1.) The Heritage Hotel Manila vs.

National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and

Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
FACTS: In 1995, NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed with DOLE-NCR a petition for certification election
which the Med-Arbiter granted. It also ordered the holding of a pre-election conference that was
not held as initially scheduled; it was held in 1998, and resumed in 2000. However, petitioner
discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the BLR its annual financial report for several
years and the list of its members since 1995. Thus, petitioner filed for the Cancellation of
Registration of respondent; on the ground of their non-submission of the said documents, and
prayed that their Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted
from the list of legitimate labor organizations. Nevertheless, the certification election pushed
through where respondent won. Petitioner filed a Protest. Respondent, in response, averred that
the petition was filed primarily to delay the conduct of the certification election, the respondent’s
certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of the supervisory employees, and other
tasks. Both the Med-Arbiter, DOLE, and the CA dismissed the petition emphasizing that the
belated submission of the annual financial reports and the list of members are sufficient
compliance thereof, and considered them as having been submitted on time.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure to submit their annual financial report is a ground for cancellation
of union registration.
HELD: No. The provisions of the Labor Code give the Regional Director ample discretion in
dealing with a petition for cancellation of a unions registration, particularly, determining whether
the union still meets the requirements prescribed by law. After all, the law requires the labor
organization to submit the annual financial report and list of members in order to verify if it is still
viable and financially sustainable as an organization so as to protect the employer and employees
from fraudulent or fly-by-night unions. With the submission of the required documents by
respondent, the purpose of the law has been achieved, though belatedly. It is also worth
mentioning that said provisions have been recently amended by R.A. No. 9481 which now
explicitly states: “Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground for
cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension,
expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty”. An overly stringent interpretation of the
statute governing cancellation of union registration without regard to surrounding circumstances
cannot be allowed. Otherwise, it would lead to an unconstitutional application of the statute and
emasculation of public policy objectives. Petition is DENIED.
2.) Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Sammalakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng
Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) vs. Samma Corporation
FACTS: SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001. Among others,
it claimed that it sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of respondent Samma.
Respondent then moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing, among others, that it had a
prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. The Med-arbiter then ordered
such dismissal, but this was reversed by DOLE Acting Secretary. 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. Thus, he directed the holding of a certification
election among the rank-and-file employees of respondent, subject to the usual pre-election
conference and inclusion-exclusion proceedings. Meanwhile, upon a separate petition filed by
respondent, DOLE Regional Director revoked 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 the attestation clause under paragraph 2 of Article 235 of
the Labor Code. On Appeal, the CA found that 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not inclusion of supervisory employees in the union is a ground to impugn its
legitimacy.
HELD: No. LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under a certificate of registration.
Subsequently, petitioner as its local chapter was issued its charter certificate. 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. Unless
petitioners’ 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. To note, the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees.
The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election
pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively, which
exception finds no application in the case before us. Petition is GRANTED.
3.) Carmelito L. Palacol, et al., vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union,
and Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines), Inc
FACTS: In 1987, the Union concluded a new collective bargaining agreement with their company.
On the same day, the Union’s president submitted to the Company the ratification by the union
members of the new CBA, and authorization for the Company to deduct, among others, 10% by
way of special assessment, from the CBA lump-sum pay granted to the union members. The
purpose of the special assessment sought to be levied is "to put up a cooperative and credit union;
purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit of the officers and the general
membership; and for the payment for services rendered by union officers, consultants and others."
There was also an additional proviso stating that the "matter of allocation ... shall be at the
discretion of our incumbent Union President." The total membership of the Union was about 800;
672 members originally authorized the 10% special assessment during the secret referendum,
while 173 opposed. Subsequently, however, 170 members submitted documents to the Company
stating that they are withdrawing or dis-authorizing said deduction. Later, 185 other union
members submitted similar documents expressing the same intent. In total, there were 528
objectors and a remainder of 272 supporters. In this dilemma, the Company filed an action for
interpleader with the BLR to resolve the conflicting claims. Petitioners filed a motion for
intervention and assailed the 10% special assessment as a violation of the Labor Code. In its
answer, the Union countered that the deductions not only have the popular indorsement and
approval of the general membership, but likewise complied with the legal requirements of the
Labor Code. The Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners but it was then reversed upon
appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 10% deduction by special assessment for the Union is still valid.
HELD: No. First, a withdrawal of individual authorizations is equivalent to no authorization at all.
Second, it will be recalled that precisely union dues are collected from the union members to be
spent for the purposes alluded to by respondent. There is no reason shown that the regular union
dues being now implemented is not sufficient for the alleged expenses. Furthermore, the rank
and file have spoken in withdrawing their consent to the special assessment, believing that their
regular union dues are adequate for the purposes stated by the respondent. Thus, the rank and
file having spoken and, as we have earlier mentioned, their sentiments should be respected. Of
the stated purposes of the special assessment, as embodied in the board resolution of the Union,
only the collection of a special fund for labor and education research is mandated, as correctly
pointed out by the Union. The two other purposes, namely, the purchase of vehicles and other
items for the benefit of the union officers and the general membership, and the payment of
services rendered by union officers, consultants and others, should be supported by the regular
union dues, there being no showing that the latter are not sufficient to cover the same. Petition is
GRANTED.
4.) Volkschel Labor Union vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.
FACTS: Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers
(ALUMETAL). In 1975, both unions, using the name Volkschel Labor Union, jointly entered into a
CBA with respondent companies. One of the subjects dealt with is the payment of union dues
which provided that the company will make payroll deductions as UNION membership dues and
such special assessments fees or fines as may be duly authorized by the UNION, and is covered
by the members’ individual check-off authorization. However, in 1976, a majority of petitioner's
members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation in order to operate on its own as an
independent labor group pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code. Confused whether to
continue deducting from employees' wages and remitting union dues to respondent, respondent
companies sought the legal opinion of the BLR as regards the controversy. The Med-Arbiter found
the disaffiliation legal but at the same time gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should
continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL in the concept of agency fees. Both appealed: Petitioner
contended that the members remaining obligated to pay ALUMETAL was inconsistent with the
finding that its disaffiliation was valid. ALUMETAL, on the other hand, argued that the disaffiliation
should have been declared contrary to law. The BLR then REVERSED the Resolution, and
declared that the Bureau recognized "the continued affiliation of Volkschel Labor Union with the
Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers”.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner union's disaffiliation from respondent federation is valid.
HELD: Yes. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In
previous cases, it has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and voluntary
association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate
when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom
of association (Article IV, Section 7, Philippine Constitution). We must not lose sight of the
constitutional mandate of protecting labor and the workers' right to self-organization. In the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. In
the case at bar, it would go against the spirit of the labor law to restrict petitioner's right to self-
organization due to the existence of the CBA. Further, without said affiliation, the employer has
no link to the mother union. The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with
his affiliation or membership. Petition is GRANTED.
5.) Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU), vs. Court of Industrial Relations
FACTS: In May 25, 1956, the Industrial Court ordered the holding of certification election to
determine which of the two contending labor unions, PLASLU or Allied Workers’ Association of
the Philippines (AWA), shall be the sole collective bargaining agent of the employees of the San
Carlos Milling Co. Said order stated: “Considering the history of bargaining relations in this case
where there has only been one bargaining unit, and for purposes of effectuating the policies of
the Act, the same should be maintained”. Prior to this, respondent AWA filed an urgent motion to
exclude 144 employees from participating in the election. The motion, however, was denied,
holding that the workers were eligible to vote. The election was then held with PLASLU receiving
88 votes while AWA garnered 149. 390 ballots were recorded as challenged, 242 of them by the
petitioner PLASLU and 142 by AWA. AWA then filed with the Industrial Court a petition contesting
the election on the ground of the ineligibility of the voters who cast the 148 ballots it challenged.
They also alleged that the 242 ballots challenged by PLASLU were cast by legitimate employees
of the company. PLASLU, on the other hand, questioned the validity of the 242 ballots cast by the
stevedores and piece workers. After the canvass, the final count showed that the respondent
AWA garnered a total of 377 votes against 239 for PLASLU. Accordingly, AWA was certified as
the sole collective bargaining agent of the employees of the San Carlos Milling Co.. Petitioner
PLASLU filed the present petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 242 votes challenged by PLASLU should be credited to AWA.
HELD: No. In the court order authorizing the certification election, the judge directed that the “list
of employees appearing in its payroll during milling season for the year 1955 … shall be used as
the list of eligible voters.” It being disputed that the challenged votes were cast by casual
employees consisting of stevedores and piece workers who — as stated by Judge Tabigne in his
dissent — “were not included in the list of employees appearing in the payroll of the company
during the milling season for the year 1955”, the said challenged votes should have been
excluded. In the determination of the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit, certain
factors must be considered, among them, the employment status of the employees to be affected,
that is to say, the positions and categories of work to which they belong, and the unity of
employees’ interest such as substantial similarity of work and duties. The most efficacious
bargaining unit is one which is comprised of constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of
interest because the basic test of a bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether it will best assure all
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. The order complained of is reversed
and the petitioner PLASLU is hereby certified as the collective bargaining agent of the employees
of the San Carlos Milling Company.
6.) Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery, vs. Asia Brewery, Inc
FACTS: Respondent Asia Brewery, Inc. entered into a CBA effective for 5 years with Bisig at
Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-Independent, the exclusive bargaining representative of
ABIs rank-and-file employees. In 2000, ABI and BLMA signed a renegotiated CBA effective for 3
years. Subsequently, a dispute arose when ABI’s management stopped deducting union dues
from 81 employees, believing that their membership violated the new CBA. BLMA claimed that
ABI’s actions restrained the employee’s right to self-organization and decided to lodge a complaint
before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The Voluntary Arbitrator sustained the
petition after finding that the positions of the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file
category because their functions are merely routinary and clerical. The CA reversed the Voluntary
Arbitrator finding that the employees were confidential employees. In the meantime, a certification
election was held and petitioner TPMA won. It took cognizance of the case and filed with the CA
an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the decision and intervention. Both motions were denied
ISSUE: Whether or not the said 81 employees are eligible to be members of the union.
HELD: Although 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. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in
a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if
an employee is to be considered a confidential employee. In the present case, the CBA expressly
excluded Confidential and Executive Secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining unit, for which
reason ABI seeks their disaffiliation from petitioner. Petitioner, however, maintains that except for
those who had been promoted to monthly paid positions, the rest are deemed included among
the rank-and-file employees of ABI. After a perusal of the job descriptions of these
secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned duties and responsibilities involve routine activities
of recording and monitoring, and other paper works for their respective departments while
secretarial tasks such as receiving telephone calls and filing of office correspondence appear to
have been commonly imposed as additional duties. Clearly, the rationale under our previous
rulings for the exclusion of executive secretaries or division secretaries would have little or no
significance considering the lack of or very limited access to confidential information of these
secretaries/clerks. Thus, the secretaries/clerks, numbering about forty (40), are rank-and-file
employees and not confidential employees and are eligible to be members of the union. Petition
is GRANTED.
7.) Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc., vs. Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al.
FACTS: Confidential employees of ALSI affiliated with private respondent Kaisahan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, a national labor organization. Shortly thereafter, private respondent
Kampil-Katipunan filed on behalf of the said "supervisors" union a petition for certification election
so that it could be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. The
petitioners opposed the private respondent's petition claiming that under Article 245 of the Labor
Code, the private respondent cannot represent the supervisory employees for collective
bargaining purposes because the private respondent also represents the rank-and-file
employees' union. The Med-Arbiter decided in favor of the private respondent. In this petition,
petitioner argues that KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN already represents its rank-and-file employees and,
therefore, to allow the supervisors of those employees to affiliate with the private respondent is
tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the principle of the separation of unions. Public
respondent, however, contends that despite affiliation with a national federation, the local union
does not lose its personality which is separate, and distinct from the national federation.
ISSUE: Whether or not, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of supervisory
employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-
and-file employees
HELD: No. A revision of the Labor Code undertaken by the bicameral Congress brought about
the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6715 in March 1989 in which employees were reclassified into
three groups, namely: (1) the managerial (2) supervisors (3) the rank and file. Supervisory
employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial
actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires
the use of independent judgment. The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not
managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the
discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may
act contrary to the interests of the rank-and-file. The Court agrees with the petitioner's contention
that a conflict of interest may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.
This prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank-and-file is replete with
jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors
wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. This extends to a supervisors' local union applying for
membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file
employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors
will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining
unit. Petition is GRANTED.