ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

GR # 91980, 27 Jun 1991

FACTS OF THE CASE:
Ilaw at buklod ng manggagawa respresenting 4500 employees of San Miguel Corporation working at
various plants, offices and wareouses in !C" presented to te company a demand for correction of te
significant distortion in te workers# wage pursuant to te $age "ationali%ation &ct'
(e demand was uneeded by te company, te union members refused to render overtime services until
te distortion as been corrected'
It appears tat te employees as been freely observed te overtime scedule for te past 5 years and due
to te abandonment of wic, and recession to te )*our sift, substantial losses were incurred by SMC'
SMC ten filed a complaint wit arbitration branc of !+"C to declare te strike illegal' (e union
contention was workers# refusal to work beyond )rs was a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct
distortion'
&ccording to te SMC te coordinated reduction by te union members of te work time in order to compel
tem to yield to te demand was an illegal and unprotected activity'
ISSUE:
$eter or not te strike was illegal'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat te strike involving te issue of wage distortion is illegal' (e legality of tese
activities depends on te legality of te purposes sougt to be attained' (e legislative intent tat solution
to wage distortion problem sall be sougt by voluntary negotiation or arbitration and by strike or lock*out or
oter concerted activities'
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION O! !REE TRADE UNIONS, "#$#$%n& vs BLR AND SOUT'ERN
('ILI((INES !EDERATIONS O! LABOR, &s"%n)n#
GR NO* 77818, 0+ Au,us# 1988
Facts of the case:
!&,(-*(-C. obtained on /une 0, 12)0 a direct certification on te strengt of its allegations, as confirmed
by te med*arbiter tat tere was no oter labor union re3uesting recognition as representative of te
workers in teir negotiations wit te management of te .acific Cement Co',
4owever, on /une 50, 12)0 and witin te freedom period te Soutern .ilippine ,ederation of labor, filed
a petition for certification election signed by 10) workers, representing over 006 of te total number of te
rank*and*file of te company'
!&,(- as forced intervenor, opposed te petition, invoking its earlier direct certification'
(e med*arbiter autori%ed te olding of a certification election and was sustained by te 7ureau wic
eld tat te certification election was 8ustified'
ISSUE:
$eter or not te C9 eld was valid as against te intervenor'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat a certification election must be ld to determine te e:clusive bargaining
representative of te union'
& certification election is a more acceptable metod tan a direct certification, wic under te provision
sould be resorted only wen tere#s no doubt tat te union so certified ad te full or at least te ma8ority
support of te workers'
$en tere appeared to be a reasonable doubt as to weter or not te union directly certified ad really
been cosen by te ma8ority of workers as teir e:clusive bargaining representative'
!ORTUNATO 'ALILI -S* COURT O! INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
G*R* N%* L.2/80/* A"&$1 +0, 1982
FACTS OF THE CASE:
;n /anuary 0, 12<5, pursuant to te &greement, te administratri: of te estate of ,ortunato ,' 4alili e:ecuted a =eed of
Conveyance of "eal .roperty, transferring te aforementioned parcel of land to te 4alili 7us and Conductors -nion >.(?$;@ in
trust for te members of te union claimants' (e parcel of land was eventually registered in te name of te -nion on ,ebruary
14, 12<5'
;n &ugust 2, 12)5, te -nion, troug &tty' 7en8amin C' .ineda, filed an urgent motion wit te Ministry of +abor and
9mployment >M;+9@ re3uesting for autority to sell and dispose of te property' (e motion was granted in an order dated
September 5A, 12)5' & prospective buyer, te Manila Memorial .ark Cemetery, Inc' e:pressed its misgivings on te autority of
te -nion to sell te property in view of sec' 00 of .= 1552 wic re3uires no less tan an order from a court of competent
8urisdiction as autority to sell property in trust' So, &tty' .ineda filed a motion wit te Supreme Court on =ecember 1, 12)5
re3uesting for autority to sell te property' (is 4onorable Court, owever, merely noted te motion in a resolution dated
=ecember ), 12)5'
;n &ugust 2, 12)5, te -nion, troug &tty' 7en8amin C' .ineda, filed an urgent motion wit te Ministry of +abor and
9mployment >M;+9@ re3uesting for autority to sell and dispose of te property' (e motion was granted in an order dated
September 5A, 12)5' & prospective buyer, te Manila Memorial .ark Cemetery, Inc' e:pressed its misgivings on te autority of
te -nion to sell te property in view of sec' 00 of .= 1552 wic re3uires no less tan an order from a court of competent
8urisdiction as autority to sell property in trust' So, &tty' .ineda filed a motion wit te Supreme Court on =ecember 1, 12)5
re3uesting for autority to sell te property' (is 4onorable Court, owever, merely noted te motion in a resolution dated
=ecember ), 12)5'
ISSUE:
$eter or not &tty' .ineda sould be eld in contempt B be disbarred'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat, &tty' .ineda#s act of filing a motion wit tis Court on =ecember 1, 12)5 praying for autority to
sell was by itself an admission on is part tat e did not possess te autority to sell te property and tat tis Court was te
proper body wic ad te power to grant suc autority'
Contempt of court is a defiance of te autority, 8ustice or dignity of te courtC suc conduct as tends to bring te autority and
administration of te law into disrespect or to interfere wit or pre8udice parties# litigant or teir witnesses during litigation' (is
Court as tus repeatedly declared tat te power to punis for contempt is inerent in all courts and is essential to te
preservation of order in 8udicial proceedings and to te enforcement of 8udgments, orders, and mandates of te court, and
conse3uently, to te due administration of 8ustice >Slade .erkins vs' =irector of .risons, 5) .il' 5<1C In re Delly, A5 .il' 244C
Commissioner of Immigration vs' Cloribel, 50 SC"& 1541C Montalban vs' Canonoy, A) SC"& 1@'
(e Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any conduct on is part sowing is unfitness for te confidence and trust wic
caracteri%e te attorney and client relations, and te practice of law before te courts, or sowing suc a lack of personal
onesty or of good moral caracter as to render im unworty of public confidence, Statutory grounds for disbarment are not a
limitation to te court#s power in tis respect'
A#13s L$#4%,&3"4$5 S&v$5s, In5* vs* L3,us63
G*R* N%* 90200, J3nu3&7 0,1992
FACTS OF THE CASE:
;n /uly 10,1220, te supervisory, administrative personnel, production, accounting and confidential employees of te
petitioner &tlas +itograpic Services, Inc' >&+SI@ affiliated wit private respondent Daisaan ng Manggagawang
.ilipino, a national labor organi%ation'
(e local union adopted te name &tlas +itograpic Services, Inc' Supervisory, &dministrative, .ersonnel
.roduction, &ccounting and Confidential 9mployees &ssociation or &+SI*S&..&C9&*D&M.I+ in sort and wic we
sall ereafter refer to as te EsupervisorsE union' Sortly tereafter, private respondent Dampil*Datipunan filed on
bealf of te EsupervisorsE union a petition for certification election so tat it could be te sole and e:clusive
bargaining agent of te supervisory employees'
(e petitioners opposed te private respondentEs petition claiming tat under &rticle 545 of te +abor Code te
private respondent cannot represent te supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes because te
private respondent also represents te rank*and*file employeesE union' ;n September 1), 1220, te Med*&rbiter
issued an order in favor of te private respondent'
(e petitioners appealed for te reversal of te above order' (e public respondent, owever, issued a resolution
affirming te Med*&rbiterEs order' (e petitioners, in turn, filed a motion for reconsideration but te same was denied'
4ence, tis petition for certiorari'
ISSUE:
$eter or not, under &rticle 545 of te +abor Code, a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to
affiliate wit a national federation of labor organi%ations of rank*and*file employees and wic national federation
actively represents its affiliates in collective bargaining negotiations wit te same employer of te supervisors and in
te implementation of resulting collective bargaining agreements'
RULING:
(e proibition against a supervisorsE union 8oining a local union of rank*and*file is replete wit 8urisprudence' (e
Court empasi%es tat te limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to 8oin a rank*and*file local
union' (e proibition e:tends to a supervisorsE local union applying for membersip in a national federation te
members of wic include local unions of rank*and*file employees' (e intent of te law is clear especially were, as
in te case at bar, te supervisors will be comingling wit tose employees wom tey directly supervise in teir own
bargaining unit' (ecnicalities sould not be allowed to stand in te way of e3uitably and completely resolving te
rigts and obligations of te parties' >"apid Manpower Consultants, Inc' vs' !+"C, 120 SC"& <4< F1220G@ $at
sould be paramount is te intent beind te law, not its literal construction' $ere one interpretation would result in
miscievous conse3uences wile anoter would bring about e3uity, 8ustice, and te promotion of labor peace, tere
can be no doubt as to wat interpretation sall prevail' (e petition is ereby ?"&!(9='
AIRTIME S(ECIALIST INC*, "#$#$%n& vs (URA !ERRER CALLEJA, &s"%n)n#
GR # 80012, 29 D568& 1989
Facts of the case:
"espondent samaan ng manggagawa sa &sia ,,$ Capter filed wit te !C" Ministry of +abor and
9mployment on 55 May 12)0 two separate petitions for direct certification on bealf of te rank*and*file
employees' (e oter respondent .inagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa &(&C; ,,$ Capter also filed wit te
same office on te same day similar separate petitions on bealf of te rank*and*file employees of te
petitioner'
;n Marc 2, 12)< te med*arbiter issued an order of certification election between Samaan ng
Manggagawa sa &sis and .inagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa &(&C;'
.etitioner &irtime Specialist filed a motion wic was denied tey filed an instant petition for certiorari and
proibition wic was ten given due course'
(e petitioner argues tat te public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion wen tey
considered employees wit less tan a year of service and even probationary employees'
ISSUE:
$eter or not public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering te certification election
among te rank*and*file employees'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat all rank*and*file employees in te appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to
vote' (is principle is clearly stated in art 5)5 of te labor code'
EDUARDO TANCINO, "#$#$%n& vs DIRECTOR (URA.!ERRER CALLEJA, &s"%n)n#
GR # 781+1, 20 J3nu3&7 1988
Facts of the case:
(e case is about te 50 employees wo participated during te pre*election conference eld on 12 May
12)0 but wose votes were segregated witout being counted' .rivate respondents categori%ed te 50
employees as:
1' (e Manila employees H wic are personal employees of Mr' +ee
5' Iglesia ni Cristo H allowing tem to vote will anomalous since it is teir policy to participate in any
form of union activities'
A' (e non*time card employees H wic are managerial
4' 9mployee of te Cooperative
.etitioner filed a protest wit te Ministry of labor claiming tat te determination of te 3ualification of te
50 votes is beyond te competence of &!?+; te union' (e protest was denied and te motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied' .eitioner ten filed a petition for certiorari'
ISSUE:
$eter or not te 50 employees sould be included in te counting of votes for pre*election conference'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat te 50 employees sould be counted because te act off 8oining te election
by casting teir votes is a clear manifestation of teir intention to 8oin te union' (eir names could not
ave been included in te list submitted to te 7ureau of +abor if tey are not interested'
(e election was supervised by te =epartment of +abor and tose 50 members were allowed to vote and
te private respondent never callenged teir rigt to vote'
.etition for certiorari is granted'
SAN MIGUEL COR(ORATION vs* NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DI-ISION, AND SAN MIGUEL
COR(ORATION EM(LO9EES UNION :SMCEU;.(TGWO
G*R* N%* 99200* M3&54 2, 1999
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In /uly 1220, San Miguel Corporation, alleging te need to streamline its operations due to financial losses, sut down some of its plants and
declared 55 positions as redundant, listed as follows: seventeen >1<@ employees in te 7usiness +ogistics =ivision >I7+=J@, seventeen >1<@ in
te &yala ;perations Center >&;C@, and eigteen >1)@ in te Magnolia*Manila 7uying Station >IMagnolia*M7SJ@'A Conse3uently, te private
respondent union filed several grievance cases for te said retrenced employees, praying for te redeployment of te said employees to te
oter divisions of te company'
?rievance proceedings were conducted and during te proceedings, most of te employees were redeployed, wile oters accepted early
retirement' &s a result only 1< employees remained wen te parties proceeded to te tird level >Step A@ of te grievance procedure'
In a meeting on ;ctober 50, 1220, petitioner informed private respondent union tat if by ;ctober A0, 1220, te remaining 1< employees could
not yet be redeployed, teir services would be terminated on !ovember 5, 1220' (e said meeting ad8ourned wen Mr' =aniel S' +' 7orbon II,
a representative of te union, declared tat tere was noting more to discuss in view of te deadlock'
;n !ovember <, 1220, te private respondent filed wit te !ational Conciliation and Mediation 7oard >!CM7@ of te =epartment of +abor and
9mployment >=;+9@ a notice of strike on te following grounds: a@ bargaining deadlockC b@ union bustingC c@ gross violation of te Collective
7argaining &greement >C7&@, suc as non*compliance wit te grievance procedureC d@ failure to provide private respondent wit a list of
vacant positions pursuant to te parties side agreement tat was appended to te 1220 C7&C and e@ defiance of voluntary arbitration award'
.etitioner on te oter and, moved to dismiss te notice of strike but te !CM7 failed to act on te motion'
;n =ecember 51, 1220, petitioner SMC filed a complaint wit te respondent !+"C, praying for: >1@ te dismissal of te notice of strikeC >5@ an
order compelling te respondent union to submit to grievance and arbitration te issue listed in te notice of strikeC >A@ te recovery of te
e:penses of litigation'
!+"C ruled in favour of te petitoner, ence tis petition'
ISSUE:
$eter or not !+"C act witout or in e:cess of 8urisdiction or wit grave abuse of discretion in issuing suc order'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat !+"C gravely abused its discretion in dismissing te complaint of petitioner SMC for te dismissal of te notice of
strike, issuance of a temporary restraining order, and an order compelling te respondent union to settle te dispute under te grievance
macinery of teir C7&'
&bolition of departments or positions in te company is one of te recogni%ed management prerogatives' !oteworty is te fact tat te private
respondent does not 3uestion te validity of te business move of petitioner' In te absence of proof tat te act of petitioner was ill*motivated,
it is presumed tat petitioner San Miguel Corporation acted in good fait' In fact, petitioner acceded to te demands of te private respondent
union by redeploying most of te employees involved'
$ere te employer as evinced its willingness to negotiate te fate of te remaining employees affected by te abolition of office, tere is no
ground to sustain te notice of strike filed by a labor union'
SILA'IS INTERNATIONAL 'OTEL, "#$#$%n& vs NLRC, GENUINE LABOR ORGANI<ATION O!
WORKERS IN SILA'IS 'OTEL
GR # 10/21+, 0/ Au,us# 199+
Facts of the case:
(e case is about te strike staged by te union on !ov 10, 1220 wic was also te same day tey filed a
notice of strike against petitioner for -+., violation of te C7&, dismissal of union officersKmembers, mass
termination and illegal lock*out'
;n !ov 5), 1220 te Secretary of +abor and 9mployment assumed 8urisdiction and ordered te striking
employees to return to work, wic tey adered to'
4owever, on 01 ,eb 1221 petitioner Silais 4otel filed a complaint for illegal strike against te respondent
union, 14 members and all oter members wo 8oined te strike' (e union was found guilty of illegal strike
and declared te union officers to ave lost and forfeited teir employment'
(e union filed teir appeal alleging tat te petitioner terminated te employment even before te illegal
strike decision became final and e:ecutor and tat most employees wo were terminated were not union
members' (e appeal dated ,eb 12, 1225 ten on ,eb 5<, tey filed a very urgent petition for issuance of
a writ of preliminary in8unction'
!+"C ruled in favour of te respondent'
ISSUE:
$eter or not respondent !+"C acted witout or in e:cess of 8urisdiction or wit grave abuse of discretion
in issuing suc order'
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat te public respondent !+"C erred wen it entertained te separate in8unction
case filed by respondents'
(e act of filing 5 separate appeal is a form of forum sopping'
4owever, wit regard to te termination of employees by te petitioner, it may still be passed after filing a
proper petition terein'
!ELICIDAD MIRANO, #* 31, "#$#$%n&s vs NLRC, G&3n)% (4$1s* In5*, R%8&# M3,n37, &s"%n)n#s
GR # 121112, 19 M3&54 1997
Facts of the case:
(e case is about a Sickness !otification ,orm >S!,@ fraudulently fabricated among te 55 forms' .rivate
respondent investigated te anomaly, wic was reported to by =r' "osales' It sent notices to te
employees concerned including te petitioners, re3uiring tem to e:plain wy tey sould not be disciplined
for submitting falsified medical reports'
In teir written e:planation, te petitioners denied knowledge of te forgery' &ll claimed tey gave to
(eresita Manalo, teir co*employee and =irector of teir -nion wo allegedly promised to secure signature
of =r' "osales for tem'
Manalo admitted to =r' "osales tat se forged is signature on te S! forms upon re3uest of er co*
employees'
51 out of 55 employees investigated were recommended for dismissal for violating item L15 of te
company#s scedule offenses'
ISSUE:
$eter or not te 55 employees were illegally dismissed
RULING:
(e Supreme Court eld tat tere was a 8ust cause to dismiss te employees' 4owever, due process
sould be observed in administration proceedings because it is an opportunity to e:plain one side or an
opportunity to seek consideration of te action or ruling complained of'
7efore employees can be validly dismissed of, =-9 .";C9SS B C&-S9S must be specified'
$ritten notices are not enoug, it sould be a notice stating te carges and notice of te decision to
dismiss im'
(e employees ave constitutional rigt to coose te labor organi%ation wic tey desire to 8oin' (e
e:ercise of suc rigt would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if tey would be denied to coose in a
certification election'
.etition is dismiss'
M3n$13 G%1= C1u8 vs* IAC
2+7 SCRA 207
(is is originally filed wit te Social Security Commission >SSC@ via petition of 1< persons wo styled
temselves as I Caddies of Manila ?olf and Country Club*.(CC9&J for te coverage and availment of
benefits of te Social Security &ct as amended, .(CC9& >.ilippine (ecnical, Clerical, Commercial
9mployees &ssociation@ a labor organi%ation were wic tey claim for membersip' (e same time two
oter proceedings were filed and pending' (ese are certification election case filed by .(CC9& on bealf
of te same caddies of Manila ?olf and Country club wic was in favor of te caddies and compulsory
arbitration case involving .(CC9& and Manila ?olf and Country Club wic was dismissed and ruled tat
tere was no employer*employee relationsip between te caddies and te club'
ISSUE:
(e 3uestion involved in te case is weter or not rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs
and teir guests in said clubs# courses or premises are te employees of suc clubs and terefore witin
te compulsory coverage of te Social Security System >SSS@'
RULING:
(e Court does not agree tat te facts logically point to te employer*employee relationsip' In te very
nature of tings, caddies must submit to some supervision of teir conduct wile en8oying te privilege of
pursuing teir occupation witin te premises and grounds of watever club tey do work in' (ey work for
te club to wic tey attac temselves on sufferance but, on te oter and, also witout aving to
observe any working ours, free to leave anytime tey please, to stay away for as long tey like'
(ese considerations clas frontally wit te concept of employment'
It can appen tat a caddy wo as rendered services to a player on one day may still find sufficient time to
work elsewere' -nder suc circumstances, te caddy may leave te premises and to go to suc oter
place of work tat e wises' (ese are tings beyond te control of te petitioner' (e caddy >++amar@ is
not an employee of petitioner Manila ?olf and Country Club and te petitioner is under no obligation to
report im for compulsory coverage of SSS'
En5751%")$3 B&$#3n$53 vs* NLRC,
20/ SCRA / >1990?
FACTS OF THE CASE:
+im8oco was a Sales =ivison of 9ncyclopaedia 7ritannica and was in carge of selling te products troug
some sales representatives' &s compensation, e would receive commissions from te products sold by is
agents' 4e was also allowed to use te petitioner#s name, goodwill and logo' It was agreed tat office
e:penses would be deducted from +im8oco#s commissions' In 12<4, +im8oco resigned to pursue is private
business and filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged non*payment of separation pay and oter
benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions' .etitioner alleged tat +im8oco was not an
employee of te company but an independent dealer autori%ed to promote and sell its products and in
return, received commissions terein' .etitioner also claims tat it ad no control and supervision over te
complainant as to te manners and means e conducted is business operations' +im8oco maintained
oterwise' 4e alleged e was ired by te petitioner and was assigned in te sales department'
ISSUE:
(e +abor &rbiter ruled tat +im8oco was an employee of te company' !+"C also affirmed te decision
and opined tat tere was no evidence supporting allegation tat +im8oco was an independent contractor or
dealer' ;n appeal, petitioner assails tat tere was no employee*employer relationsip'
RULING:
(ere was no employee*employer relationsip' In determining te relationsip, te following elements must
be present: selection and engagement of te employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power
to control te employee#s conduct' (e power of control is commonly regarded as te most crucial and
determinative indicator of te presence or absence of an employee*employer relationsip' -nder te
control test, an employee*employer relationsip e:ists were te person for wom te services are
performed reserves a rigt to control not only te end to be acieved, but also te manner and means to be
employed in reacing tat end' (e issuance of guidelines by te petitioner was merely guidelines on
company policies wic sales managers follow and impose on teir respective agents' +im8oco was not an
employee of te company since e ad te free rein in te means and metods for conducting te
marketing operations' 4e was merely an agent or an independent dealer of te petitioner' 4e was free to
conduct is work and e was free to engage in oter means of liveliood'
In ascertaining te employee*employer relationsip, te factual circumstances must be considered' (e
element of control is absent were a person wo works for anoter does so more or less at is own
pleasure and is not sub8ect to definite ours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated in according
to te result of is efforts and not te amount tereof' 4ence, tere was no employee*employer
relationsip'