71. ASSOCIATED TRADE UNIONS-ATU (ATU-KILUSAN) vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL G.R. No.

L-
48367, 16 January 1979

FACTS:

On September 13, 1977, the local chapter of the Federation of Free Workers (Synthetic Marketing and Industrial Corporati
on Chapter) filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-
file employees of the Synthetic Marketing and Industrial Corporation.The petition admitted the existence of another union
in the establishment, the Associated Trade Unions (ATU-
KILUSAN) and the existence of a CBA to expire on October 31, 1977. It was further alleged that there has been no certificat
ion election in the company for the last twelve months preceding the filing of the petition. Both the Company and the Asso
ciated Trade Unions opposed the petition on the ground that it is contract-
barred by virtue of the existence of a duly registered CBA with the BLR entered into between the parties on May 10, 1977.
Petitioning union, on the other hand, assailed the validity of the said CBA on the ground that the same had been executed f
ive (5) months and twenty-
one (21) days prior to the expiration of the old CBA which was supposed to expire on October 31, 1977 and was not ratified
by the members of the bargaining unit. The Med-
Arbiter assigned to the case issued an Order calling for a certification election. From the aforesaid Order of the Med-
Arbiter, the Associated Trade Unions (ATU-KILUSAN) appealed to the BLR which affirmed the Order of the Med-
Arbiter calling for an election, at the same time setting aside its certification of the CBA concluded between the Synthetic
Marketing and Industrial Corporation and the Associated Trade Unions.Trade Unions (ATU-
KILUSAN) filed the instant petition for last-
mentioned resolution of the BLR Director, the Associated review with prayer for preliminary injunction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the renewed CB forged between the respondent company and petitioner union constitutes a bar to the hol
ding of a certification election.

RULING:

No.From the foregoing facts, it is quite obvious that the renewed CBA cannot substitute a bar to the instant petition for cer
tification election. In the first place, the said CBA was certified after the instant petition for certification had been filed by
herein respondent union, and its certification was conditioned upon the fact that there was no pending petition for certific
ation election with the Bureau of Labor Relations. In the second place, the new CBA which was to expire on October 31, 19
77. Hence, said new CBA was not yet in existence when the instant petition for certification election was filed on Septembe
r 13, 1977. Said new CBA was to become effective on November 1, 1977 after the old CBA expires on October 31, 1977, and t
his, if no representation issue had arisen in the meantime, which is not the case. Clearly, therefore, the contract-
bar rule does not apply to the case at bar. Finally it is undubitably clear from the facts heretofore unfolded that manageme
nt and petitioner herein proceeded with such indecent haste in renewing their CBA way ahead of the ‘sixty-
day freedom period’ in their obvious desire to frustrate the will of the rank-and-
file employees in selecting their collective bargaining representative. To countenance the actuation of the company and the
petitioner herein would be violative of the employees’ constitutional right to self-organization.

1
72. TOYOTA MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION vs.
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION
G.R. No. 135806, 8 August 2002

FACTS:

TMPCLU filed a petition for certification election before Med-

Arbiter which dismissed TMPCLU’s petition on the ground that the labor organization’s membership was composed of sup
ervisory and rank-and-
file employees in violation of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, and that at the time of the filing of its petition, TMCPLU had not
even acquired legal personality yet;

The Supreme Court ruled that since TMPCLU’s membership list contained the names of at least twenty-
seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, “the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory em
ployee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite persona
lity to file a petition for certification election.Two months after, respondent TMPCEWU filed a Petition for Certification El
ection before the Med-
Arbitration. TMPCLU intervened contending that the decision of the Supreme Court had not ripened into a final and exec
utory judgment so the Med Arbiter dismissed TMPCEWU’S petition for CE. Then the SC’s Decision has become final and e
xecutory. TMPCEWU revived its Petition for Certification Election but was dismissed because it was violative of the “one-
union in one-company” policy and likewise dismissed TMPCLU’s Petition-in-Intervention for lack of legal personality.

ISSUE: Whether or not possession of a certificate of registration is an adequate and unassailable proof that it possesses th
e requisite legal personality to file a Petition for Certification Election.

RULING:

No. The Court said that the issuance of a certificate of registration in its favor is an adequate and unassailable proof that it
possesses the requisite legal personality to file a Petition for Certification Election. Not necessarily. It was evident that the
union has been issued a certificate the day after it applied for it considering that processing course had to pass through rou
ting, screening, and assignment, evaluation, review and initialing, and approval/disapproval procedure, among others, tha
t a 30-
day period is provided for under the Labor Code for this purpose. As emphasized in Progressive Development Corp. – Pizz
a Hut v. Laguesma, if a labor organization’s application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularities
, a labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of registration ha
s been issued, the propriety of its registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in
accordance with Arts. 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order
for certification election. We believe the procedural requirements to impugn the registration by petitioner were more than
adequately complied with as shown in the 1997 case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation Labor Union.

There is no reason to belabor the primordial importance of strictly complying with the registration requirements of the La
bor Code. As we have explained in a long line of cases, the activities of labor organizations, associations and unions are im
pressed with public interest, hence, must be protected.

2
 73. SAN MIGUEL INC. vs. SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION G.R. No. L-146206

TOPIC: Right to Self-Organization: Confidential Employees

FACTS:

1. In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, the Court held that even
if they handle confidential data regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and
the exempt employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered confidential employees,
because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly, negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently,
they were allowed to form an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

2. Pursuant to the Court's decision in G.R. No. 110399, the Department of Labor and Employment National Capital Region
(DOLE-NCR) conducted pre-election conferences.However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters, i.e.,
petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while respondent listed
60 and 82, respectively.

3. On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan issued an Order directing Election Officer Cynthia Tolentino to
proceed with the conduct of certification election in accordance with Section 2, Rule XII of Department Order No. 9.

4. Petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees
on the grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there
is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner. Specifically, it argued that certain employees should not
be allowed to vote as they are: (1) confidential employees; (2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which
are not covered by the bargaining unit; (3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial work and
scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who belong to the Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6)
employees who are members of other unions.

5. Med-Arbiter issued order directing the respondents to submit proof that the abovementioned are eligible to vote.
Respondent complied.

6. Petitioner appealed to DOLE Secretary, then to CA, averring its sentiments regarding eligibility. Respondent counters that
petitioners proposed exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit was a rehashed issue, which was already
settled in G.R. No. 110399. It maintains that the issue of union membership coverage should no longer be raised as a
certification election already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein respondent won with 97% votes.

7. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the Resolution 9 of the DOLE Undersecretary, stating that
those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
bargaining unit.

8. Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master in the definition of a confidential
employee and, thus, prays that the said position and all other positions with access to salary and compensation
data be excluded from the bargaining unit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled regarding the status of Payroll Master, Human Resource Assistant and
Personal Assistant as Confidential employees.

RULING: Yes to Human Resource assistant and Personal Assistant only.

Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative,
and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must
exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to
labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware
of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential
employee rule.
3
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection
of the employers property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining
unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. However, such fact does not
apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to
salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with
confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does
not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the
subject bargaining unit.

Corollarily, although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to
managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to Confidential employees or those who by reason of
their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence, are
likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file
bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the
inhibition for managerial employees, because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their
loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become company-denominated with the presence of
managerial employees in the union membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may
also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective
bargaining agreement.

In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the
category of confidential employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective positions
and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of ones work necessarily involves labor relations,
recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation package, and human
resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording of minutes for management
during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and administrative
investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of
company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which
outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied, Private respondent won.

DOCTRINE: Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are
cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential
relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed
responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of
their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be
accomplished by the confidential employee rule.

4
74. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PACIFIC MILLS, INC. vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL G.R. No. L-
56588, 17 January 1985

FACTS:

The Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) won over the Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU).
CCLU contested the certification of PAFLU as the workers bargaining agent with Pacific Mill Inc. While the case was pendi
ng, 347 members in the same bargaining unit disaffiliated from PAFLU and organized the Samahang Manggagawa Ng Pac
ific Mills, Inc. and was registered with the MOLE. It then filed with MOLE a request that a certification election be held a
mong the workers in Pacific Mills, Inc. It claimed that it commanded the majority of the workers in the corporation; that t
here had been no certification election for more than 12 months and no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA); an
d that more than 30% of the bargaining unit had given their consent thereto. The company objected. The Med-
Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. The NLRC sustained the Med-Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a petition for certification election should be granted to a new labor union considering there is a case pend
ing between the contending unions with regard to its certification election.

RULING:

Yes. With both the employer and the majority of the rank-and-
file workers in agreement that a certification election should be held, so be it. The last certification election was held on Se
ptember 26, 1977. There is no existing CBA. The petition for a certification election has the written consent of more than 3
0% of the members of the bargaining unit. In the light of these facts, Art. 258 of the New Labor Code makes it mandatory f
or the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election.

5
75. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES vs.
LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC. PHILIPPINE LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL (PLAC) and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, (NLRC) G.R. No. 58768-70, 29 December 1989

FACTS:

Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and respondent Liberty Flour Mills, Inc. entered into a three-
year collective bargaining agreement. The parties agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good stan
ding for the duration of the CBA as a condition for continued employment” of workers. PLAC filed a complaint against the
respondent company for non-
payment of the emergency cost of living allowance under P.D. No. 525. A similar complaint was filed by the petitioners, wh
o apparently were already veering away from PLAC. Petitioners Evaristo and Biascan, after organizing a union caged the F
ederation of National Democratic Labor Unions, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for certification electio
n among the rank-and-
file employees of the respondent company .PLAC then expelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the
respondent company.

In the certification election held at the Liberty Flour Mills, Inc, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, with which the union o
rganized by Biascan and Evaristo was affiliated, won overwhelmingly with 441 votes as against the 5 votes cast for PLAC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disaffiliation justifies termination considering the union organized by the disaffiliated members won in
the certification election.

RULING:

Yes. When the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa won, it does not excuse the fact that the two disaffiliated from PLAC and th
us rendered themselves subject to dismissal under the union shop clause in the CBA.

However, It is the policy of the State to promote unionism to enable the workers to negotiate with management on the sam
e level and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and independently bargain for the improvement of t
heir respective conditions. To this end, the Constitution guarantees to them the rights “to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted actions including the right to strike in accorda
nce with law.” There is no question that these purposes could be thwarted if every worker were to choose to go his own sep
arate way instead of joining his co-
employees in planning collective action and presenting a united front when they sit down to bargain with their employers.
It is for this reason that the law has sanctioned stipulations for the union shop and the closed shop as a means of encourag
ing the workers to join and support the labor union of their own choice as their representative in the negotiation of their d
emands and the protection of their interest vis-a-vis the employer.

The Court would have preferred to resolve this case in favor of the petitioners, but the law and the facts are against them. F
or all the concern of the State, for the well-
being of the worker, we must at all times conform to the requirements of the law as long as such law has not been shown to
be violative of the Constitution. No such violation has been shown here.

6
76. ESPIRIDION M. BRILLO vs. PEDRO BUKLATAN, ET AL. G.R. No. L-2213, 14 October 1950

FACTS:

The Secretary of Labor granted licenses to new unions, namely, the Leyte Stevedoring and Terminal Dock Workers Union
and the Visayan Workers Union, the registration of which is alleged to be detrimental to Leyte United Workers. It is allege
d that the new labor unions were organized by old members of the Leyte United Workers, with the aid of the employers, an
d the result may be the death of the Leyte United Workers. It is maintained that the action of the Secretary of Labor in app
roving the application of the said new labor unions constitutes an excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not certiorari is proper with regard the granting of the Secretary of Labor of licenses.

RULING:

The petition for certiorari does not lie because the Secretary of Labor did not exercise judicial function. Furthermore, there
is no allegation that the new labor unions have the purpose of undermining or destroying the constituted Government or
of violating any law or laws of the Philippines, and therefore, they cannot be denied registration and permission to operate
under section 2, of Commonwealth Act No. 213.