Você está na página 1de 7

Tropical Hut Food Employees Union vs.

Tropical Hut Food Market

G.R. No. L-43495-99
January 20, 1990
The rank and file workers of respondent company organized a local union (THEU), elected their
officers, adopted their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National
Association of Trade Unions. Application was accepted and registration certificate was issued. It
appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not registered with the Department of
Issue: Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation was valid
The validity of the dismissals pursuant to the union security clause in the collective bargaining
agreement hinges on the validity of the disaffiliation of the local union from the federation. The right of
a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A local union, being a separate
and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to
disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of association.
The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality
of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for
the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the
national union (PAFLU) was in furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities
capable of entering into such legal relations with their member. The essential purpose was the
affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common
bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units
of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed
by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual
welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence.
The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the
Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the
registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own. Neither can it be
interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests independently of the federation. A local union
owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its members and not to the federation to which
it belongs.

Tablante-Tungol Enterprise vs. Hon. Carmelo Noriel

G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978
Petitioner filed a certiorari proceeding against respondents to nullify a certification election
wherein private respondent was unanimously chosen as the collective bargaining representative. It was
alleged that public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of private respondent
labor organization as private respondent labor union had engaged in an illegal strike.
Issue: Whether or not illegal strike is a ground for cancellation of registration.
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: ... (e) Acting as a
labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by
law. Suppletory to the above provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, which reads as follows: 'Section 6.
Denial of Registration of local unions-The Regional Office may deny the application for registration on
any of the following grounds: ... (c) Engaging in the "cabo " system or other illegal practices.' It is a
fact that Association of Democratic Labor Organization is not a labor contractor or is it engaged in the
'cabo' system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of such nature which is prohibited by law. The
above-quoted article should not be interpreted or construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by
any union. This is so because the phrase 'or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law'
should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that partakes of the nature of a labor
contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not intend to include in the said phrase illegally declared
strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike,
the same could have been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in Presidential Decree
No. 823." 11 Clearly, an awareness of the relevance of the maxims noscitur a sociis and ejusdem
generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy away from this approach.

Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR

G.R. No. L-45824 June 19, 1985
Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers. However,
both unions, using the name Volkschel Labor Union Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers, jointly
entered into a collective bargaining agreement with respondent companies. Later on, majority of
petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation in order to operate on its own as
an independent labor group pursuant to Article 241 (formerly Article 240) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, the pertinent portion of which reads: incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national
unions may disaffiliate only for the purpose of joining a federation or national union in the industry or
region in which it properly belongs or for the purpose of operating as an independent labor group.
Accordingly, a resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members revoking their check-off
authorization in favor of ALUMETAL and notices thereof were served on ALUMETAL and respondent
companies. ALUMETAL which wrote respondent companies advising them to continue deducting
union dues and remitting them to said federation, respondent companies sought the legal opinion of the
respondent Bureau as regards the controversy between the two unions.
The Med-Arbiter rendered a Resolution which in effect found the disaffiliation legal but at the
same time gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should continue paying their dues to
ALUMETAL in the concept of agency fees. From the said Resolution, of the Med-Arbiter both
petitioner and respondent ALUMETAL appealed to the Director of respondent Bureau. Petitioner'
contended that the Med-Arbiter's opinion to the effect that petitioner's members remained obligated to
pay dues to respondent ALUMETAL was inconsistent with the dispositive finding that petitioner's
disaffiliation from ALUMETAL was valid. ALUMETAL, on the other hand, assailed the Resolution in
question asserting that the disaffiliation should have been declared contrary to law.
1 Whether or not a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union.
2 Whether or not companies have the right to effect union dues collections despite revocation by the
employees of the check-off authorization
A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with
the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association (Article IV, Section 7, Philippine Constitution).
Petitioner contends that the disaffiliation was not due to any opportunists motives on its part. Rather it
was prompted by the federation's deliberate and habitual dereliction of duties as mother federation
towards petitioner union. Employees' grievances were allegedly left unattended to by respondent
federation to the detriment of the employees' rights and interests.
Under Section 3, Article I, of the CBA, the obligation of the respondent companies to deduct
and remit dues to ALUMETAL is conditioned on the individual check-off authorization of petitioner's
members, In other words, ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues from respondent companies as
long as petitioner union is affiliated with it and respondent companies are authorized by their
employees (members of petitioner union) to deduct union dues. Without said affiliation, the employer
has no link to the mother union. The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with
his affiliation or membership. "The employees' check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is
good only as long as they remain members of the union concerned." 7 A contract between an employer
and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is terminated by the disaffiliation of
the local of which the employees are members.

De La Salle University vs. De La Salle University Employees Association

G.R. No. 169254
August 23, 2012
A petition for review on certiorari of the decisions that found petitioner guilty of unfair labor
practice for failure to bargain collectively with respondent was filed. This petition involves one of the
three notices of strike filed by respondent De La Salle University Employees Association
(DLSUEANAFTEU) against petitioner De La Salle University due to its refusal to bargain collectively
with it in light of the intra-union dispute between respondents two opposing factions.
Issue: Whether or not unfair labor union was committed due to refusal to bargain collectively.
The unfair labor practice complaint dismissed by the labor arbiter questioned petitioners
actions immediately after the Decision of the BLR Regional Director, finding that "the reason for the
hold-over of the previously elected union officers is already extinguished." The present controversy
involves petitioners actions subsequent to (1) the clarification of said March 19, 2001 Maraan
Decision by BLR Director Cacdac who opined in a May 16, 2003 memorandum that the then
incumbent union officers (i.e., the Baez faction) continued to hold office until their successors have
been elected and qualified, and (2) the July 28, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ0015-2003 ruling that the very same intra-union dispute (subject of several notices of strike) is
insufficient ground for the petitioner to suspend CBA negotiations with respondent union. We take
notice, too, that the aforesaid Decision of Labor Arbiter Pati has since been set aside by the Court of
Appeals and such reversal was upheld by this Courts Second Division in its Decision dated April 7,
2009 in G.R. No. 177283, wherein petitioner was found liable for unfair labor practice.
Neither can petitioner seek refuge in its defense that as early as November 2003 it had already
released the escrowed union dues to respondent and normalized relations with the latter. The fact
remains that from its receipt of the July 28, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-00152003 until its receipt of the November 17, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-00332003, petitioner failed in its duty to collectively bargain with respondent union without valid reason. At
most, such subsequent acts of compliance with the issuances in OS-AJ-0015-2003 and OS-AJ-00332003 merely rendered moot and academic the Secretary of Labors directives for petitioner to
commence collective bargaining negotiations within the period provided.

Benjamin Victoriano vs. Elizalde Workers Union

G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974
Appellee, Benjamin Victoriano, a member of the religious sect known as the "Iglesia ni Cristo",
had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. As such employee, he was a member of the
Elizalde Rope Workers' Union which had with the Company a collective bargaining agreement
containing a closed shop provision which read as follows: membership in the Union shall be required
as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by this Agreement. Under
Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350,
the employer was not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a
condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the
employees." However, Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to paragraph
(4) subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement shall not
cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization". Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any
labor organization, Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union, and when no action was
taken thereon, he reiterated his resignation Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company
asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the
Union as a member. The management of the Company in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that
unless the Appellee could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be
constrained to dismiss him from the service. This prompted Appellee to file an action for injunction.
Issue: Whether or not RA 3350 infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful associations, thus
making it unconstitutional.
Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 875 recognize freedom of association. Section 1 (6)
of Article III of the Constitution of 1935, as well as Section 7 of Article IV of the Constitution of 1973,
provide that the right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875 provides that employees shall have the right to selforganization and to form, join of assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid or protection. What the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and
guarantee is the "right" to form or join associations. Notwithstanding the different theories propounded
by the different schools of jurisprudence regarding the nature and contents of a "right", it can be safely
said that whatever theory one subscribes to, a right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely:
first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself
without being prevented by law; and second, power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or
refrain from Joining an association. It is, therefore, the employee who should decide for himself
whether he should join or not an association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes up his
mind as to which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty and
the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at any time. It is clear, therefore,
that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. Inasmuch as what
both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is
the "right" to join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say that the law also imposes, in the
same breath, upon the employee the duty to join associations. The law does not enjoin an employee to
sign up with any association.

Holy Child Catholic School vs. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas

G.R. No. 179146
July 23, 2013
A petition for certification election was filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas
ng Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCSTELUPIGLAS), alleging that HCCS is unorganized, there is no collective bargaining agreement or a
duly certified bargaining agent or a labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the proposed bargaining unit within one year prior to the filing of the petition. Union is
affiliated with PIGLAS-KAMAO. Petitioner averred that of the employees who signed to support the
petition, 14 already resigned and 6 signed twice. Petitioner raised that members of private respondent
do not belong to the same class; it is not only a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file
employees as 3 are vice-principals, 1 is a department head/supervisor, and 11 are coordinators but
also a combination of teaching and non-teaching personnel as 27 are non-teaching personnel. It
insisted that, for not being in accord with Article 245 of the Labor Code, private respondent is an
illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition for certification election, and an
inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community or mutuality of interest.
1 Whether or not an employer can oppose a certification election.
2 Whether a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the labor organizations
membership consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees is actually not a novel one.
The "Bystander Rule" is already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been consistently
held in a number of cases that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when
the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but
even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander. The
employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere at all therein.
This is so since any uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may give rise to the suspicion that
it is batting for a company union. Indeed, the demand of the law and policy for an employer to take a
strict, hands-off stance in certification elections is based on the rationale that the employees bargaining
representative should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of the management; that, to be
effective, the bargaining representative must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.
It was in R.A. No. 875, under Section 3, that such questioned mingling was first prohibited, to
wit: Sec. 3. Employees' right to self-organization. - Employees shall have the right to self-organization
and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as
supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their
supervision but may form separate organizations of their own.
Nothing in R.A. No. 875, however, tells of how the questioned mingling can affect the
legitimacy of the labor organization. Under Section 15, the only instance when a labor organization
loses its legitimacy is when it violates its duty to bargain collectively; but there is no word on whether
such mingling would also result in loss of legitimacy.

Case Digests

1. Tropical Hut Food Employees Union vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, G.R. No. L-43495-99,
January 20, 1990
2. Tablante-Tungol Enterprise vs. Hon. Carmelo Noriel, G.R. No. L-47848, August 23, 1978
3. Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR, G.R. No. L-45824, June 19, 1985
4. De La Salle University vs. De La Salle University Employees Association, G.R. No. 169254,
August 23, 2012
5. Benjamin Victoriano vs. Elizalde Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974
6. Holy Child Catholic School vs. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo