Labor 2 Compilation # 2
FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Med. Foundation, Inc. (FEU-
NRMFI) v. Hon. Crescenciano Trajano & Ricardo Castro,
FEU-NRMFI Alliance of Filipino Workers (AFW)
21 July 1987; Paras, Jr.
FACTS
1. Petitioner FEU-NRMFI has a work force of 350
rank-and-file employees, majority of whom are
members of private respondent AFW.
2. 10 May 1976: Private respondent AFW filed a
petition for certification election with the Ministry of
Labor and Employment (MOLE). Both the MED
Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor (on appeal)
denied the petition pursuant to then Article 244 of
the Labor Code which did not include employees of
non-stock, non-profit medical institution as those
who may form, join, or organize a union.
AFW then filed a petition for certiorari before
the Supreme Court assailing the
constitutionality of then Art. 244 of the Labor
Code.
01 May 1980: While the petition for certiorari was
pending before the SC, BP Blg. 70 was enacted
amending Art. 244 and granting employees of non-
stock, non-profit institutions the right to form, join
and organize labor unions of their choice.
13 Feb 1986: Pursuant to BP Blg.70, private
respondent AFW filed another petition for consent
and/or certification of election with the MOLE.
Petitioner FEU-NRMFI opposed the petition on the
ground that a similar petition involving the same
issues and the same parties was pending before
the SC (referring to the petition for certiorari filed by
AFW in #2).
17 Apr 1986: MED Arbiter granted the petition and
ordered that a certification election be conducted to
determine the exclusive bargaining representative
of all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner.
The Director of Bureau of Labor Relations Trajano
affirmed said order, holding that the character of
the hospital (as a non-profit) has been rendered
moot and academic by virtue of BP Blg. 70 which
allows employees of non-profit medical institutions
to unionize.
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition for
certiorari seeking the review and reversal of the
Directors decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Director of Bureau of Labor Relations
committed grave abuse of jurisdiction in granting the
petition for certification election despite pendency of a
similar petition before the SC
RESOLUTION & RATIO
No, the Director did not commit GAD.
1. He applied the law in effect when the petition for
certification election was filed.
At the time AFW filed again the petition for
certification election on Feb 13, 1986, Art.
244 of the Labor Code had already been
amended by BP Blg. 70.
Art. 244, as amended by BP Blg. 70:
Art 244. Coverage and employees right to
self-organization. All persons employed in
commercial, industrial, and charitable,
medical or educational institution, whether
operating for profit or not,shall have the
right to self-organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining. xxx
Theres no doubt that rank-and-file
employees of non-profit medical
institutions are now permitted to form,
organize, or join labor unions of their
choice for purposes of collective
bargaining.
Since private respondent complied with
the requisites provided by law for calling a
certification election, the Director is duty-
bound to conduct the same to ascertain
the bargaining representative of
petitioners employees.
The pending petition before the SC will not
constitute a res judicata that will be a ground for
dismissal of the present case should it be decided
by the SC.
For a pending action between the same parties for
the same cause be a ground to dismissal, the
following requisites should be present:
)1) Identity of parties
)2) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for
(founded on the same facts)
)3) Identity on the 2 preceding particulars should
be such that any judgment rendered on the
other actions will amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration
1

The 3rd element is missing because the pending petition
before the SC involved Art. 244 of the Labor Code before it
was amended by BP Blg. 70, such that the possible
pronouncement of the SC on its unconstitutionality will not
affect the present petition which involves the already
amended Art. 244.
HELD
Petition dismissed. Decision of the Director of BLR allowing
certification election is hereby affirmed.
(SIDE NOTE JUST IN CASE MAM ASKS: Petitioner
pointed out that the Director shouldnt have declared the
petition for certiorari filed by AFW as moot and academic as
the same is sub-judice and only the SC can decide the
matter. Court said that the Director cannot be faulted
because he had to make a decision.)
Holy Child Catholic School (HCCS) v. Hon. Patrcica Sto.
Tomas (SOLE) and Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng
Anakpawis HCCS Teachers and Employees Labor
Union (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS)
GR. No 179146; July 23, 2013; Peralta, J.
DOCTRINE
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
FACTS
May 31, 2002 A petition for certification election
was filed by HCSS-TELU-PIGLAS (Union) alleging
that:
a. PIGLAS a legitimate labor organization duly
registered with the DOLE representing the Union;
b. HCCS is a private educational institution with
approximately 120 teachers and employees
comprising the proposed bargaining unit; and
c. HCCS is unorganized and there is no CBA or a
duly certified agent or labor organization certified
as the SEBA of the proposed bargaining unit
within one year prior to the filing of the petitioner.
Attached to the petition were the certificate of
affiliation with PIGLAS-KAMAO, charter certificate,
and certificate of registration as a legitimate labor
organization issued by the DOLE.
HCCS, on the other hand, alleged that the Union is
not only a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
rank-and-file employees but also a combination of
teaching and non-teaching personnel. It insisted that
the Union is an illegitimate labor organization lacking
in personality to file a petition for certification election
for not being in accord with Article 245 and an
inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community or
mutuality of interest.
The Union countered the HCCS failed to substantiate
its claim that some of the employees included in the
petition holds managerial and supervisory positions.
And even assuming that it is true, mixture of
employees is not one of the enumerated instances in
which a petition shall be dismissed (DO No.9) and
questions pertaining to qualifications of employees
may be threshed out in the inclusion-exclusion
proceedings.
The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification
election on the ground that the unit which the Union
sought to represent is inappropriate. The Union
appealed to the SOLE.
The SOLE ruled against the dismissal and directed
the conduct of two separate certification elections
for the teaching and the non-teaching personnel. It
held that although there are differences in the nature
of work, hours and conditions of work and salary
determination, these differences are not substantial
enough to warrant the dismissal of the petition.
HCSS filed before the CA a petition for certiorari with a
Prayer for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. The CA
dismissed the petition.
The CA agreed with the HCCS that the nature
of the teaching personnels work does not
coincide with that of the non-teaching
personnels
It nevertheless ruled that the SOLE did not
commit GAD in not dismissing the petitioner for
certification election since it directed the
conduct of two separate certification elections.
The CA denied the MR hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for certification election is
dismissible on the ground that the labor organizations
membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rank-
and-file employees.
HELD: NO. The petition is denied. The Decision of the CA
affirming the Decision of the SOLE that set aside the
Decision of the Med-Arbiter denying the petition for
certification election is affirmed.
RATIO
2

It was in RA 875 that the questioned mingling of
employees 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.
However, nothing in RA 875 provides for the effect of
mingling on the legitimacy of the labor organization.
In Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees
Association, it was pronounced that the absence of
any provision on the effect of the disqualification of
one of its organizers upon the legality of the union,
may be construed to confine the effect of such
ineligibility only upon the membership of the
supervisor. In other words, the invalidity of
membership of one of the organizers does not
make the union illegal, where the requirements of
the law for the organization thereof are,
nevertheless, satisfied and met.
The Labor Code was enacted, however, without
reproducing Sec. 3 of RA 875. Article 290 which is the
closest to Sec. 3 is silent on the prohibition against
supervisory employees mingling with rank-and-file
employees in one labor organization.
Thus, it was declared in Bulletin v. Sanchez that
supervisory employees who do not fall under the
category of managerial employees may join or assist
in the formation of a labor organization for rank-
and-file employees, but they may not form their
own labor organization.
E.O. No.111, which amended certain provisions of
Book V continued to recognize the right of supervisory
employees to join a rank-and-file labor organization.
Effective 1989, RA 6715 restored the prohibition
against the questioned mingling in one labor
organization.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial
employees to join any labor organization;
right of supervisory employees.
Managerial employees are not eligible to
join, assist or form any labor
organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in
a labor organization of the rank-and-
file employees but may join, assist or
form separate labor organizations of
their own.
Unfortunately, RA 6715 also omitted specifying the
exact effect any violation of the prohibition would bring
about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.
It was the IRR which supplied the deficiency with the
amendment to Rule II:
Sec. 1. Who may join unions. - x x
x Supervisory employees and security
guards shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may
join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own; Provided,
that those supervisory employees who
are included in an existing rank-and-file
bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in
that unit x x x.
and Rule V, Sec 2(c):
The petition, when filed by a legitimate
labor organization, shall contain, among
others:
x x x x
(c) description of the bargaining unit
which shall be the employer unit
unless circumstances otherwise
require; and provided further, that the
appropriate bargaining unit of the
rank-and-file employees shall not
include supervisory employees and/or
security guards.
But on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules was further amended by DO No. 9. The
requirement under Sec. 2(c) - that the petition for
certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of
rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with
supervisory employees - was removed.
In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay
Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, it was held that
any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-
3

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.
DO No. 9 is applicable in this case as the petition for
certification election was filed on May 31, 2002. It must
aksi be stressed that HCCS cannot collaterally attack
the legitimacy of private respondent by praying for the
dismissal of the petition for certification election.
Moreover, the determination of whether union
membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory
employees is a factual issue that is best left for
resolution in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings,
which has not yet happened in this case so still
premature to pass upon. Factual findings of labor
officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise
in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally
accorded not only with respect but even finality by the
courts when supported by substantial evidence.
Whether or not, in view of the improper mixture of teaching
and non-teaching personnel in the Union, the petition for
certification election should have been dismissed on the
ground that private respondent is not qualified to file such
petition for its failure to qualify as a legitimate labor
organization.
NO. The concepts of a union and a legitimate labor
organization are different from, but relate to, the
concept of a bargaining unit.
A labor organization as "any union or
association of employees which exists in whole
or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining
or of dealing with employers concerning terms
and conditions of employment.
A bargaining unit has been defined as a
"group of employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the entire
body of employees, which the collective
interests of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicated to be best
suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of
the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law.
A bargaining unit is a group of employees
sought to be represented by a petitioning union.
Such employees need not be members of a
union seeking the conduct of a certification
election
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees
in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like
petitioner is to directly file a petition for cancellation of
the unions certificate of registration due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor
Code, as amended.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTL GOLF CLUB INC. vs.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R. No. 142000; Jan. 22, 2003; Carpio-Morales
Facts: This case involves the petition for certification
election1 of respondent union which was opposed by
petitioner- company.
Respondent-union is a legitimate labor organization said to
represent majority of the ranks and file employees of
petitioner-company. On Oct. 16, 1997, union filed a
petition for certification election before the DOLE
Mediation Arbitration Unit.
Company opposed the petition for certification election filed
by of respondent union. Its opposition was grounded on
the claim that the list of union members submitted by the
union was defective and fatally flawed because
1. It included the names and signatures of supervisors
as well as resigned, terminated and AWOL employees;
2. Employees of The Country Club Inc., a corporation
distinct and separate from petitioner-company were
also in the list;
3. Out of 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were
actual rank and filed employees of petitioner; and
4. Some of the signatures in the list of union members
were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means.
Defense of Union: 1.) It had complied with all the
requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster
of legitimate labor organizations on account of which it
was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE (in
short, it was duly registered); and
2.) the legitimacy of its
registration cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as
long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to
enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Jan. 28, 1998- DOLE Med-Arbiter held for the union and
ordered the holding of a certification election.
1 Certificate Election or Consent Election refers to the
process of determining through secret ballot the sole and
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or
negotiation. (IRR, Book V, Rule I Sec 1 (h)).
4

June 4, 1998- Upon appeal of the company, DOLE Sec
dismissed the petition for election thereby reversing the
order of the Med-Arbiter on the ground that there is a
clear absence of community or mutuality of interests, it
finding that union sought to represent two separate
bargaining units (supervisory employees and rank-and-
file employees) as well as employees of two separate and
distinct corporate entities.
Nov. 12, 1998- Upon Motion for Reconsideration by Union,
DOLE Undersecretary, by authority of the DOLE Sec,
issued a Resolution setting aside the June 4, 1998
Resolution dismissing the petition for certification
election. The Resolution states that:
1.)The names of alleged disqualified supervisory
employees and employees of another company should
simply be removed from the unions roster of membership
rather than disregard the legitimate status already
conferred on union by the Bureau of Labor Relations; and
2.) That regarding the participation of alleged
resigned and AWOL employees and those whose
signatures are illegible, the issue can be resolved during
the inclusion-exclusion proceedings at the pre-election
stage
This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals hence this
petition.
In defense, company cited the case of:
1.) Toyota which held that a labor organization
composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees
is no labor organization at all,
[i]t becomes necessary . . ., anterior to the
granting of an order allowing a certification election, to
inquire into the composition of any labor organization
whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged
on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code; and the
subsequent case of
2.) Progressive Development Corp. Pizza Hut v.
Ledesma which held that the acquisition of rights by any
union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a
petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends
on whether or not the labor organization has attained the
status of a legitimate labor organization.
Issue: WON the CA erred in holding that supervisory
employees and non-employees could simply be removed
from the unions roster of rank-and-file membership instead
of resolving the legitimacy of the unions status.
Held: No. Petition denied.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Ratio: While Article 2452 expressly prohibits supervisory
employees from joining a rank-and-file union, it does not
provide what would be the effect if a rank-and- file union
counts supervisory employees among its members, or vice-
versa.
After a certificate of registration is issued to a
union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral
attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation. The grounds for cancellation of union
registration are provided for under Article 239 of the Labor
Code, while the procedure for cancellation of registration is
provided for in Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees
is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such
inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) 3
and (c) of Article 239.
The union, having been validly issued a certificate
of registration, should be considered to have already
acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed
collaterally.
As for petitioners allegation that some of the
signatures in the petition for certification election were
obtained through fraud, false statement and
misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected
above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the
certificate of registration, and not to intervene in a petition
for certification election.
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991; Medialdea, J.
The Staff and Technical Employees Association of
MERALCO (STEAM-PCWF), a labor organization
of staff and technical employees of MERALCO,
2 Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form
any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be
eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-
and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own.
3 Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union
registration. The following shall constitute grounds for
cancellation of union registration: (a) Misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members
who took part in the ratification;
xxx
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection
with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers,
the list of voters, or failure to subject these documents
together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers
and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from
election;
5

filed a petition for certification election, seeking to
represent regular employees of MERALCO who
are:
(a) non-managerial employees with Pay
Grades VII and above;
(b) non-managerial employees in the
Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services
Section, Secretaries who are automatically
removed from the bargaining unit; and
(c) employees within the rank and file unit,
who are automatically disqualified from
becoming union members of any
organization within the same bargaining
unit.
STEAM-PCWF alleged that while there exists a
duly organized union for rank-&- file employees in
Pay Grade I-VI, the MERALCO Employees and
Worker's Association (MEWA) which holds a valid
CBA for the rank-&- file employees, there is no
other labor organization except STEAM-PCWF
claiming to represent the MERALCO employees.
The petition was premised on the
exclusion/disqualification of certain MERALCO
employees pursuant to Art. I, Secs. 2 and 3 of the
existing MEWA CBA.
MERALCO moved for the dismissal of the petition,
claiming that:
1. employees in Pay Grade VII and above
are managerial employees, thus prohibited
by law from forming or joining supervisory
union;
2. security services personnel are prohibited
from joining/assisting the rank-&-file union,
Sec. 2(c), Rule V, Book V of the then
Labor Code IRR (1988).
Med-Arbiter ruled that:
o Employees excluded from the existing
CBA for rank-&-file employees have the
right to form a union of their own, except
those employees performing managerial
functions.
o A certification election should be
conducted among regular employees
STEAM-PCWF seeks to represent
(includes the security services personnel
the topic in the syllabus).
With the enactment of RA 6715, STEAM-PCWF
renounced its representation of the security
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
services personnel and rank-&-file employees in
Pay Grades I-VI.
The First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory
Employees (FLAMES) filed a similar petition
seeking to represent those employees with Pay
Grades VII to XIV. The petition was consolidated
with that of STEAM-PCWF.
Sec. Labor affirmed Med-Arbiter and included
FLAMES among the choices in the certification
election.
MERALCO filed a petition, seeking to review the
resolution of the Sec of Labor, which allowed
security guards to be represented by either
STEAM-PCWF or FLAMES. Among others,
MERALCO contends that that this contravenes the
provisions of the recently passed RA 6715 and
IRR, which disqualifies supervisory employees and
security guards from membership in a labor
organization of the rank and file.
ISSUE: W/N security services personnel are prohibited
from joining labor unions NO
MERALCO has questioned the legality of allowing
them to join either the rank and file or the
supervisory union, claiming that this is a violation of
par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V of the IRR of RA
6715, which states, Supervisory employees and
security guards shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-
and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own. Said
rule, barring security guards from joining a rank
and file organization, appear to have been carried
over from the old rules implementing then article
245.
On December 24, 1986, Pres. Aquino issued EO
11 which eliminated the above-cited provision on
the disqualification of security guards. What was
retained was the disqualification of managerial
employees, renumbered as Art. 245 (previously Art.
246), as follows, Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization.
With the elimination, security guards were thus free
to join a rank and file organization.
On March 2, 1989, Congress passed RA 6715.
Section 18 thereof amended Art. 245, to read as
follows, Managerial employees are not eligible to
join, assist or form any labor organization.
6

Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-
and-file employees but may join, assist, or form
separate labor organizations of their own.
The second sentence of Art. 245 embodies an
amendment disqualifying supervisory employees
from membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees. It does not include
security guards in the disqualification.
The IRR of RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they
disqualify security guards from joining a rank and
file organization are null and void, for being not
germane to the object and purposes of EO 11 and
RA 6715.
While therefore under the old rules, security guards
were barred from joining a labor organization of the
rank and file, under RA 6715, they may now freely
join a labor organization of the rank and file or that
of the supervisory union, depending on their rank.
By accommodating supervisory employees, the
Secretary of Labor must likewise apply the
provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by
favorably allowing them free access to a labor
organization, whether rank and file or supervisory,
in recognition of their constitutional right to self-
organization.
The Court is aware, however, of possible
consequences in the implementation of the law in
allowing security personnel to join labor unions
within the company they serve. The law is apt to
produce divided loyalties in the faithful
performance of their duties. Economic reasons
would present the employees concerned with the
temptation to subordinate their duties to the
allegiance they owe the union of which they are
members, aware as they are that it is usually union
action that obtains for them increased pecuniary
benefits.
Thus, in the event of a strike declared by their
union, security personnel may neglect or outrightly
abandon their duties, such as protection of
property of their employer and the persons of its
officials and employees, the control of access to
the employers premises, and the maintenance of
order in the event of emergencies and untoward
incidents.
PETITION DISMISSED.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
=============================================
Paper Industries Corp. v. Laguesma
G.R. No. 101738; 12 April 2000; De Leon, Jr., J.
I. Facts
- Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines
(PICOP) is engaged in the manufacture of paper and
timber products with principal place of operations at
Tabon, Bisig, Surigao del Sur.
- It has over 9,000 employees, 944 of whom are supervisory
and technical staff employees. More or less 487 of these
technical and staff employees are signatory members of
the private respondent PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and
Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU)
- PBSTSEU instituted a Petition for Certification Election to
determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for
collective bargaining agreement purposes
- Private respondents Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and
Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective
petitions for intervention
- Med-Arbiter Gamolo: granted petitions for intervention and
set the holding of the certification election with the 4
choices namely: (1) PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4)
no union.
- Sec. of Labor: upheld the med-arbiters order
- During the pre-election conference, PICOP questioned and
objected to the inclusion of some section heads and
supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred
were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of
the reorganization effected by it. It advanced the view that
considering the alleged present authority of the section
managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are
classified as managerial employees, and hence, ineligible
to form or join any labor organization under Art. 245 of the
LC.
Under PICOPs Revised Organization Structure,
the company was divided into 4 main business
groups, namely: Paper Products Business,
Timber Products Business, Forest Resource
Business and Support Services Business.
A vice-president or assistant vice-president head
each of these business groups
A division manager heads the divisions
comprising each business group.
A department manager heads the departments
comprising each division.
Section heads and supervisors, now called
section managers and unit managers, head
the sections and independent units, respectively,
comprising each department.
- Med-Arbiter Pura: held that supervisors and section heads
of the petitioner are managerial employees and therefore
7

excluded from the list of voters for purposes of the
certification election
- Undersecretary of Labor Laguesma: set aside Med-Arbiter
Puras order
II. Issue/Held/Ratio
W/N the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who
have been designated as Section Managers and Unit
Managers are managerial employees, thus, ineligible
for union membership under Art. 245 of the LC No, the
subject supervisors and section heads as supervisory
employees are eligible to vote in the certification election.
Held: Petition dismissed.
- In United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v.
Laguesma, the Court explained that managerial
employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle
Managers and First Line Managers.
Top and Middle Managers have the authority to
devise, implement and control strategic and
operation policies
First Line Managers ensure that such policies
are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of
an organization
- Under this distinction, managerial employees fall under 2
categories:
1. managers per se composed of Top and
Middle Managers
2. supervisors composed of First-Line Managers
- Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated as
manager does not ipso facto make him one.
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job
description of the employee, for it is the job description
that determines the nature of employment.
- Here, the job description of the concerned supervisory
employees and section heads indisputably show that they
are not actually managerial but only supervisory
employees since they do not lay down company policies.
- Despite having the authority to hire and fire, the authority
they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in
character. Where such power, which is in effect
recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation,
review and final action by the department heads and
other higher executives of the company, the same,
although present, is not effective and not an exercise of
independent judgment as required by law.
A.D. Gothong Manufacturing Corporations Union ALU
v. NLRC
G.R. No. 113638; November 16, 1999; Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Facts:
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
1. May 12, 1993, petitioner Union filed a petition for
certification election in its bid to represent the
unorganized regular rank-and-file employees of A.D.
Gothong Manufacturing Corporation excluding its office
staff and personnel.
2. During the proceedings, the inclusion of Romulo Plaza
and Paul Michael Yap in the list of eligible voters was
challenged on the ground that they were supervisory
employees.
3. Both Plaza and Yap argued that they are rank-and-file
employees.
a. Plaza claimed that he was a mere salesman
based in Cebu.
b. Yap argued that he is a mere expediter whose
job includes the facilitation of the processing of
the bills of lading of all intended company
shipments.
4. The Union maintains that both Plaza and Yap are
supervisors who are disqualified to join the union for
rankandfile employees. It argued that
a. in minutes of the staff meeting of the Company
on August 13, 1989, Yap was listed as one of
the staff;
b. in the regular quarterly meeting on January 4,
1991, the names of Yap and Plaza are listed
under the heading Department
Heads/Supervisors; and
c. in the staff meeting of March 5, 1993, Plaza
was assigned as officerincharge (OIC) of the
company's branch in Davao.
5. Med-Arbiter declared that the Plaza and Yap are rank-
and-file employees.
6. Sec. of Labor affirmed the finding of the Med-Arbiter;
MR denied.
Issue: W/N Plaza and yap are rank-and-file employees.
YES
Held: Petition DENIED.
Ratio:
Art. 212 (m) of the Labor Code provides:
"m) `Managerial employee' is one who is vested
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire,
transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees. Supervisory employees
are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if
the exercise of such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use
of independent judgment. All employees not falling
within any of the above definitions are considered
rankandfile employees for purposes of this Book."
Under Rule I, Section 2 (c), of the IRR, The following
elements must concur to be considered as a member of a
managerial staff:
8

(1) that his primary duty consists of the
performance of work directly related to management
policies;
(2) that he customarily and regularly exercises
discretion and independent judgment in the performance of
his functions;
(3) that he regularly and directly assists in the
management of the establishment; and
(4) that he does not devote more than twenty
percent of his time to work other than those described
above.
In Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano,
the Court said that the test of `supervisory' or
`managerial status' depends on whether a person
possess authority to act in the interest of his employer
in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor
Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and
whether such authority is not merely routinary or
clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent
judgment.
We find no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the Med-
Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor that the copies of the
minutes presented in evidence do not prove that Yap and
Plaza were managerial or supervisory employees.
Nowhere is there a statement therein about any
instance where the challenged voters effectively
recommended any managerial action which would
require the use of independent judgment.
The claim of respondent Company that Plaza is the
OIC head of the Davao branch is belied by the
certification of the City Treasurer of Davao and of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue of Mandaue City
that the plan to open a branch in Davao City did
not materialize.
The reliance of on the affidavit of Jose Loseo,
Personnel Manager, that Plaza and Yap were hired
by him as department head and supervisor of the
respondent Company cannot be sustained in light
Loseo was "forced to sign" the earlier
memorandum on the job assignment of Yap and
Plaza. This affidavit is sought to be discarded by
respondent Company for being perjurious and ill-
motivated.
The issue raised is basically one of fact.
This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the
function of this Court to examine and evaluate the
probative value of all evidence presented to the
concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its
impugned decision or resolution.
It is inappropriate to review that factual findings of
the MedArbiter regarding the issue whether
Romulo Plaza and Paul Michael Yap are or are not
rankandfile employees considering that these are
matters within their technical expertise.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Tunay na Pagakakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia
Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc.
G.R. No. 162026; 3 August 2010; Villarama, J.
I. Facts
Asia Brewery is engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of beer, shandy, bottled water and
glass products. Asia brewery entered into a CBA
with Bisig at lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-
Independent (BLMA).
The CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit
and set out excepted employees with the following
jobs/positions:
o Managers
o Assistant Managers
o Section Heads
o Supervisors
o Superintendents
o Confidential and Executive Secretaries
o Personnel, Accounting and Marketing
staff.
o Communications Personnel
o Probationary Employees
o Security and Fire Brigade personnel
o Monthly Employees
o Purchasing and Quality Control Staff
A dispute arose when Asia Brewerys management
stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees,
believing that their membership in BLMA violated
the CBA.
o 18 QA sampling Insectors/Inspectresses
and Machine Guage Technician who
formed part of the Quality Control Staff
o 20 checkers assigned to the Materials
Department of the Administration Division,
etc.
o The rest are secretaries/clerks under
division managers
BLMA claimed that Asia Brewerys actions
restrained the employees right to self-organization.
They failed to amicably settle so the case was
subject to arbitration
Voluntary Arbitrator: sustained BLMA. Positions
occupied by the checkers and secretaries/clerks
are not managerial or supervisory. With respect to
the Quality Control Staff, Asia Brewery failed to
establish with sufficient clarity their basic functions.
CA: reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator
BLMA filed a motion forreconsideration. While this
was pending, a certification election was held and
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia
(TPMA) won. TPMA, claiming interest in the
outcome of the case, filed an omnibus motion for
reconsideration of the decision and intervention.
Both motions were denied by the CA
9

II. Issues
1. WON the secretaries/clerks are confidential
employees. [NO]
2. WON the QA sampling Insectors/Inspectresses
and Machine Guage Technician disqualified to
affiliate with the Union. [YES]
3. WON the checkers are confidential employees.
[NO]
4. WON Asia Brewery committed unfair labor practice
(restraining the workers exercise of the right to
self-organization) in not deducting union fees from
the employees and requiring them to disaffiliate
with the Union. [NO]
III. Held
The checkers and secretaries/clerks are not disqualified
from membership in the Union of rank-and-file employees.
IV. Ratio
1. Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility
to join, form and assist any labor organization to
managerial employees. Jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential
employees or those who by reason of their
positions or nature of work are required to
assist or act in a fiduciary manner to
managerial employees and hence, are likewise
privy to sensitive and highly confidential
records. If they are allowed to affiliate with a
union, the union might not be assured of their
loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and
the union can also become company-denominated.
In the present case, the CBA expressly excluded
Confidential and Executive Secretaries from the rank-
and-file bargaining unit, for which reason Asia Brewery
seeks their disaffiliation from BLMA. BLMA maintains
that all, except for a few who were promoted to
monthly paid incomes, the secretaries/clerks are
included among the rank-and-file employees of Asia
Brewery. BLMA presented a list of these employees.
Perusal of the job descriptions of these employees
reveals that their assigned duties and responsibilities
involve routine activities of recording and monitoring,
and other paper works for their respective departments
while secretarial tasks such as receiving telephone
calls and filing of office correspondence appear to
have been commonly imposed additional duties. Asia
Brewery failed to indicate who among these
employees have access to confidential
documents/data that could give rise to potential conflict
of interest. Furthermore, the said employees are daily-
paid workers.
2. They fall under a distinct category in the CBA.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
3. The job description of these checkers plainly
showed that they perform routine and mechanical
tasks preparatory to the delivery of the finished
products. Asia Brewery failed to prove that
these daily-paid checkers were exposed to
sensitive, vital and confidential information
about the companys products or have
knowledge of mixtures of the products, their
defects and even their formulas which are
considered trade secrets.
Confidential employees are defined as:
(1) Assist or act in a confidential capacity
(2) Persons who formulate determine and
effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations
(These two criteria are cumulative)
4. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the
workers right to organize. For a charge of unfair
labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the
Asia Brewery was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or
fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy. The herein dispute arose from a
simple disagreement in the interpretation of the
CBA and thus cannot be considered as an unfair
labor practice.
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines v. Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 96663/103300; August 10, 1999; Purisima J.
Facts
Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union)
filed a petition for certification election with the
Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining
agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc.
(PEPSI).
The Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, with the
explicit statement that it was an affiliate of Union de
Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (Federation)
together with two (2) rank and file unions, Pepsi-
Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola
Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP).
PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) a Petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or
Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union on the
grounds that (a) the members of the Union were
managers and (b) a supervisors union cannot
affiliate with a federation whose members include
the rank and file union of the same company.
10

In the meantime, a schedule for the certification
election was set. After SOLE denied its appeal and
Motion for reconsideration, Pepsi filed a petition for
certiorari with the SC even if the earlier petition
with the BLR is still pending.
During the pendency of the case, there was a
resolution of the Union withdrawing from the
Federation.
Issue/s
1. WoN a supervisors union can affiliate with the
same Federation of which 2 rank and file unions
are also members (in relation to art. 245)NO
2. WoN the Petition to cancel/revoke registration is a
prejudicial question for certification election--NO
3. WoN confidential employees can join the labor
union of rank-and-file employeesNo
Held: Petitions are dismissed subject to some modification
since in this case, Credit and Collection Managers and
Accounting Managers are highly confidential employees not
eligible for membership in a supervisors union.
Ratio
1. A supervisors union cannot/should not affiliate with
the Federation (with rank and file union members).
In view of the resolution of the Union withdrawing
from the Federation, the issue is already moot and
academic. However, the Court still resolved the
issue in view of the principle that even if a case
were moot and academic, a statement of the
governing principle is appropriate in the resolution
of dismissal for the guidance not only of the parties
but of others similarly situated.
Citing Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v.
Laguesma, the Court held that if the intent of the
law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would
merge with the rank-and-file or where the
supervisors labor organization would represent
conflicting interests, then a local supervisors union
should not be allowed to affiliate with the national
federation of union of rank-and-file employees
where that federation actively participates in union
activity in the company.
The prohibition against a supervisors union joining
a local union of rank and file is not confined to a
case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file
union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
local union applying for membership in a national
federation the members of which include local
unions of rank and file employees.
2. There is no prejudicial question.
It is a well-settled rule that a certification
proceedings is not a litigation in the sense that the
term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation
of a non-adversarial and fact finding character.
Thus, the technical rules of evidence do not apply.
At any rate, the order to hold a certification election
is proper despite the pendency of the petition for
cancellation of the registration certificate of the
respondent union. This is because at the time the
respondent union filed its petition, it still had the
legal personality to perform such act absent an
order directing the cancellation.
3. Confidential employees cannot join the labor union
of rank-and-file employees.
A confidential employee is one entrusted with
confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody,
handling, or care and protection of the employers
property.
While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out
managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or
form any labor organization, under the doctrine of
necessary implication, confidential employees
are similarly disqualified.
o The doctrine of necessary implication
states that what is implied in a statute is
as much a part thereof as that which is
expressed. Every statute is understood, by
implication, to contain all such provisions
as may be necessary to effectuate its
object and purpose, or to make effective
rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction
which it grants, including all such collateral
and subsidiary consequences as may be
fairly and logically inferred from its
terms. Ex necessitate legis.
The rationale behind the disqualification of
managerial employees such that in the collective
bargaining process, managerial employees are
supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act
11

as its representatives, and to see to it that its
interest are well protected. The employer is not
assured of such protection if these employees
themselves are union members. Collective
bargaining in such a situation can become one-
sided.
Applying the doctrine of necessary implication, it is
for the same reason that confidential employees as
included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as
if the disqualification of confidential employees
were written in the provision.
If confidential employees could unionize in order to
bargain for advantages for themselves, then they
could be governed by their own motives rather than
the interest of the employers. Moreover,
unionization of confidential employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining would mean the
extension of the law to persons or individuals who
are supposed to act in the interest of the
employers.
Also, it is not farfetched that in the course of
collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that
interest which they are duty bound to protect since
confidential employees such as accounting
personnel, radio and telegraph operators who,
having access to confidential information, may
become the source of undue advantage. Said
employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party
to a collective bargaining agreement.
In accordance with their actual job description, the Court
held that Route Managers, Chief Checkers and Warehouse
Operations Managers are supervisors while Credit &
Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly
confidential employees. The determining factor is the nature
of the employees function and not the nomenclature or title
given to the job.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
G.R. No. 161933; April 22, 2008; Austria-Martinez, J.
Facts:
The petitioner Union and Respondent SCB began
negotiating for a new CBA in May 2000 as their
1998-2000 CBA had already expired. Due to a
deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Notice of Strike prompting the Secretary of Labor
and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the
labor dispute.
The SOLE directed the two parties to execute their
CBA effective April 1, 2001 until March 30, 2003
incorporating the dispositions and agreements they
reached in the conciliation & negotiation.
Both parties filed their respective MRs which were
denied by the Secretary. Recourse with the CA was
taken by the Union but their petition was dismissed
and the SOLE order was affirmed.
The CBA provisions in dispute are the exclusion of
certain employees from the appropriate bargaining
unit and the adjustment of remuneration for
employees serving in an acting capacity for one
month.
In their proposal, petitioner sought the exclusion of
only the following employees from the appropriate
bargaining unit: all managers vested with the right
to hire and fire, confidential employees, those with
access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers,
Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Dept
and one HR staff.
In the previous 1998-2000 CBA, those positions
were excluded from the bargaining unit and the
Secretary maintained such exclusion as the
petitioner failed to show that the employees sought
to be be removed qualify for exclusion (parang
double negative. Basically, the petitioner wants the
said positions to be included in the bargaining unit.
To be excluded from the exclusion.)
Issue: Whether the Banks Chief Cashiers and Assistant
Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Dept and HR staff are
confidential employees such that they should be excluded
from the appropriate bargaining unit. YES.
Bank cashiers are confidential employees
having control, custody and/or access to
confidential matters (e.g. banks cash position,
statements of financial condition, vault
combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers,
demand drafts and other negotiable instruments),
pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank
Manual regarding joint custody.
o Thus, they are disqualified from joining,
assisting a union, or forming any other
labor organization. (National Association
of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v.
Torres)
Radio and telegraph operators are also
confidential employees who, having access to
confidential information, may become the source of
undue advantage. Said employees may act as spy
or spies of either party to a collective bargaining
agreement. (Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-
Calleja)
12

Personnel Staff (in which HR staff may be
qualified) are also confidential employees
because of the very nature of their functions. They
assist and act in confidential capacity to, or have
access to confidential matters of, persons who
exercise managerial functions in the field of labor
relations. (Philips Industiral Devt. v. NLRC)
The petitioner insists that the foregoing employees
are not confidential employees but it failed to show
that the employees sought to be removed from the
list of exclusions are actually rank and file
employees who are not managerial or confidential
in status and should, accordingly, be included in
the appropriate bargaining unit.
The disqualification of managerial and confidential
employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank
and file employees is already well-entrenched in
jurisprudence.
o While Article 245 of the Labor Code
limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assist any labor organization to
managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential
employees or those who by reason of their
positions or nature of work are required to
assist or act in a fiduciary manner to
managerial employees and hence, are
likewise privy to sensitive and highly
confidential records.
Minor Issue not relevant to lesson: Whether additional
pay should be given to employees who have been serving
in a temporary/acting capacity for one week.
NO. Additional pay should be for those who have been
working under such capacity for one month.
The SC agreed with the CA which affirmed the
order of the Secretary. The Secretary agreed with
the Bank that a restrictive provision ay curtail
management's valid exercise of its prerogative. At
the same time, it recognized that employees
should not be made to perform work in an acting
capacity for extended periods of time without being
adequately compensated.
As the CA correctly stated, such order is not in
violation of the equal pay for equal work principle
considering that after one month, the employee
performing in an acting capacity will be entitled to
salary corresponding to such position.
=============================================
CENECO v. DOLE
G.R. No. 94051; September 13, 1991; Regalado, J.
Facts:
1. August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a CBA with
Ceneco Union of Rational Employees (CURE), a union
repreenting it R&F employees Providing for a term of 3
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
years, retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up to
March 31, 1990.
2. On December 28, 1989 CURE wrote CENECO that
negotiations be conducted for a new CBA.
3. On January 18, 1990 CENECO denied CUREs
request on the ground that under decisions of the
SC, employees who are at the same time members
of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or
join a union.
4. Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA
negotiations, CURE members approved Reolution 35
where it was agreed that all union members shall
retract or recall the membership from the Central
Negros Electric Coop, Inc. in order to avail of the
full benefits under the existing CBA and the
supposed benefits to be availed of in the new
CBA.
a. This was ratified by 259 of 362 union
members.
5. However, withdrawal from membership (from the
cooperative) was denied by CENECO because it is
not among the ground covered by certain board
resolutions.
6. Refusing to renegotiate a new CBA, CURE filed a
petition for direct recognition or for certification election
supported by 72% of the r&f employees.
a. CENECO filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that in accordance with Batangas
Electric v Young Employees who at the same
time are members of an electric cooperative
are not entitled to form or join unions for
purposes of collective bargaining, for certainly
an owner cannot bargain with himself or hi co-
owners.
7. Med Arb: Granted petition for certification. CENECO
appealed to the DOLE which issued the order
certifiying CURE as the Exclusive Bargaining
Representative.
8. CENECO raises the same arguments, relying on the
Batangas ruling. It does not hesitate to admit that the
prohibition does not extend to employees of an electric
cooperative who are not members of the cooperative.
They assert that:
a. Withdrawal from membership from the coop, in
order to acquire membership in the union was
made to subvert or subterfuge the ruling in
Batngas
b. Allowing the withdrawal of the members of
CENECO would greatly affect the goals of
petitioner as an electric cooperative
c. The SOLE and Med arbiter have no jurisdiction
as this is vested in the National Electrification
Administration
d. And that CURE failed to exhaut administrative
remedies.
Issues: W/N Employees of CENECO who withdrew
membership from the cooperative are entitled to form
13

or join CURE for purposes of negotiatons for a CBA.
YES.
Held: Decision is annulled and set aside.
Ratio:
1. Procedural Issues
Petitioner is stopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
the med arbiter, having invoked its motion to dismiss
after obtaining an adverse ruling thereon.
Based from the Art 256 of the Labor code, to have a
valid certification election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must cast their votes. It is
apparent that incidental to the power of the med-arbiter
to hear and decide representation cases is to decide
who the eligible voters are. It is axiomatic that the med
arbiter should determine the legality of the employees
membership in the union.
Further, CENECO could have brought the matter Two consolidated cases involving the validity of the claim of
before the NEA if it wanted to and if such remedy had
really been available. It would be absurd to fault the
employees for the neglect or laxity of petitioner in
protecting its own interests.
2. The argument that withdrawal was to subvert the ruling
in Batangas Is without merit.
Nowhere in said case is it stated that member-
employees are prohibited from withdrawing their
membership in the cooperative in order to join a
labor union.
Article I , Sec 9 of the Articles of Incorporation of
CENECO provides that any member may withdraw
from membership upon compliance with such uniform
terms and conditions as the board may prescribe.
o This involves the surrender of the memberhip
certificate, which would grant him a refund of his
membership fee less any obligations owed to
CENECO.
There is no just cause for the denial of the withdrawal
from membership of its employees who are members
of the union.
The alleged board resolutions denying withdrawal were
also never presented nor its contents disclosed to the
med arbiter or the SOLE.
Membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary basis.
The right of the employees to self-organization is a
compelling reason why their withdrawal from the
cooperative must be allowed. Their withdrawal is an
expression of their preference for union membership
over that in the cooperative.
o The avowed policy of the state is to afford full
protection to labor and to promote the primacy o f
free collective bargaining mandates that the
employees right to form and join unions for
proposes of collective bargaining be accorded the
highest consideration.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Further it is inconceivable how 390 employee of
CENECO (some of whom were never members of the
coop) could adversely affect the business concerns
and operations of CENECO whose total membership
is 44,000.
However, the court rules that the direct certification of
the Secretary is not proper and no longer available by
virtue of EO 111 which became effective on March 4,
1987.
Intl Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja
G.R. No. 85750 and 89331; September 28, 1990; Melencio-
Herrera, J.
FACTS
immunity by the Intl Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)
and the Intl Rice Research Institute (IRRI) from the
application of Philippine labor laws.
The ICMC Case
By virtue of an Agreement between the Phil.
Government and the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, an operating center for processing Indo-
Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other
countries was established in Bataan4.
ICMC was one of those accredited by the Phil.
Government to operate the refugee processing center
in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York as
a non-profit agency involved in international
humanitarian work. It.
The Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied
Services (TUPAS) filed a Petition for Certification
Election among the rank and file members employed
by ICMC.
ICMC opposed on the ground that it is an international
organization registered with the UN and, hence,
enjoys diplomatic immunity.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction. On appeal, the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) reversed and ordered
immediate conduct of the certification election.
Subsequently, however, the Phil. Government,
through DFA, granted ICMC the status of a
4 This is in response to the crisis involving the plight of
Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnams communist
rule after the Vietnam War.
14

specialized agent with corresponding diplomatic
privileges and immunities.
The IRRI Case
The Phil. Government and the Ford and Rockefeller
signed a memorandum establishing the IRRI which
was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-
free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to
conduct research on the rice plant, rice production,
etc.
IIRI was initially organized and registered with the
SEC as a private corporation subject to all laws and
regulations. By virtue, however, of PD No. 1620, IRRI
was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges, and
immunities of an international organization.
The Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI
(Kapisanan) filed a Petition for Direct Certification
Election which was opposed by IRRI invoking PD No.
1620 granting it immunity from all civil, criminal, and
administrative proceedings under Philippine Laws.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition. On appeal,
the BLR Director reversed the Order and authorized
the calling of a certification election. However, the
SOLE dismissed the Petition for Certification Election
holding that the grant of the specialized agency to the
IRRI bars DOLE from assuming and exercising
jurisdiction over IRRI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and
immunities to ICMC and IRRI extends to immunity from
the application of Philippine labor laws. .
HELD:
YES. In the ICMC case, the Order of the BLR Director for
certification election is SET ASIDE. Whereas in the IRRI
case, the Decision of the SOLE dismissing the Petition for
Certification Election is UPHELD.
RATIO
There are basically three propositions underlying the
grant of international immunities to international
organizations:
1. International institutions should have a status
which protects them against control or
interference by any one government in the
performance of functions for effective
discharge of which they are responsible to
democratically constituted international bodies
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
in which all the nations concerned are
represented.
2. No country should derive any national financial
advantage by levying charges on common
international funds.
3. The international organization should be
accorded facilities for the conduct of its official
business customarily extended to each other
by its individual member States.
The raison d etre for these immunities is the
assurance of unimpeded performance of their
functions by the agencies concerned.
The exercise of jurisdiction by the DOLE in these
instances would defeat the very purposes of
immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international
organizations, in accordance with international
practice, from political pressure or control by the host
country to the prejudice of member States of the
organization, and to ensure the unhampered
performance of their functions.
ICMCs and IRRIs immunity, however, does deprive
labor of its basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
a. For ICMC employees are not without recourse
whenever there are disputes to be settled.
Sec. 31 of the Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of
the UN provides that each specialized agency
shall make provision for appropriate modes of
settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the
Government is free to withdraw the privileges
and immunities accorded whenever there is
any abuse of privilege by ICMC (pursuant to
the MOA between ICMC and PH Govt.)
b. For employees of IRRI, there had been
organized a forum for better management-
employee relationship as evidenced by the
formation of the Council of IRRI Employees
and Management wherein both management
and employees were and still are represented
for purposes of maintaining mutual and
beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its
employees.
Singer Sewing Machine Co. (SINGER) v. Drilon
G.R. No. 91307; Jan. 24, 1991; Gutierrez, Jr., J.
A. Facts
1. 1989: Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio
(SIMACUB) filed a petition for direct certification
15

as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA)
of all collectors of SINGER, Baguio City branch.
2. SINGER opposed, saying SIMACUB members are
independent contractors (i.e. not employees).
3. The MED-ARBITER found for SIMACUB and
granted the petition for certification election.
4. SINGER appealed to DOLE Sec. DRILON, who
affirmed the MED-ARBITER.
5. Before the SC, SINGER brought a petition for
certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
B. Issues
1. WON an employer-employee relationship existed.
NO.
2. WON DOLE has jurisdiction over the case. YES.
3. WON SIMACUB members can hold and vote in a
certification election. NO.
C. Held: Petition GRANTED. Decisions and resolutions of
the MED-ARBITER and DRILON are set aside.
1. There is no employer-employee relationship;
SIMACUB members are independent contractors.
2. Even if there is no ER-EE relationship, the DOLE
has jurisdiction because SINGER itself invoked it.
3. Consequently, SIMACUB members cannot
organize their union as the SEBA.
D. Ratio
1. There is no employer-employee relationship.
The question hinges on the Collection Agency
Agreement between SINGER and each of
SIMACUBs members. Both sides alleged that the
contract favors their respective positions, but per
the [four-fold test], there is no employer-
employee relationship because of the following
circumstances which SIMACUB never refuted: (1)
The collection agents are not required to observe
office hours. (2) The agents do not have to devote
their time exclusively to SINGER. (3) The manner
and method of collecting is left solely to the agents
discretion. (4) Collection agents shoulder their own
transportation expenses. (5, 6) The agents are paid
commission on the basis of actual collections, and
they directly deduct this from the amount they are
able to collect.
Even if SINGER required the agents to use only
company-issued receipt forms and report forms,
these control measures are only with respect to
the end result of the collection.
Furthermore, the causes for termination of the
contract are not related to the means and
methods of work. (Investment Planning Corp. v.
SSS)
Re argument of SIMACUB that they are
employees because they perform services
necessary and desirable: Art. 280 does not apply
where the existence of an ER-EE relationship is in
dispute.
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
Re argument of SIMACUB that under the
Omnibus Rules, they are not independent
contractors because they do not have
substantial capital or investment: There is no
showing that a collection agent needs tools and
machineries.
3. Since SIMACUB members are not employees, they are
not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a
labor organization for purposes of collective
bargaining. (La Suerte Sugar v. Director of BLR)
It is a fundamental and essential condition (sine
qua non) that a bargaining unit be composed of
employees. Without the ER-EE relationship, union
members are ineligible to (1) present a petition
for certification election, (2) as well as to vote
therein.
=============================================
Mactan Workers Union & Tomas Ferrer v Aboitiz
GR No. 30241; June 30, 1972; Fernando, J;
DOCTRINE
What is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or
more specifically the working men and women, not
labor organizations. The latter are merely the
instrumentalities through which their welfare may be
promoted and fostered.
FACTS
Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works employs laborers
and EEs belonging to 2 rival labor unions, Mactan Workers
Union (Mactan) and Associated Labor Union (ALU).
On Nov 28, 1964, it entered into a CBA with ALU where it
agreed to give a profit-sharing bonus to its EEs to be taken
from 10% of its net profit/income derived by the Cebu
Shipyard from the direct operation of its shipyard and shop
in Lapulapu City, to be payable in 2 installments, first on
March, second on June each year. Said bonus shall be
paid to ALU who will be responsible for the delivery of such
to the EEs.
Accordingly, on March and June 1965, Cebu Shipyard
delivered the bonus to ALU but the members of Mactan
failed to receive their shares for the 2nd installment because
they did not want to go to the office of ALU to collect said
shares. In accordance with the CBA, after 60 days, the
uncollected shares were returned by ALU to Cebu
Shipyard.
At the same time, ALU advised Cebu Shipyard not to
deliver said amount to members of Mactan unless ordered
by the Court. Cebu then deposited said amount to the
Labor Administrator.
Mactan, on behalf of 72 of its members working in
defendant corporation Cebu Shipyard and Engineering
16

Works filed with the City Court of Lapu-Lapu, a money
claim (to recover) in the amount of P4, 035.82 representing
the second installment of a profit-sharing agreement under
the CBA.
City Court and the CFI ruled in favor of Mactan ordering
Cebu and ALU to deliver to Mactan said amount.
ISSUES + HELD/RATIO
WON the members of Mactan may claim from the CBA
even if they are not member of ALU, with whom Cebu
Shipyard had the CBA with YES
It is a well settled doctrine that the benefits of a collective
bargaining agreement extend to the laborers and
employees in the collective bargaining unit, including those
who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor
organization. Any other view would be a discrimination on
which the law frowns.
As was held in United Restaurors Employess and Labor
Union v Torres the right to be the exclusive representative
of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit is vested in the labor union 'designated or selected' for
such purpose 'by the majority of the employees' in the unit
concerned." The labor union that gets majority vote as
exclusive bargaining unit does not act for its members
alone. It represents all employees in such bargaining
unit. It cannot disregard the rights of non-members.
It is quite understandable that labor unions in their
campaign for membership, for acquiring ascendancy in any
shop, plant, or industry would do what lies in their power to
put down competing groups.
Nevertheless, it is not to be forgotten that what is
entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more
specifically the working men and women, not labor
organizations. The latter are merely the instrumentalities
Labor 2 Compilation # 2
through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered.
That is the raison d'etre of labor unions. The utmost care
should be taken then, lest in displaying an unyielding,
intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be
committed against opposing labor organizations. In the final
analysis, they alone are not the sole victims, but the labor
movement itself, which may well be the recipient of a
crippling blow.
W/N the City Court of Lapulapu had jurisdiction over
the action -- YES
The amount claimed was P4,035.82 and, even including
damages and attorney's fees, the total sum would be less
than P10,000.00. Section 88 of the Judiciary Act in
providing for the original jurisdiction of city courts in civil
cases provides: "In all civil actions, including those
mentioned in Rules fifty-nine and sixty-two (now Rules 57
and 60) of the Rules of Court, arising in his municipality or
city, and not exclusively cognizable by the Court of First
Instance, the municipal judge and the judge of a city court
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of
the subject matter or amount of the demand does not
exceed ten thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and
costs."
Seno v. Mendoza (J. Makalintal): "As the issue
involved in the instant case, although arising from a
labor dispute, does not refer to one affecting an
industry which is indispensable to the national interest
and certified by the President to the Industrial Court,
nor to minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law,
nor to hours of employment under the Eight-Hour
Labor Law, nor to an unfair labor practice, but seeks
the enforcement of a provision of the collective
bargaining agreement, jurisdiction pertains to the
ordinary courts and not to the Industrial Court."
17