Litex Employees Association vs.

George Eduvala
G.R. No. L-41106 September 22, 1977
Fact: The Federation of Free Workers filed with the BLR against petitioner labor Union to hold a
referendum among the members of the union for the of determining whether they desired to be
affiliated with such Federation. It was alleged that a "great majority" of the members of the union
desired such affiliation, but that its President was opposed. The contention of petitioner Union acting through its
counsel was that only about 700 out of more than 2,200 employees of the company had manifested their desire to
affliate with the Federation and that a substantial number of such had since then repudiated their signatures. It also
raised the point that what was sought was a certification election which was not proper as there was a certified
collective bargaining agreement between the union and the company. The Compulsory Arbitrator, after a careful
study of the pleadings, reached the conclusion that the truth of the matter could best be ascertained by a
referendum election. Respondent as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of labor Relations affirmed.
Issue: Whether or not an Officer-in-Charge of the BLR can require a memorandum election be held
among the members of a union.
Ruling: Article 226 of the New Labor Code cannot be misread to signify that the authority conferred on the Secretary
of labor and the officials of the Department is limited in character. On the contrary, even a cursory reading thereof
readily yields the conclusion that in the interest of industrial peace and for the promotion of the salutary
constitutional objectives of social justice and protection to labor, the competence of the governmental entrusted
with supervision over disputes involving employers and employees as well as "inter-union and intra-union conflicts,"
is broad and expensive. Thereby its purpose becomes crystal-clear. As is quite readily discernible where it concerns
the promotion of social and economy rights, the active participation in the implementation of the codal objective is
entrusted to the executive department. There is no support for any allegation of jurisdictional infirmity, considering
that the language employed is well-nigh inclusive with the stress on its "and exclusive authority to act."
If it were otherwise, its policy might be rendered futile. That is to run counter to a basic postulate in the canons of
statutory interpretation.

Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap vs. Hon. Cresenciano Trajano

G.R. No. L-62306 January 21, 1985
Facts: A written request for accounts examination of the financial status of KMP Labor Union was
filed by private respondent Catalino Silvestre and thirteen (13) other employees, who are also members of the said
Union. The Union Account Examiner of the Ministry of Labor and Employment conducted the necessary
investigation. Based on the foregoing revelations, private respondents filed with the Regional Office a petition for
the expulsion of the union officers on the ground that they committed gross violation of the Labor Code, specifically
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), (h), (j) and (k) of Article 242; and, the constitution and by-laws of the Union. In their Answer,
the union officers denied the imputation and argued that the disallowed expenditures were made in good faith; that
the same conduced to the benefit of the members; and, that they are willing to reimburse the same from their own
personal funds. They likewise asserted that they should not be held accountable for the nonproduction of the books
of accounts of the Union for the years when they were not officers then. The Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a
referendum, to be conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations, to decide on the issue of
whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their respective positions. Petitioners appealed the said order
of Med-Arbiter Cabibihan to herein public respondent Director Trajano of the Bureau of Labor Relations who
dismissed both appeals of petitioners and private respondents and affirmed in toto the order of Med-Arbiter
Cabibihan.
Issue: W/N union officers should be expelled for acts done prior to their present term of office.
Ruling: The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man
to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or
forgave Ms faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or
misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.

ADAMSON v. CIR, GR No. L-35120, 1984-01-31

Facts: Adamson and Adamson, Inc., filed this petition to set aside orders of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) can legally represent
supervisors of the petitioner corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same
company with the same labor federation, the Federation of Free Workers.
The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner about its having organized on the
same date that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW) advised the petitioner that the rank and
file salesmen had formed their own union.
The CIR dismissed the petition in CIR Case No. 3267-MC entitled "In the Matter of Representation of the Supervisory
Employees of Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Petitioner" thus prompting the filing of this petition for review on
certiorari.
Subsequently and during the pendency of the present petition, the rank and file employees formed their own union,
naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW).
The petitioner argues that the affiliation of the respondent union of supervisors, the salesmen’s association, and the
Adamson and Adamson Independent Worker’s Union of rank and file personnel with the same national federation
(FFW) violates Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, as amended, because — (1) it results in the indirect affiliation of
supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; (2) since respondent union and the unions of
non-supervisors in the same company are governed by the same constitution and by-laws of the national federation,
in practical effect, there is but one union; and (3) it would result in the respondent union’s losing its independence
because it becomes the alter ego of the federation.
The petitioner also submits that should affiliation be allowed, this would violate the requirement of separateness of
bargaining units under Section 12 of the Act because only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-
and-file employees of the petitioner.
The respondents on the other band argue that the supervisory employees of an employer may validly join an
organization of the rank-and-file employees so long as the said rank and file employees are not under their
supervision. Respondents also argue that even if the salesmen of the petitioner company are under the supervision
of the members of the supervisory union, the prohibition would not apply because the salesmen and the supervisory
employees of the company have their separate and distinct labor organizations, and, as a matter of fact, their
respective unions sent separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements. They contend that their respective
labor organizations will represent their members in the negotiations as well as in the signing of their respective
contracts. Respondents further argue that the Federation of Free Workers has, as its affiliates, supervisory as well as
rank-and-file employees, and should both the supervisory and the rank-and-file employees of a certain employer
who have separate certificates of registration affiliate with the same federation, the prohibition does not apply as
the federation is not the organization of the supervisory employees contemplated in the law.
Issues: W/N the CIR erred in sustaining the eligibility of the respondent union to represent the petitioner’s
supervisory employees notwithstanding the affiliation of the said union with the same national federation with
which the unions of non-supervisors in the petitioner company are also affiliated.
Ruling: We find without merit the contentions of petitioner. There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace
Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal
personality, or its independence. Notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve
the common interest of all its members.
‘The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power
between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive
effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same
end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. The
essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the
common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of
association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the
Constitution and By-laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the
terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence.’"
"The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions in the registration
of both. Nonetheless, the inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time
of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Neither can it be construed that
their personalities are so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue
their own ways, independently of the federation. This is borne by the fact that FFW, like other federations, is a
legitimate labor organization separate and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to construe the registration
certificates of the aforecited unions, along the line of the Company’s argument, would tie up any affiliates to the shoe
string of the federation. . . ."
In the case at bar, the Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen
Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They are separately and independently
registered of each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with their
employer. There could be no employer influence on rank-in-file organizational activities nor there could be any rank
and file influence on the supervisory functions of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be
proscribed.

VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION vs BLR, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR METAL (ALUMETAL), WORKERS, DMG, INC.,
PEOPLE'S CAR, INC., KARBAYAN INC., and RTC TRADING, INC.
FACTS: Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL for short). Both
unions, using the name Volkschel Labor Union Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers, jointly entered into a CBA
with respondent companies. One of the subjects dealt with is the payment of union dues.
Section 3. CHECK-OFF. — The COMPANY agrees to make payroll deductions not softener than twice
a month of UNION membership dues and such special assessments fees or fines as may be duly
authorized by the UNION, provided that the same is covered by the individual check-off
authorization of the UNION members. All said deductions shall be promptly transmitted within 5
days by the COMPANY to the UNION Treasurer. The COMPANY shall prepare 2 checks. One (1) check
will be under the name of the local union as their local fund including local special assessment funds
and the other check will be for the ALU Regional Office regarding the remittance of the UNION dues
deduction.
On March 10, 1976, a majority of petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation in order
to operate on its own as an independent labor group pursuant to Article 241 (formerly Article 240) of the Labor Code
of the Philippines.
Accordingly, a resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members revoking their check-off authorization in
favor of ALUMETAL and notices thereof were served on ALUMETAL and respondent companies.
Confronted with the predicament of whether or not to continue deducting from employees' wages and remitting
union dues to respondent, ALUMETAL which wrote respondent companies advising them to continue deducting
union dues and remitting them to said federation, respondent companies sought the legal opinion of the respondent
BLR as regards the controversy between the two unions. The BLR found the disaffiliation legal but at the same time
gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL in the concept of
agency fees.
Both petitioner and respondent ALUMETAL appealed to the Director of respondent Bureau. Petitioner contended
that the opinion to the effect that petitioner's members remained obligated to pay dues to respondent ALUMETAL
was inconsistent with the dispositive finding that petitioner's disaffiliation from ALUMETAL was valid. ALUMETAL, on
the other hand, assailed the Resolution in question asserting that the disaffiliation should have been declared
contrary to law.
ISSUE: I Is petitioner union's disaffiliation from respondent federation valid?
II Do respondent companies have the right to effect union dues collections despite revocation by the employees of
the check-off authorization? and
III Is respondent federation entitled to union dues payments from petitioner union's members notwithstanding their
disaffiliation from said federation?
RULING: I We resolve the first issue in the affirmative.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In previous cases, it has been
repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
This policy is commendable. However, we must not lose sight of the constitutional mandate of protecting labor and
the workers' right to self-organization. In the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code
and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.
In the case at bar, it would go against the spirit of the labor law to restrict petitioner's right to self-organization due
to the existence of the CBA. We agree with the Med-Arbiter's opinion that "A disaffiliation does not disturb the
enforceability and administration of a collective agreement; it does not occasion a change of administrators of the
contract nor even an amendment of the provisions thereof." But nowhere in the record does it appear that the
contract entered into by the petitioner and ALUMETAL prohibits the withdrawal of the former from the latter.
II This now brings us to the second issue. Under the CBA, ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues from respondent
companies as long as petitioner union is affiliated with it and respondent companies are authorized by their
employees (members of the union) to deduct union dues. Without said affiliation, the employer has no link to the
mother union. The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership.
"The employees' check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as long as they remain members
of the union concerned." A contract between an employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the
employees is terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are members. Respondent
companies therefore were wrong in continuing the check-off in favor of respondent federation since they were duly
notified of the disaffiliation and of petitioner's members having already rescinded their check-off authorization.
With the view we take on those two issues, we find no necessity in dwelling further on the last issue. Suffice it to
state that respondent federation is not entitled to union dues payments from petitioner's members. "A local union
which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent association and which continues to represent the
employees of an employer is entitled to the check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract."

Philippine Skylanders vs NLRC GR 127374

FACTS: In November 1993, the Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted among the rank
and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-
WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.
Several months later, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation.
PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name to Philippine
Skylanders Employees Association – National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity within
the organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers
in the newly-formed PSEA-NCW.
On 17 March 1994, PSEA-NCW entered into a CBA with PSI which was immediately registered with the DOLE.
Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA’s shift of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary General Serafin Ayroso wrote Mariles
C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI’s audited financial statement. PSI denied the request citing as reason PSEA’s
disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with NCW.
PAFLU filed a complaint for ULP against PSI alleging that aside from PSI’s refusal to bargain collectively with its
workers, the company through its president and personnel manager, was also liable for interfering with its
employees’ union activities
PSI moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the issue of disaffiliation was an inter-union conflict
which lay beyond the jurisdiction of the LA. PSEA was no longer affiliated with PAFLU, Ayroso or PAFLU for that
matter had no personality to file the instant complaint.
Labor Arbiter declared PSEA’s disaffiliation from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, PSEA-PAFLU and their respective officers
guilty of ULP.
As PSEA-NCW’s personality was not accorded recognition, its collective bargaining agreement with PSI was struck
down for being invalid.
PSI, PSEA and their respective officers appealed to the NLRC which upheld the Decision of the LA.
ISSUE: WON PSEA’s disaffiliation is legitimate.
HELD: We upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate
and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which
they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. Yet the local unions remain the basic units of
association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the
national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the agreement which
brought such affiliation into existence.
There is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden to
disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the pendency
of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid
disaffiliation.
It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had
validly severed itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently
affiliating with NCW and entering into a collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its members.
Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national federation,
those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically though, the desires of the mother federation to protect its
locals are not altogether to be shunned. It will however be to err greatly against the Constitution if the desires of the
federation would be favored over those of its members. That, at any rate, is the policy of the law. For if it were
otherwise, instead of protection, there would be disregard and neglect of the lowly workingmen.

Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-41955, Dec. 29, 1977
Topic: Relationship between a mother union and local union
FACTS: Elisco-Elirol Labor Union entered into a CBA with Elizalde Steel. It was later discovered that the former was
not registered with the BLR, and therefore not entitled to the benefits and privileges embodied in the CBA. Thus, the
members of the union later decided in a resolution to register their union to protect and preserve the integrity of the
CBA between Elisco and Elizalde. By virtue of such resolution, the union applied for registration and a Certification of
Registration was later issued, in which the union acquired a personality and enforced the CBA as the principal party
to the same, representing the workers covered by such CBA.
Sometime later, the union decided that their mother union, the NAFLU, can no longer safeguard the rights of its
members and their interests and welfare can be served best if it will stay independent and disaffiliated from said
mother union. The union disaffiliated and subsequently requested Elizalde to recognize the union as the SEBA of the
employees thereof. Elizalde, without justifiable reason refused to recognize it and subsequently dismissed the
union’s officers and board members. A complaint for unfair labor practice was later filed by the union against
respondents for the latter’s refusal to bargain collectively. The union also filed a petition before the BLR against
respondents Elizalde and NAFLU be ordered to stop from presenting itself as the collective bargaining agent.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner union must be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and not the
mother union, NAFLU.
RULING: YES. The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of
bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the
joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national union (as PAFLU) was in
furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations
with their members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to
increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the
locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the
restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for
mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence.
The local union, Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, NOT the mother union NAFLU should be recognized as the SEBA of
the employer Elizalde Steel. To grant to the former mother union the authority to administer and enforce their CBA
without presumably any members in the bargaining unit is quite absurd. Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, consisting
of employees and members of the local union was the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the “mother
union” in participating in the execution of the bargaining agreement with respondent company acted merely as
agent of the local union, which remained the basic unit of the association existing principally and freely to serve the
common interest of all its members, including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances so warranted as in
the present case.

Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU) v. NLRC G.R. No. 75037 April 30, 1987
Doctrine: It cannot be said that the stipulation providing that the employer may dismiss an employee whenever the
union recommends his expulsion either for disloyalty or for any violation of its by-laws and constitution is illegal or
constitute of unfair labor practice. It is an indirect restriction on the right of an employee to self-organization. It is a
solemn pronouncement of a policy that while an employee is given the right to join a labor organization, such right
should only be asserted in a manner that will not spell the destruction of the same organization.
FACTS: Private respondents were all employees of Tanduay Distillery, Inc., (TDI) and members of the TDLU, a duly
organized and registered labor organization and the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of the
petitioner company. A CBA was executed between TDI and TDLU. The CBA was duly ratified by a majority of the
workers in TDI including herein private respondents. The CBA had a term of 3 years and also contained a union
security clause, which provides: All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract, become members
of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment,
maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement.
While the CBA was in effect and within the contract bar period the private respondents joined another union, the
Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized its local chapter in TDI, with private respondents Pedro
Esteral and Lamberts Santos being elected President and Vice-President, respectively. KAMPIL filed a petition for
certification election to determine union representation in TDI, which compelled TDI to file a grievance with TDLU
based on their CBA.
TDLU conducted an investigation of its erring members in accordance with its by-laws wherein herein private
respondents were present and given a chance to explain their side. A resolution was ordered by TDLU wherein they
expelled the private respondents from TDLU for disloyalty, whereby the latter notified TDI that private respondents
had been expelled from TDLU and demanded that TDI terminate the employment of private respondents because
they had lost their membership with TDLU.
The private respondents then filed with the MOLE a complaint for illegal dismissal against TDI and Benjamin Agaloos,
in his capacity as President of TDLU. The cases were jointly heard and tried by the LA. The Med-Arbiter granted the
private respondents' petition calling for a certification election among the rank and file employees of TD, and stated
that the existence of an uncertified CBA cannot be availed of as a bar to the holding of a certification election.
On appeal of TDI and TDLU to the BLR, the order for the holding of a certification election was reversed and set
aside. Kampil filed a MR whereby the BLR ruled that it should be given due course, because CBA has now expired,
there appears to be no more obstacle in allowing a certification election to be conducted among the rank and file of
respondent. The contract bar rule will no longer apply in view of the supervening event, that is, the expiration of the
contract. TDLU filed a petition for review of the BLR decision the SC but it denied the same. LA rendered a decision
denying TDI's application to terminate the private respondents and ordering TDI to reinstate the complainants with
backwages. This decision of the arbiter was upheld by the respondent NLRC.TDI and TDLU moved for reconsideration
but NLRC denied the same, hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON TDI was justified in terminating private respondents' employment due to TDLU's demand for the
enforcement of the Union Security Clause of the CBA between TDI and TDLU.
HELD: Yes.
Article 249 (e) of the Labor Code recognizes the closed shop arrangement as a form of union security. They do not
constitute ULP nor are they violations of the freedom of association clause of the Constitution, and is valid and
privileged. The closed shop, the union shop, the maintenance of membership shop, the preferential shop, the
maintenance of treasury shop, and check-off provisions are valid forms of union security and strength.
There is no showing in these petitions of any arbitrariness or a violation of the safeguards enunciated in the
decisions of this Court interpreting union security arrangements brought to us for review. The action of the
respondent company in enforcing the terms of the closed-shop agreement is a valid exercise of its rights and
obligations under the contract. The dismissal by virtue thereof cannot constitute an unfair labor practice, as it was in
pursuance of an agreement that has been found to be regular and of a closed-shop agreement which under our laws
is valid and binding.

ASSOCIATED WORKERS UNION-PTGWO vs NLRC, METRO PORT SERVICE, INC., MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC.,
ADRIANO S. YUMUL and 10 OTHER INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. EPIFANIO JACOSALEM
FACTS: On 26 October 1984, petitioner Associated Workers Union ("AWU")—PTGWO, the then bargaining
representative of the dockworkers at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, filed a Notice of Strike against respondent
Metro Port Service, Inc. ("Metro"), the then arrastre contractor in the South Harbor, on the issues, among others, of
unfilled vacancies and union busting.
MOLE- forbade the holding of strike and lock-outs and order NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
In the latter case, one of the demands raised by AWU was that Metro terminate the employment of respondents
Adriano Yumul and 10 others (individual respondents), for having organized, on 26 October 1984, the Associated
Workers Union in Metroport ("AWUM") among the rank-and-file employees of Metro, ostensibly as a local or
chapter of AWU. AWU had earlier expelled individual respondents from membership in AUW for disloyalty and,
pursuant to the closed-shop provision of the existing AWU-Metro CBA, sought the termination of their employment.
Metro initially resisted AWU's request to terminate the employment of individual respondents, contending that the
termination would be premature as individual respondents had not been afforded due process, and that the
termination would be violative of the status quo agreement but later on because of the threat of strike by AWU
made a compromise agreement to suspend the involved employees.
LA- order to provisionally reinstate the individual respondents
NLRC -directed Metro to comply with the Agreement, and Metro complied and re-suspended individual respondents.
Both AWU and Metro filed separate MR of the consolidated Decision. Meanwhile, on 21 July 1986, petitioner Marina
Port Services, Inc. ("Marina"), by virtue of a Special Permit issued by the PPA, started operations as the arrastre
operator at the Manila South Harbor vice Metro. On November 1986, individual respondents in a
Motion/Manifestation prayed that Marina be included as party-respondent as sanctioned by Par. "7" of the Special
Permit granted to Marina which states that "Labor and personnel of previous operator, except those positions of
trust and confidence, shall be absorbed by the grantee."
NLRC rendered decision that Metro/Marina and AWU will be held solidarily liable with AWU except as to the time
that NLRC ordered it to re-suspend the private respondents and the case to be remanded to LA of origin for writ
of execution.
LA- ordered Marina Port Services to reinstate these individuals.
ISSUES: 1) WON there was grave abuse of discretion when NLRC held that respondent Metro cannot be compelled to
fill up vacancies?
HELD: The existing CBA grants respondent Metro the right to compulsorily retire any member of AWU who had
reached 60 years of age, which right has been exercised by Metro
2) WON the expulsion made by AWU with these involved individuals is valid?
HELD: YES. While it is true that AWUM as a local union, being an entity separate and distinct from AWU, is free to
serve the interest of all its members and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right to disaffiliate may be
exercised, and is thus considered a protected labor activity, only when warranted by circumstances. Generally, a
labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union only during the 60-day
freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA.
Even before the onset of the freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the mother
union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such disaffiliation must be effected by a majority
of the members in the bargaining unit. This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part of the
majority of the members of the union. In such a case, however, the CBA continues to bind the members of the new
or disaffiliated and independent union up to the CBA's expiration date.
The record does not show that individual respondents had disaffiliated during the freedom period. The record does,
however, show that only 11 members of AWU (individual respondents) had decided to disaffiliate from AWU and
form AWUM. Respondent Metro had about 4,000 employees, and around 2,000 of these were members of AWU. It
is evident that individual respondents had failed to muster the necessary majority in order to justify their
disaffiliation. (In fact, it was only on 5 December 1985 that individual respondents were finally able to register an
independent union called Metroport Workers Union [MWU]. Even then, in the absence of allegation by AWUM
[MWU] of the exact number of its members, the Court presumes that only 20% of the employees of Metro had
joined MWU) Thus, in the referendum held on 7 January 1985 at the PTGWO compound to determine whether
individual respondents should be expelled from AWU, 1,229 members (out of 1,695 members present) voted for
expulsion of individual respondents.
The individual respondents here have failed to present proof of their allegation that the 1,695 members of AWU
were not employees of respondent Metro alone; the Court therefore presumes that those who voted for their
expulsion were bona fide employees of respondent Metro. Moreover, individual respondents failed to allege that
their expulsion for disloyalty violated AWU's constitution and by-laws. In sum, the attempted disaffiliation of the 11
private respondents from the petitioner mother union and the effort to organize either a new local of the mother
union or an entirely new and separate union, did not, under the circumstances of this case, constitute protected
activities of the 11 individual respondents.

DOLORES VILLAR, et al. vs. THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor, AMIGO
MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU)
FACTS: Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which,
was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (Company). The
Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA governing their labor relations, which agreement was
then about to expire on February 28, 1977.
Within the last 60 days of the CBA, upon written authority of at least 30% of the employees in the company,
including the petitioners, the Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for certification election with MOLE.
The petition was opposed by the PAFLU with whom the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated. The
same employees who had signed the petition filed by FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU.
Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the authorized representative of the Amigo Employees Union, filed a
petition for certification election in the Company. The Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU intervened and moved for the
dismissal of the petition for certification election, on the ground, among others that Villar had no legal personality to
sign the petition since she was not an officer of the union nor is there factual or legal basis for her claim that she was
the authorized representative of the local union.
Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition filed by Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal before BLR.
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special meeting of its general membership. A Resolution was thereby
unanimously approved which called for the investigation by the PAFLU national president, of all of the petitioners
and one Felipe Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading false propaganda that the union officers
were merely appointees of the management; and for causing divisiveness in the union.
PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate the local union's charges against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty.
PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA which also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing CBA,
including the union security clause. PAFLU President rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty of the charges.
PAFLU demanded the Company to terminate the employment of the petitioners pursuant to the security clause of
the CBA. Acting on PAFLU's demand, the Company informed PAFLU that it will first secure the necessary clearances
to terminate petitioners. PAFLU requested the Company to put petitioners under preventive suspension pending the
application for said clearances to terminate the petitioners. The Company filed the request for clearance to
terminate the petitioners before DOLE which was granted. DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the appeal, hence, this
petition for review.
ISSUE: W/N DOLE Secretary erred in affirming the grant of clearance of termination of petitioners.
RULING: NO. It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom
of association ordained by the Constitution. But the Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form
of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by
the Constitution.
In the case at bench, the Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union security
clause which is a reiteration of the old CBA. The quoted stipulation for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal.
Petitioners’ theory that their expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is untenable. PAFLU had the authority to
investigate petitioners on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as
charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the
constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of the new
CBA, reiterating the same that they may be expelled from the roll of membership under the constitution of the
PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated.
HEIRS OF TEODOLO M. CRUZ vs COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELALATIONS (CIR), SANTIAGO RICE MILL and KING HONG
AND COMPANY GRN L-23331-32 December 27, 1969
FACTS: June 21, 1952, the Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the Santiago Rice Mill, a business
enterprises engaged in the, buying, and milling of palay at Santiago, Isabela, and owned and operated by King Hong
Co., Inc., filed before the respondent CIR cases for petition for overtime pay, premium pay for night, Sunday and
holiday work, and for reinstatement of workers illegally laid off. CIR favored the union by a split decision of 3-2 vote.
The case reached the Supreme Court but the SC still favored the union. The SC remanded the records for
enforcement by respondent CIR. In examination of books, said CIR’s Chief Examiner filed his Partial Report regarding
the computation of the benefits rendered in the case in favor of the Union.
Petitioners claim that in this computation of the Examiner did not, include the claims of 70 other laborers whose
total claims (for back wages), at the rate of P6,300 each and would be P441,000. Therefore, the correct grand total
amount due the laborers would be 864,756.74.
The trial judge took no action on the latest Urgent Motion of the union, wherein it emphasized that respondent, with
Court’s action rejecting its appeal, no longer had any excuse for refusing to comply with the deposit Order. Instead,
an unscheduled conference was called and held on October 31, 1963 in the chambers of the trial judge, and
attended by representatives of respondent firm, including their counsels of record and the President of the union
and 8 directors of the union. Four of these nine union representatives, including the union president himself, had no
claims or awards whatever under the judgment. Said union officials were not assisted by counsel, as petitioner Mary
Concepcion, counsel of record of the union, was not present.
In this conference respondent firm made again the same offer to settle and quitclaim the judgment in favor of the
union members for the same amount of P110,000, which offer had already been ‘rejected by the union at the earlier
conference. But this time, respondent and the directors of the union decided to settle the case amicably with the
payment by the firm of the same amount of P110,000 which was deposited with the Court’s disbursing officer
“immediately upon the signing of the settlement which will be prepared by the respondent firm through its
counsel.”
One of the union director together with 49 of its members questioned the amicable settlement that took place. They
claim that the Board of Directors did not have any express authority of the members of the Santiago Labor Union to
enter into any compromise for the sum of P110,000, that it was tainted by apparent bad faith on the part of the
President of the Union, that the amount of P110,000 is unconscionable, considering, that the total claims of the
members of the union is more than P400,000.
ISSUE: Whether the amicable settlement is valid.
RULING: NO. Petitioners were not accorded due process of law. The union was deprived of the assistance of its
counsel. The lack or due deliberation and caution in the trial judge’s instant approval of the settlement is seen from
the stipulations therein that the union thereby waived and quitclaimed any and all claims which it may have against
the respondent, as well as the claim of each and every one of the members of the union against respondent, when
precisely the authority of the union board members to enter into any such compromise or settlement was under
express challenge by petitioner Magalpo, a board member herself which the trial judge completely disregarded.
Petitioners were deprived of the formal conference and of their right to be assisted by the union counsel as
expressly requested, so that a fair hearing could be accorded petitioners and an opportunity afforded them to air
their serious charges of bad faith and lack authority against the Union leadership. Certainly, all these serious
questions and charges made by petitioners could have been threshed out and verified, if the formal conference had
been held with the presence of union counsel.
The transcript of the conference is deficient and does not reflect the actual discussions and proceedings. This is to be
deplored, for in a matter of such great importance, especially where the union officials were unassisted by counsel in
an unscheduled conference, care should be taken by the trial judge that the proceedings are faithfully recorded.
We find the forcing through of the settlement arbitrary, unfair and unconscionable.
Another reason for striking down the settlement is the lack of any express or specific authority of the president and
majority of the union board of directors to execute the same and scale down the estimated P423,756.74 judgment
liability of respondent firm in favor of the individual union members to P110,000.00. On the contrary, petitioner
board member Magalpo timely challenged the authority or the union board to execute any such settlement,
expressly informing the trial judge that the union had specifically appointed an entity in Manila, the “CREAM, Inc.,”
as its attorney in-fact and “exclusive authorized representative for the evaluation, adjustment and -liquidation or its
claim against respondent. These union members have repudiated the former union president, Maylem and his board
of directors, for having betrayed the union members, and the new union leadership.
The authority of the union, to execute a settlement of the judgment award in favor of the individual union members,
cannot be presumed but must be expressly granted.
Just as this Court has stricken down unjust exploitation of laborers by oppressive employers, so it will strike down
their unfair treatment by their own unworthy leaders. The Constitution enjoins the State to afford protection to
labor. Fair dealing is equally demanded of unions as well as of employers in their dealings with employees. The union
has been evolved as an organization of collective strength for the protection of labor against the unjust exactions of
capital, but equally important is the requirement of fair dealing between the union and its members, which is
fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two factors: “one is the degree of dependence of the individual employee on
the union organization; the other, a corollary of the first, is the comprehensive power vested in the union with
respect to the individual.” The union may, be considered but the agent of its members for the purpose of securing
for them fair and just wages and good working conditions and is subject to the obligation of giving the members as
its principals all information relevant to union and labor matters entrusted to it.
The union leadership in the case at bar was recreant in its duty towards the union members in apparently having
failed to disclose to the union members the full situation of their judgment credit against respondent, to wit, that
they were in the advantageous position of being able to require enforcement of the respondent court’s P200,000-
deposit order, and in presuming that it had authority to waive and quitclaim the estimated P423,756.74-judgment
credit of the union members for the unconscionable amount of P110,000, which had already been previously
rejected by the workers. Respondent firm could not claim that it dealt in good faith with the union officials, for it
hastily executed the purported settlement notwithstanding the serious charges of bad faith against the union
leadership, and the non-holding of the scheduled conference where the union leaders, at their express request,
could be duly assisted by union counsel.
The interests of the individual worker can be better protected on the whole by a strong union aware of its moral and
legal obligations to represent the rank and file faithfully and secure for them the best wages and working terms and
conditions in the process of collective bargaining. As has been aptly pointed out, the will of the majority must prevail
over that of the minority in the process, for “under the philosophy of collective responsibility, an employer who
bargains in good faith should be entitled to rely upon the promises and agreements of the union representatives
with whom he must deal. under the compulsion of, law and contract. The ‘collective bargaining process should be
carried on between parties who can mutually respect and rely upon the authority of each other.” Where, however,
collective bargaining process is not involved, and what is at stake are back wages already earned by the individual
workers by way of overtime, premium and differential pay, and final judgment has been rendered in their favor, as in
the present case, the real parties in interest with direct material interest, as against the union which has only served
as a vehicle for collective action to enforce their just claims, are the individual workers themselves. Authority of the
union to waive or quitclaim all or part of the judgment award in favor of the individual workers cannot be lightly
presumed but must be expressly granted, and the employer, as judgment debtor, must deal in all good faith with the
union as the agent of the individual workers. The Court in turn should certainly verify and assure itself of the fact and
extent of the authority of the union leadership to execute any compromise or settlement of the judgment on behalf
of the individual workers who are the real judgment creditors.
The settlement in the case at bar was precipitately approved without verification of the union boards authority to
execute the compromise settlement and that there was no such authority.
WHEREFORE, the respondent Court’s Orders are hereby declared null and void and set aside.

G.R. No. 76427 February 21, 1989

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LABOR UNION-FFW, DANTE JOHNSON MORANTE, MYRNA OLOVEJA AND ITS OTHER
INDIVIDUAL vs. UNION DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS, AND OSCAR PILI,respondents
FACTS: private respondent, a member of the petitioner-union was dismissed from his employment by employer
Johnson & Johnson (Phil.) Inc., for non-disclosure in his job application form of the fact that he had a relative in the
company in violation of company policies.
complaint was filed bythe private respondent against the officers of the petitioner-union docketed as NRC-LRD-M-7-
271-85 alleging, among others, that the union officers had refused to provide the private respondent the financial
aid as provided in the union constitution despite demands for payment thereof The petitioner-union and its officers
counter-alleged, in their answer, that the said financial aid was to be given only in cases of termination or suspension
without any reasonable cause; that the union’s executive board hadthe prerogative to determine whether the
suspension or termination was for a reasonable cause or not; and that the union, in a general membership meeting,
had resolved not to extend financial aid to the private respondent.
provision for the grant of financial aid in favor of a union member is embodied in the petitioner-union’s Constitution
and By-laws, Article XIII, Section 5. “A member who have (sic) been suspended or terminated without reasonable
cause shall be extended a financial aid from the compulsory contributions in the amount of SEVENTY FIVE CENTAVOS
(P0. 75) from each member weekly”
union’s collective bargaining agreement was being undertaken, the private respondent, on August 26, 1985, filed a
case for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against his employer.
Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin issued an order dismissing for lack of merit the complaint of the private respondent
against the petitioners for alleged violation of the union constitution and by-laws.
appeal of complainant Oscar Pili is hereby granted and the Order appealed from is hereby set aside.
Both parties moved for reconsideration. The petitioners reiterated that since the private respondent’s termination
was for a reasonable cause, it would be unjust and unfair if financial aid were to be given in the event that the
latter’s case for illegal dismissal is decided against him. The private respondent, on the other hand, prayed for the
amendment of the dispositive portion in order that the grant of financial aid be made without any qualifications.
Considering that complainant Pili is similarly situated as Jerwin Taguba coupled with the need to obviate any
discriminating treatment to the former, it is only just and appropriate that our Decision dated 17 April 1986 be
modified in such a manner that respondents immediately pay the complainant the sum of P0.75/ week per union
member to be computed from the time of his dismissal from the company, without prejudice to refund of the
amount that shall be paid to Pili in the event the pending case is finally resolved against him.
motion for issuance of a writ of execution. petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the public respondent’s
resolution dated August 19, 1986 on the grounds that Taguba’s affidavit cannot support the private respondent’s
claim that he is also entitled to the financial aid provided in the union’s constitution and that the union cannot be
compelled to grant the said aid in the absence of a special fund for the purpose.
RULING: Section 5, Article XIII of the petitioner-union’s constitution and by-laws earlier aforequoted is self-
executory. The financial aid extended to any suspended or terminated union member is realized from the
contributions declared to be compulsory under the said provision in the amount of seventy-five centavos due weekly
from each union member. The nature of the said contributions being compulsory and the fact that the purpose as
stated is for financial aid clearly indicate that individual payroll authorizations of the union members are not
necessary. The petitioner-union’s constitution and by-laws govern the relationship between and among its
members. As in the interpretation of contracts, if the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the
parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control.