titles of the employees which the Association sought to represent.
On February 8,
CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGER AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION vs
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et.al
G.R. Nos. L-30632-33
April 11, 1972
Ponente: Villamor, J
NATURE OF CASE
Appeal from the Resolution en Banc of the CIR
BRIEF
This is an appeal by the Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors' Association
from the resolution en banc dated May 16, 1969 of the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) affirming the decision dated February 26, 1969 of Associate
Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne, Associate Judge Ansberto P. Paredes dissented from
the resolution of the majority on the ground that the Industrial Court in a
representation case cannot take cognizance of the issue of illegality of a strike and
proceed to declare the loss of the employee status of employees inasmuch as that
matter ought to be processed as an unfair labor practice case. Judge Tabigne's
decision covers two cases, namely, Case No. 1484-MC (1) in which he declared
the strike staged on April 22, 1965 by the Association as illegal with the
consequent forfeiture of the employee status of three employees (Jose J. Mapa,
President of the Association; Dominador Mangalino, Vice-President and
Herminigildo Mandanas) and Case No. 4344-ULP against Caltex (Philippines),
Inc., Ben F. Edwards W.E. Menefee which Judge Tabigne dismissed for lack of
merit and substantial evidence.
FACTS
The Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors' Association is a labor organization
of Filipino managers supervisors in Caltex (Philippines), Inc., respondent
Company in this proceeding. After the Association was registered as a labor
organization it sent a letter to the Company on January 21, 1965 informing the
latter of the former's registration; the Company replied inquiring on the position
1965 the Association sent a set of proposals to the Company wherein one of the
demands was the recognition of the Association as the duly authorized bargaining
agency for managers and supervisors in the Company. To this the Company
countered stating that a distinction exists between representatives of management
and individuals employed as supervisors and that it is Company's belief that
managerial employees are not qualified for membership in a labor organization;
hence, it is digested that the Association institute a certification proceeding so as
to remove any question with regard to position titles that should be included in the
bargaining unit. The Association felt disinclined to follow the suggestion of the
Company1 and so on February 22, 1965 the Company initiated a certification
proceeding docketed as Case 1484-MC.
On March 8, 1965 the Association filed notice to strike.
On the basis of the strike notice filed on March 8, 1965 and in view of acts
committed by the Company which the Association considered as constituting
unfair labor practice, the Association struck on April 22, 1965, after the efforts
exerted by the Bureau of Labor Relations to settle the differences between the
parties failed.
Because of the settlement between the parties on May 30, 1965 of some of their
disputes, the Association filed with respondent court under date of June 3, 1965 a
manifestation (to which was attached a copy of the return-to-work agreement
signed by the parties on May 30, 1965), to the effect that the issues in Case No.
1484-MC (1) had become moot and academic.
ISSUE of the CASE
Whether or not the strike staged by the Association on April 22, 1965 is illegal?
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
No.
To begin with, we view the return-to-work agreement of May 30, 1965 as in the
nature of a partial compromise between the parties and, more important, a labor
contract; consequently, in the latter aspect the same "must yield to the common
good" (Art. 1700, Civil Code of the Philippines) and "(I)n case of doubt ... shall be
construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer" (Art. 1702, ibid).
To our mind when the Company unqualifiedly bound itself in the return-to-work
agreement that all employees will be taken back "with the same employee status
prior to April 22, 1965," the Company thereby made manifest its intention and
conformity not to proceed with Case No. 1484-MC, (c) relating the illegality of
the strike incident. For while it is true that there is a reservation in the return-to-
work agreement as follows:
6. The parties agree that all Court cases now pending shall
continue, including CIR Case No. 1484-MC.
we think the same is to be construed bearing in mind the conduct and intention of
the parties. The failure to mention Case No. 1484-MC(1) while specifically
mentioning Case No. 1484-MC, in our opinion, bars the Company from
proceeding with the former especially in the light of the additional specific
stipulation that the strikers would be taken back with the same employee status
prior to the strike on April 22, 1965.
Moreover, the Association resorted to means beyond the pale of the law in the
prosecution of the strike. As adverted to above, the Association filed its notice to
strike on March 8, 1965, giving reasons therefor any one of which is a valid
ground for a strike.
titles mentioned in Annex "B" of said agreement. This goes to show that striking
for recognition is productive of good result in so far as a union is concerned.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, respondent court's resolution en banc dated May 16, 1969,
together with the decision dated February 26, 1969, is reversed and judgment is
hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Case No. 1484-MC(1), the Court declares the strike of the Caltex Filipino
Managers and Supervisors' Association as legal in all respects and, consequently,
the forfeit of the employee status of J.J. Mapa, Dominador Mangalino and
Herminigildo Mandanas is set aside. The Company is hereby ordered to reinstate
J.J. Mapa and Dominador Mangalino to their former positions without loss of
seniority and privileges, with backwages from the time of dismissal on July 1,
1969. Since Herminigildo Mandanas appears to have voluntarily left the
Company, no reinstatement is ordered as to him.
2. In Case No. 4344-ULP, the Court finds the Company B.F. Edwards and W.E.
Menefee guilty of unfair labor practices and they are therefore ordered to cease
and desist from the same. In this connection, the Company is furthermore directed
to pay backwages to the striking employees from April 22, 1965 to May 30, 1965
and to pay attorney's fees which are hereby fixed at P20,000.00.

In addition, from the voluminous evidence presented by the Association, it is clear

that the strike of the Association was declared not just for the purpose of gaining
recognition as concluded by respondent court, but also for bargaining in bad faith
on the part of the Company and by reason of unfair labor practices committed by
its officials. But even if the strike were really declared for the purpose of
recognition, the concerted activities of the officers and members of the
Association in this regard cannot be said to be unlawful nor the purpose thereof be
regarded as trivial. Significantly, in the voluntary return-to-work agreement
entered into between the Company and the Association, thereby ending the strike,
the Company agreed to recognize for membership in the Association the position

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
G.R. No. 108855. February 28, 1996
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.
Nature of the case: petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court seeking the annulment of the Resolution and Omnibus Resolution of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment.
FACTS:
Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation of
Free Workers (hereinafter referred to as the Union) is a labor organization
representing the rank and file employees of petitioner Metrolab Industries, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as Metrolab/MII) and also of Metro Drug, Inc. On 31
December 1990, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Metrolab
and the Union expired. The negotiations for a new CBA, however, ended in a
deadlock. Consequently, the Union filed a notice of strike against Metrolab and
Metro Drug Inc. despite the conciliation efforts of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board the parties failed to settle their dispute, hence the Secretary of
Labor and Employment issued an order that any strike or acts that might
exacerbate the situation is ceased and ordered the parties to execute a new CBA.
Thereafter the Union filed a motion for reconsideration.
During the pendency of the motion, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file
employees. The Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to enjoin
Metrolab from implementing the mass layoff, alleging that such act violated the
prohibition against committing acts that would exacerbate the dispute as
specifically directed in the assumption order, however Metrolab contended that
the layoff was temporary and in the exercise of its management prerogatives.
Thereafter Metrolab recalled some of the laid off workers on temporary basis due
to the availability of work in the production line. The Secretary of Labor issued a
resolution declaring the layoff Illegal and ordered reinstatement with full back
wages. Metrolab filed a partial motion for reconsideration alleging that the laid off
did not aggravate the dispute since no untoward incident occurred as a result
thereof and also filed a motion for clarification regarding the constitution of the
bargaining unit covered by the CBA. A new CBA was entered without prejudice to
the reconsideration and clarification, pending the resolution Metrolab laid off 73
of its employees on grounds of redundancy due to lack of work. Labor secretary
again issued a cease and desist order and issued the assailed Omnibus Resolution
containing the motion for reconsideration and clarification and ruled in favor of
the Union. Included in the ruling of the secretary is that executive secretaries are
excluded from the closed-shop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit
of the UNION.
ISSUE:
Whether or not executive secretaries are allowed to be included as part of the
bargaining unit of rank and file employees.
HELD:
NO. By recognizing the expanded scope of the right to self-organization, the
intent of the court was to delimit the types of employees excluded from the close
shop provisions, not from the bargaining unit. The executive secretaries of
General Manager and the Management Committees should not only be exempted
from the closed-shop provision but should not be permitted to join in the
bargaining unit of the rank and file employees as well as on the grounds that the
executive secretaries are confidential employees , having access to “vital labor
information”.
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.
As stated in several cases, confidential employees are prohibited and disqualified
to join any bargaining unit since the very nature of the functions are to assist and
act in a confidential capacity, or to have access to confidential matters of, persons
who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. Finally,
confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file from the very nature
of their work. Excluding confidential employees from the rank and file of
bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.
SINGER SEWING CORPORATION VS. DRILON
Therefore, executive secretaries of petitioners’, General Manager and its SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, petitioner
Management Committee are permanently excluded from the bargaining unit of vs.
petitioner’s rank and file employees. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, MED-ARBITER FELIX B. CHAGUILE, JR.,
and SINGER MACHINE COLLECTORS UNION-BAGUIO
(SIMACUB), respondents.
G.R. No. 91307
January 24, 1991
Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr., J

NATURE OF CASE
Petition for Certiorari

BRIEF
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the order of Med-Arbiter Designate Felix
B. Chaguile, Jr., the resolution of then Labor Secretary Franklin M. Drilonaffirming
said order on appeal and the order denying the motion for reconsideration in the case
entitled "In Re: Petition for Direct Certification as the Sole and Exclusive Collective
Bargaining Agent of Collectors of Singer Sewing Machine Company-Singer Machine
Collectors Union-Baguio (SIMACUB)" docketed as OS-MA-A-7-119-89 (IRD Case
No. 02-89 MED).
FACTS
On February 15, 1989, the respondent union filed a petition for direct certification as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of the Singer Sewing Machine
Company, Baguio City branch (hereinafter referred to as "the Company").
The Company opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the union members are
actually not employees but are independent contractors as evidenced by the collection
agency agreement which they signed.
The respondent Med-Arbiter, finding that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between the union members and the Company, granted the petition for
certification election.
The respondents insist that the provisions of the Collection Agency Agreement belie
the Company's position that the union members are independent contractors. To prove
that union members are employees, it is asserted that they "perform the most desirable
and necessary activities for the continuous and effective operations of the business of
the petitioner Company" (citing Article 280 of the Labor Code). They add that the
termination of the agreement by the petitioner pending the resolution of the case
before the DOLE "only shows the weakness of petitioner's stand" and was "for the
purpose of frustrating the constitutionally mandated rights of the members of private
respondent union to self-organization and collective organization." They also contend
that under Section 8, Rule 8, Book No. III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, which defines job-contracting, they cannot legally qualify as independent
contractors who must be free from control of the alleged employer, who carry
independent businesses and who have substantial capital or investment in the form of
equipment, tools, and the like necessary in the conduct of the business.
ISSUE/s OF THE CASE
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to right to self-organization?
COURT RATIONALE OF THE ABOVE CASE
The present case mainly calls for the application of the control test, which if not
satisfied, would lead us to conclude that no employer-employee relationship exists.
Hence, if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of
bargaining, nor to be certified as such bargaining agent can ever be recognized. The
following elements are generally considered in the determination of the employer-
employee relationship; "(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employee's conduct — although the latter is the most important element"
(Mafinco Trading Corporation v. Ople, 70 SCRA 139 [1976]; Development Bank of
the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, 175 SCRA 537 [1989];
Rosario Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72 [1984]; Broadway Motors Inc. v. NLRC,
156 SCRA 522 [1987]; Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement in the Philippines v.
Zamora, 147 SCRA 49 [1986]).
The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and report forms
issued by the Company and that reports shall be submitted at least once a week is not
necessarily an indication of control over the means by which the job of collection is to
be performed. The agreement itself specifically explains that receipt forms shall be
used for the purpose of avoiding a co-mingling of personal funds of the agent with the
money collected on behalf of the Company. Likewise, the use of standard report forms
as well as the regular time within which to submit a report of collection are intended to
facilitate order in office procedures. Even if the report requirements are to be called
control measures, any control is only with respect to the end result of the collection
since the requirements regulate the things to be done after the performance of the
collection job or the rendition of the service.
The monthly collection quota is a normal requirement found in similar contractual
agreements and is so stipulated to encourage a collecting agent to report at least the
minimum amount of proceeds. In fact, paragraph 5, section b gives a bonus, aside
from the regular commission every time the quota is reached. As a requirement for the
fulfillment of the contract, it is subject to agreement by both parties. Hence, if the
other contracting party does not accede to it, he can choose not to sign it. From the
records, it is clear that the Company and each collecting agent intended that the former
take control only over the amount of collection, which is a result of the job performed.
The Court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the Company, they
are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, there is no constitutional and legal
basis for their "union" to be granted their petition for direct certification.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the Order dated June 14,1989 of Med-Arbiter Designate Felix
B. Chaguile, Jr., the Resolution and Order of Secretary Franklin M. Drilondated
November 2, 1989 and December 14, 1989, respectively are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The petition for certification election is ordered dismissed and the
temporary restraining order issued by the Court on December 21, 1989 is made
permanent.
 FACTS

The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor

Relations on Oct 20, 1987.

The “CHALLENGED” votes of 141 INK members were segregated and excluded
from the final count in virtue of an agreement between the competing unions,
reached at the pre-election conference, that the INK members should not be
allowed to vote "because they are not members of any union and refused to
participate in the previous certification elections.
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION – Extent and Scope of Right
INK members filed a petition to cancel the election alleging that it "was not fair"
ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and
and the result thereof did "not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the
138 others,
employees.
vs
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor
Med-Arbiter saw no merit on the petition because INK members do not possess
Relations, Med. Arbiter PATERNO
any legal personality to institute this present cause of action since they were not
ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, Et. Al.
parties to the petition for certification election. INK members appealed to Bureau
of Labor Relations.
G.R. No. 84433
June 02, 1992
Bureau of Labor Relations sustained the decision of Med-Arbiter. Hence, this
Ponente: Narvasa, C.J.
case.

ISSUE/s of the CASE

NATURE OF CASE Whether or not the INK members have the right to vote in the certification
Special Civil Action of Certiorari (to set aside the Decision of Officer-in-Charge election?
of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated July 22, 1988)
ACTION OF THE COURT
BRIEF YES. The INK members have the right to vote in the certification election (for
labor union).
The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano
Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one
hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in
the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit. That denial is assailed as having been done with grave abuse of Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the "right to self-organization and
discretion in the special civil action of certiorari at bar, commenced by the INK to form, join, or assist labor rganizations of their own choosing for purposes
members adversely affected thereby. of collective bargaining.
Art 243 of Labor Code provides All persons employed in commercial, industrial made out, counted and tallied for the choices written therein. Costs against private
and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational respondents.
institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to
selforganization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and
itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any
definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and
protection.

Article 248 (a) declares it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer, among
others, to "interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization.

Article 249 (a) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to
"restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization.

Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees
affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On
the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right
to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are
members of a labor organization or not.

The right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or
resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate
with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. The right to
form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain
from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied
the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to
exercise such a conferred right.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the Decision of the then
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated December 21, 1987
(affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated July 22, 1988) is ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE; and the petitioners are DECLARED to have legally exercised their
right to vote, and their ballots should be canvassed and, if validly and properly

KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, and KNITJOY
MONTHLY EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 81883. September 23, 1992.]
CONFEDERATION OF FILIPINO WORKERS (CFW), Petitioner, v.
DIRECTOR PURA FERRER-CALLEJA and KNITJOY MONTHLY
EMPLOYEES UNION (KMEU), Respondents.
[G.R. No. 82111. September 23, 1992.]
NATURE OF CASE
Special Civil Action of Certiorari (to set aside the Decision of Officer-in-Charge
of the Bureau of Labor Relations for both cases)
FACTS
These petitions have a common origin and raise identical issues. They were
ordered consolidated on 23 November 1988.
In G.R. No. 81883, the 1 December 1987 Decision of respondent Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR Case No. A-10-315-87, which reversed the
Order of Med-Arbiter-Designate Rolando S. dela Cruz dated 4 September 1987
and ordered the holding of a certification election among the regular rank-and-file
monthly-paid employees of Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. (KNITJOY), is assailed
by the latter.
The Med-Arbiter’s order dismissed the petition of private respondent Knitjoy
Monthly Employees Union (KMEU) for such certification election and directed
the parties "to work out (sic) towards the formation of a single union in the
company
Petitioner KNITJOY had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the
Federation of Filipino Workers (FFW). The bargaining unit covered only the
regular rank-and-file employees of KNITJOY paid on a daily or piece-rate basis.
It did not include regular rank-and-file office and production employees paid on a
monthly basis. The CBA expired on 15 June 1987. Prior to its expiration, the FFW
was split into two (2) factions — the Johnny Tan and the Aranzamendez factions.
The latter eventually became the Confederation of Filipino Workers (CFW),
herein petitioner in G.R. No. 82111.
Prior to the expiration of the CBA, the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied
Services (TUPAS) filed a petition for the holding of a certification election among
KNITJOY’s regular rank-and-file employees paid on a daily and piece-rate basis.
Excluded were the regular rank-and-file employees paid on a monthly basis. In the
certification election conducted on 10 June 1987, CFW emerged as the winner;
thereafter, negotiations for a new CBA between CFW and KNITJOY
commenced.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On 24 June 1987, during the pendency of the said negotiations, private respondent
KMEU filed a petition for certification election among KNITJOY’s regular rank-
and-file monthly-paid employees with Regional Office No. IV of the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which docketed the same as R-04-OD-M-6-
75-87. The Knitjoy Monthly Employees Association and Confederation of
Citizens Labor Union (KMEA-CCLU), another union existing in the said
company, and petitioner CFW intervened therein.
The petition was dismissed in the Order of 4 September 1987 of Med-Arbiter
Rolando S. de la Cruz, the dispositive portion of which
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby Dismissed, but the
parties are instructed to work out (sic) towards the formation of a single union in
the company." 1
KMEU filed a motion to reconsider this order, which was treated as an appeal by
the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
On 1 December 1987, public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja. Director of the BLR,
handed down a Decision 2 reversing the order of Med-Arbiter de la Cruz. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal of Knitjoy Monthly Employees
is hereby granted subject to the exclusion of the monthly paid employees who are
deemed managerial.
Let, therefore, the certification election proceed without delay, with the following
as choices:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Knitjoy Monthly Employees Union (KMEU); and
2. No Union.
ISSUE of the CASE
Whether the petitioner KNITJOY’s monthly-paid regular rank-and-file employees
can constitute an appropriate bargaining unit separate and distinct from the
existing unit composed of daily or piece-rate paid regular rank-and-file
employees.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
No.
The suggested bias of the Labor Code in favor of the one company-one union
policy, anchored on the greater mutual benefits which the parties could derive,
especially in the case of employees whose bargaining strength could undeniably
be enhanced by their unity and solidarity but diminished by their disunity, division
and dissension, is not without exceptions.
The present Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly allows supervisory
employees who are not performing managerial functions to join, assist or form
their separate union but bars them from membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees. It reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. — Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall
not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.
Considering that (a) the TUPAS solicited certification election was strictly
confined to the rank-and-file employees who are paid on a daily or piece-rate
basis, (b) the results of the election must also necessarily confine the certified
union’s representation to the group it represents and (c) the issue of the plight of
the monthly-paid employees was still pending, KNITJOY and CFW clearly acted
with palpable bad faith and malice in including within the scope of the new CBA
these monthly-paid employees. Thus was effected a conspiracy to defeat and
suppress the right of the KMEU and its members to bargain collectively and
negotiate for themselves, to impose upon the latter a contract the negotiation for
which they were not even given notice of, consulted or allowed to participate in,
and to oust from the BLR the pending appeal on the certification issue. In the
latter case, KNITJOY and CFW are guilty of contumacious conduct. It goes
without saying then that the new CBA cannot validly include in its scope or
coverage the monthly-paid rank-and-file employees of KNITJOY. It does not bar
the holding of a certification election to determine their sole bargaining agent, and
the negotiation for and the execution of a subsequent CBA between KNITJOY
and the eventual winner in said election. Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code expressly provides
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED. However, the challenged
decision of public respondent of 1 December 1987 is modified to include in the
choices for the certification election petitioner Confederation of Filipino Workers
(CFW) and the Knitjoy Monthly Employees Association and Confederation of
Citizens Labor Unions (KMEU-CCLU).