Article
245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees
are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. 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.”

Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition would bring
about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.
Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in Toyota,48
the Court, citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, held:

Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which
carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization,
including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore,
anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization
whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code

In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list contains the names of at least twenty- seven (27) supervisory employees in
Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate
labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election.

But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997
(1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules – that the
petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory
employees – was removed.

Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting the petition for certification election of
KFWU.
Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor
organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for certification election.

Except when it is requested to bargain collectively,62 an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such
proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining with the employer.63 The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it;64 not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification
election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election.65 The
employer’s only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.

The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.
8 DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-
FFW), petitioner, vs. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, respondent.
[G.R. No. 152094. July 22, 2004] Third Division

DOCTRINE: False statements made by union officers before and during a certification election -- that the union is independent and
not affiliated with a national federation -- are material facts likely to influence the election results.

The purpose of a certification election is precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees choice of an appropriate bargaining unit
-- to be or not to be represented by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which one.[22]

Once disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which
union should be the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees.[23]

FACTS:
1. On November 25, 1997, a certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees in the main office
and the regional branches of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were petitioner and no union.
2. December 19, 1997, Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the
Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the nullification of the
certification election.
3. DHL union petitioner officers were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by
misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the Federation
of Free Workers (FFW).
4. The mistepresentation is the reason they voted for the petitioner in the certification election.
5. Allegedly it was the readon why some withdrew membership to the DHL union petitioner and formed Buklod union
evidenced by certificate of registration on Dec23 1997.
6. Jan 19 ’98 – Result: No Union 348, DHL-URFA-FFW 546. Declared DHL union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
7. May 18, 1998 – Med Arbiter Falconitin nullified the certification election. Order a new one with DHL union, Buklod and no
union as choices.
8. DOLE Undersecretary -Baldoz held on appeal that the issue of representation had already been settled with finality in favor
of petitioner, and that no petitions for certification election would be entertained within one year from the time the election
officer had issued the Certification Order.Set aside med arbiter decision.
9. CA annulled and set aside Baldoz decision.
10. Hence, petition for reviev under Rule 45.

ISSUE: WON the certification election is valid – No.

HELD: When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondents Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the
election officer should have deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Having been formed just after such exercise by
the defrauded employees who were former members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest within five
days from the close of the election proceedings. . Indeed, the fact that respondent was not yet a duly registered labor organization
when the Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in its application for registration.

The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the
procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere technicalities should not
be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers.[15] What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to determine
freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on their behalf.[16] Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal
committed by petitioners officers in the present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent and independent
choice.

Note that reapondent charged petitioner officers with fraud and deceit by encouraging them to vote for DHL, stating that it were an
independent union and not an affiliate of any national or local federation. This is evidenced by an affidavit under oath by 704
employees. The SC supported the med arbiter decision that the peritioner failed to rebut nor deny which gave rise to the
presumption that petitioner has admitted such fraud/misrepresentation. It affected the validity of the certification election, a ground
to annul such election.

Although petitioner won in the election, it is now clear that it does not represent the majority of the bargaining employees, owing to
the affiliation of its members with respondent. The present uncertainty as to which union has their support to represent them for
collective bargaining purposes is a salient factor that this Court has seriously considered.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
9 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and NORTH LUZON MAGNOLIA
SALES LABOR UNION- INDEPENDENT, respondents.
FACTS:
1. June 4, 1990: the Union filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election among all the regular sales personnel of
Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon Sales Area.
2. SMC opposed. It claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to have a separate
bargaining unit for each sales office.
3. Atty. Batalla, counsel of SMC, withdrew SMC’s opposition to a certification election and agreed to consider all the sales
offices in northern Luzon as one bargaining unit.
4. Election was held and the union won.
5. Med-Arbiter Galang certified the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the regular sales personnel of
Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon Sales Area.
6. SMC appealed to Sec. of Labor. It claimed that Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agree to the holding of certification
elections subject to the following conditions:
(1) there would only be one general election;
(2) in this general election, the individual sales offices shall still comprise separate bargaining units.
7. Sec. of Labor affirmed Med Arbiter.

ISSUE: WON the union represents an appropriate bargaining unit

HELD: The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are: (1) the will of the employees
(Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining
history; and (4) similarity of employment status.
Contrary to SMC’s assertion, SC has categorically ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining history is neither decisive
nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
The test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. The employees sought to be represented by the collective
bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the
type of work they perform.
In this case, Union sought to represent the sales personnel in the various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is similarity
of employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area are covered. They have the same duties and
responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and working conditions. The commonality of interest among the sales
personnel in the north Luzon sales area cannot be gainsaid. In fact, in the certification election held on November 24, 1990, the
employees concerned accepted the Union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Clearly, they have expressed their desire to be one.
**A bargaining unit is a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.”
Not labor related: A client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only when it would result in serious injustice should an exception
thereto be called for.
10 University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja (G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992)

FACTS:
The Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) filed a petition for certification election with Bureau of Legal Relations
(BLR). It claimed to represent 33% of all the non-academic personnel of UP-Diliman, Los Baños, Manila, and Visayas. The University
made no objections thererto, but the All UP Workers’ Union opposed the same and asked that the appropriate organizational
unistructure be first defined. It alleged that its membership composed of both academic and non-academic rank-and-file (RnF)
employees (EEs) of UP. The University then made a comment on such that there should indeed be 2 distinct unions, one for academic
EEs and the other for the non-academic EEs, considering their dichotomy of interests. Director Calleja however declared that the
appropriate bargaining unit should comprise of both groups, stating that the intent of EO 180 was to not fragmentalize the employer
(ER) unit. The University also sought to exclude from the bargaining unit EEs holding supervisory positions, alleging that there still
existed that held supervisory powers over her other EEs. Director Calleja upheld her earlier ruling, interposing that the policy-
making powers contemplated in the case merely pertained to academic matters and not as under the Labor Code. UP’s Motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied, hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: WON academic and non-academic EEs of UP should comprise a single collective bargaining unit.

HELD:
NO, although the country’s labor laws fail to provide a criterion for determining the proper bargaining unit, even EO No. 180 only
stated that the appropriate organizational unit. A “bargaining unit” has been defined as a group of employees, consistent with equity
to the ER, cases have shown the 4 criterion to consider; (1) will of the employees; (2) affinity and unit of employees' interest, such as
substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining
history; and (4) employment status, such as temporary, seasonal probationary employees. Out of the four, it is the
“community/mutuality of interests” test that stands out the most. Applying the same, it's clear that the acad and non-academic
personnel’s respective interests contradict with each other, and in effect, failed to satisfy the “community/mutuality of interest test.”
Contrarily, the 2 obviously share a dichotomy of interest or dissimilarity in the work. Thus, the 2 separate and distinct bargaining
units, one unit is for academics and the other for non-academic unit personnel, is essential to assure it to all the EEs the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights.
11 GOLDEN FARMS, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR and THE PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF
LABOR, respondents.

FACTS:

 Golden Farms, Inc.,(GF) is a corporation engaged in the production and marketing of bananas for export. Progressive
Federation of Labor (PFL) filed a petition before the Med-Arbiter praying for the holding of a certification election among
the monthly paid office and technical rank-and-file employees of GF.
 Golden Farms filed an MTD: (1) PFL failed to show that it was organized as a chapter within petitioner's establishment. (2)
there was already an existing CBA between the rank-and-file employees represented by the National Federation of Labor
(NFL) and GF. (3) the employees represented by PFL had allegedly been disqualified by this Court from bargaining with
management in Golden Farms, Inc., vs. Honorable Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja.
o Monthly paid office and technical employees should have joined the existing collective bargaining unit of the rank-
and-file employees if they are not manegerial employees.
 PFL opposed: monthly paid office and technical employees should be allowed to form a separate bargaining unit because
they were expressly excluded from coverage in the Collecting Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and NFL. It
also contended that the case invoked by petitioner was inapplicable to the present case.

Med-Arbiter: Grant certification election. SOLE: Affirm

ISSUE: Whether monthly paid rank-and file employees can constitute a bargaining unit separate from the existing bargaining unit
of daily paid rank-and-file employees.

HELD: YES.

 The monthly paid office and technical rank-and-file employees of petitioner Golden Farms enjoy the constitutional right to
self-organization and collective bargaining.
 A "bargaining unit" - a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best
suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
o The community or mutuality of interest is therefore the essential criterion in the grouping. "And this is so because
'the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination
which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.'
 The monthly paid rank-and-file employees of petitioner primarily perform administrative or clerical work. In
contradistinction, the petitioner's daily paid rank-and-file employees mainly work in the cultivation of bananas in the
fields. It is crystal clear the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of petitioner have very little in common with its daily
paid rank-and-file employees in terms of duties and obligations, working conditions, salary rates, and skills. To be sure, the
said monthly paid rank-and-file employees have even been excluded from the bargaining unit of the daily paid rank-and-file
employees. This dissimilarity of interests warrants the formation of a separate and distinct bargaining unit for the
monthly paid rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. To rule otherwise would deny this distinct class of employees
the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
 Petitioner next contends that these monthly paid office and technical employees are managerial employees. They allegedly
include those in the accounting and personnel department, cashier, and other employees holding positions with access to
classified information.
o SC: The monthly paid office and technical employees, accountants, and cashiers of the petitioner are not
managerial employees for they do not participate in policy-making but are given cut out policies to execute
and standard practices to observe.
 Our decision in Golden Farms, Inc., vs. Honorable Pura Ferrer-Calleja, op. cit., does not pose any obstacle in holding a
certification election among petitioner's monthly paid rank-and-file employees. The issue brought to fore in that case was
totally different, i.e., whether or not petitioner's confidential employees, considering the nature of their work, should
be included in the bargaining unit of the daily paid rank-and-file employees. In the case at bench, the monthly paid rank-and-
file employees of petitioner are being separated as a bargaining unit from its daily paid rank-and-file employees, on the
ground that they have different interest to protect. The principle of res judicata is, therefore, inapplicable.
 it was petitioner company that filed the motion to dismiss the petition for election. The general rule is that an employer has
no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers.
12 MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR UNION SA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, petitioner, defendant
vs.COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CALOOCAN SHOPS, respondents, plaintiff

FACTS:

The Caloocan Shops, all located at Caloocan City have 360 workers more or less. It is part of Mechanical Department of the PNR. The
department is composed of 4 main divisions or units, namely: Operations, Manila Area and Lines / Manila Shed; Locomotive Crew;
Motor Car Crew; and the Shops Rolling Stocks Maintenance / Caloocan Shop

The Locomotive crew and Motor Car Crew, though part of the Mechanical Department, is a separate unit, and is represented by the
Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros Y Motormen. The workers under the other 2 main units of the departments are represented by the
Mechanical Department Labor Union. The workers of the Shops Rolling Stocks Maintenance Division or the Caloocan Shops seek to be
separated from the rest of the workers of the department and to be represented by the "Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Caloocan
Shops."

Hence, respondent "Samahan ng mga Manggagawa, etc." filed a petition calling the attention that there were 3 unions in the Caloocan
shops of PNR the "Samahan", the "Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company", and the Mechanical Department
Labor Union; that no certification election had been held in the last 12 months in the Caloocan shops; that there is needed to
determine the proper collective bargaining agency for the Caloocan shop workers.

However, the petition was opposed by the management and the Mechanical Department Labor Union, the latter claiming that (1) it
had been previously certified in 2 cases as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees and laborers of the PNR'S
mechanical department, and had negotiated 2 bargaining agreements with management in 1961 and 1963; that before the expiration
of the latter, a renewal thereof had been negotiated and pending to be signed; that the Caloocan shops unit was not separated from
the Mechanical Department unit; that the "Samahan" is composed of supervisors who had filed a pending case to be declared non-
supervisors.

Court of Industrial Relations, finding that petitioner union is composed of workers at the Caloocan shops charged with major repairs
of locomotive, engines, etc. while minor ones in the Manila sheds and considering that there is a community of interest among the
workers of the Caloocan Shops. Since they are grouped in one place, they work under one or same working condition, same working
time or schedule and are exposed to same occupational risk. Applying the globe doctrine (that bargaining units had been formed
through separation of new units from existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers' desire to have their own
representatives), it held that the employees in the Caloocan Shops should be given a chance to vote on whether their group should be
separated from that represented by the Mechanical Department Labor Union, and ordered a plebiscite held for the purpose.

ISSUE:

WON new unit should be established separating the Caloocan shops from the rest of the workers (Manila Shed) UNDER the
Mechanical Department, represented by the Mechanical Department Labor Union.

RULING: Yes.

The Industrial Court has found that there is a basic difference, those in the Caloocan shops not only have a community of interest and
working conditions but perform major repairs of railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment and machineries found in said shops,
while the others only perform minor repairs. It is easy to understand, that the workers in the Caloocan shops require special skill in
the use of heavy equipment and machinery sufficient to set them apart from the rest of the workers.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant Mechanical Department Labor Union
sa Philippine National Railways.
13 Philtranco Services Enterprises v. BLR

FACTS:
• Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc (PHILTRANCO) is a bus company that carries passengers in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao. Their employees include field workers consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach stewards and
mechanics and office employees like clerks, cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc.
• 1988- Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant, Manggagawa at Konpidensyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA KO) is a registered labor
organization. They filed a petition for certification election to represent all professional, technical, administrative, and
confidential employees personnel of PHILTRANCO. It was contested by PHILTRANCO
• the National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a motion for intervention alleging that it is the
bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco therefore it has substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.
• The med-arbiter dismissed the petition so KASAMA KO appealed to the BLR. The BLR then reversed the resolution of the
Med-Arbiter. A TRO was granted to restrain the BLR from enforcing the decision.
• Issue: Whether the petition for certification election should be dismissed
• Ruling: Yes.
• The Labor Code did away with existing supervisors' unions classifying the members either as managerial or rank and file
employees depending on the work they perform. Managers and confidential employees exercising managerial functions are
excluded from the ambit of the collective bargaining unit
• the members of the KASAMA KO who are professional, technical, administrative and confidential personnel of PHILTRANCO
performing managerial functions are not qualified to join or form a union.
• KASAMA KO argues that the employees are rank and file because the court recognized them as such in a previous case
(Pantranco South Express inc v. NAMAW). However, the petition in that case only asked for a ruling that the employees were
performing managerial functions. There was no discussion on the recognition of another separate rank and file union in
addition to the existing bargaining unit.
• There is already an existing labor union in the company- the NAMAWU-MIF which is the collective bargaining agent of the
rank and file employees in PHILTRANCO. The qualified members of the KASAMA KO may join the NAMAWU-MIF if they
want to be union members, and to be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy of the Department of Labor
and Employment.

Reason for one-union, one-company: It is natural in almost all fairly sized companies to have groups of workers discharging different
functions. No company could possibly have all employees performing exactly the same work. Variety of tasks is to be expected. It
would not be in the interest of sound labor-management relations if each group of employees assigned to a specialized function or
section would decide to break away from their fellow-workers and form their own separate bargaining unit. We cannot allow one
unit for typists and clerks, one unit for accountants, another unit for messengers and drivers, and so on in needless profusion. Where
shall the line be drawn? The questioned decision of the public respondent can only lead to confusion, discord and labor strife.

• The differences between (office employees or professional, technical, administrative and confidential employees) vis-a-vis
the (field workers or drivers, conductors and mechanics) is not substantial enough to warrant a separate union. The drivers,
mechanics and conductors are necessary for the company but technical, administrative and office personnel are also needed
and equally important for the smooth operation of the business
• the fact that NAMAWU-MIF moved to intervene in the petition for certification election negates the allegations that
"substantial differences" exist between the employees concerned.

Art. 212 (k) of the Code

(k) Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies
and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such
managerial actions. All employees not falling within this definition are considered rank and file employees for purposes of this
Book.
14 PHIL. SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY vs SECRETARY

FACTS:

- On April 6, 1989, private respondent labor union, PGA Brotherhood Association - Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), hereinafter
referred to as "the Union" filed a petition for Direct Certification/Certification Election among the rank and file employees of
Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency (PSVSIA), GVM Security and Investigations Agency, Inc. (GVM). and
Abaquin Security and Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDA). These three agencies were collectively referred to by private respondent
Union as the "PGA Security Agency," which is actually the first letters of the corporate names of the agencies.

- On April 11, 26, 1986, petitioners filed a single comment alleging therein that the said three security agencies have separate
and distinct corporate personalities while PGA Security Agency is not a business or corporate entity and does not possess
any personality whatsoever; the petition was unclear as to whether the rank-and-file employees mentioned therein refer to
those of the three security agencies collectively and if so, the labor union cannot seek a certification election in three separate
bargaining units in one petition.

- They also filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the 721 supporting signatures do not meet the 20%
minimum requirement for certification election as the number of employees totals 2374.

- On May 8, 1989, the Union filed an Omnibus Reply alleging that it is clear that it is seeking a certification election in the three
agencies; that the apparent separate personalities of the three agencies were used merely to circumvent the prohibition
in R.A. 5847, as amended by P.D. 11 and P.D. 100, that a security agency must not have more than 1,000 guards in its employ; that
the three security agencies' administration, management and operations are so intertwined that they can be deemed to
be a single entity;

- The security agencies replied claiming that there is no violation of R.A. 5487, as amended by P.D. 11 and P.D. 100 since the three
agencies were incorporated long before the decrees' issuance.

- Med-Arbiter Abdullah issued an Order finding that PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA should be deemed as a single entity and bargaining
unit for the purpose of union organizing and the holding of a certification election. Labor Secretary affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s
decision.

ISSUE:

- W/N the three (3) security agencies should be deemed as a single entity and bargaining unit for the purpose of union organizing
and the holding of a certification election. YES

HELD:

- The three agencies failed to rebut the fact that they are managed through the Utilities Management Corporation with all of their
employees drawing their salaries and wages from said entity; that the agencies have common and interlocking incorporators and
officers; and that the PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA employees have a single Mutual Benefit System and followed a single system of
compulsory retirement.

- No explanation was also given by petitioners why the security guards of one agency could easily transfer from one agency to
another and then back again by simply filling-up a common pro forma slip called "Request for Transfer". Records also shows that
the PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA always hold joint yearly ceremonies such as the "PGA Annual Awards Ceremony”.

- In emergencies, all PSVSIA Detachment Commanders were instructed in a memorandum dated November 10, 1988 to get in touch
with the officers not only of PSVSIA but also of GVM and ASDA. All of these goes to show that the security agencies concerned do
not exist and operate separately and distinctly from each other with different corporate directions and goals.

- Accordingly, the veil of corporate fiction of the three agencies should be lifted for the purpose of allowing the employees of the
three agencies to form a single labor union. As a single bargaining unit, the employees therein need not file three separate
petitions for certification election. All of these could be covered in a single petition.

With regard to the issue of failing to comply with the legal requirement that at least twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the
bargaining unit must support the petition, under the amendments provided by R.A. 6715, there is no need for the labor union to
prove that at least 20% of the security guards in the three agencies supported the petition. When a duly organized union files a
petition for certification election, the Med-Arbiter has the duty to automatically conduct an election. He has no discretion on the
matter. This is clearly the mandate of Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 24 of R.A. 6715, which now reads:
Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification
election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization.

15 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his
capacity as the Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as the Acting Secretary
of Labor and Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the Superintendent of International School-Manila; and
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., respondents.

FACTS:
1) Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational
institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents.
2) Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1)
foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
3) The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:
a. What is one's domicile?
b. Where is one's home economy?
c. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?
d. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for bringing that
individual to the Philippines?[2]
4) Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines, the faculty member is classified as a local hire; otherwise,
he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.
5) The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping
costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%)
more than local-hires.
6) THE SCHOOL - justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely:
(a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. School explains:
a. A foreign-hire would necessarily have to uproot himself from his home country, leave his family and friends, and
take the risk of deviating from a promising career path-all for the purpose of pursuing his profession as an
educator, but this time in a foreign land. The new foreign hire is faced with economic realities: decent abode for
oneself and/or for one's family, effective means of transportation, allowance for the education of one's children,
adequate insurance against illness and death, and of course the primary benefit of a basic salary/retirement
compensation.
b. Because of a limited tenure, the foreign hire is confronted again with the same economic reality after his term: that
he will eventually and inevitably return to his home country where he will have to confront the uncertainty of
obtaining suitable employment after a long period in a foreign land.
c. The compensation scheme is simply the School's adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level
in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education.
7) PETITIONER International School Alliance of Educators - a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining
representative of all faculty members of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires.
a. the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher
salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination
b. The compensation package given to local-hires has been shown to apply to all, regardless of race. Truth to tell,
there are foreigners who have been hired locally and who are paid equally as Filipino local hires
8) DOLE - ruled in favor of School
a. The principle "equal pay for equal work" does not find application in the present case. The international character
of the School requires the hiring of foreign personnel to deal with different nationalities and different cultures,
among the student population.
b. Furthermore, we took note of the fact that foreign hires have limited contract of employment unlike the local hires
who enjoy security of tenure.
c. 1992-1995 CBA points us to the conditions and provisions for salary and professional compensation wherein the
parties agree as follows:
i. Appendix C of said CBA further provides: The new salary schedule is deemed at equity with the Overseas
Recruited Staff (OSRS) salary schedule. The 25% differential is reflective of the agreed value of system
displacement and contracted status of the OSRS as differentiated from the tenured status of Locally
Recruited Staff (LRS).
ii. these provisions demonstrate the parties' recognition of the difference in the status of two types of
employees, hence, the difference in their salaries.
d. The Petitioner cannot invoke the equal protection clause. Verily, there is a substantial distinction between foreign
hires and local hires, the former enjoying only a limited tenure, having no amenities of their own in the Philippines
and have to be given a good compensation package in order to attract them to join the teaching faculty of the School

ISSUE:
Whether local hires and foerign hire should be treated equally in terms of their salary rates? YES!!
Whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit? NO! Foreign hires do not belong to the same
bargaining unit as the local hires. It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together
with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these
groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although
foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded
certain benefits not granted to local-hires.

RATIO:

FIRST ISSUE

 If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal
work. The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform
25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they
perform under similar working conditions.
 The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded
them which are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances.
 the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires
and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-
hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and,
certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court

 That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy
against these evils.
 The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities."
 In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and
discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.
 The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all.”
o It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial
obligation to promote and ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment
 Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code.
 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 7 provides – “ xxx i.....Fair wages and equal
remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work
not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; xxx”
16 DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY V. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

FACTS:
 De La Salle University (UNIVERSITY) and De La Salle University Employees Association-National Federation of Teachers and
Employees Union (UNION), which is composed of regular non-academic rank and file employees, entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with a life span of 3 years
 During the freedom period (60 days before the expiration of said collective bargaining agreement), the UNION initiated
negotiations with the UNIVERSITY for a new collective bargaining agreement, but the same was unsuccessful
 The UNION filed a Notice of Strike, but after several conciliation-mediation meetings, 5 out of the 11 issues raised in the Notice
of Strike were resolved by the parties
 A partial collective bargaining agreement was executed by the parties
 The parties entered into a Submission Agreement, identifying the remaining 6 unresolved issues for arbitration, one of which is
the scope of the bargaining unit
 The parties appointed a voluntary arbitrator and, with regard the subject issue, he opined that:
 (1) the Computer Operators assigned at the CSC [Computer Services Center], just like any other Computer Operators in other
units, should be included as members of the bargaining unit since they are doing clerical and routinary work and had nothing to
do with the setting of management policies for the UNIVERSITY as may be seen from the duties and responsibilities attached to
the position and embodied in the CSC brochure. Further, they may have access to vital information regarding the UNIVERSITY’s
operations but they are not necessarily confidential;
 (2) The discipline officers belong to the rank-and-file on the basis of the nature of their job;
(3) The employees of the College of St. Benilde has a personality separate and distinct from the UNIVERSITY; thus, they are outside
the bargaining unit of the UNIVERSITY’s rank-and-file employees

ISSUE(S):
(1) Whether or not the UNIVERSITY’s computer operators and its discipline officers may be considered as confidential
employees and should therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit which is composed of rank and file employees;
(2) Whether or not the employees of the College of St. Benilde should also be included in the same bargaining unit

HELD:
(1) No, they are not confidential employees; hence, they must be included in the bargaining unit;
(2) No, they should not be included in the bargaining unit.

RATIO:
 Computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees
 As to computer operators, the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are mere clerical and non-
confidential in nature
 As to the discipline officers, based on the nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should therefore be
included in the bargaining unit of rank and file employees
As to the employees of the College of St. Benilde, they should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees of
De La Salle University because the two educational institutions have their own separate juridical personality, and no sufficient
evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction
17 San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011

EDITOR’S NOTE: READ SAN MIGUEL v. LAGUESMA TO UNDERSTAND THIS

FACTS:
 Pursuant to the Court's decision in San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma (case
involving the employees belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products
Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having "community or mutuality of interests"), DOLE-NCR conducted pre-
election conferences.
 There was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters: petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees for the San
Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively.
 Petitioner is questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some employees do not
belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no existence of employer-
employee relationship with petitioner. Specifically, petitioner argued that certain employees should not be allowed
to vote as they are:
(1) confidential employees;
(2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not covered by the bargaining unit;
(3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial work and scheduled to be
promoted;
(4) employees who belong to the Barrio Ugong plant;
(5) non-SMFI employees; and
(6) employees who are members of other unions.

 Based on the final tally of votes, the Med-Arbiter issued the order that respondent is certified to be the exclusive
bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis
 Acting DOLE Usec: affirmed the Order dated April 13,
1999, with modification that 5 individuals be excluded
 CA: affirmed with modification that those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.

ISSUE:
1) WoN the CA departed from jurisprudence when it expanded the scope of the bargaining unit defined by the SC in San
Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma
2) WoN the CA departed from jurisprudence when it ruled for the inclusion of the “payroll master” position in the
bargaining unit

RATIO:
1) NO. The Court explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San
Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An appropriate
bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. The Court affirms the
finding of the CA that there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia
Poultry Products Plant involved in "dressed" chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in "live" chicken operations.
Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant
conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the
specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a
single bargaining unit.

2) NO. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both
must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee — that is, the confidential relationship must exist between
the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The
exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies
relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule." A confidential
employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer's
property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to
confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll
Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA
correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the
 course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and
confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.

18 Lepanto Consolidated Mining vs. The Lepanto Capataz Union [February 18, 2013]
Topic: Bargaining Unit

FACTS:

 Lepanto operated several mining claims in Mankayan, Benguet.

 Respondent Lepanto Capataz Union (Union) filed a petition for consent election with the Industrial Relations Division of DOLE,
seeking to be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all capataz employees of appellant.
 Lepanto opposed the petition, contending that the Union was in reality seeking a certification election, not a consent election,
and would be thereby competing with the Lepanto Employees Union (LEU), the current collective bargaining agent.
 Med-Arbiter: Petition granted. Capatazes could form a separate bargaining unit because they are not rank-and-file employees.
o The word capataz is defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary, 1986 as “a boss”, “foreman” and “an overseer”.
o While the CBA existing between the LEU and the employer covering the latter’s rank-and-file employee covers likewise the
capatazes, it was testified to and undisputed by the employer that the capatazes did not anymore participate in the
renegotiation and ratification of the new CBA upon expiration of their old one. Their nonparticipation was apparently due
to their formation of the new bargaining unit.
 DOLE Undersecretary, acting by authority of the DOLE Secretary, affirmed the ruling of Med-Arbiter.
 CA: dismissed Lepanto’s petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether the capatazes could form their own union independently of the rank-and-file employees.

HELD: YES. Capatazes are not rank-and-file employees so they could form their own union. CA affirmed.

RATIO:

 We note that Med-Arbiter Lontoc found in her Decision that the capatazes were performing functions totally different from
those performed by the rank-and-file employees, and that the capatazes were “supervising and instructing the miners, mackers
and other rank-and-file workers under them, assessing and evaluating their performance, making regular reports and
recommending new systems and procedure of work, as well as guidelines for the discipline of employees.”
 Agreeing with Med-Arbiter Lontoc’s findings, then DOLE Undersecretary Baldoz, acting by authority of the DOLE Secretary,
observed that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by the appellee are the capataz employees of the appellant. There is
no other labor organization of capatazes within the employer unit except herein appellant. Thus, appellant is an unorganized
establishment in so far as the bargaining unit of capatazes is concerned.
 Their factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are hereby accorded great respect and finality. Such findings
cannot be made the subject of our judicial review by petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because the office of a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law.
 Capatazes or foremen are not rank-and-file employees because they are an extension of the management, and as such
they may influence the rank-and-file workers under them to engage in slowdowns or similar activities detrimental to
the policies, interests or business objectives of the employers.

NOTES:
 How to be an exclusive bargaining representative?
1. Voluntary recognition – employer voluntarily recognizes the union as the bargaining representative of all the members
in the bargaining unit sought to be represented.
2. Consent and certification election – members of the bargaining unit decide whether they want a bargaining
representative and if so, who they want it to be.
o Conduct of a consent election is agreed upon by the parties to the petition
o Conduct of a certification election is ordered by the Med-Arbiter
19 Fulache vs ABS-CBN Corporation (MAGSINO DIGEST)

FACTS:
1.) REGULARIZATION CASE
 Petitioners Fulache et. al. filed two separate complaints for regularization, unfair labor practices, and several money claims
(regularization case) against ABS-CBM Broadcasting Corporation-Cebu
 Petitioners alleged that ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union executed a collective bargaining agreement, they only
became aware of it upon obtaining copied of the agreement
 The petitioners learned that they were excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular
employees
 They claim that they had already rendered more than a year’ service and should be recognized as regular employees entitled to
security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees
 ABS-CBN claims Fulache et. al. are mere talents and are considered independent contractors, contracted on a case-to-case basis,
contracts are terminated once program, production, or segment is completed. They are paid a pre-arranged consideration called
talent fee
 LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners are regular employees and are entitled to the benefits, privileges of regular employee
 ABS-CBN appealed the ruling to the NLRC contending that the petitioner are independent contractors and not regular employees
2.) ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE
 Pending appeal of the Regularization case, ABS-CBN dismissed the petitioners for their refusal to sign up contracts of employment
with service contractor Able Services
 The petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
 LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners were dismissed due to redundancy, an authorized cause under the law and awarded
them separation pay of 1 month’s salary for every year of service
 ABS-CBN appealed to NLRC, and it held that there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and ABS-CBN as the
company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of their work, they were engaged in the performance of activities
usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trade or business, they can’t be considered contractual employees as they were not paid
for the result of their work but on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule
 NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and found the petitioners were illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and separation pay in
lieu of reinstatement, they were also awarded CBA benefits
 The petitioners and ABS-CBN both moved for reconsideration and NLRC resolved these motions by reinstating the LA’s decision

 NLRC ruling: As for the regularization case, it held that the petitioners were regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of
regular employees. As for the illegal dismissal case, the petitioners while recognized as regular employees, they were declared dismissed
due to redundancy.

 The petitioners moved for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion, the CA resolved this
by ruling that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed as they were dismissed due to redundancy

 Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied this motion hence the petition
ISSUE(S):
1. Are the petitioners regular employees? YES.
1.) Are the petitioners entitled to CBA benefits? YES
2.) Were the petitioners illegally dismissed? YES

The dismissal of the petitioners were found to be attended with bad faith. ABS-CBN took matters on their own hands and terminated the petitioner’s
services pending its own appeal. ABS-CBN intended to transfer the petitioner and their services to a service contractor, and dismissed them when
they refused to sign with the service contractor. ABS-CBN forgot that by claiming redundancy; they impliedly admitted that the petitioners were
regular employees and can only be terminated by authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.

RATIO:

1.) The petitioners are regular employees; the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of their work, they were
engaged in the performance of activities usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trade or business, they can’t be considered
contractual employees as they were not paid for the result of their work but on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in
accordance with the company’s schedule

2.) As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit are entitled to benefits as a matter of law. The
petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the
excluded categories.

3.) The dismissal of the petitioners were found to be attended with bad faith. ABS-CBN took matters on their own hands and terminated the
petitioner’s services pending its own appeal. ABS-CBN intended to transfer the petitioner and their services to a service contractor, and
dismissed them when they refused to sign with the service contractor. ABS-CBN forgot that by claiming redundancy; they impliedly
admitted that the petitioners were regular employees and can only be terminated by authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.
20 Holy Child Catholic School vs. Sto. Tomas & HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS

NOTES:
Employer – Holy Child Catholic School (HCCS)
Union – HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS; an affiliate of PIGLAS-KAMAO

1. Bystander Rule – A certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the
petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in the certification process
ceases and becomes merely a bystander. YES.

FACTS:
The Union filed a petition for certification election. HCCS opposed and argued that the Union could not represent the various
employees, who were mainly categorized as teaching and non-teaching employees, because there was no mutuality of interest among
them, hence not an appropriate bargaining unit.

Med Arbiter: Denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the unit the Union sought to represent was
inappropriate because the employees clearly belonged to two separate and distinct categories – teaching and non-teaching staff.
These two classes have very little in common with each other regarding their working conditions.

Secretary of Labor: Ruled against the dismissal of the petition and directed the conduct of two separate certification elections for the
teaching and the non-teaching personnel. It agreed with the Med. Arbiter that were differences between the teaching and non-
teaching staff, but they were not substantial enough to warrant the dismissal of the petition. In line with the doctrine in UP vs. Ferrer-
Calleja, the Union can continue to exist as a legitimate labor organization with the combined teaching and non-teaching personnel in
its membership and representing both classes of employees in separate bargaining negotiations and agreements.

ISSUE(S) & HELD/RATIO:

Do the teaching and non-teaching staff belong to different bargaining units?
Yes. The Secretary correctly applied the case of UP vs. Ferrer-Calleja, which prohibited the comingling of teaching and non-teaching
personnel in one bargaining unit, and ordered two separate certification elections to determine whether the employees in the
respective bargaining units desired to be represented the Union.

The purpose of a certification election is precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an appropriate bargaining
unit — to be or not to be represented by a labor organization and, if in the affirmative case, by which one.

CASE LAW/DOCTRINE:
A bargaining unit has been defined as a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all the entire body of
employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be best suited to
serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

In determining the proper collective bargaining unit and what unit would be appropriate to be the collective bargaining agency, the
Court, in Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., mentioned several factors that should be considered: (1)
will of employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) employment status, such as
temporary, seasonal and probationary employees.
21 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) v. Ilocos Professional and Technical Employees Union (IPTEU)
G.R. 183798 September 9, 2015

FACTS:
 Petitioner-CCBPI is a domestic corporation operating under Phil. Laws in which it engages in the business of selling
and manufacturing carbonated soft drinks while respondent IPTEU is a registered labor organization address in Ilocos
Norte. Respondent filed for a Certification Election (CE) to represent 22 rank & file employees of CCBPI plant. CCBPI,
however, prayed for the denial and dismissal of the petition arguing that some of respondent’s members are
supervisory or confidential employees. Hence, they are ineligible for inclusion as members of IPTEU.
 A preliminary hearing of the petition was held. The possibility of voluntary recognition or consent election was not
acceded to by CCBPI. Med-Arbiter concluded that the members of the union are all rank & file employees, granted
IPTEU’s petition to exclude said employees from the existing bargaining units of CCBPI.
 In the Pre-election Conference CCBPI and IPTEU mutually agreed to conduct the certification election. On election day,
only 16 of the 22 employees in the IPTEU list voted. However, no votes were canvassed. CCBPI filed and registered a
Protest questioning the conduct and mechanics of the election and a Challenge to Votes on the ground that the voters
are supervisory and confidential employees. The Mediator-Arbiter denied CCBPI’s challenge to the 16 votes. She found
that the voters are rank-and-file employees holding positions that are not confidential in nature, and who are not, or
used to be, members of Ilocos Monthlies Union (IMU) due to the reclassification of their positions by CCBPI and have
been excluded from the CBA entered into by IMU and CCBPI from 1997 to 2005. Consequently, the challenged votes
were opened and canvassed. After garnering 14 out of the 16 votes cast, IPTEU was proclaimed as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file exempt workers in CCBPI Ilocos Norte Plant.
 CCBPI elevated the case to the SOLE; appeal was denied. The SOLE held that, as shown by the certification of the IMU
President and the CBAs forged between CCBPI and IMU from 1997 to 2007, the 22 employees sought to be
represented by IPTEU are not part of IMU and are excluded from its CBA coverage. CCBPI filed before the CA a petition
for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. CA denied said petition,
as well the MR filed by CCBPI; hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the 22 employees are confidential employees and should be excluded from the bargaining unit

HELD:
 SC held that said employees are not members of the IMU due to reclassification of their positions, and it also refrained
from resolving the issue of whether the 22 are confidential employees or not, as this was a factual issue. SC defers to
the findings of fact of the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE, and the CA that the 22 are not confidential employees. As to
whether the 16 voters sought to be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees, such
query is a question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules. This holds
true in the present case in view of the consistent findings of the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE, and the CA. The Court
defers to the findings of fact of the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE, and the CA. Certainly, access to vital labor information
is the imperative consideration. An employee must assist or act in a confidential capacity and obtain confidential
information relating to labor relations policies. Exposure to internal business operations of the company is not per se
a ground for the exclusion in the bargaining unit
19 Fulache vs ABS-CBN Corporation
FACTS:
3.) REGULARIZATION CASE
 Petitioners Fulache et. al. filed two separate complaints for regularization, unfair labor practices, and several money claims
(regularization case) against ABS-CBM Broadcasting Corporation-Cebu
 Petitioners alleged that ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union executed a collective bargaining agreement,
they only became aware of it upon obtaining copied of the agreement
 The petitioners learned that they were excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular
employees
 They claim that they had already rendered more than a year’ service and should be recognized as regular employees entitled
to security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees
 ABS-CBN:
o Fulache et. al. are mere talents and are considered independent contractors, contracted on a case-to-case basis,
contracts are terminated once program, production, or segment is completed. They are paid a pre-arranged
consideration called talent fee
 LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners are regular employees and are entitled to the benefits, privileges of regular
employee
 ABS-CBN appealed the ruling to the NLRC contending that the petitioner are independent contractors and not regular
employees

4.) ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE

 Pending appeal of the Regularization case, ABS-CBN dismissed the petitioners for their refusal to sign up contracts of
employment with service contractor Able Services
 The petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
 LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners were dismissed due to redundancy, an authorized cause under the law and
awarded them separation pay of 1 month’s salary for every year of service
 ABS-CBN appealed to NLRC, and it held that there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and ABS-CBN
as the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of their work, they were engaged in the performance
of activities usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trade or business, they can’t be considered contractual employees as
they were not paid for the result of their work but on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in accordance with
the company’s schedule
 NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and found the petitioners were illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, they were also awarded CBA benefits
 The petitioners and ABS-CBN both moved for reconsideration and NLRC resolved these motions by reinstating the LA’s
decision

 NLRC RULING:
o REGULARIZATION CASE: it held that the petitioners were regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges
of regular employees.
 There exists emplyer-employee relationship between ABSCBN and petitioners.
 They cannot be considered contractual employees since they are not paid for the result of their work, but
on a MONTHLY BASIS and were required to do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule.
o ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE: the petitioners while recognized as regular employees, they were declared dismissed
due to redundancy.
 Awarded backwages, separation pay, CBA benefits but no awrd for 13 th month pay, sick leaves cash
conversion, medical allowances, etc..

 The petitioners moved for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion, the CA
resolved this by ruling that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed as they were dismissed due to redundancy
 Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied this motion hence the petition
 CA RULING –
o Petitioners failed to prove their claim to CBA benefits since they never raised this issue in the compulsory arbitration
proceedings, and did not appeal the labor arbiter’s decision which was silent on their entitlement to CBA benefits.
o NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL – No showing of abuse of prerogative on part of ABS CBN.

ISSUE(S):
1. Are the petitioners regular employees? YES
2. Are the petitioners entitled to CBA benefits? YES!! SC sees no merit in ABS-CBNs arguments that the petitioners are not entitled
to CBA benefits because: (1) they did not claim these benefits in their position paper; (2) the NLRC did not categorically rule
that the petitioners were members of the bargaining unit; and (3) there was no evidence of this membership. To further
clarify what we stated above, CBA coverage is not only a question of fact, but of law and contract. The factual issue is whether
the petitioners are regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN.
3. Were the petitioners illegally dismissed? YES
RATIO:

Decision of CA is REVERSED!

4.) The petitioners are regular employees; the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of their work, they
were engaged in the performance of activities usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trade or business, they can’t be
considered contractual employees as they were not paid for the result of their work but on a monthly basis and were required to
do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule

5.) MAIN ISSUE: CBA BENEFITS

 As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit are entitled to benefits as a matter of law.
The petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are rank-and-file employees and do not belong
to any of the excluded categories.
 The ruling of the LA unequivocally settled the petitioner’s employment status: they are ABSBN’s employees, part of w/c is the
CBA if they fall within the coverage of this agreement.
 Thus, what only needs to be resovled as an issue for purposes if implementation of the decision is whether the petitioners fall
within CBA coverage, CBA provides:

The parties 1999-2002 CBA provided in its Article I (Scope of the Agreement) that: [29]

Section 1. APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. The parties agree that the appropriate bargaining unit shall
be regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION but shall not include:

a) Personnel classified as Supervisor and Confidential employees;

b) Personnel who are on casual or probationary status as defined in Section 2 hereof;

c) Personnel who are on contract status or who are paid for specified units of work such as writer-
producers, talent-artists, and singers.

The inclusion or exclusion of new job classifications into the bargaining unit shall be subject of discussion between the COMPANY
and the UNION.

o Under these terms, the petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are regular rank-
and-file employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories.
o Specifically, nothing in the records shows that they are supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they
casual nor probationary employees.
o Most importantly, the labor arbiters decision of January 17, 2002 affirmed all the way up to the CA level ruled against
ABS-CBNs submission that they are independent contractors
o . Thus, as regular rank-and-file employees, they fall within CBA coverage under the CBAs express terms and are
entitled to its benefits.

6.) The dismissal of the petitioners were found to be attended with bad faith. ABS-CBN took matters on their own hands and
terminated the petitioner’s services pending its own appeal. ABS-CBN intended to transfer the petitioner and their services to a
service contractor, and dismissed them when they refused to sign with the service contractor. ABS-CBN forgot that by claiming
redundancy; they impliedly admitted that the petitioners were regular employees and can only be terminated by authorized causes
defined under the Labor Code.