LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 1 of 24

contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the

1. (a) What do you mean by gross violation of CBA
state of negotiations.
-> It is defined as flagrant and/or malicious refusal by a party
thereto to comply with the economic provisions thereof. This
(c) Featherbedding

constitutes as unfair labor practice if it grossly violates the -> make-work agreements, work performed is unnecessary
CBA. If not, then it is simply a grievance under the CBA.
and useless.

-> 48 Am Jur 2d 1200, p.954 ~ Article 260(d) refers to

(b) Collective Bargaining Deadlock or Impasse
featherbedding, a term given to employee practices which
-> A "deadlock" is defined as the "counteraction of things create or spread employment by unnecessarily maintaining or
producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of increasing the number of employees used, or the amount of
neutralization caused by the opposition of persons or of time consumed, to work on a particular job. Most of these
factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill.”  There practices stem from a desire on the part of employees for job
is a deadlock when there is a "complete blocking or stoppage security in the face of technological improvements or in the
resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces; as, the face of employer subcontracting.

deadlock of a jury or legislature." The word is synonymous -> legal basis: Article 260(d) To cause or attempt to cause an
with the word impasse which, within the meaning of the employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any
American federal labor laws, "presupposes reasonable effort money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction,
at good faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, does for services which are not performed or not to be performed,
not conclude in agreement between the parties.” 
including the demand for fee for union negotiations. 

American Ship Building Co. v. Labor Board, 380 U.S. 300

(1965) -> a bargaining impasse over an issue exists where (d) Boulwarism

good faith bargaining on the part of the parties has failed ->  the take-it-or-leave-it bargaining

to resolve the issue and there are no definite plans for -> In negotiation, Boulwarism is an offer or counter-offer that
further efforts to break the deadlock.  is not meant to be negotiated. This is a "take it or leave it"
48 Am. Jur. 2d, 984 p.801 -> “Impasse” within the meaning strategy named after Lemuel Boulware a former vice president
of federal labor ;ws, presupposes a reasonable effort at of General Electric.

good-faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, -> It occurs:

does not conclude in an agreement between the parties.

In the NLRB’s view, whether a bargaining impasse exists is (a) when the employer directly bargains with the employee
a manner of judgment dependent on such factors as the disregarding the union

bargaining history, the parties’ good faith in negotiations,

the length of the negotiations, the importance of the issue (b) the aim was to deal with the union through the employees,
or issues as to which there is disagreement, and the rather than with the employees through the union

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 2 of 24

(c) employer submits its proposals and adopts a “take it or c. If made purely on questions of law; and

leave it” stand. This is not negotiation because the take it or  

leave it stand implies threat.

d. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to

 the appellant.

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal

by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company
2. What is an affiliate? How does a local chapter duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent
become an affiliate?
to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

-> An affiliate is an independent union affiliated with a

federation or national union.
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
-> a local chapter or a chartered local becomes an affiliate dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
when it applies for and subsequently granted an independent reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be
registration but did not disaffiliate from its mother federation or executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be
national union.
admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option
of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting
3. What is an appeal by certiorari? Is the 60-day period of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
extendible?
reinstatement provided herein.

-> Article 229, Labor Code: Art. 229 Appeal. Decisions,

awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Commission or
unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties the Labor Arbiter shall impose reasonable penalty, including
within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, fines or censures, upon the erring parties.

awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on

any of the following grounds:
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the
a. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion memorandum of appeal to the other party who shall file an
on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
 answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt
 
thereof.

b. If the decision, order or award was secured through

fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
 The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20)
 
calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee. The
decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after
ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties.

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 3 of 24

Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the First, the petition was filed three (3) days late on September 5,
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission in the 2011. Under Section 4, Rule 65 Revised Rules of the Civil
enforcement of decisions, awards or orders. (As amended by Procedure, as amended by AM No. 07-7-12-SC, petitions for
Section 12, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of
the judgment or order denying their motion for

 reconsideration. Having received a copy of June 4, 2011
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the
assailed April 25, 2011 Decision on July 24, 2011, petitioners
-> > PERIOD TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
had up to September 2, 2011 only to file the petition for
LE SOLEIL INT'L. LOGISTICS CO., INC., and/or BETH certiorari.

UMALI, REYNANTE MALABANAN, and EUGENIO S.

YNION, JR., petitioners, vs. VICENTE SANCHEZ, DAVID R. Second, the petition contains no statement of the specific
CONDE, AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS material dates showing when petitioners received a copy of
COMMISSION, respondents. [G.R. No. 199384. September 9, the assailed April 25, 2011 Decision of the court a quo when a
2015.]
motion for reconsideration was filed, contrary to Section 3,
FACTS: On 16 September 2011, the Court of Appeals issued Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules.

a Resolution dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by

petitioners Le Soleil International Logistics Co., Inc. and/or Third, the petition does not state the date of issue of
Beth Umali, Reynante Malabanan and Eugenio Ynion, for petitioners' counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
failing to perfect their petition for certiorari within the 60-day (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as required under Bar
reglementary period provided under the Revised Rules of Matter No. 1922, dated June 3, 2008.

Court. The assailed CA resolution reads in toto: Filed pursuant

to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant ISSUE: Whether the petitioners failed file a petition for
petition for certiorari seeks the nullification and setting aside certiorari within the 60-day reglementary period?

of the April 25, 2011 Decision of the National Labor Relations

Commission in NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-00038-11 which RULING: YES, the petitioners failed file a petition for
modified the September 6, 2010 Decision in turn rendered by certiorari within the 60-day reglementary period. In this
the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. 04-04439-10, and case, there is no debate that petitioners incurred in delay
the June 14, 2011 Resolution denying the Motion for in filing the petition for certiorari before the appellate
Reconsideration thereof.
court. While petitioners concede that the filing of the
appeal was three days late, they however invoke the
The Court resolves to dismiss the petition outright on the indulgence of the Court to liberally apply the rules to pave
following grounds:
the way for the resolution of the case on the merits.
Applying the foregoing statutory and jurisprudential rules
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 4 of 24

in the case at bar, we agree with the disquisition of the CA
that petitioners failed to seasonably perfect their appeal
rendering the Decision of the NLRC dated 25 April 2011
and its Resolution dated 14 June 2011, final and executory.
day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay
The pertinent rules on the perfection of a petition for certiorari
is set forth under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which
reads:
rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking
SEC. 4. When and where to file petition. — The petition shall
be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not,
the sixty (60) days period shall be counted from the notice of
the denial of the motion.
the general rule since none of the exceptions enunciated in
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal
trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it
shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with
Under the foregoing rules, petition for certiorari should be
instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-
that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a
speedy disposition of their case. Rules of procedure must be
faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the
mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. As a corollary,
certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable
to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly
discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules
are regarded as mandatory. A careful scrutiny of the pleadings
submitted by petitioners reveals, however, that there is no
compelling reason to except this case from the operation of
the jurisprudence is attendant herein. Certainly, liberality is not
a magic word that once invoked will automatically be
considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party
invoking it. There should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. 

the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the

courts appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or 

an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with
and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or

a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with
the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.

***VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION-

ALU-TUCP and CASMERO
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 5 of 24

MAHILUM, petitioners, vs. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY,
INC. (VECO),respondent. [G.R. No. 205575. July 22, 2015.]
Seno Mendoza & Associates Law Offi ces filed in behalf of
FACTS: Respondent Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO) is
a corporation engaged in the supply and distribution of
electricity in Cebu City and its neighboring cities,
municipalities, and barangays. The petitioners Visayan Electric
On March 13, 2012, Atty. Jonas V. Asis (Atty. Asis) from the
petitioners a Manifestation/Explanation claiming that "there
was unintended Manifestation/Explanation claiming that "there
was unintended error/mistake in the computation of the
period," 50 and that there was no prejudice caused to VECO
by the "unintended one-day late filing of the petition."

Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP (Union) is the

exclusive bargaining agent of VECO's rank-and-file CA RULING: Dismissed the certiorari petition filed by
employees, and Casmero Mahilum was the Union's president petitioners Union and Mahilum. It pointed out that on March 7,
from October 2007 until his termination from employment on 2012, Union and Mahilum had filed a Manifestation that they
October 28, 2010. Later on, Mahilum was dismissed from had terminated the services of Atty. Asis and the Seno
work, which led to the latter’s filing of a complaint for illegal Mendoza & Associates as their counsel in this case, and have
dismissal and unfair labor practice.
contracted the services of Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. (Atty.
Saladero) as their new counsel. Consequently, the CA deemed
NLRC RULING: Dismissing the charge of unfair labor practice as not filed the Manifestation/Explanation filed by Atty. Asis,
against VECO for lack of merit, and declaring Mahilum's and dismissed thecertiorari petition for failure of Atty. Saladero
dismissal from employment as legal.
to comply with the Resolution dated February 29, 2012. The
motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Saladero imploring the
Aggrieved, Union and Mahilum filed a motion for CA to consider the Manifestation/Explanation filed by Atty.
reconsideration from the foregoing NLRC Decision, which was Asis despite the fact that he was no longer petitioners'
denied in a Resolution dated July 29, 2011. They received said counsel of record was denied in a Resolution dated December
Resolution on August 18, 2011.
19, 2012 for lack of merit.

On October 18, 2011, Union and Mahilum elevated their case ISSUE: Whether the petitioners failed file a petition for
to the CA on certiorari petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. certiorari within the 60-day reglementary period?

06329, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack

or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.
RULING: YES, the petitioners failed file a petition for
certiorari within the 60-day reglementary period. Under
On February 29, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
directing Union and Mahilum to show cause why the certiorari Procedure, certiorari should be filed "not later than sixty
petition should not be dismissed for having been filed "one (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution"
day behind the reglementary period."
sought to be assailed. The fact that the delay in the filing
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 6 of 24

of the petition for certiorari was only one day is not a legal LAGUNA METTS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
justification for non-compliance with the rule requiring APPEALS, ARIES C. CAALAM and GERALDINE
that it be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of ESGUERRA, respondents. [G.R. No. 185220. July 27, 2009.]

the assailed judgment, order or resolution. The Court

cannot subscribe to the theory that the ends of justice FACTS: This petition arose from a labor case filed by private
would be better subserved by allowing a petition respondents Aries C. Caalam and Geraldine Esguerra against
for certiorari filed only one-day late.
petitioner Laguna Metts Corporation (LMC).

The provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, LA RULING: In favor of Caalam and Esguerra. LA found that
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless they were illegally dismissed by LMC. 

delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge

of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a
jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with. 56
labor arbiter in a decision dated February 21, 2008. Private
When the law fixes sixty (60) days, it cannot be taken to mean
NLRC RULING: In favor of LMC. Reversed the decision of the
respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied in a
resolution dated April 30, 2008.

also sixty-one (61) days, as the Court had previously declared

in this wise [W]hen the law fixes thirty days [or sixty days as in
the present case], we cannot take it to mean also thirty-one
days. If that deadline could be stretched to thirty-one days in
one case, what would prevent its being further stretched to
thirty-two days in another case, and so on, step by step, until
the original line is forgotten or buried in the growing confusion
resulting from the alterations? That is intolerable. We cannot
fix a period with the solemnity of a statute and disregard it like
Counsel for Caalam and Esguerra received the April 30, 2008
resolution of the NLRC on May 26, 2008. On July 25, 2008,
the counsel of Caalam and Esguerra filed a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. The motion alleged that, for reasons
stated therein, the petition could not be filed in the Court of
Appeals within the prescribed 60-day period. Thus, a 15-day
extension period was prayed for.

a joke. If law is founded on reason, whim and fancy should

play no part in its application. 61
CA RULING: Granted the motion and gave private
respondents a non-extendible period of 15 days within which
 
to file their petition for certiorari. According to the appellate
court, while the amendment of the third paragraph of Section
> MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION
4, Rule 65 admittedly calls for stricter application to
discourage the ling of unwarranted motions for extension of
time, it did not strip the Court of Appeals of the discretionary
power to grant a motion for extension in exceptional cases to
serve the ends of justice.

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 7 of 24

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: LMC now assails the were rendered by the Court of Appeals in excess of its
resolutions dated August 7, 2008 and October 22, 2008 of the jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of

the Rules of Court. It contends that the Court of Appeals 

committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted private
respondents' motion for extension of time to le petition for
certiorari as the Court of Appeals had no power to grant 

something that had already been expressly deleted from the
rules.

JAIME S. DOMDOM, petitioner, vs. HON. THIRD AND FIFTH

ISSUE: Whether a motion for extension of time to file petition DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COMMISSION ON
for certiorari may be allowed?
AUDIT and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents. [G.R. No. 182382-83. February 24, 2010.]

RULING: NO, a motion for extension of time to file petition

for certiorari may no longer be allowed. The rationale for
the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially
to prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of
justice. Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file
petition on compelling grounds did away with the filing of
such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions for
certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice
of judgment or from the order denying a motion for
reconsideration. Thus, in granting the private respondents'
motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari,
FACTS: Separate informations for nine counts of estafa
through falsification of documents in view of irregularities in
nine supporting receipts for his claims for miscellaneous and
extraordinary expenses were filed against petitioner Jaime S.
Domdom on the transactions he made as Director
of Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation. Since the said
informations were separately raffled and lodged among the
five divisions of Sandiganbayan, Domdom filed a motion to
consolidate the cases, which was granted by the First,
Second and Fifth Divisions and denied by Third and Fourth
Divisions.

the Court of Appeals disregarded A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.

Domdom thus seeks relief from this Court via the present
The action amounted to a modification, if not outright
Petition for Certiorari, with prayer for temporary restraining
reversal, by the Court of Appeals of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.
order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the
In so doing, the Court of Appeals arrogated to itself a
different divisions of the Sandiganbayan from further
power it did not possess, a power that only this Court may
proceeding with the cases against him during the pendency of
exercise. For this reason, the challenged resolutions dated
this petition.

August 7, 2008 and October 22, 2008 were invalid as they

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 8 of 24

In the meantime, the Court issued a TRO enjoining all divisions motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later
of the Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the trial of than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of
the cases against Domdom until further orders. 
the motion.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: People's argument that a If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal
motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari is no trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it
longer allowed
shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
ISSUE: Whether a motion for extension of time to file a Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with
petition for certiorari is no longer allowed?
the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the
court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or
RULING: NO, a motion for extension of time to file a an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
petition for certiorari is allowed. There is no mention in the provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with
amended Section 4 of Rule 65 that the filing of a motion and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

for extension was absolutely prohibited. If such were the

intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been In election cases involving an act or an omission of a
reworded to state that "no extension of time to le the municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be led
petition shall be granted." Absent such a prohibition, exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its
motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Court's appellate jurisdiction. (underscoring supplied)

sound discretion. The present petition may thus be

allowed, having been filed within the extension sought 

and, at all events, given its merits. 

Supposedly, the deletion of the following provision in Section 


4 of Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC 11 evinces an intention
to absolutely prohibit motions for extension: "No extension of
time to le the petition shall be granted except for the most
compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days."

The full text of Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No.

07-7-12-SC, reads: Sec. 4. When and where to le the petition.
— The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from
notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion
for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), petitioner, vs. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES,
INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 192908. August 22, 2012.]
reconsideration but it was denied by the lower court per Order
FACTS: The instant case arose from two cases filed by the
Republic seeking expropriation of certain properties in the
name of St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. (St. Vincent). In Civil
Case No. 0062-04, the Republic sought to expropriate 1,992
square meters out of a total area of 6,068 square meters of
land for the construction of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway
Project (MCTEP). Said property belongs to St. Vincent covered
by TCT No. T- 821169 and located in Binakayan, Kawit,
Cavite. In Civil Case No. 0100-04, on the other hand, the
Republic sought to expropriate 2,450 square meters out of a
total area of 9,039 square meters, also belonging to St.
Vincent and covered by TCT No. T-821170. Said property
adjoins the property subject of Civil Case No. 0062-04. In
August 16, 2005 the trial court ruled in favor of the Republic. 
Later on, the Republic attempted to implement the Order
dated August 16, 2005 by entering the subject portion of St.
Vincent's property. Aggrieved, St Vincent demanded upon the
Republic and its agents to immediately vacate, and remove
any and all equipment or structures they introduced on its
property in a demand-letter dated October 3, 2008. Due to St.
Vincent's refusal to honor the order of expropriation, the
Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession.
its Comment/Opposition dated July 15, 2009 alleging among
LOWER COURT RULING: In favor of St Vincent. Republic’s
motion was denied by the lower court in its Order 12 dated
November 25, 2006 [2008]. The lower court, however,
modified its Order dated August 16, 2005 and required the
Page 9 of 24
Republic to immediately pay St. Vincent in an amount
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the
property sought to be expropriated. The Republic moved for
13 dated January 29, 2009 for lack of factual and legal basis.
Seeking to avail the extra ordinary remedy of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Republic filed with the CA a
motion for additional time of fifteen (15) days within which to le
its petition. The CA granted the motion in its Resolution 14
dated April 30, 2009 and the Republic was given a non-
extensible period of fifteen (15) days or until May 4, 2009
within which to file its petition for certiorari.
On April 30, 2009, the Republic filed its petition for certiorari
assailing the lower court's orders dated November 25, 2008
and January 29, 2009 for having been issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
On June 19, 2009, the CA, motu proprio, issued a
Resolution ordering the Republic to show cause why its
petition for certiorari should not be dismissed for being filed
out of time, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.
The Republic filed its Compliance with Explanation 16 dated
July 1, 2009 pleading for the relaxation of the rules by reason
of the transcendental importance of the issues involved in the
case and in consideration of substantial justice. St. Vincent led
others that the said explanation is merely pro forma due to the
Republic's failure to justify its explanation.
CA RULING: On October 30, 2009, the CA rendered the
assailed resolution dismissing the Republic's petition for
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 10 of 24

certiorari on the ground that the petition was led out of time
inasmuch as extensions of time are now disallowed by A.M.
No. 07-7-12-SC 18 and as applied in Laguna Metts
Corporation v. Court of Appeals. 
its own lapse when it granted the extension sought by the
On November 26, 2009, the Republic filed its motion for
reconsideration alleging that it merely relied in good faith on
the appellate court's resolution granting the former an
additional period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the
subject petition.
65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts
On July 15, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed resolution
denying the Republic's motion for reconsideration, stating that
it cannot disobey the ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation. 
Under exceptional circumstances, like this case, however,
REPUBLIC’S CONTENTION: The Republic relies on the CA
resolution granting its motion for extension of time and upon
RULING: YES, a motion for extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari is allowed. Accordingly, the CA
should have admitted the Republic's petition: first, due to
Republic per Resolution dated April 30, 2009; second,
because of the public interest involved, i.e., expropriation
of private property for public use (MCTEP); and finally, no
undue prejudice or delay will be caused to either party in
admitting the petition. To reiterate, under Section 4, Rule
Corporation, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari
must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
and subject to the sound discretion of the Court, said
period may be extended pursuant to Domdom, Labao and
Mid-Islands Power cases.

the strength of the substantial merits of its petition. The

Republic also invokes Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of In order to resolve the instant controversy, the Court deems it
the Sandiganbayan, where the Court ruled that absent a necessary to discuss the relationship between its respective
prohibition, motions for extensions are allowed, subject to the rulings in Laguna Metts Corporation and Domdom with
Court's sound discretion.
respect to the application of the amendment introduced by
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: St. Vincent, however, Court. What seems to be a "conflict" is actually more apparent
contends that the present petition fails to neither allege any
than real. A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple
circumstance nor state any justification for the deliberate
conclusion that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a strict
disregard of a very elementary rule of procedure like Section 4
application of the general rule that petitions for certiorari must
of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. And in the absence of any
be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment
such circumstance or justification, the general rule on pro
or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.
forma motions/pleadings must apply.

Domdom, on the other hand, relaxed the rule and allowed an

extension of the sixty (60)-day period subject to the Court's
ISSUE: Whether a motion for extension of time to file a
sound discretion.

petition for certiorari is allowed?

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
ADTEL, INC. and/or REYNALDO T. CASAS, petitioners,
vs. MARIJOY A. VALDEZ, respondent. [G.R. No. 189942.
August 9, 2017.]
conflict of interest between Marijoy and Adtel. The Labor
FACTS: Petitioner Adtel, Inc. (Adtel) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the distribution of telephone units, gadgets,
equipment, and allied products. On 9 September 1996, Adtel
hired Marijoy A. Valdez (respondent) to work as an accountant
for the company. Adtel promoted Marijoy as the company's
purchasing and logistics supervisor. Adtel then entered into a
dealership agreement with respondent's husband, Angel
Valdez (Mr. Valdez), to distribute Adtel's wideband VHF-UHF
television antennas. The dealership agreement was for twelve
(12) months and the agreement was extended for another
three (3) months. On 3 February 2006, Mr. Valdez filed a civil
case against Adtel for specific performance and damages for
the execution of the terms of the dealership agreement. On 10
May 2006, Mr. Valdez also instituted a criminal complaint for
libel against Adtel's chairman, president, and officers. 
Resolution on  February 2009. On 7 April 2009, the last day for
On 22 May 2006, Adtel issued a memorandum directing
Marijoy to show cause in writing why she should not be
terminated for conflict of interest and/or serious breach of
trust and confidence. The memorandum stated that the filing
of cases by Mr Valdez created a conflict of interest since
Marijoy had access to vital information that can be used
against Adtel. Later on, Marijoy was placed under preventive
suspension by Adtel. On 23 May 2006, Marijoy denied the
charges of Adtel and contended that the cases had nothing to
do with her being an employee of Adtel and had not affected
her performance in the company. On 29 May 2006, Adtel
terminated Marijoy from the company, which led to Marijoy to
file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari can no
Page 11 of 24
LA RULING (24 May 2007): Dismissed Marijoy's complaint for
illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found that there existed a
Arbiter ruled that Marijoy was not an ordinary rank-and-file
employee but a managerial employee with a fiduciary duty to
protect the interest of Adtel. The Labor Arbiter held that the
civil and criminal cases initiated by Mr Valdez indubitably
created a conflict of interest that was a just cause for her
dismissal by Adtel.
NLRC RULING (21 May 2008): Reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. The NLRC ruled that Adtel illegally dismissed
Marijoy. The NLRC held that Adtel failed to substantially prove
the existence of an act or omission personally attributable to
Marijoy to serve as a just cause to terminate her employment.
Adtel filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by
the NLRC on 24 December 2008. Adtel received the NLRC
filing its petition for certiorari with the CA, Adtel filed a motion
for extension of time with the CA. On 22 April 2009, fifteen (15)
days after the last day for filing or the 75th day, Adtel filed its
petition for certiorari with the CA.
CA RULING (28 May 2009): Denied the motion for extension
and dismissed Adtel's petition for certiorari for being filed
beyond the reglementary period. The CA ruled that Adtel had
until 7 April 2009 to file its petition for certiorari. Instead of
filing the petition for certiorari, Adtel filed a motion for
extension of time on 7 April 2009 and subsequently filed its
petition for certiorari on 22 April 2009, the last day of the
extended period prayed for by Adtel. The CA held that the
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 12 of 24

longer be extended pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which justification to allow an extension of the 60-day period to
amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
file a petition for certiorari. There should be an effort on
the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
Adtel's motion for extension filed with the CA on 7 April 2009 reasonable or meritorious explanation for his or her failure
reads:
to comply with Rule 65. Accordingly, in the absence of a
more compelling reason cited in the motion for extension
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR of time other than the "undersigned counsel's heavy
CERTIORARI
volume of work," the CA did not commit a reversible error
in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

1. Petitioner's Petition for Certiorari was due for ling yesterday,

06 April 2009 or sixty (60) days from 05 February 2009, the A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC states that in cases where a motion for
date of receipt of the Resolution dated 24 December 2008 reconsideration was timely filed, the filing of a petition for
issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). certiorari questioning the resolution denying the motion for
Considering that yesterday was a holiday, the petition in effect reconsideration must be made not later than sixty (60) days
is due today, 07 April 2009.
from the notice of the denial of the motion. The exception to
the 60-day rule to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
2. While a draft of the pleading had already been prepared,
was also applied by this Court in a more recent case in
final revisions have yet to be completed.However, due to the
Republic of the Philippines v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges,
undersigned counsel's heavy volume of work, petitioner is
Inc., 27 to wit: "[u]nder exceptional circumstances, however,
constrained to request for an additional period of fifteen (15)
and subject to the sound discretion of the Court, [the] said
days from today or up to 22 April 2009 within which to file the
period may be extended pursuant to [the] Domdom, Labao
Petition for Certiorari.

and Mid-Islands Power cases.” Therefore, the rule is that in

filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, a motion for
3. This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings but is
extension is a prohibited pleading. However in exceptional or
prompted solely by the above-stated reason.

meritorious cases, the Court may grant an extension anchored

ISSUE: Whether a motion for extension of time to file a on special or compelling reasons.

petition for certiorari may be allowed in this case?

RULING: NO, a motion for extension of time to file a

petition for certiorari may not be allowed in this case. In
Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the
circumstance of heavy workload alone, absent a
compelling or special reason, is not a sufficient
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
4. What are confidential employees?
and business manager, fiscal and financial system manager
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU)-
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS
CHAPTER, petitioner,  vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES,
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, respondents. [G.R. No.
93468 December 29, 1994] ->  A confidential employee is
one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with
the custody, handling, or care and protection of the
employer's property.  and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to
METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner,
vs. HONORABLE MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment and METRO DRUG CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE
WORKERS, respondents. [G.R. No. 108855. February 28,
1996] ~> EXCLUSION OF CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
FROM THE RANK AND FILE BARGAINING UNIT; NOT
TANTAMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION. - Confidential
employees cannot be classified as rank and file. As previously
discussed, the nature of employment of confidential
employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus,
warranting a separate category. Excluding confidential
employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is
not tantamount to discrimination.
PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPS
EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (FFW) [G.R. No. 88957 June
25, 1992] -> The confidential employees are the division
secretaries of light/telecom/data and consumer electronics,
marketing managers, secretaries of the corporate planning
Page 13 of 24
and audit and EDP manager, and the staff of both the General
Management and the Personnel Department.  In the first
place, all these employees, with the exception of the service
engineers and the sales force personnel, are confidential
employees. Their classification as such is not seriously
disputed by PEO-FFW; the five (5) previous CBAs between
PIDI and PEO-FFW explicitly considered them as confidential
employees. By the very nature of their functions, they assist
confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial
functions in the field of labor relations.
5. What is the doctrine of necessary implication? 
-> Under the Doctrine of Necessary Implication: Confidential
employees are not classified as either rank and file employees
or managerial employees. However since they served in a
fiduciary manner to the managerial employees, and they are
privy to sensitive and highly confidential records then they are
ineligible to join, form and assist any labor organization.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU)-
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS
CHAPTER, petitioner,  vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES,
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, respondents. [G.R. No.
93468 December 29, 1994]
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence
on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care
and protection of the employer's property. 25 While Art. 245
of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as
ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization,
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
under the  doctrine of necessary implication, confidential
employees are similarly disqualified. This doctrine states
that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof
as that which is expressed, as elucidated in several
cases26  the latest of which is  Chua v. Civil Service
Commission 27 where we said:
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details
involved in its application. There is always an omission that
may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the
time of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be
inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the future.
So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One
of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is
the doctrine of necessary implication . . . . Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as
may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to
make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it
grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its
terms. Ex necessitate
 NLRC,32  that "confidential employees such as accounting
legis . . . .
personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having access
In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into
consideration the rationale behind the disqualification of
managerial employees expressed in  Bulletin Publishing
Corporation v. Sanchez,28  thus: ". . . if these managerial
employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the
latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view
of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become
company-dominated with the presence of managerial
employees in Union membership." Stated differently, in the
collective bargaining process, managerial employees are
Page 14 of 24
supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its
representatives, and to see to it that its interests are well
protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if
these employees themselves are union members. Collective
bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided.29  It is
the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the
disqualification found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of
confidential employees were written in the provision. If
confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for
advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by
their own motives rather than the interest of the employers.
Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of
the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in
the interest of" the employers.  30 It is not farfetched that in the
course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that
interest which they are duty-bound to protect. Along the same
line of reasoning we held in  Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-
Calleja  31  reiterated in  Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v.
to confidential information, may become the source of undue
advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either
party to a collective bargaining agreement."
In fine, only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and
Controllers of respondent Bank, being confidential employees,
are disqualified from joining or assisting petitioner Union, or
joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization. But
this ruling should be understood to apply only to the present
case based on the evidence of the parties, as well as to those
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
similarly situated. It should not be understood in any way to
apply to banks in general.
METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner,
vs. HONORABLE MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment and METRO DRUG CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE
WORKERS, respondents. [G.R. No. 108855. February 28,
1996]  GO, JUDITH DUDANG, MONINA DIZON, EUSEBIO
~> LABOR RELATIONS; INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERIAL
EMPLOYEES TO JOIN, FORM AND ASSIST ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION; PROHIBITION EXTENDED TO
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES. - Although Article 245 of the
Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist
any labor organization to managerial employees,
jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential
employees or those who by reason of their positions or
nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary
manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise
privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
A.H. SAJO, MICHAEL BIETE, RED RP, GLORIA JUAT,
> EXCLUSION OF CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FROM
THE RANK AND FILE BARGAINING UNIT; NOT
TANTAMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION. - Confidential
employees cannot be classified as rank and file. As previously
discussed, the nature of employment of confidential
employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus,
warranting a separate category. Excluding confidential
employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is
not tantamount to discrimination.
ACOSTA, JESUSA ACOSTA, MA. AVELINA ARYAP, EVELYN
Page 15 of 24
6. Deductions of special assessments
EVANGELINE J. GABRIEL, TERESITA C. LUALHATI,
EVELYN SIA, RODOLFO EUGENIO, ISAGANI MAKISIG, and
DEMETRIO SALAS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and SIMEON
SARMIENTO, JESUS CARLOS MARTINEZ III, ALBERT
NAPIAL, MARVIN ALMACIN, ROGELIO MATEO, GLENN
SIAPNO, EMILIANO CUETO, SALOME ATIENZA, NORMA V.
ROMERO, ISAGANI MORALES, ELISEO BUENAVENTURA,
CLEMENTE AGCAMARAN, CARMELITA NOLASCO,
JOVITA FERI, LULU ACOSTA, CAROL LAZARO, NIDA
ARRIZA, ROMAN BERNARDO, DOMINGO B. MACALDO,
EUGENE PIDLAOAN, MA. SOCORRO T. ANGOB,
JOSEPHINE ALVAREZ, LOURDES FERRER, JACQUILINE
BAQUIRAN, GRACIA R. ESCUADRO, KRISTINA
HERNANDEZ, LOURDES IBEAS, MACARIO GARCIA, BILLY
TECSON, ALEX RECTO III, LEBRUDO, JOSE RICAFORTE,
RODOLFO MORADA, TERESA AMADO, ROSITA TRINIDAD,
JEANETTE ONG, VICTORINO LAS-AY, RANIEL DAYAO,
OSCAR SANTOS, CRISTINA SALAVER, VICTORIA ARINO,
ETHELINDA CASILAN, FAMER DIPASUPIL, MA. HIDELISA
POMER, MA. CHARLOTTE TAWATAO, GRACE REYES,
ERNIE COLINA, ZENAIDA MENDOZA, PAULITA
ADORABLE, BERNARDO MADUMBA, NESTOR NAVARRO,
EASTER YAP, ALMA LIM, FELISA YU, TIMOTEO
GANASTRA, REVELITA CARTAJENAS, ANGELITO
CABUAL, ROBERTA TAN, DOMINADOR TAPO, GRACE
LIM, GADIANE JEMIE, CHRISTHDY DAUD, BENEDICTO
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
BENITEZ, ESTERITA CHU, EVANGELINE CHU, BETTY
CINCO, RICARDO CONNEJO, MANULITO EVALO,
FRANCIS LEONIDA, GREGORIO NOBLEZA, RODOLFO
RIVERAL, ELSA SIA, CLARA SUGBO, EDGARDO TABAO,
MANUEL VELOSO, MARLYN YU, ABSALON BUENA,
WILFREDO PUERTO, FLORENTINA PINGOL, MARILOU
DAR, FE MORALES, MALEN BELLO, LORENA TAMAYO,
CESAR LIM, PAUL BALTAZAR, ALFREDO GAYAGAS,
DUMAGUETE EMPLOYEES, CEBU EMPLOYEES, OZAMIZ
EMPLOYEES, TACLOBAN EMPLOYEES AND ALL OTHER
SOLIDBANK UNION MEMBERS, respondents.  [G.R. No.
115949. March 16, 2000] -> In check-off, the employer, on
agreement with the Union, or on prior authorization from
employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the
latters wages and remits them directly to the union.[11] It
assures continuous funding for the labor organization. As this
Court has acknowledged, the system of check-off is primarily
for the benefit of the union and only indirectly for the individual
employees.[12]
employees concerned.
The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are found in
Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor Code.
Article 222 (b) states:
"No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any
kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or
conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on
any individual member of the contracting union: Provided,
however, that attorneys fees may be charged against union
funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any
contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the
contrary shall be null and void." (Underscoring ours)
or agent may be challenged by another union by filing
Page 16 of 24
Article 241 (o) provides:
"Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no
special assessment, attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any
other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount
due to an employee without an individual written
authorization duly signed by the employee. The
authorization should specifically state the amount,
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction." (Emphasis
ours.)
Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the special
assessment for unions incidental expenses, attorneys fees
and representation expenses. These are: 1) authorization by a
written resolution of the majority of all the members at the
general membership meeting called for the purpose; (2)
secretarys record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3)
individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the


7. What is the 60 day freedom period and what happens
within that period
-> It refers to the last sixty days immediately preceding the
expiration of the five-year CBA. A petition for certification
election may be filed during the freedom period.
-> It is only the time when the law allows the parties to serve
notice to terminate, alter, modify the existing agreement. It is
also the time when the majority status of the bargaining union
appropriate petition for certification election.

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 17 of 24

-> Political event between rival unions and voters.

Representation aspect is discussed here
9. Appeal bond and McBurnie case

-> Employer is not a party here

-> The Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director’s decisions
involves monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon posting of a bond which shall either be in
8. CBA requirements
the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount
What is Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?
to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s
fees.

It is a contract executed upon request of either the employer -> Section 6, Rule VI, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure: No
or the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with meritorious grounds, and only upon posting of a bond in a
respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.

conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting

any grievances or questions under such agreement.
-> ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, petitioner,vs.EULALIO
GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON,
What are the requirements for CBA registration?
INC., respondents. [G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 & G.R. Nos.
186984-85. October 17, 2013.]

The following are the requirements for CBA registration

FACTS: On October 4, 2002, petitioner Andrew James
(original and two (2) duplicate copies which must be certified
McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for
under oath by the representative of the employer and labor
illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against
union concerned):

respondent Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers Inc and E. Ganzon

Inc.

a) The Collective Bargaining Agreement (must be written);

b) A statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was LA RULING: In favor of McBurnie.

posted in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the

Feeling aggrieved, the respondents appealed the LA's
establishment concerned for at least five (5) days before its
Decision to the NLRC. On November 5, 2004, they filed their
ratification; and

Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and

posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. The
c) A statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was
respondents contended in their Motion to Reduce Bond, inter
ratified by the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit
alia, that the monetary awards of the LA were null and
of the employer concerned.

excessive, allegedly with the intention of rendering them

incapable of posting the necessary appeal bond. They
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS
claimed that an award of "more than P60 Million Pesos to a
single foreigner who had no work permit and who left the
country for good one month after the purported
commencement of his employment" was a patent
nullity. Furthermore, they claimed that because of their
business losses that may be attributed to an economic crisis,
they lacked the capacity to pay the bond of almost P60
Million, or even the millions of pesos in premium required for
such bond.
appeal bond in the amount of P54,083,910.00 was prohibitive
NLRC RULING: Denied the motion to reduce bond, explaining
that "in cases involving monetary award, an employer seeking
to appeal the [LA's] decision to the Commission is
unconditionally required by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond
in the amount equivalent to the monetary award . . . ." Thus,
the NLRC required from the respondents the posting of an
additional bond in the amount of P54,083,910.00.
 In the meantime, in view of the respondents' failure to post
the required additional bond, the NLRC dismissed their appeal
in a Resolution dated March 8, 2006. The respondents' motion
for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 2006. This
prompted the respondents to file with the CA the Petition for
Certiorari (With Urgent Prayers for the Immediate Issuance of
a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95916, which was
later consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 90845.
CA RULING: Allowing the respondents' motion to reduce
appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course to
their appeal. Also, the CA ruled that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in immediately denying the motion
without fixing an appeal bond in an amount that was
reasonable, as it denied the respondents of their right to
Page 18 of 24
appeal from the decision of the LA.29 The CA explained that
"(w)hile Art. 223 of the Labor Code requiring bond equivalent
to the monetary award is explicit, Section 6, Rule VI of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, recognized as
exception a motion to reduce bond upon meritorious grounds
and upon posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation
to the monetary award.” Moreover, the CA also found grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, explaining that an
and excessive. Moreover, the appellate court cited the
pendency of the petition for certiorari over the denial of the
motion to reduce bond, which should have prevented the
NLRC from immediately dismissing the respondents' appeal.
ISSUE: Whether the P100,000 appeal bond the respondents
posted is already sufficient?
RULING: YES, the P100,000 appeal bond the respondents
posted is already sufficient.
The present rule on the matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was substantially the
same provision in effect at the time of the respondents' appeal
to the NLRC, and which reads:
RULE VI APPEALS
Sec. 6. BOND. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or
the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by
the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall either be in cash
or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award,
exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 19 of 24

No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the
meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a latter.

reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.

 As we shall explain, the instant case also qualifies as an

The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance exception to, first, the proscription against second and
with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop subsequent motions for reconsideration, and second, the rule
the running of the period to perfect an appeal. (Emphasis on immutability of judgments; a reconsideration of the
supplied)
Decision dated September 18, 2009, along with the
Resolutions dated December 14, 2009 and January 25, 2012,
To clarify, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides is justified by the higher interest of substantial justice.

that the filing of a motion to reduce bond, coupled with

compliance with the two conditions emphasized in Garcia v.
KJ Commercial for the grant of such motion, namely, (1) a
meritorious ground, and (2) posting of a bond in a reasonable 10. Guidelines in a motion to reduce bond (McBurnie case)

amount, shall suffice to suspend the running of the period to ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE,  petitioner,vs.EULALIO
perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON,
NLRC. 79 To require the full amount of the bond within the 10- INC., respondents. [G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 & G.R. Nos.
day reglementary period would only render nugatory the legal 186984-85. October 17, 2013.]

provisions which allow an appellant to seek a reduction of the

bond.
Furthermore, on the matter of the filing and acceptance of
motions to reduce appeal bond, as provided in Section 6, Rule
As regards the requirement on the posting of a bond in a VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court hereby
"reasonable amount," the Court holds that the final RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be
determination thereof by the NLRC shall be based primarily on observed:

the merits of the motion and the main appeal.

(a) The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be

Although the NLRC Rules of Procedure, particularly Section 6 entertained by the NLRC subject to the following conditions:
of Rule VI thereof, provides that the bond to be posted shall (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable
be "in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary amount is posted;

award,"the merit of the motion shall always take precedence

in the determination. Settled is the rule that procedural rules (b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a
were conceived, and should thus be applied in a manner that motion shall be accompanied by the posting o a provisional
would only aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10,) of the
application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 20 of 24

monetary award subject o the appeal, exclusive o damages Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years
and attorney's fees;
after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6)
(c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to months from the date of expiry of the term of such other
suspend the running o the 1 0-day reglementary period to provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement,
perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If
NLRC;
any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the
parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In
(d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective
motion to reduce bond and determine the final amount o bond bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights
that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with under this Code.

the standards o meritorious grounds and reasonable amount;

and
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON.
SECRETARY OF LABOR LEONARDO QUISUMBING and
(e) In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce
MERALCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION
bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount o the
(MEWA), respondents. [G.R. No. 127598. August 1, 2000] -
provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period o
> Parenthetically, the Decision rendered in the case at bar on
ten 1 0) days from notice o the NLRC order within which to
January 27, 1999[13] ordered that the CBA should be effective
perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.

for a term of two years counted from December 28, 1996 (the
date of the Secretary of Labors disputed Order on the parties


motion for reconsideration) up to December 27, 1998.[14] That
is to say, the arbitral award was given prospective effect.

11. Expiration of CBA; arbitral award; no agreement

Upon a reconsideration of the Decision, this Court issued the
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
--- Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may
enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment
outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of
expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining
assailed Resolution which ruled that where an arbitral award
granted beyond six months after the expiration of the existing
CBA, and there is no agreement between the parties as to the
date of effectivity thereof, the arbitral award shall retroact to
the first day after the six-month period following the expiration
of the last day of the CBA. In the dispositive portion, however,
the period to which the award shall retroact was inadvertently
stated as beginning on December 1, 1995 up to November 30,
1997.

Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining

LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 21 of 24

In resolving the motions for reconsideration in this case, this the parties." Despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of the
Court took into account the fact that petitioner belongs to an CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in force
industry imbued with public interest. As such, this Court can and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed.
not ignore the enormous cost that petitioner will have to bear [16]

as a consequence of the full retroaction of the arbitral award

to the date of expiry of the CBA, and the inevitable effect that Finally, this Court finds that petitioners prayer, that the award
it would have on the national economy. On the other hand, of Two Thousand Pesos shall be paid to rank-and-file
under the policy of social justice, the law bends over employees during the two-year period, is well-taken. The
backward to accommodate the interests of the working class award does not extend to supervisory employees of petitioner.

on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life

should have more in law.[15] Balancing these two contrasting
interests, this Court turned to the dictates of fairness and 12. Registration of CBA requirements

equitable justice and thus arrived at a formula that would
address the concerns of both sides. Hence, this Court held
that the arbitral award in this case be made to retroact to the
first day after the six-month period following the expiration of
the last day of the CBA, i.e., from June 1, 1996 to May 31,
1998.
agreement shall be accompanied with verified proof of
This Court, therefore, maintains the foregoing rule in the
assailed Resolution pro hac vice. It must be clarified, however,
Section 1. Registration of collective bargaining
agreement.- The parties to a collective bargaining
agreement shallsubmittothe appropriate Regional Office
two (2) duly signed copies thereof within thirty (30)
calendar days from execution. Such copies of the
posting in two conspicuous places in the work place and
of ratification by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit.

that consonant with this rule, the two-year effectivity period

must start from June 1, 1996 up to May 31, 1998, not Such proof shall consist of copies of the following
December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997.
documents certified under oath by the union secretary and
attested to by the union president:

During the interregnum between the expiration of the

economic provisions of the CBA and the date of effectivity of (a) Statement that the collective bargaining agreement
the arbitral award, it is understood that the hold-over principle was posted in at least two conspicuous places in the
shall govern, viz:
establishment at least five (5) days before its ratification;
and

"[I]t shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo
and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
freedom period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 22 of 24

(b) Statement that the collective bargaining agreement the hearings set by the Med-Arbiter is of no moment. As the
was ratified by the majority of the employees in the Solicitor General correctly pointed out, there is no prohibition
bargaining unit.
on the conduct of hearings by the Med-Arbiter on the
competing stands of the unions. Neither does the law require
The posting required in the preceding paragraph shall be the same to be held whereby the absence or presence
the responsibility of the parties.
therefrom of any union representative would affect the petition
for certification election. In fact, it is the denial of the petition
The Regional Office shall assess the employer for every for certification election grounded solely on the absence of
collective bargaining agreement aregistration fee of one NFL in the scheduled hearings which is frowned upon by the
thousand pesos (P1,000.00).
law. This is consistent with the principle in labor legislation
that "certification proceedings is not a litigation in the sense in
The Regional Office shall retain one (1) copy of the which the term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of
agreement for its file and transmit one (1) copy thereofto non-adversary and fact finding character. As such, it is not
the Bureauwithin five (5) calendar days from its bound by technical rules of evidence."

registration. The Regional Office shall issue a certificate of

registration within five (5) calendar days from receipt of
the agreement and the proofs of posting and ratification What is Certification Election?

as required herein.

Certification election is a process of determining through

secret ballot the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) of
all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the
13. Labor organization; certificate election purpose of collective bargaining.

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU), petitioner,  vs. HON.

PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 2. Where does a union file a petition for certification election
LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND (PCE)?

EMPLOYMENT AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR

A PCE is filed at the Regional Office which issued the
(NFL), respondents. G.R. No. 82260 July 19, 1989 -> The
certificate of petitioning union’s certificate of registration/
provision of Article 256 which provides that the Med-Arbiter
certificate of creation of chartered local.

shall automatically order an election is clear and leaves no

room for further interpretation. The mere filing of a petition for
3. What are the requirements in filing a PCE?

certification election within the freedom period is sufficient

basis for the respondent Director to order the holding of a Among the important requirements are the following:

certification election. The fact that NFL did not appear during
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 23 of 24

a) A statement indicating any of the following:

eligible voters will be made, as well as the number and
location of polling places.

◦ That the bargaining unit is unorganized or that

there is no registered CBA covering the 6.May a PCE be denied?

employees in the bargaining unit;

◦ If there exists a duly registered CBA, that the Yes, a PCE may be denied if:

petition is filed within the sixty-day freedom

period of such agreement;
a) it was filed before or after the freedom period of a registered
CBA;

◦ If another union had been previously

recognized voluntarily or certified in a valid
b) the petitioner union is not listed in the DOLE Registry of
certification, consent or run-off election, that
legitimate labor organization; or

the petition is filed outside the one-year period

from entry of voluntary recognition or conduct
c) the legal personality of the petitioner-union has been
of certification or run-off election and no appeal
revoked or cancelled with finality.

is pending thereon.

b) In an organized establishment, the signature of at least 7. Who will conduct the CE?

twenty-five (25%) percent of all employees in the appropriate

bargaining unit shall be attached to the petition at the time of The DOLE Regional Office through the election officer
its filing (Section 4, Rule VIII, of the Department Order No. conducts the certification election.

40-03).

8.How is the SEBA determined?

4. What happens after receipt of the PCE?

The union that garners majority of the valid votes cast in a

The petition will be raffled to the Med-Arbiter for preliminary valid certification election shall be certified as the SEBA.

conference to determine, among others, the bargaining unit to

be represented, the contending unions, and the possibility of 9. May election protest be entertained?

consent election.

Yes, but protest should have been first recorded in the

5. What happens upon approval of the conduct of certification minutes of the election proceedings.

election by the Mediator-Arbiter?

10.What happens if the petitioner union fails to garner the

The PCE will be endorsed to an election officer for the majority of the valid votes cast?

conduct of pre-election conference wherein the date, time and

place of election will be identified, the list of challenged and
LABOR RELATIONS MIDTERMS TIPS Page 24 of 24

There will be no SEBA, but another PCE may be filed one year Yes, management may voluntarily recognize a union if there is
thereafter.
no other union in the company and if other requirements are
complied with (Sec. 2, Rule 7 of D.O. 40-03).

11. What are the requisites for certification election in

organized establishments?
15. What is the role of employer in certification election?

Certification election in organized establishments requires The employer shall not be considered a party to a petition for
that:
certification election, whether it is filed by an employer or a
legitimate labor organization, and shall have no right to
a) a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent oppose it. Its participation shall be limited only to being
bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60-day notified or informed of petition for certification election and
freedom period;
submitting the certified list of employees or where necessary,
the payrolls (Employer as Bystander Rule).

b) such petition is verified; and



c) the petition is supported by the written consent of at least
twenty-five percent (25%) of all employees in the bargaining
unit.
14. Secret ballot

12. What is the requirement for certification election in -> in unions, used to determine any question on major policies
unorganized establishments?
(the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, etc)

-> used in strikes, wherein a majority of the union members

Certification election in unorganized establishments shall have voted

“automatically” be conducted upon the filing of a petition for

certification election by an independent union or a federation
in behalf of the chartered local or the local/chapter itself.
15.  Doctrine of Equity of the Incumbent

Art. 249. Equity of the incumbent. All existing federations and

13. May an employer file a PCE?

national unions which meet the qualifications of a legitimate

labor organization and none of the grounds for cancellation
Yes, the employer may file a PCE if it is requested to bargain
shall continue to maintain their existing affiliates regardless of
collectively.

the nature of the industry and the location of the affiliates.

14. May an employer extend voluntary recognition to a

legitimate labor organization without filing a PCE?