Labor Organization Unions

Definition
Case: Airline Pilots Assn. of the Phil. v. CIR, 76 SCRA 274 [1977]
Facts: A general ALPAP membership meeting was held on October 30, 1970, at which 221 out
of 270 members adopted a resolution amending ALPAP's constitution and bylaws by providing
in a new section thereof that Any active member who shall be forced to retire or forced to
resign or otherwise terminated for union activities as solely determine' by the Association shall
have the option to either continue to be and remain as an active member in good standing or to
resign in writing his active membership with the Association. ...
Issue: Whether or not, the amendment to the ALPAP constitution and bylaws is illegal because
member of labor organization cannot adopt an amendment to their fundamental charter so as
to include non-employees (of PAL) as member, is erroneous.
Held: Yes
This Court nonetheless finds the industrial court's conclusion that member of labor
organization cannot adopt an amendment to their fundamental charter so as to include nonemployees (of PAL) as member, is erroneous.
Their Court cannot likewise subscribe to the restrictive interpretation made by the court below
of the term "labor organization," which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines as any union or
association of employees which exist, in whole or in part, for the purpose of the collective
bargaining or dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment."
The absence of the condition which the court below would attach to the statutory concept of a
labor organization, as being limited to the employees of particular employer, is quite evident
from the law.
The emphasis of Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the purposes for which a union or
association of employees established rather than that membership therein should be limited
only to the employees of a particular employer. Trite to say, under Section 2(h) of R.A 875
"representative" is define as including "a legitimate labor organization or any officer or agent of
such organization, whether or not employed by the employer or employee whom he represents."
It cannot be overemphasized likewise that labor dispute can exist "regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (Section 2(j), R.A. 875).
Labor Organization Unions
DOLE Registration as Basis
Case: Cebu Seamans Assn., Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 212 SCRA 50 [1992]
Facts: A group of deck officers and marine engineers organized themselves into an association
and registered the same as a non-stock corporation known as Cebu Seamens Association, Inc.
(CSAI), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The same organization registered

its association with the Bureau of Labor Relations as a labor union known as Seamens
Association of the Philippines, Inc. (SAPI).
SAPI has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation and remitting
check of union dues. SAPI headed by Gabayoyo claimed that they are entitled to the remittance
and custody of union dues. Nacua of SAPI claiming as the duly elected set of officers of the
union against filed a complaint against CSAI and seeking relief of restraining order to remit the
checked-off union dues.
This petition seeks the reversal of the resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations which
affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter holding that the set of officers of Seamens Association
of the Philippines headed by Nacua, as president, was the lawful set of officers entitled to the
release and custody of the union dues as well as agency fees of said association.
Issue: Whether or not, SAPI was registered as a labor federation with the Bureau of Labor
Relations.
Held: The Bureau of Labor Relations correctly ruled on the basis of the evidence presented by
the parties that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its office, is not the same
association as CSAI, the corporation, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code are
concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter association is entitled to the release and
custody of union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping companies with whom it had an
existing CBA.

Labor Organization Unions

Mixed Membership
Case: Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. v. Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Labor Union, 268 SCRA 573
[1997]
Facts: the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union (TMPCLU) filed a petition for
certification election with the Department of Labor, for all rank and file employees of the Toyota
Motor Corporation. Petitioner filed a Position Paper seeking the denial of the issuance of an
Order directing the holding of a certification election that the union was composed of both rank
and file and supervisory employees in violation of law
Issue: Whether or not, TMPCLU is a legitimate labor organization which is composed of
supervisory and rank and file employees in violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
Held: No. The union's composition being in violation of the Labor Code's Prohibition of unions
composed of supervisory and rank and file employees, it could not possess the requisite
personality to file for recognition as a legitimate labor organization.
According to Rothenberg, an appropriate bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given
employer, composed of all or less than the entire body of employees, which the collective
interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be best suited
to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of

law. In Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer Calleja, we defined the bargaining unit as "the legal
collectivity for collective bargaining purposes whose members have substantially mutual
bargaining interests in terms and conditions of employment as will assure to all employees
their collective bargaining rights." This in mind, the Labor Code has made it a clear statutory
policy to prevent supervisory employees from joining labor organizations consisting of rank and
file employees as the concerns which involve members of either group are normally disparate
and contradictory. Article 245 provides:
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.
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank and file and
supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a
legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank
and file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of
collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, 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.
Union Rationale
Case: Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz, 45 SCRA 577 [1972]
Facts: Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. is employing laborers and employees
belonging to two rival labor unions. 72 of these employees or laborers are affiliated with the
Mactan Workers Union while the rest are members of the intervenor Associated Labor Union.
Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. and the Associated Labor Union entered into a
'Collective Bargaining Agreement' whereby the [Company] agrees to give a profit sharing bonus
to its employees and laborers to be taken from ten per cent (10%) of its net profits or net. Said
profit sharing bonus shall be paid by the [Company] to [Associated Labor Union] to be delivered
by the latter to the employees and laborers concerned and it shall be the duty of the Associated
Labor Union to furnish and deliver to the [Company] the corresponding receipts duly signed by
the laborers and employees entitled to receive the profit sharing bonus within a period of sixty
(60) days from the date of receipt by [it] from the [Company] of the profit sharing bonus. If a
laborer or employee of the [Company] does not want to accept the profit sharing bonus which
the said employee or laborer is entitled under this Agreement, it shall be the duty of the
[Associated Labor Union] to return the money received by [it] as profit sharing bonus to the
[Company] within a period of sixty (60) days from the receipt by the [Union] from the [Company]
of the said profit sharing bonus. The defendant corporation delivered to the Associated Labor
Union the profit sharing bonus corresponding to the second installment. The members of the
Mactan Workers Union failed to receive their shares in the second installment of bonus
because they did not like to go to the office of the ALU to collect their shares. In accordance
with the terms of the collective bargaining after 60 days, the uncollected shares of the plaintiff

union members was returned by the ALU to the defendant corporation. At the same time the
defendant corporation was advised by the ALU not to deliver the said amount to the members
of the Mactan Workers Union unless ordered by the Court, otherwise the ALU will take such
step to protect the interest of its members. Because this warning given by the intervenor union
the defendant corporation did not pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P4,035.82 which was
returned by the Associated Labor Union, but instead, deposited the said amount with the
Labor Administrator. For the recovery of this amount this case was filed with the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not the claim of Mactan Workers Union for the recovery of the profit sharing
is meritorious.
Held: Yes. WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of February 22, 1968 is affirmed.
Costs against Associated Labor Union.
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 through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered. That is the raison
d'etre (The most important reason or purpose for someone or something's existence) 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. Moreover, while it is equally
understandable that their counsel would take advantage of every legal doctrine deemed
applicable or conjure up any defense that could serve their cause, still, as officers of the court,
there should be an awareness that resort to such a technique does result in clogged dockets,
without the least justification especially so if there be insistence on flimsy and insubstantial
contentions just to give some semblance of plausibility to their pleadings. Certainly, technical
virtuosity, or what passes for it, is no substitute for an earnest and sincere desire to assure
that there be justice according to law. That is a creed to which all members of the legal
profession, labor lawyers not excluded, should do their best to live by.
Labor Union and Government Regulation:

Requirements and Rationale

Case: Phoenix Iron and Steel Corp. v. Sec. of Labor, 244 SCRA 173 [1995]
Facts: Private respondent PISCOR Workers Union Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
Organizations (PISCOR-ANGLO) asserting to be a legitimate labor organization filed a petition
for certification election with the Med-Arbiter. Petitioner Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation
(PHOENIX) sought clarification of the legal personality of PISCOR-ANGLO(UNION). There are no
books of account filed before the BLR, the constitution, by-laws and the list of members who
supposedly ratified the same were not attested to by the union president, and the constitution
and bylaws were not verified under oath.
Issue: Whether or not, ANGLO is a legitimate labor organization

Held: No. A local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon
submission of the following the BLR:
1. A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or
national union, and
2. The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of
accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case
may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.
Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become a
legitimate labor organization.
In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required
documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
The mandatory nature of the requirement is also exhaustively explained in the same case
In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and
papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, and attested
to by the president is apparent. The submission of the required documents (and payment of
P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's basis for approval of the application for
registration. Upon approval, the labor union acquires legal personality and is entitled to
all the rights and privileges granted by the law to a legitimate labor organization. The
employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bonafide organization,
one which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. The
inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay these
apprehensions of management. Not only is the issuance of any false statement and
misrepresentation a ground for cancellation of registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)) it is
also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury. The certification and attestation
requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. They likewise
afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining
unscrupulous or fly by night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the
union for dubious ends.
In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are found in
Rule II, Section 3 (e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows: "(c)
The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a
constitution and bylaws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national
unions shall be observed"
Since the "procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions" refers to the
certification and attestation requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that
the constitution and bylaws, set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and
chapter must likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring the
submission of duly subscribed documents upon union registration exists in the case of union
affiliation. Moreover, there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and

attestation requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to

independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the formation of a local or
chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must
be balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud.