Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

1.

Read up on voluntary recognition, certification election, consent


election, run-off: might ask for enumeration or comparison.
2. Circumstances when petition for certification elections may be filed
outside the freedom period.
Oh, yung homework pa: What happens if the labor organization is proven
to be illegal after the petition for certification elections has concluded?
Case Digest: The Heritage Hotel Manila v. National Union of Workers
G.R. No. 178296: January 12, 2011
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA
HOTEL CORPORATION Petitioner vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE
HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) Respondents
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS: Respondents filed a petition for certification of pre-election with the DOLE.
The Med-Arbiter approved the pre-election. However, the certification election was
delayed, but pushed through nonetheless. Petitioner filed for cancellation of the
certification due to the failure of respondent to submit its financial statements to
the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter still ruled in favor of respondents.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the regional director of the DOLE. The Regional
director still rendered a decision in favor of respondents, which prompted
petitioners to appeal the decision to the director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The director of the BLR inhibited from the issue, as he was previously the counsel of
respondents. The Secretary of Labor resolved the issue in the stead of the BLR
director. She ruled in favor of respondents. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision, but was turned down. Petitioner then filed for
certiorari, challenging the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary. An appeal from the
decision of the Regional Director is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR.
Also, petitioner claims to have been deprived of due process as it was not informed
of the inhibition of the BLR director.
ISSUES: Whether or not the ruling of the secretary of labor was valid. Whether or
not the petitioner was deprived of due process.
HELD: Petition is without merit.
Labor Law: It is without question that the appeal from the decision of the regional
office is within the jurisdiction of the BLR. Given the circumstances, the BLR director
inhibited himself. Petitioner insists that the case should have gone to the
subordinates of the BLR director. However, this happens in cases where the director
is incapacitated. This does not obtain as the director merely inhibited himself. On
the other hand, the Secretary of DOLE has powers of supervision and control over
the BLR. As such, it may validly step into the shoes of the BLR director and resolve
the issue.
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. vs. Sec. of Labor
1

G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009


Facts:
On 27 February 2001, Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP), in behalf
of its chartered local, instituted a petition for certification election among the
regular rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation (SLECC)
and its Affiliates. The affiliate companies included in the petition were SLE
Commercial, SLE Department Store, SLE Cinema, Robsan East Trading, Bowling
Center, Planet Toys, Home Gallery and Essentials.
On 10 October 2001, CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation and its
Affiliates Workers Union [CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union] reorganized
itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers
Association (herein appellant CLUP-SLECCWA), limiting its membership to the rankand-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation. It was issued
Certificate of Creation of a Local Chapter No. RO400-0110-CC-004.
On the same date, [CLUP-SLECCWA] filed the instant petition for direct
certification. It alleged that [SLECC] employs about 115 employees and that more
than 20% of employees belonging to the rank-and-file category are its members.
On 22 November 2001, SLECC filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It averred that
it has voluntarily recognized [SMSLEC] on 20 July 2001 as the exclusive bargaining
agent of its regular rank-and-file employees, and that collective bargaining
negotiations already commenced between them. SLECC argued that the petition
should be dismissed for violating the one year and negotiation bar rules under pars.
(c) and (d), Section 11, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code.
On 29 November 2001, a CBA between [SMSLEC] and [SLECC] was ratified by its
rank-and-file employees and registered with DOLE-Regional Office No. IV on 9
January 2002.
In the meantime, on 19 December 2001, [CLUP-SLECCWA] filed its Opposition and
Comment to [SLECCS] Motion to Dismiss.
In his Order dated 29 July 2002, Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin dismissed CLUPSLECCWAs petition for direct certification on the ground of contract bar rule. The
prior voluntary recognition of SMSLEC and the CBA between SLECC and SMSLEC
bars the filing of CLUP-SLECCWAs petition for direct certification. This was reversed
by the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary held that the subsequent negotiations and
registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with SMSLEC could not bar CLUPSLECCWAs petition. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union constituted a
registered labor organization at the time of SLECCs voluntary recognition of
SMSLEC.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court further ruled that the
Secretary of Labor and Employment (Secretary) was correct when she held that the
2

subsequent negotiations and registration of a collective bargaining agreement


(CBA) executed by SLECC with Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East
Commercial (SMSLEC) could not bar Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation
Workers Associations (SLECCWA) petition for direct certification.
Issue:
Can the subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with
SMSLEC could not bar CLUP-SLECCWAs petition?
Ruling:
No. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union constituted a registered labor
organization at the time of SLECCs voluntary recognition of SMSLEC. It may be
recalled that CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Unions initial problem was that
they constituted a legitimate labor organization representing a non-appropriate
bargaining unit. However, CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union subsequently
re-registered as CLUP-SLECCWA, limiting its members to the rank-and-file of SLECC.
SLECC cannot ignore that CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union was a
legitimate labor organization at the time of SLECCs voluntary recognition of
SMSLEC. SLECC and SMSLEC cannot, by themselves, decide whether CLUP-SLECC
and its Affiliates Workers Union represented an appropriate bargaining unit.
The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union in
unorganized establishments. SLECC was not an unorganized establishment when it
voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive bargaining representative on 20 July
2001. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union filed a petition for certification
election on 27 February 2001 and this petition remained pending as of 20 July 2001.
Thus, SLECCs voluntary recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the subsequent
negotiations and resulting registration of a CBA executed by SLECC and SMSLEC are
void and cannot bar CLUP-SLECCWAs present petition for certification election.
We find it strange that the employer itself, SLECC, filed a motion to oppose CLUPSLECCWAs petition for certification election. In petitions for certification election,
the employer is a mere bystander and cannot oppose the petition or appeal the
Med-Arbiters decision. The exception to this rule, which happens when the
employer is requested to bargain collectively, is not present in the case before us
Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club vs. CA, et. al.
G.R. No. 178989, March 18, 2010
Facts:
Petitioner Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club(Eagle Ridge), which has around 112
rank-and-file employees, alleges that Eagle Ridge Employees Union(EREU)
committed fraud, misrepresentation and false statement when it filed for its
registration and that EREU failed to comply with the membership requirement for
the registration as a labor organization. Eagle Ridge seeks to have EREUs
registration cancelled when the Union filed a petition for certification election. Eagle
Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its application for registration having 30
3

members, when the minutes of its December 6, 2005 organizational meeting


showed it only had 26 members. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the
discrepancy between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president
that 25 members actually ratified the constitution and by-laws on December 6,
2005 and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures on the documents,
making one signature a forgery.
DOLE Regional Director granted Eagle Ridges petition and delisted EREU from the
roster of legitimate labor organizations. EREU appealed to the BLR, which initially
affirmed the order of the Regional Director, but upon filing of the EREU of a motion
for reconsideration it was reinstated in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
Eagle Ridge filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied, thus a petition for
certiorari to the CA. The CA dismissed Eagle Ridges petition for being deficient as
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was subscribed to by Luna
C. Piezas on her representation as the legal counsel of the petitioner, but sans [the
requisite] Secretarys Certificate or Board Resolution authorizing her to execute and
sign the same. The CA denied a motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Eagle Ridges petition to
cancel EREUs registration?
Ruling:
No. A scrutiny of the records fails to show any misrepresentation, false statement,
or fraud committed by EREU to merit cancellation of its registration. The Union
submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational
meeting on December 6, 2005, the election of its officers, and the adoption of the
Unions constitution and by-laws. EREU complied with the mandatory minimum
20% membership requirement under Art. 234(c). when it had 30 employees as
member when it registered. Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission
of union membership, most especially in cases of independent labor unions, must
be viewed in favor of valid membership.
In the issue of the affidavits of retraction executed by six union members, the
probative value of these affidavits cannot overcome those of the supporting
affidavits of 12 union members and their counsel as to the proceedings and the
conduct of the organizational meeting on December 6, 2005. The DOLE Regional
Director and the BLR OIC Director obviously erred in giving credence to the
affidavits of retraction, but not according the same treatment to the supporting
affidavits. It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of hearsay evidence, since
they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own
language in writing the affiants statement, which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. It is required for affiants to re-affirm the
contents of their affidavits during the hearing of the instant case for them to be
examined by the opposing party, i.e., the Union. For their non-presentation, the six
affidavits of retraction are inadmissible as evidence against the Union in the instant
case. Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would
require a union membership of at least 22 employees. When the EREU filed its
application for registration on December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30 union
4

members. Thus, when the certificate of registration was granted, there is no


dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory 20% membership requirement.
Prior to their withdrawal, the six employees who retracted were bona fide union
members. With the withdrawal of six union members, there is still compliance with
the mandatory membership requirement under Art. 234(c), for the remaining 24
union members constitute more than the 20% membership requirement of 22
employees.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) v. THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR
G.R. No. L-2222, February 27, 1969
Facts:
The Registrar of Labor Relations rendered a decision cancelling the SSSEAs
Registration Certificate due to its failure to submit reports of finances, names, postal
addresses and non-subversive affidavits of its officers despite postponements and
extensions of the period to appear and submit the aforementioned documents.
Petitioners now assails the proceedings conducted and the decision of the Registrar
alleging that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 violates their freedom of assembly
and association; that respondents have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
and with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating beyond the 30-day period
provided in Section 23(c) of Republic Act No. 875.
Issues:
1.
Does Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 violate their freedom of assembly
and association by requiring the submission of certain documents?
2.
Did the Registrar act without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion in promulgating beyond the 30-day period provided in Section 23(c) of
Republic Act No. 875?
Laws Applicable:
Section 23(b) of Republic Act No. 875:
Any labor organization, association or union of workers duly organized for the
material, intellectual and moral wellbeing of its members shall acquire legal
personality and be entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations within thirty days of filing with the office of the
Secretary of Labor notice of its due organization and existence and the following
documents, together with the amount of five pesos as registration fee, except as
provided in paragraph d of this section:
1.
A copy of the constitution and by-laws of the organization together with a list
of all officers of the association, their addresses and the address of the principal
office of the organization;
2.
A sworn statement of all officers of the said organization, association or union
to the effect that they are not members of the Communist Party and that they are
not members of any organizations which teaches the overthrow of the Government
by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional method; and
3.
If the applicant organization has been in existence for one or more years, a
copy of its last annual financial report.
Section 23(c) of Republic Act No. 875:
5

If in the opinion of the Department of Labor the applicant organization does not
appear to meet the requirements of this Act for registration, the Department shall,
after ten days notice to the applicant organization, association or union, and within
thirty days of receipt of the abovementioned documents, hold a public hearing in
the province in which the principal office of the applicant is located at which the
applicant organization shall have the right to be represented by attorney and to
cross-examine witnesses; and such hearing shall be concluded and a decision
announced by the Department within thirty days after the announcement of said
hearing; and if after due hearing the Department rules against registration of the
applicant, it shall be required that the Department of Labor state specifically what
data the applicant has failed to submit as a prerequisite of registration. If the
applicant is still denied, it thereafter shall have the right within sixty days of formal
denial of registration to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which shall render a
decision within thirty days, or to the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails the
freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is devoid of
factual basis. The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said section is not a
limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with or
without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the
acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations, associations or unions and
the possession of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations". The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges,
much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the possession
and exercise of which registration is required to protect both labor and the public
against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly
accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Again, the 30-day period
invoked by the petitioners is inapplicable to the decision complained of. Said period
is prescribed in paragraph (c) of Section 23, which refers to the proceedings for the
"registration" of labor organizations, associations or unions not to the "cancellation"
of said registration, which is governed by the above quoted paragraph (d) of the
same section.
Opinion:
The enumeration of requirements provided in Section 23 of RA 875 is for the labor
organization to acquire legal personality and be recognized as the legitimate labor
organization of a certain business or company. It is a valid exercise of the police
power because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and union of
workers are engaged affect public interest, which should be protected.
Furthermore, the obligation to submit financial statements, as a condition for the
non-cancellation of a certificate of registration, is a reasonable regulation for the
benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the same generally
solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its
members, huge amounts of money due to them or to the organization.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 96255. September 18, 1992.]
6

HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,


UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAQUESMA, MED-ARBITER MELCHOR S.
LIM AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR RELATIONS; CERTIFICATION ELECTION;
AS A GENERAL RULE, EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY THERETO; EXCEPTION. In a long
line of decisions, this Court has undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party
to a certification election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal
Workers Union v. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective
bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation,
to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement (Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84
SCRA 469; Filipino Metals Corp. v. Ople, 107 SCRA 211). The only instance when the
employer may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file a petition for
certification election on its workers request to bargain collectively pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the
employers involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander.

Hercules Industries, Inc., herein petitioner, is a corporation duly registered under


Philippine laws which employs more or less one hundred eighty (180) workers.
On July 30, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL), a
legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for certification election alleging that the
existing collective bargaining agreement would expire in August, 1987 and that it
enjoys the support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the rank and file
employees in the bargaining unit.
On August 21, 1987, by agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter issued an order
for the conduct of a certification election with the following choices:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library
(1) National Federation of Labor (NFL);
(2) Hercules Employees Labor Union (HELU); and
(3) No Union.
On September 21, 1987, a pre-election conference was conducted. The parties,
however, could not agree on the list of qualified voters who would participate in the
election. Specifically, Hercules Industries, Inc. charged that the list included ninety
eight (98) scabs; sixteen (16) capatazes; eight (8) security guards; and nine (9)
managerial employees.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Pending the resolution of the NFLs appeal, a certification election was conducted on
November 7, 1990.
7

On January 6, 1988, BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja of the DOLE rendered a


decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted and the
certification election held on 7 November 1987 declared null and void.
"Let a new certification election among the rank and file workers of Hercules
Industries, Inc. be held. The payroll of July 1987 excluding the [ninety eight] 98 scab
replacement, shall be the basis of the voters list." (p. 32, Rollo.)
On April 4, 1990, a pre-election conference attended by the management of
Hercules Industries, Inc. and NFLs representatives was held at the Department of
Labor and Employment Regional Office in Zamboanga City. The NFL asked that a
certification election be immediately scheduled on May 4, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to be
held in the Barangay Hall, Bato, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur.chanrobles virtual
lawlibrary
Accordingly, a certification election was held on May 4, 1990 with the following
results:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR 89 Votes
"2. HERCULES LUMBER & EMPLOYEES
LABOR UNION 0 (Zero)
"3. MANAGEMENT (NO UNION) 0 (Zero)
"4. SPOILED/INVALID VOTES 2 (Votes)
TOTAL VOTES CAST: 91 Votes"
(p. 188, Rollo.)
On May 25, 1990, Med-Arbiter Melchor S. Lim issued a resolution declaring and
certifying the National Federation of Labor as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the rank and file employees of the petitioner.
On July 5, 1990, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/appeal with the
DOLE. It was denied on September 17, 1990 by Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laquesma on the grounds that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 6, Book V of the Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code on protests had not been followed; that the records disclose
that no protest was made before the election, nor formalized within five (5) days
after the election, as provided for by the rules; and the DOLE has not found any
legal obstacle to the proclamation of the NFL as the collective bargaining agent of
petitioners workers.
On September 29, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same
was denied on October 26, 1990 by Undersecretary Laquesma.
8

Hence, the present recourse.


RULING:
In any event, petitioners challenge against the validity of the certification election
of May 4, 1990 is devoid of merit. Its allegations that no notice of the certification
election had been issued, hence, no copies of said notice were given to it, nor
posted in conspicuous places within the companys premises; that the payroll of July
1987 was not used as the basis of the voters list; and that only fifteen (15) out of
the ninety eight (98) voters signed their names showing that they actually voted,
were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference (Annex "A" of Comment
of private respondent) which showed that petitioner was duly notified of the
conference and attended the same, and that during said conference the Med-Arbiter
set the certification election on May 4, 1990.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
The minutes of the certification election (Annex "C" of private respondents
Comment) also show that "the list of the names of the voters were (sic) copied from
the payroll of 1987 per order of the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Manila, . . ."
(p. 188, Rollo).
Finally, the same minutes certified that: "The certification election just concluded
was conducted in the most just, honest and freely (sic) manner without untoward
happening. Further, we certify that the result above is true and correct" (p. 188,
Rollo) thereby refuting petitioners allegation that only fifteen (15) out of ninety
eight (98) workers signed the master list to show that they actually voted again.
Besides, neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the certification election
show that petitioner protested the conduct of the certification election as provided
in Section 3 of Rule VI (ELECTIONS) of Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 3. Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot questions. The
Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the
conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the
representation officer before the close of the proceedings.
"Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be contained in the
minutes of the proceedings." (Emphasis ours.)chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and competent
evidence on the conduct of the election, the Med-Arbiter did not err in declaring the
NFL as the duly elected exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioners rank and file
workers. That finding should be accorded not only respect but also finality by this
Court for it is supported by substantial evidence (Chua v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 354).
Philippine Scout Veterans Security vs Torres
NOVEMBER 6, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ
Philippine Scout Veterans Security vs Torres
9

GR 92357
Facts:
On April 6, 1989, private respondent labor union, PGA Brotherhood Association
Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), hereinafter referred to as the Union filed a
petition for Direct Certification/Certification Election among the rank and file
employees of Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency (PSVSIA),
GVM Security and Investigations Agency, Inc. (GVM). and Abaquin Security and
Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDA). These three agencies were collectively referred to by
private respondent Union as the PGA Security Agency, which is actually the first
letters of the corporate names of the agencies.
On April 11, 1989, summons was issued to the management of PSVSIA, GVM, ASDA
(PGA Security Agency) at 82 E. Rodriquez Avenue, Quezon City.
On April 11, 26, 1986, petitioners filed a single comment alleging therein that the
said three security agencies have separate and distinct corporate personalities
while PGA Security Agency is not a business or corporate entity and does not
possess any personality whatsoever; the petition was unclear as to whether the
rank-and-file employees mentioned therein refer to those of the three security
agencies collectively and if so, the labor union cannot seek a certification election in
three separate bargaining units in one petition.
Issue: WON petitioners can interfere with the certification election proceeding.
Held:
Except where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively, it has
nothing to do with a certification election which is the sole concern of the workers.
Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere by-stander. It
has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or
appeal the Med-Arbiters orders related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a
certification election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company
union.
This Courts disapprobation of management interference in certification elections is
even more forceful in Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, where we held:
On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the choice of a collective
bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation,
to say the least, deserves no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency
to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair of
labor.
Transcript of BENECO

10

Whether or not member-consumers who are employees of BENECO could form,


assist or join a labor union. ISSUE
Last June 21, 1985, Beneco Workers Labor Union Association of Democratic Labor
Organizations (BWLU-ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc claiming that 198 out of 214 rank and file employees or
92.5% of these employees have supported the filing of the petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE Respondents
Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja
Director, Bureau of Labor Relations and BENECO Employees Labor Union Petitioner
- Benguet Electric Cooperative (BENECO)
-Alapang, Trinidad, Benguet
-a non profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its
members-patron consumers in the City of Baguio and Benguet Province with 214
rank and file employees; 37 of which are not members-owner of the cooperative.
FACTS OF THE CASE BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC;
VERSUS
HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION
December 29, 1989
G.R. No. 79025 Thereafter, BELU (Benguet Employees Labor Union) opposed the
petition of BWLU-ADLO contending it was certified as sole bargaining representative
of BENECO.
On the other hand, the cooperative (BENECO) filed a motion to dismiss claiming that
it is a non profit electric coop and the employees sought to be represented by
BWLU-ADLO are members and joint owners of the cooperative. On September 2,
1985, the med arbiter issued an order giving due course to the petition for
certification election, limiting the election among rank and file employees of
petitioner who are non members thereof and without any involvement in the actual
ownership of the cooperative with the following choices: 1. BWLU-ADLO; 2. BELU; 3.
NO UNION .
The payroll for the month of June 1980 shall be the basis in determining the
qualified voters who may participate in the certification election to be conducted.
On June 23, 1987, BUREAU of Labor Relations (BLR) Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja
affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO.
Issue:
Whether or not member-consumers who are employees of BENECO could form,
assist or join a labor union.
Held:
Under Article 256 of the Labor Code(PD 442) to have a valid certification election,
"at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The
Labor Union receiving the majority of the valid votes shall be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit." In this case, the right to vote
11

for a certified and exclusive bargaining agent is not available to member-consumers


who are at the same time serving as rank and file employees of the cooperative.
The court held that Certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his coowners. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the
management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor
organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their
participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof
cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining. (Cooperative Rural bank of Davao City, Inc vs Ferrer Calleja) " albeit a
person assumes a dual capacity as rank and file employees and as member of a
certain cooperative does not militate, as in the instant case, against her/his to self
organization and to collective bargaining guaranteed by the Constitution and Labor
Code because ,while he/she is acting in his/her capacity as rank and file employee
thereof. It may be added that while the employees concerned became members of
petitioner cooperative, their status of employment as rank and file employees had
not changed. They still do not actually participate in the management of the
cooperative as said function is entrusted to the Board of Directors and to the
elected or appointed officers thereof. They are not vested with the powers and
prerogatives to lay down, exceute managerial policies; to hire,transfer,suspend, lay
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees; and or effectively recommend
such managerial functions {comment of the Director p4 Rollo 125} Alleging that the
BLR Director committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction BENECO filed the instant petition for certiorari.
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SEC. OF LABOR
OCTOBER 25, 2012
~ LEAVE A COMMENT
G.R. No. 181531
July 31, 2009
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA
PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL
CORPORATION
FACTS: A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 among the rankand-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel) with
the following results:
EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS LIST = 353
TOTAL VOTES CAST =
346
NUWHRAIN-MPHC =
151
HIMPHLU = 169
NO UNION = 1
SPOILED = 3
SEGREGATED =
22
In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending unions, petitioner,
NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide which among those
12

votes would be opened and tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated because they
were cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still
pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were segregated because the
employees who cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the time
of the election. Still five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were
cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however,
that the vote of one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was
counted.
Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes,
specially those cast by the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six
supposedly supervisory employees of the Hotel.
Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment (SOLE), arguing that the votes of the probationary employees should
have been opened considering that probationary employee Gatbontons vote was
tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes,
should not be immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening of the
17 segregated ballots would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169
+ 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short
of the majority which would then become 169.
Secretary affirmed the decision of the med-arbiter. In fine, the SOLE concluded that
the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper.
ISSUES: (1) whether employees on probationary status at the time of the
certification elections should be allowed to vote (2) whether HIMPHLU was able to
obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent.
HELD:
I. On the first issue, the Court rules in the affirmative.
The inclusion of Gatbontons vote was proper not because it was not questioned but
because probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election.
The votes of the six other probationary employees should thus also have been
counted. As Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja holds:
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is
clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit
for purposes of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of
the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union
binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the
bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment
status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The
13

law refers to all the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible
to support the petition is to belong to the bargaining unit. (Emphasis supplied)
For purposes of this section (Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of
2003), any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning
on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor
organization.
All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the selfemployed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes
except collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)
The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot
override the Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well
as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on certification
elections and jurisprudence thereon.
A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a contract are valid
only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
II. As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, the
Court rules in the negative.
It is well-settled that under the so-called double majority rule, for there to be a
valid certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the
winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
Prescinding from the Courts ruling that all the probationary employees votes
should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory employees should be
excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase from 321 to
337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid
votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority
is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was
not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate
court that the opening of the 17 segregated ballots will not materially affect the
outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such member
were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable.
It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid
votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the required majority, and not
just to determine which union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but
valid votes has thus become material.
To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to
determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority
14

representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be


represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the determination of who between two
or more contending unions won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the
members of the bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented and
which union they want to represent them.
Having declared that no choice in the certification election conducted obtained the
required majority, it follows that a run-off election must be held to determine which
between HIMPHLU and petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees.
PETITION GRANTED.
_____________
NOTES:
A run-off election refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the 2
highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with 3 or more
choices, where such a certified or consent election results in none of the 3 or more
choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes
cast.
PLUM
VS
NORIEL
119 SCRA 299
December 15, 1982
NATURE
Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor
Relations for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion. It, likewise, prays for an order directing respondent director to hold a
certification election so that the employees in the company can elect a union
representative to negotiate an improved collective bargaining agreement to replace
the agreement which has expired on February 1, 1976
FACTS
-Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a petition, praying that it
be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers
of Manila Jockey Club, Inc. The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees
Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said petition and
alleged among other things, that it is the recognized collective bargaining
15

representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of
negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement.
-Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the
No Union Raiding Clause of the Code of Ethics adopted by the members of the
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and
intervenor are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30%
requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of
the President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the
Congress for decision. The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P.
President to the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the
same to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed by the
late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress, stating, among
other things, the following: 1 In a National Executive Board meeting of the
Katipunang Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army &
Navy Club, it was duly approved that the above-captioned case be referred back to
the BLR and that MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM. The BLR endorsed the case
to Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leodegardo, Jr., of Region IV for appropriate action. On
May 5, 1977, Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter Section of Region IV,
Department of Labor, promulgated an order 2 dismissing the case pursuant to the
letter of the President of the T.U.C.P. Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of
Labor Relations predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to grant
or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the secret ballot to elect the
true union representative. On September 17, 1977, the Bureau Director issued a
resolution 3 dismissing the appeal.
HELD
Employees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA because management refused to
bargain with the union. A certification of election is warranted. Workers welfare can
be promoted through the bargaining process. Certification of election is the fairest
and most effective way f determining which labor organization can truly represent
the working force. The will of the majority is controlling. The director is still
empowered to call for a certification election. Instead of ordering an election,
Director dismissed the appleal of PLUM based on the decision of TUCP. This is
frowned upon by the Court.
Disposition
Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions are nullified and set aside.
Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold a certification election forthwith. This
decision is immediately executory. No costs.
Transport Corporation vs. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma, G.R. No. 106830
(227 SCRA 827)
Facts:

16

Petitioner argued that the present case must be indefinitely suspended until the
ongoing cases are resolved by the NLRC and the Supreme Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case
No. 00-08-04708-91 entitled R. Transport Corporation vs. Jose S. Torregaza, et. al.,
wherein Labor Arbiter de Castro declared the strike staged by respondent CLOP
illegal and ordered the strikers to pay petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 as
exemplary damages; b) NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-03415092 filed by respondent CLOP
and its members for illegal dismissal; and c) NLRCNCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92
filed by respondent CLOP in behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal
(Rollo, pp. 139-145).
On September 29, 1992, Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied the
motion to suspend the conduct of the certification election on the ground that: The
pendency of NLRC-NCR Cases before the NLRC is not a valid ground for the
suspension of the already stalled petition for certification election which must be
resolved with dispatch. This must be so, because the employees subject of the
pending cases before the NLRC legally remain as employees of respondent until the
motion to declare them as having lost their employment status by reason of the
illegal strike or their complaint for illegal dismissal is finally resolved.
Issue:
Whether or not the employment status of the members of CLOP who joined the
must be first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted?
Held:
The petition is without merit.
As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. vs. Torres,
211 SCRA 95 (1992): At any rate, it is now well-settled that employees who have
been improperly laid off but who have a present, un-abandoned right to or
expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification elections
(Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 548). Thus, and to repeat, if the dismissal is
under question, as in the case now at bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or
unfair labor practice was filed, the employees concerned could still qualify to vote in
the elections. Therefore, the employees of petitioner who participated in the strike,
legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare their employment status
legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC.

17

S-ar putea să vă placă și