1. Kiok Loy c.

NLRC

Union won the certification election and was certified by the BLR as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of the company. Union
submitted proposed CBA, but company merely ignored it. Union filed a notice to
strike with the BLR. Concilliation proceedings followed, but amicable settlement
failed hence the case went to the NLRC. The hearing was postponed for many times
first because of both parties, but mostly because of the company. ISSUE: W/N
Company is guilty of ULP? YES. The jurisdictional preconditions of Collective
Bargaining are present, which are, (1) possession of the status of majority
representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of
selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority
representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the New
Labor Code . ... all of which preconditions are undisputedly present in the instant
case..
DOCTRINE: The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the
following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status
of majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of
the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of
majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the
New Labor Code . ... all of which preconditions are undisputedly present in the instant
case..
2. ALU v. Ferrer-Calleja
ALU informed GAW Trading in a letter that the majority of its employees have
authorized the former to be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative. On May
12, GAW replied and recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
the majority of the employees and set the time for the conference and/or negotiation
on the same day. 2 days after, the CBA was executed. In the meantime, on May 9,
SPFL together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) under took a
strike when it failed to get GAW Trading to sit for a conference respecting its
demands at 11 AM the same day to pressure the company to take back the recognition
of ALU as the sole and exclusive baraganing representative of the employees. GAW
Lumand Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU) Federation also filed a petition for
certification election which was then granted. BLR Dir. Trajano then granted ALU’s
appeal and said that the CBA is effective and therefore, the contract bar rule is
applicable. This decision was reversed by Ferrer- Calleja, saying that that the CBA is
defective because it aws not dule submitted in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule IX,
Book V of the IRR of BP 130. Moreover, there was no proof showing that the CBA
was posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in 1 establishment at least 5 days
before ratification, and that it was ratified by the majority of the employees in
the bargaining unit. The issue in this case is whether or not the CBA was defective
and the SC said that yes, it was. The standing of ALU as the exclusive bargaining
representative is very dubious. In GAW’s reply, the company merely indicated that “it
was not against the desire of its workers” and then required ALU to submit proof that
it was supported by majority of the employees in meeting in the same day. There was
clearly haste in recognizing ALU, which recognition appears to be based on the self-
serving claim of the union that it was indeed supported by the majority. It bears
mention that even in cases where it was the then Minister of Labor himself who
directly certified the union as the bargaining representative, the Court voided such
certification where there was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty
whether the union enjoyed a majority representation. The holding of a
certification election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere formality
as there was a compelling reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union. There
was also another infirmity in the CBA: the failure to post the same in at least 2
conspicuous places in the establishment at least five days before its ratification. The
fact that there were "no impartial members of the unit" is immaterial. The purpose of
the requirement is precisely to inform the employees in the bargaining unit of the
contents of said agreement so that they could intelligently decide whether to accept the
same or not. Also, The Court has already ruled that basic to the contract bar rule is the
proposition that the delay of the right to select represen tatives can be justified only
where stability is deemed paramount. Excepted from the contract which do not
foster industrial stability, such as contracts where the identity of the representative is
in doubt.
DOCTRINE: The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the
following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely: (1) Possession of the
status of majority representation by theemployees' representative in accordance with
any of the means of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2)
Proof of majority representation; and (3) A demand to bargain under Art. 251, par. (a)
of the Labor Code.
Bargaining Agent and Certification Election Proceeding
1. DOLE v. Kawashima
Union filed with DOLE Regional Office, a Petition for Certification Election to be
conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees.Attached
to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter, stating that KFWU
submitted a Charter Certificate issued to it by its national federation.
Employer filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not
acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank- and-file and
supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code. Issue: Whether or not
the mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees is a ground for the
dismissal of a petition for certification election? NO The Court held that after a labor
organization has been registered, it may exercise all therights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the
grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about
bymisrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997 Amended Omnibus
Rules, as interpreted by the Court in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air
Philippines, had already set the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer hold sway in
the present altered state of the law and the rules. Consequently, the Court reverses the
ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting the petition for certification
election of KFWU.
DOCTRINE: After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the
rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between
supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its
legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless
such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under
Article 239 of the Labor Code

2. St. James School of QC v. Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James

A petition for Certification Election was filed by the Samahang Manggagawa on
behalf of the motor pool, construction, and transportation employees of St. James
School. The certification election was held wherein 84 out of 149 eligible voters cast
their votes. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging the 84 votes and
alleged that it had 179 rank-and-file employees [in Tandang Sora Campus] none of
whom voted in the certification election because they were all on duty. St. James also
argued that those who voted were not its regular employees but workers of an
independent contract, Architect Bacoy. Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of St. James.
DOLE reversed the Med-Arbiter. St. James brought the case up to the CA which
sustained DOLE’s ruling. Hence, this petition. St. James further argued that even if the
84 votes should be counted, it does not constitute the majority of the total number of
employees of St. James – 570 employees in 5 campuses.
The issues in this case are: (1) validity of the formation of the labor union and (2)
validity of the certification election. The Court ruled that the petition has no merit.
On the first issue, St. James can no longer question the validity of the formation of the
labor union. Prior to the holding of the certification election, St. James filed a petition
for cancellation of Samahang Manggagawa’s union registration for lack of employer-
employee relationship between St. James and Samahang Manggagawa’s members.
This case reached the Court of Appeals, which held that the construction workers are
actually St. James’ regular employees in its motor pool, construction and
transportation departments. St. James filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme
Court which was denied for error in the choice or mode of appeal. Such
denial/resolution by the SC closed any issue on the validity of the formation of the
labor union.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the members of Samahang Manggagawa are
employees in the Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws,
Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the computation of
the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in
St. James’ five campuses.
DOCTRINE: The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the certification election.
Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence of a
quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a
quorum existed in the certification election.
3. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE
Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. (company) has 2 unions (1 rank and file; 1
supervisory), each of which is affiliated with its own federation. Each union separately
filed a petition for certification election, but this was opposed by the company on the
ground that the unions were not legitimate labor organizations. The Med-Arbiter ruled
in favor of the company on the ground that the federations, having the same set of
officers, are actually a single federation in which both rank and file and supervisory
employees are affiliated with. The Secretary of Labor reversed on the ground that each
federation and union had separate certificates of registration and charter certificates
which could only be directly attached. The CA affirmed the Secretary. In this petition,
the company now argues (1) that 1 federation impropertly applied for registration
since it filed the application with the Regional Office instead of the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR), and (2) that the corporate veil of the 2 federations should be pierced.
The pertinent issues herein are (1) whether rank and file and supervisory unions in 1
company could file separate petitions for certification election, (2) whether the
registration of the federation was proper, and (3) whether there was commingling.
On the first issue, the SC ruled in the affirmative on the ground that, generally, when
each of the unions have their separate charter certificates issued by their respective
federations, they are allowed to file separate petitions for certificate election so long as
they are legitimate labor organizations. Furthermore, their legitimacy may only be
attached direcltly, and no such independent petition for cancellation of registration has
been filed.
On the second issue, the SC ruled that the registration was proper as the Labor Code,
reconciled with the amended IRR, provide that the application may be FILED with
either the regional office or the BLR, so long as the application is DECIDED by the
BLR.
On the third issue, the SC ruled in the affirmative on the ground that both federations
actively participate in each others’ activities, which gives occasion to possible
conflicts of interest among the common officers of the federation of rank and file and
the federation of supervisory unions. Hence, for as long as the 2 local unions are
affiliated with these 2 federations, they do not meet the criteria of legitimate labor
organizations.
(CONFUSION: The unions and federations lost in this case since the Court ruled that
they were not legitimate due to commingling. HOWEVER, even the Court said that
there was no independent action for cancellation of registration filed, and this petition
was a collateral attack since the the personality of the labor organization is
questioned in the same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced)
DOCTRINE: For as long as a rank and file union and a supervisory union are
affiliated with 2 federations (which, when the veil of corporate ficition is pierced, are
actually one and the same federation), the unions both do not meet the criteria to attain
the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separately petition for
certification elections.
4. DHL v. Buklod
A certification election was conducted at DHL (company) with the contending choices
as DHL-URFA-FFW (Union 1) and no choice. Union 1 garned majority votes and
became the exclusive bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. However, some of
its members disaffiliated because they found out that Union 1 deceived them by
claiming that it was an independent union, when in reality it was an affiliate of the
Federation of Free Workers (Federation). They formed Union 2 and filed an
application for registration. Thereafter, Union 2 filed a protest against the election of
Union 1 as bargaining agent. [take note that] When Union 2 filed the protest, they did
not yet have a certificate of registration, it was only released 4 days after the protest
was filed. The med-arbiter decided for Union 2 and cancelled the certification election
and ordered the conduct of a new election with Union 1 and Union 2 as contenders.
The issue is Won the Certification Election was valid. The court held No it was not
valid. When the med- arbiter admitted and gave due course to Union 2’s protest, the
election officer should have deferred the issuance of Certification of the election
results. Under the law, an election officer can certify the result of an election
when no protest has been filed or when the protest has not been perfected within
five days from the close of the election proceedings. It is the med- arbited who
has the power to proclaim and certify the winner when there was a perfected
protest. Furthermore, the fact that Union 2 was not yet a registered union when it filed
the protest is not fatal to their cause, since they received their certificate of registration
4 days after filing the protest. Therefore, the circustances show that the employees
did not sleep on their rights. Their failure to follow strictly the procedural
technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken
against them. Finally, Union 1 committed substantial misrepresentation when its
President misrepresented that it was an independent union.
DOCTRINE: When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to Union 2’s
petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have
deferred issuing the Certification of the election results.

5. Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Laguesma

Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. (SRBI aka Bank) is a duly-registered banking
institution with principal office in Cebu City. Private respondent SRBI-APSOTEU-
TUCP (Union) is a legitimate labor organization affiliated with the Trade Unions
Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). The Union was granted a Certificate of
Registration. The Union later filed a Petition for Certification Election of the
supervisory employees of SRBI Bank. The Union alleged that it was a duly registered
labor organization; The Bank employed five (5) or more supervisory employees; A
majority of these employees supported the petition; There was no existing CBA
between any union and the Bank; and No certification election had been conducted in
the past 12 months prior to the petition (NOTE: It therefore an unorganized
establishment). The Bank opposed this claiming that the member employees were
managerial and confidential employees and that Association of Labor Unions-Trade
Unions Congress of the Philippines (ALU-TUCP), which represented the Union, was
also representing the rank-and-file employees of the Bank, in violation of the doctrine
of separation of unions. Med-Arbiter and SOLE denied the Bank’s motion to dismiss
and appeal and ordered a conduct of a certification election. Consequently, the Bank
also filed a petition for cancellation of union registration before the DOLE
Regional Office. The issues in this case are:
WoN the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election upon
the filing of a petition for certification election by a registered union, despite the
Bank’s appeal pending before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the union’s
registration. – YES. One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article
242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of
all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that the Union is a
legitimate labor union. *Check doctrine 1*
WoN the Union’s Petition for Certification Election would violate the separation of
unions doctrine? NO because although the Union was initially assisted by ALU during
its preliminary stages of organization, a local union maintains its separate personality
despite affiliation with a larger national federation.
WoN the members of the Union are managerial employees? – NO. The union
members do not possess effective recommendatory powers and neither do they
formulate and execute management policies. Positions in question: Cashiers,
Accountants, Acting Chiefs of the Loans Department
WoN the members are confidential employees? – NO because there was no proof to
show that they had access to confidential information specifically relating to labor
relations policies.
DOCTRINE:
Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a
legitimate labor organization. Provided that the requirements of being a legitimate
labor union was satisfied through a Certificate of Registration. Nothing is said therein
that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the management
appeals on the issue of the validity of the union’s registration.
6. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. v. Sec. of Labor and Employment
UNION A filed a petition for certification election which was opposed on the ground
of inappropriateness of bargaining unit. The petition was dismissed. The dismissal was
appealed. Pending appeal, UNION A reorganized into UNION A2 and withdrew the
appeal and the first petition was dismissed. UNION A2 filed another petition for
certification election. COMPANY opposed on the ground that it had already
voluntarily recognized UNION B as the SEBA for its regular R&F employees and
already began CBA negotiations. The issue is whether the recognition is valid. The
Court held in the negative holding that voluntary recognition may only be done in
unorganized establishments. Since UNION A never lost its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization during the period COMPANY recognized UNION B,
COMPANY’s voluntary recognition of UNION B was improper.
DOCTRINE: The employer may voluntarily recognize the representative status of a
union in an unorganized establishment.
7. Samma-Likha v. Samma Corp.
Petitioner Union filed a petition for certification election. It claims that it was a local
chapter of a duly registered federation, it sought to represent all the R&F employees of
the respondent company, among others. Company moved for the dismissal of the
petition contending that the Federation failed to establish its legal personality and
Union A failed to prove its existence as a local chapter. Med-Arbiter dismissed the
petition for certification election due to lack of legal personality for failure to attach
the certificate of registration purporting to show its legal personality. Acting Secretary
of Labor reversed decision of the Med-Arbiter because the legal personality of a union
cannot be collaterally attacked. CA reversed the said decision holding that Union A
had no legal standing to file the petition for certification election because its members
were a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. While the petition is
pending, Company filed a petition for cancellation of Union A’s union registration.
Regional Director revoking the charter certificate of Union A as local chapter of
LIKHA Federation on the ground of prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees. Issue: W/N Union A has legal personality to file the petition for
certification election? The Court remanded the case to Regional Office for
determination of the status of Union A’s legal personality. While Union A was issued
its charter certificate, which clothed with legal personality as legitimate labor
organization, the regional directori issued a resolution revoking the charter certificate
of Union A. Yet, neither of the parties alleged that this resolution revoking Union A’s
charter certificate had attained finality. Union A prays that its charter certificate be
reinstated but it cannot be granted by the Court because this case originated from a
petition for certification election. The proceedings on a petition for cancellation of
registration are independent of those of a petition for certification election. The
grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the lack of legal
personality of a labor organization are the following: (a) petitioner is not listed by the
Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate labor
organizations or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in
accordance with the rules. If it is shown that Union A’s legal personality had already
been revoked with finality, then it is no longer a legitimate labor organization with the
right to petition for a certification election.
DOCTRINE: The proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration are
independent of those of a petition for certification election. A prayer for the
reinstatement of charter certificate is improper in a proceeding involving a petition for
certification election.

8. Chris Garments Corp. v. Hon. Particia Sto. Tomas and CGW Union
In 2002, CGW filed a petition for certification election. CGW sought to represent
CGC’s rank-and-file employees not covered by its Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) with the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Chris Garments Corporation
Solidarity of Union in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SUPER
UNION), the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees. CGC moved
to dismiss the petition, arguing that it has an existing CBA from 1999 to 2004 with
SUPER UNION, which bars any petition for certification election prior to the 60-day
freedom period. It also contended that the union members are not its regular
employees since they are direct employees of qualified and independent contractors.
CGW asserts that they are regular employees of CGC since they perform activities
necessary and desirable to CGC’s main business even if they are called agency
employees, CGC controlled their work attitude and performance, and CGC paid their
salaries. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition and ruled that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the parties since the CGW itself admitted that its
members are agency employees. The Med-Arbiter also held that even if the union
members are considered direct employees of petitioner, the petition for certification
election will still fail due to the contract bar rule under Article 232 of the Labor Code.
Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter,
pointing out that CGC failed to prove that CGW members are employees of qualified
and independent contractors with substantial capital or investment, and added that
petitioner had the right to control the performance of the work of such employees. She
also noted that the union members are garment workers who performed activities
directly related to petitioner s main business. Thus, the union members may be
considered part of the bargaining unit of petitioner s rank-and-file employees.
However, she held that the petition could not be entertained except during the 60-day
freedom period. She also found no reason to split CGC’s bargaining unit. 2003, CGW
filed a second petition for certification election.The Med-Arbiter dismissed the
petition on the ground that it was barred by a prior judgment. Secretary of Labor and
Employment affirmed. In 2004, within the 60-day free period, CGW filed a third
petition for certification election. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the grounds
that no employer- employee relationship exists between the parties and that the case
was barred by a prior judgment. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
granted the petition.
W/N the case is barred by Res Judicata? NO. elements of res judicata are: (1) the
judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as
between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.There is no identity of causes of action to speak of since in the first petition,
CGW has no cause of action while in the third, a cause of action already exists for the
CGW is now legally allowed to challenge the status of SUPER UNION as exclusive
bargaining representative
DOCTRINE: Outside the 60-day free period, the union has no cause of action given
that it is only within the 60-day period that they are legally allowed to challenge the
status of their current bargaining agent as their exclusive bargaining representative.

9. Nuwhrain v. Secretary
A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 among the rank-and-file
employees of Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel). In view of the significant
number of segregated votes, contending unions, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and Holiday
Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-
Arbiter Calabocal to decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied.
Eleven (11) votes were initially segregated because they were cast by dismissed
employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still pending before the CA. Six
other votes were segregated because the employees who cast them were already
occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still five other votes were
segregated on the ground that they were cast by probationary employees and, pursuant
to the existing CBA, such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however,
that the vote of Gatbonton, a probationary employee, was counted. Med-Arbiter
Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes, especially those
cast by the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six supposedly supervisory
employees of the Hotel. The SOLE affirmed the Med-Arbiters Order. It held that
pursuant to Section 5, Rule IX of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code on
exclusion and inclusion of voters in a certification election, the probationary
employees cannot vote, as at the time the Med-Arbiter issued on August 9, 2005 the
Order granting the petition for the conduct of the certification election, the six
probationary employees were not yet hired, hence, they could not vote. In fine, the
SOLE concluded that the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent
was proper. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the SOLE.

ISSUE: WoN HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified
as the exclusive bargaining agent. NO, because HIMPHLU obtained 169 while
petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority
vote which is 170 votes. It is well-settled that under the so-called double majority rule,
for there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have
voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes
cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence,
50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170. Having declared that no choice in the
certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-
off election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner
should represent the rank-and-file employees.
DOCTRINE: For there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining
unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the
valid votes cast.
10. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA
The Union was formed with 26 members attending the organizational meeting. The
list of members submitted in its registration was 30 employees. Subsequently they
filed a petition for certification election. This was opposed by Eagle Ridge on the
ground that some of its members withdrew their membership, as proven by their
affidavits. This meant that the Union did not meet the 20% membership requirement,
amounting falsification, fraud and misrepresentation in its registration. Subsequently,
Eagle Ridge also filed a petition for cancellation on the same grounds.
Issue; WN the withdrawal of membership of these employees would bar the
certification election.
Held: NO. The court held that having less than the required percentage minimum
membership will not bar the certification election since the certification election
would determine the will of the collective bargaining unit. The court also held that the
withdrawal of the employees after the filing of the petition for certification election is
not voluntary. Therefore, it should not be considered valid.
DOCTRINE: A certification election is the most expeditious and fairest mode of
ascertaining the will of a collective baragaining unit as to its choice of its exclusive
representative. The withdrawal of some member-employees should not bar the
certification election.
11. PICOP Resources v. Taeca et al
Respondents Taeca et al were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide
members of NAMAPRI-SPFL, which is the CBA for the rank- and-file of PRI. PRI
has a CBA with NAMAPRI-SPFL for 5 years. PRI served notices of termination to
several rank-and-file employees including respondents for acts of disloyalty by
supporting and signing the Petition for Certification Election of FFW before the
freedom period during effectivity of the CBA. Respondents then filed a complaint for
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and money claims against PRI and its officers.
Issue is WON an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement can be given full force
and effect in all its terms and condition including its union security clause even
beyond the 5-year period when no new CBA has yet been entered into? SC held NO,
because the fact that there already exists a bargaining representative in the unit
concerned is of no moment as long as the petition for certification election was filed
within the freedom period. While it is incumbent for the employer to continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the
expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition for
certification election was filed. In this case, a petition for certification election was
filed during the freedom period. The mere signing of the authorization in support of
the Petition for Certification Election of FFW on March 19, 20 and 21, or before the
freedom period, is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of respondents
inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the freedom period. The last
sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the
economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect of the
CBA. An authorization letter to file a petition for certification election is different
from an actual Petition for Certification Election. If at all, the signing of the
authorization to file a certification election was merely preparatory to the filing of the
petition for certification election, or an exercise of respondents right to self-
organization.
DOCTRINE: The workers’ freedom to choose who should be their bargaining
representative is of paramount importance. The fact that there already exists a
bargaining representative in the unit concerned is of no moment as long as the
petition for certification election was filed within the freedom period. What is
imperative is that by such a petition for certification election the employees are
given the opportunity to make known of who shall have the right to represent
them thereafter.

12. Legend International v. Kilusang Manggagawa

On 2001, KML filed a certification election before the Med-Arbiter in Pampanga.
LEGEND opposed the petition by saying that there was a commingling of supervisory
and rank-and-file and that KML committed acts of fraud and misrepresentation as to
the participants of the general membership meeting. While KML claimed its
legitimacy as a labor union and that it cannot be collaterally attacked in the
certification election. The Med-Arbiter denied the petiton for certification election.
Secretary of labor reversed and set aside Med- arbiter’s decision. CA affirmed
Secretary’s decision. CA ruled that LEGEND failed to timely appeal the BLR’s
decision on the certificate of registration and that KML is a legitimate labor
organization hence it has the legal personality to file a certification election (please
check facts 13-14). Issue: WoN LEGEND timely appealed the decision as regards
KML’s registration – Yes becase based on the records LEGEND filed its appeal
questioning KML’s registration within the reglementary period. CA failed to consider
that in a 2006 decision, the Supreme Court cancelled KML’s registration. Second
issue (impt) WoN the cancellation of KML’s certificate of registration should retroact
to the time of its issuance and therefore KML has no legal personality to file a
certification election – No because based on jurisprudence a certification election may
be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is because at
the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to
possess the legal personality to file the same. Lastly, WoN the legitimacy of legal
personality of KML can be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election
– No because it can only be questioned through a separate action instituted particularly
for the purpose of assailing it. The Supreme Court therefore is saying that the 2001
petition for certification election is VALID despite the cancellation of registration in
2006. Because the cancellation of registration does not retroact at the time of its
issuance and there is a presumption that the union has a legal personality at the time of
the filing of its PCE.
DOCTRINE: Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a certification
election may be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This
is because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union is
presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same. There is therefore no basis
for LEGENDs assertion that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration
should retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KMLs
activities, including its filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to
collectively bargain.
13. SMCC v. CA
The union filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank and
file employees of Charter Chemical.
A motion to dismiss was filed by respondent on the ground that petitioner is not a
legitimate labor organization and failure to comply with documentary
requriements. (specifically the carter certificates are not certified under oath
ISSUE:
WON the failure to certify under oath the local charter certificate issued by its mother
federation and list of the union membership attending the organizational meeting [is a
ground] for the cancellation of petitioner [union's] legal personality as a labor
organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification election
Ruling:The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to certify under oath the local chapter
certificate issued by the mother federation and the list of the members who attended
the organizational meeting is not a ground for the cancellation of the union’s legal
personality. The SC said that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the
national union and not the local chapter, thus is will not make sense to have the local
chapter’s officers certify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the
preparation. It valid acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon
submission of its charter certificate, the names of its officers, their address, and its
principal office, and its constitution and by-laws. Regarding the alleged mixture, the
SC said that while there is a prohibition against mingling of supervisory and rank and
file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the
effects thereof.DOCTRINE: the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the
national union and not the local chapter, thus is will not make sense to have the local
chapter’s officers certify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the
preparation
14. The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Sec. of Labor and Employment
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed a petition for certification election in 1995, seeking to
represent the supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel. Heritage Hotel company filed
its opposition, but it was denied as an order for the conduct of the certification election
was issued by the Med- Arbiter. Heritage Hotel filed for the cancellation of
NUHWRAIN- HHMSC’s registration, for failure to submit financial reports and an
updated list of members. Heritage Hotel also moved to dismiss/suspend the
certification proceedings pending the petition for cancellation of registration.
DOLE still scheduled the certification elections, which prompted Heritage Hotel to
file a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, which dismissed the same for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies. The certification election was held, and Heritage
Hotel brought the issue up to the DOLE once more, where Med-Arbiter Falconitin
ruled that the petition for cancellation for union registration shall not bar the holding
of the certification election, and consequently dismissed the petition for cancellation.
Unsatisfied, Heritage Hotel appealed to the DOLE Secretary, which denied the same;
and to the CA, via petition for certiorari, which also dismissed the same.
Heritage Hotel raised the same issues of mixed membership and failure to comply
with reportorial requirements in the SC. The Court rule that Basic is the rule that the
certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer is deemed
an intruder as far as the certification election is concerned. Thus, the Heritage Hotel
lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for the certification election, and
should stand aside as a mere bystander who could not oppose the petition, or even
appeal the Med- Arbiter’s orders relative to the conduct of the certification election.
The SC also reiterated the ruling in the Tagaytay Highlands case, where mixed
membership has no bearing on the legitimacy of a registered labor organization, unless
it was due to misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud, either in the ratification or
adoption of the constitution & by laws, or in the election of union officers.
DOCTRINE: Basic is the rule that the certification election is the sole concern of the
workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the certification election is
concerned.
Mixed membership has no bearing on the legitimacy of a registered labor
organization, unless it was due to misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud.
It is the actual functions of an employee, and not his job title, which determines
whether or not he occupies a managerial, confidential, supervisory, or rank & file
position.
15. Republic v. Namoboku Peak
These are consolidated petitions where there are two sets of parties. Namboku, a
corporation providing manpower services to airline companies, and Phil-Japan, a
corporation engaged in manufacturing mufflers, chassis and other car accessories, are
the employers in this case. PALCEA- SUPER is the rank-and-file union under
Namboku, while PJWU-SUPER is the rank-and-file union under Phil-Japan. Both
employers were unorganized establishments. Both unions filed for petitions of
certification election. In both cases, the respective Med-Arbiters granted the petition
and ordered for the conduct of certification elections. Both employers appealed to the
Secretary of Labor on grounds involving the bargaining unit being represented by the
unions (PALCEA-SUPER had project employees as members, while PJWU-SUPER
had members who weren’t employees). The Secretary of Labor denied both appeals
filed by the employers on the ground that Sec. 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No.
40-03 prohibited the filing of an appeal from an order granting the conduct of a
certification election in an unorganized establishment. The employers both filed
appeals to the CA, claiming that Sec. 17, Rule VIII of D.O. 40-03 is contrary to Art.
259 of the Labor Code which provides that any party to an election may appeal the
order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the DOLE
Secretary. The CA ruled that Sec. 17 of D.O 40-03 was contrary to the Labor Code
and nullified it. The Secretary of Labor filed an appeal to the SC in both cases. The
Secretary of Labor insists that Sec. 17, Rule VIII of D.O.40-03 is in harmony with
Art. 259 of the Labor Code for it does not deny the aggrieved party in an unorganized
establishment the right to appeal. It merely defers the exercise of such right until after
the certification election shall have been conducted. Namboku and Phil-Japan counter
that Art. 259 does not make any distinctions between organized and unorganized
establishments, thus D.O. 40-03 unduly restricts the right to appeal on the part of those
aggravated by the order of the Med-Arbiter in certification election petitions. The
issue before the Supreme Court is Whether the CA erred in nullifying Sec. 17 of
D.O. 40-03- UNDECIDED. The SC did not rule on this issue because the Secretary
of Labor was the one that filed the petitions to the SC, and it was not the real party-in-
interest who could file an appeal by certiorari through Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
DOCTRINE: (since the SC didn’t rule on this issue, then the ruling of the CA that
nullified Sec. 17 of D.O 40-03 for being contrary to Art. 259 of the Labor Code is not
binding as judicial precedent; but this is just my opinion)

16. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. Sec. of Labor

CLUP-Sta Lucia East Commerical Corp. and its Affiliates Workers Union filed for a
petition for certification election, to be conducted among the rank & file employees of
Sta. Lucia East Comm. Corp. and its affiliates. It was dismissed for being the
inappropriate bargaining unit. The local union reorganized & re-registered itself as
CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUP-
SLECCWA), limiting its membership to the rank & file employees of Sta. Lucia
Company only. On even date, it filed for a petition for certification election, but it was
opposed by the Company because it voluntarily recognized another union (SMSLEC),
and in fact, a CBA was ratified & registered with the DOLE soon after. The Med-
Arbiter dismissed this petition once more but the SOLE reversed it, which was
affirmed by the CA.
The issue in this case is whether or not the voluntary recognition by the employer was
valid. The SC ruled that the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation
status of a union in unorganized establishments. Sta. Lucia Company was not an
unorganized establishment when it voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive
bargaining representative on 20 July 2001. Thus, it could not validly constitute as a
bar to the present petition for election. DOCTRINE: An employer can only
voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union in unorganized
establishments. If this voluntary recognition is VOID, it cannot constitute as a bar to a
petition for certification election.

17. Hijos Resources Corp. v. Mejares

Mejares et al claimed that they were employed by HRC, formerly HPI, as area
harvesters, packing house workers, loaders, or labelers. When HPI renamed it to HRC,
Mejares et al were absorbed by HRC but they worked under contractor-growers,
which they claimed was under HRC. Mejares et al formed their own union which was
registered with DOLE, and later on they filed a petition for certification election, and
when HRC found out, they were terminated from work due to the cessation of
operations of the contractor-growers. Mejares et al then filed a case for illegal
dismissal. Med-Arbiter dismissed the union’s petition for certification election on the
ground that there was no employer- employee relationship between the union and
HRC. The complainants did not appeal, but they pursued the illegal dismissal case.
HRC filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata. The LA ruled that the decision of
the med-arbiter in a certification election case does not foreclose further dispute
between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of employer-employee
relationship. The CA affirmed this. Hence, this petition.
The issue is WoN the LA in the illegal dismissal case is bound by the ruling of the
med-arbiter regarding the existence or non-existence of EER between the parties in
the certification election case.
The SC held in the negative. The med-arbiter’s order in this case dismissing the
petition for certification election on the basis of non-existence of employer- employee
relationship was issued after the members of the union were dismissed from their
employment. Considering their termination from work, it would have been futile for
the union members to appeal the med-arbiter’s order in the certification election case.
The respondent union, without its member-employees, was thus stripped of its
personality to challenge the med-arbiter’s decision in the certification election case.
Thus, the members of the union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal
dismissal case filed before the LA. To dismiss the illegal dismissal case on the basis of
the pronouncement of the med-arbiter in the certification election case that there was
no employer-employee relationship between the parties, which the union could not
even appeal because of the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying
due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case.
DOCTRINE: The purpose of a petition for certification election is to determine
which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer.

18. Ren Transport v. NLRC

SMART is a registered union which had a 5-year CBA with Ren Transport Corp.
During the 60-day freedom period, SMART won majority status as bargaining agent.
SMART sent bargaining proposals to Ren Transport which the latter failed to reply to
the demand. Subsequently, 2 members of SMART wrote to DOLE-NCR which
informed them that a majority of the members of SMART had decided to disaffiliate
from their mother federation to form another union, Ren Transport Employees
Association (RTEA). SMART contested the alleged disaffiliation through a letter.
During the pendency of the disaffiliation dispute at the DOLE-NCR, Ren Ren
Transport stopped the remittance to SMART of the union dues that had been checked
off from the salaries of union workers as provided under the CBA. Ren Transport
voluntarily recognized RTEA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-
and-file employees of their company. SMART filed with the labor arbiter a complaint
for unfair labor practice against Ren Transport. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor or
SMART. On appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbitor added moral
damages to SMART. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC but deleted the
award of moral damages.
ISSUE/s:
Whether Ren Transport committed acts of unfair labor practice? (MAIN issue) YES.
Ren Transport had a duty to bargain collectively with SMART. Under Article 263 in
relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is during the freedom period — or the
last 60 days before the expiration of the CBA — when another union may
challenge the majority status of the bargaining agent through the filing of a
petition for a certification election. If there is no such petition filed during the
freedom period, then the employer "shall continue to recognize the majority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification
election is filed." Ren Transport cannot avail itself of the defense that SMART no
longer represents the majority of the workers. The fact that no petition for certification
election was filed within the freedom period prevented Ren Transport from
challenging SMART'S existence and membership Further, Interference with the
employees' right to self-organization is considered an unfair labor practice under
Article 258 (a) of the Labor Code. The failure to remit the union dues to SMART
and the voluntary recognition of RTEA were clear indications of interference
with the employees' right to self-organization.
Whether SMART is entitled to moral damages? NO. A corporation is not, as a general
rule, entitled to moral damages. Being a mere artificial being, it is incapable of
experiencing physical suffering or sentiments like wounded feelings, serious anxiety,
mental anguish or moral shock.
DOCTRINE: Under Article 263 in relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is
during the freedom period — or the last 60 days before the expiration of the CBA
— when another union may challenge the majority status of the bargaining agent
through the filing of a petition for a certification election. If there is no such
petition filed during the freedom period, then the employer "shall continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no
petition for certification election is filed."