1

LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO

TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

San Miguel Corp Employees Union v. Bersamira

- Labor dispute is defined under the LC as any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee. As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute because it dwells on the
terms, tenure and conditions of their employment, jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals.

Halaguena v. PAL
- From the petitioners allegations and the relief and prayed for in its petition, it is clear that
the issue raised is whether Sec. 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP-CBA is unlawful and
unconstitutional. Here, the petitioners primary relief is the annulment of Sec. 144, Part A of
the PAL-FASAP CBA, which allegedly discriminates against them for being female flight
attendants. The subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively
cognizable by the RTC, pursuant to Sec. 19(1) of BP Blg 129, as amended. Being an ordinary
civil action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.
- The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the
application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the power to apply and
interpret the constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of
general jurisdiction.
- Thus, the Court held that where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference
to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective bargaining agreement but
by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of
justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.

Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc.

- There is no dispute as to the cessation of Portillos employment with RLI. She simply claims
her unpaid salaries and commissions, which RLI does not contest. At that juncture, Portillo
was no longer an employee of RLI. The "Goodwill Clause" or the "Non-Compete Clause" is
a contractual undertaking effective after the cessation of the employment relationship
between the parties. In accordance with jurisprudence, breach of the undertaking is a civil
law dispute, not a labor law case.
- It is clear, therefore, that while Portillos claim for unpaid salaries is a money claim that arises
out of or in connection with an employer-employee relationship, RLIs claim against Portillo
for violation of the goodwill clause is a money claim based on an act done after the cessation
of the employment relationship. And, while the jurisdiction over Portillos claim is vested in
the labor arbiter, the jurisdiction over Lietz Inc.s claim rests on the regular courts.
- The labor tribunal in an employees claim for unpaid wages is without authority to allow the
compensation of such claims against the post-employment claim of the former employer for
breach of a post-employment condition.

Kiok Loy v. NLRC

- Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement is one
of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation
2
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal
obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to refuse to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good
faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work, and
all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any
grievance or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract
incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.
- It is unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement for wages, hours of
work and other terms of employment. A companys refusal to make counter-proposal if
considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is
especially true where the Unions request for a counter proposal is left unanswered. We
agree with the pronouncement that it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor
controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party
should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes feigning negotiations
by going through empty gestures.

Scout Ramon Albano v. Noriel

- Certification Election is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the will
of the majority given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters
to make their choice. No better device can assure the institution of industrial democracy
with the two parties to a business enterprise, management and labor, establishing a regime of
self-rule.
- The Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification
election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. Once that requisite is
complied with, however, the Code makes, clear that "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to
conduct an Identification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit.
- The allegation that there was thereafter a retraction on the part of a number of such
signatories lends added support to the decision arrived at by respondent Noriel that the only
way of determining with accuracy the true will of the personnel involved in the bargaining
unit is to conduct a certification petition.

PAL v. NLRC
- Industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the
discussion of matters affecting their rights. Thus, even before Article 211 of the Labor Code
(P.D. 442) was amended by Republic Act No. 6715, it was already declared a policy of the
State: "(d) to promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and
obligationsas employees." This was, of course, amplified by Republic Act No. 6715 when
it decreed the "participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting
their rights, duties and welfare." PAL's position that it cannot be saddled with the
"obligation" of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code,
3
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

Republic Act No. 6715 had not yet been enacted, cannot thus be sustained. While such
"obligation" was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a
harmonious labor-management relationship and the then already existing state policy of
enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the
observance of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights.

Chu v. NLRC
- One of the prerogatives of management, and a very important one at that, is the right to
transfer employees in their work station.
- It is the employers prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees
qualifications, aptitudes, and competence to move them around in the various areas of its
business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to
the company. An employees right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right
in his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or
transfer him where he will be most useful. When his transfer is not unreasonable, nor
inconvenient, nor prejudicial to him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the employee may not complain that
it amounts to a constructive dismissal.

San Miguel Brewery Sales Force v. Ople

- So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, the
Supreme Court will uphold them.
- San Miguel Corporation's offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be
adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so-called "back
adjustment commission" to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the
CDS proves the company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.
- Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments,
working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be
followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work
supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.

PAL v. NLRC
- The exercise of managerial prerogatives is not unlimited. It is circumscribed by limitations
found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general principles of fair play and
justice.
- A close scrutiny of the objectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not purely
business-oriented nor do they concern the management aspect of the business of the
company as in the San Miguel case. The provisions of the Code clearly have repercussions
on the employee's right to security of tenure. The implementation of the provisions may
result in the deprivation of an employee's means of livelihood.
4
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

Union of the Filpro Employees-Drug v. Nestle

- Management prerogative: mass of rights and privileges accorded to employers to assure their
self-determination and independence and reasonable return of capital.
- In this connection, the rule is that good faith is always presumed. As long as the companys
exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for purpose of defeating
or circumventing the rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement, such exercise
will be upheld.
- It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor
practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a
belief. In its letter to the Labor Union of 29 May 2001, though Nestl underscored its
position that unilateral grants, one-time company grants, company-initiated policies and programs, which
include, but are not limited to the Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium,
are by their very nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom,
such attitude is not tantamount to refusal to bargain.

SHS Perforated Materials Inc. v. Diaz

- Management prerogative is defined as the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of
employment, such as freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes
to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, layoff
and discipline, and dismissal and recall of work. MP cannot be understood to include
withholding of salary because it is contrary to the LC. Respondents duty was to cultivate
business ties, connections and clients in order to make sales, therefore, his work can really be
done outside the office, meeting clients etc. Although, it cannot be determined with certainty
that respondent worked for the entire period alleged (latter half of November), the
consistent rule is that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and
the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter (as a policy mandated
by the LC).

Supreme Steel Corp. v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Ng Supreme Independent Union

- Jurisprudence recognizes the right to exercise management prerogative. Labor laws also
discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business. For this
reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.
The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.
However, the exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. Managerial prerogatives
are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general
principles of fair play and justice. The CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and,
as previously stated, compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.
- The CBA is clear in providing that temporary employees will no longer be allowed in the
company except in the Warehouse and Packing Section. Petitioner is bound by this
provision. It cannot exempt itself from compliance by invoking management prerogative.
Management prerogative must take a backseat when faced with a CBA provision. If
petitioner needed additional personnel to meet the increase in demand, it could have taken
measures without violating the CBA.
5
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

PLDT v. Paguio
- While it may be conceded that management is in the best position to know its operational
needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and
public policy on labor and social justice.
- That prerogative accorded management should not defeat the very purpose for which our
labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interests of labor and management.
- By its very nature, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of
fair play and justice.

Businessday Information Systems and Services, Inc. v. NLRC

- The law requires an employer to extend equal treatment to its employees. Management
prerogatives are not absolute subject to legal limits, collective bargaining agreement, or
general principles of fair play and justice.

Republic Savings Bank v. CIR

- Assuming that the respondents acted in their individual capacities when they wrote the letter,
they were still protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in the exercise of their
right of self-organization that includes concerted activity for mutual aid and protection,
interference with which constitutes an unfair labor practice under section 4(a)(1) of RA 875.
For it has been stated, the joining in protests or demands, even by a small group of
employees, if in furtherance of their interests as such, is a concerted activity protected by the
Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective
bargaining be contemplated. The employees shall have the right to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection even though no union activity be involved.

Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union

- Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 875 recognize freedom of association. What the
Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the "right" to form or
join associations. The right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any
union. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have
recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is the "right" to join associations of his choice.
The law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any association.
- The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of
conflict, the latter must yield to the former.

Reyes v. Trajano
- The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or
refrain from exercising said right.
- Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the "right to self-organization and to form, join,
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
- The right of self-organization includes the right to organize or affiliate with a labor union or
determine which of the two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in
concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the
protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and interests.
6
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

- Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign
from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union,
and to maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor organization
necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right. It is self-evident
that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one
should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to
acquire membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to renounce
such membership.
- That the Iglesia ni Kristo employees, as employees in the same bargaining unit in the true
sense of the term, do have the right of self-organization, is also in truth beyond question, as
well as the fact that when they voted that the employees in their bargaining unit should be
represented by "NO UNION," they were simply exercising that right of self-organization,
albeit in its negative aspect.

Kapatiran v. Calleja
- The right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor union for being
contrary to their religious beliefs does not bar the members of that sect from forming their
own union.
- Recognition of the tenets of the sect should not infringe on the basic right of self-
organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation.

Pan-Am World Airways, Inc. v. Pan-Am Employees Association

- The moment management displays what in this case appears to be grave but unwarranted
distrust in the union officials discharging their functions just because a strike was resorted to,
then the integrity of the collective bargaining process itself is called into question. The union
officials have the right to feel offended by the fact that while they will be paid their salaries
in the meanwhile they would not be considered as it fit persons to perform the duties
pertaining to the positions held by them.

Cathay Pacific Steel Co. v. CA

- Accordingly, Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory
employees from managerial employees, to wit: supervisory employees are those who, in the
interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of
such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
- The Labor Code provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from
joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private
respondent Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be
prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of private respondent CUSE.
Thus, it is indeed an unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss
him on account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his constitutionally guaranteed right
to self-organization.
7
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

Paper Industries Corp. v. Laguesma

- Managerial employees are not given the right to join and vote in certification elections. The
mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not ipso facto make him one.
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is
the job description that determines the nature of employment. Where such power is in effect
recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the
department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present,
is not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
- Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and First Line
Managers. Top and Middle managers have the authority to devise, implement and control
strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure
that such policies are carried out by the rank and file employees of an organization.
- The mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not ipso facto make him one.
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is
the job description that determines the nature of employment.

Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor

- Generally, the Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and often declines
to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the employer. However, this privilege is
not absolute but subject to limitations imposed by law. All this points to the conclusion that
the exercise of managerial prerogatives is not unlimited. It is circumscribed by limitations
found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general principles of fair play and
justice. The case at bench constitutes one of the exceptions.
- Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any
labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to
confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are
required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are
likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. The rationale behind the exclusion
of confidential employees from the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees and their
disqualification to join any labor organization was discussed in several cases cited by the
Court in this case.

Tunay na Pagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, Inc.

- Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,
(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is
to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist
between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed
responsibilities relating to labor relations.
- The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties,
become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule" PROVIDED it is proven
that the said employees assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees
and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies.
8
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union
- Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in
regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the
field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee
is to be considered a confidential employee. The exclusion from bargaining units of
employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies
relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential employee rule.
In the present case:
Accounting personnel should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to
confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.
Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information
in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does
not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it
follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.
Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of
confidential employees. Ones work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment
and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation
package, and human resource management.
Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording of minutes for management
during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance
meetings and administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues
from the petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs.

BATELEC v. Young
- Employees of a cooperative who are also members thereof do not have the right to self-
organization unless they resign or withdraw their membership from said cooperative in order
to join a labor union.
- An employee of a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the
right to collective bargaining. Cooperative members, as owners are the ones who run and
operate the business. Irrespective of the name of shares owned by its member, they are
entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the affair of the cooperative. Their share in
the capital earns limited interests. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a
member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly
an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.

International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja

- Employees of international organizations or of specialized agencies of the United Nations
granted diplomatic immunity from local jurisdiction by the Philippine government are
exempted from the application of Philippine labor laws unless the immunity is expressly
waived by said organization or agency and, hence, the employees may exercise their right to
self-organization.
9
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and Coating Corp.

- The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union does not nullify
its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization.
- While there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees
in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus,
the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the
rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not
among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought
about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, as
interpreted by the Court in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air Philippines, had already set
the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer hold sway in the present altered state of the law
and the rules.

Guijarno v. CIR
- At the time the time the decision was rendered on November 2, 1967 and its affirmance by
CIR en banc, the authoritative doctrine that a closed-shop provision in a collective
bargaining agreement is not to be given a retroactive effect so as to preclude its being
applied to employees already in the service, is controlling, and is traceable in the leading case
of Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber and Co. (1960, APRIL). In said Confederated Sons
of Labor v. Anakan Lumber and Co., then Justice Concepcion, in his discussion of the particular
stipulation in the contract, it was made clear that: "In order that an employer may be deemed
bound, under a collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss employees for non-union
membership, the stipulation to this effect must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave no
room for doubt thereon. An undertaking of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly
construed, and doubts must be resolved against the existence of "closed shop".
- The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work." A union is a means of assuring
that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which
an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employer may, through concerted
effort and activity, achieve the goal of economic well-being.

Progressive Development Corp. v. Sec of Labor

- The local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to exercise the
right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent. Big federations and national unions
of workers should take the lead in requiring their locals and chapters to faithfully comply
with the law and the rules instead of merely snapping union after union into their folds in a
furious bid with rival federations to get the most number of members.
- Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon registration with the BLR.
Under Article 234 (Requirements of Registration), any applicant labor organization,
association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled
to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of
the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
10
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

(a) Fifty-pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the
organizational meeting and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty 20% percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seek to operate;
(d) If the applicant has been in existence for one or more years, copies , of its annual financial reports; and
(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, the minutes of its adoption or ratification and
the list of the members who participated in it.

But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the
aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. The provisions governing
union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the relevant
portions of which are cited below:

Sec. 3. Union affiliation; direct membership with national union. An affiliate of a labor federation or national union
may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union.

a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicating the creation or
establishment of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30)
days from issuance of such charter certificate.
b) An independently registered union shall be considered an affiliate of a labor federation or national union after
submission to the Bureau of the contract or agreement of affiliation within thirty (30) days after its execution.
xxx xxx xxx
e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws,
set of officers and books and accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently
registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.

- Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of the branch
or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local
union with the federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining
powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.
- 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.
- A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission
of the following to 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. n 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.

Takata Phil Co. v. BLR

- The 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees membership in the union and
not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting. It does not appear
in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational meeting must
11
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact, even the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so provide.

Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda

- A certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation
proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the
petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same.
- The legitimacy of the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition
for certification election. The legal personality of a legitimate labor organization cannot be
subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. The Implementing Rules
stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of
registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance
with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
- Jurisprudence has repeatedly upheld that an order to hold a certification election is proper
despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the
respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its
petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing a
cancellation.

Acedera v. International Container Terminal Services Inc.

- A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article 242(a) of
the Labor Code which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members
for the purpose of CBA. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the
purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA.
- That APCWU acted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members
and other employees similarly situated, the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiters
Office so expressly states.
- While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union, may be permitted to
intervene in a case, ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented will not be
permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the
representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him.

Tropical Hut Employees Union v. Tropical Hut Food Market Inc.

- The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. 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.
- All employees enjoy the right to self organization and to form and join labor organizations
of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that derives
its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and social justice
12
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or rules or regulations, the SC has always
adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.
- A non-registered labor organization/federation does not possess and acquire the legal
personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much less the right and privilege under the
Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its group.

Air Phil Corp v. BLR

- Inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation,
unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 23915 of the Labor Code.
- Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the
rank-and-file union includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239
(a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in connection with the election
of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal
addresses to the BLR.

S.S. Ventures International Inc. v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union

- The constitutional right to form, join, or assist a union shall not be abridged. Once
registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed
with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. But while a certificate of
registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or
ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the
union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the
status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for cancellation is the
commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of the Labor Code, such as fraud
and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the unions
constitution and like documents.
- It is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It
must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection
with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of
ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents.

Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. Sec of DOLE

- For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers, the minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the
newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.
13
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

- The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right
of labor to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation
of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation
must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
- Withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there is
convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition
are deemed involuntary. Therefore, following jurisprudence, the employees were not totally
free from the employers pressure and so the voluntariness of the employees execution of
the affidavits becomes suspect.

The Heritage Hotel Manila v. National Union of Workers in the Hotel Manila
- Failure to comply with the reportorial requirements under Art. 242-A is not a ground for
cancellation of registration of a Labor union.
- The law requires the labor organization to submit the annual financial report and list of
members in order to verify if it is still viable and financially sustainable as an organization so
as to protect the employer and employees from fraudulent or fly-by-night unions. With the
submission of the required documents by respondent, the purpose of the law has been
achieved, though belatedly.
- The union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining
unit should not be deprived of a bargaining agent, merely because of the negligence of the
union officers who were responsible for the submission of the documents to the BLR.
- Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in treating petitions for
cancellation of union registration, lest they be accused of interfering with union activities. In
resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities. Labor authorities should bear in mind that registration confers upon a union the
status of legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a legitimate
labor organization, particularly the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a
bargaining unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of
snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as a rule
- its rights under the Labor Code.

UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio

- A union election is held pursuant to the unions constitution and bylaws, and the right to
vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A union election should be distinguished from a
certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes
of collective bargaining. Specifically, the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain
whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization
and, in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. In a certification election,
all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote. Therefore, a union
member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said
election. However, the reverse is not always true; an employee belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union election,
14
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily, union
affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity.
- Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code.
Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union.
Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to
become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union
membership is usually embodied in the unions CBL. An employee who becomes a union
member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with the new status and
becomes bound by the unions rules and regulations.
- As ruled by the SC, a union CBL is a covenant between the union and its members and
among members. Where ILO Convention No. 87 speaks of a unions full freedom to draw
up its constitution and rules, it includes freedom from interference by persons who are not
members of the union. The democratic principle that governance is a matter for the
governed to decide upon applies to the labor movement which, by law and constitutional
mandate, must be assiduously insulated against intrusions coming from both the employer
and complete strangers if the 'protection to labor clause' of the constitution is to be
guaranteed. By appellants own evidence, the general faculty assembly of 04 October 1996
was not a meeting of USTFU. It was attended by members and non-members alike, and
therefore was not a forum appropriate for transacting union matters. The person who
moved for the suspension of USTFUs CBL was not a member of USTFU.
- Allowing a non-union member to initiate the suspension of a unions CBL, and non-union
members to participate in a union election on the premise that the unions CBL had been
suspended in the meantime, is incompatible with the freedom of association and protection
of the right to organize. If a member of the union dislikes the provisions of the by-laws he
may seek to have them amended or may withdraw from the union; otherwise he must abide
by them.

Salunga v. CIR
- It is well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants
for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging,
or a union in insisting upon the discharge of; an employee whom the union thus refuses to
admit to membership, without any reasonable ground therefor. Needless to say, if said
unions may be compelled to admit new members, who have the requisite qualifications, with
more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power when the employee
involved is a long standing union member who, owing to provocations of union officers,
was impelled to tender his resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. Surely, he
may at least, invoke the rights of those who seek admission for the first time, and cannot
arbitrarily be denied readmission.

Villar v. Inciong
- 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. However, 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.
15
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

- 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 under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was
affiliated.
- Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor union affiliates with a mother
union, it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization. When a
labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or accepts a charter from a
superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority
the local union functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the parent body, together
with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an
enforceable contract between the parent body and the subordinate union, and between the
members of the subordinate union inter se.
- Inherent in every labor union, or any organization, is the right of self-preservation. When
members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union;
when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong,
they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to
destroy.
- Thus, petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new
organization of their own, must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from
the union under the security clause of the CBA.

Bugay v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR

- The committee of three board members assigned to summon Bugay failed to serve notice
upon him because he was then in Lucena, Quezon. Why all these proceedings were
continued by the respondents inspite of Bugays absence remains unexplained in the record.
But one thing is certain, whatever might be the merits of the charge filed by respondent
Olazo against him, Bugay did not have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Such
proceedings, being violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play, can not give
validity to any act done pursuant thereto.
- It is true that the decisions both of the CIR and the SC do not contain any statement that
the charges preferred by the officers of the union against him which resulted in his expulsion
were "trumped up" or fabricated, or that said officers acted maliciously or in bad faith, but
the fact remains that the two courts have found that his expulsion was illegal because of the
irregularities committed in his investigation. In effect, it was found that not only has he not
been given an opportunity to defend himself but his expulsion was not submitted to the
different chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. The result was
that because of his expulsion he was subjected to humiliation and mental anguish with the
consequent loss of his good name and reputation.

Tancino v. Calleja
- It is true that under article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only members of the
union can participate in the election of union officers. The question however of eligibility to
vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee's
status during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month next preceding the
16
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

labor dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries.
- Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not
a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union's officers. It
finds no support in fact and in law.

Kapisanan v. Trajano
- 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 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.

Gabriel v. Sec of Labor

- In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior authorization from
employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latters wages and remits them
directly to the union. It assures continuous funding for the labor organization.
- The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are found in Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o)
of the Labor Code:

Article 222 (b) states: "No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any
collective bargaining negotiations or conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual
member of the contracting union: Provided, however, that attorneys fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to
be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and
void."

Article 241 (o) provides: "Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment, attorneys
fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an
employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization
should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction."

- Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the special assessment for unions
incidental expenses, attorneys fees and representation expenses. These are: (1) authorization
by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership
meeting called for the purpose; (2) secretarys record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3)
individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the employees concerned.
- Clearly, attorneys fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an
employee without his written consent. In this case, there were no individual written check
off authorizations by the employees concerned and so the assessment cannot be legally
deducted by their employer.

Galvadores v. Trajano
- An individual written authorization of an the employees must first be obtained before any
assessment can be made against the monetary benefits awarded to them pursuant to Article
242(o) of the Labor Code; and that Respondent Counsels entitlement to attorney's fees
should be taken from Union funds.
17
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

- No check-offs from any amounts due employees may be effected without individual written
authorizations duly signed by the employee specifically stating the amount, purpose and
beneficiary of the deduction.
- The required individual authorizations in this case are wanting. In fact, petitioner employees
are vigorously objecting. The question asked in the plebiscite, besides not being explicit,
assumed that there was no dispute relative to attorney's fees.
- The benefits awarded to PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining
negotiations although placed already under compulsory arbitration. This is not the
"mandatory activity" under the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations
for check-offs, notwithstanding its "compulsory" nature. It is a judicial process of settling
disputes laid down by law. Besides, Article 222(b) does not except a CBA, later placed under
compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition. The cardinal principle should be
borne in mind that employees are protected by law from unwarranted practices that diminish
their compensation without their knowledge and consent.

Diokno v. Cacdac
- The controversy in the case at bar is an intra-union dispute and thus under the jurisdiction of
BLR pursuant to the Labor Code. There is no question that this is one which involves a
dispute within or inside FLAMES, a labor union. At issue is the propriety of the
disqualification of private respondents Daya, et al., by the FLAMES COMELEC in the 7
elections. It must also be stressed that even as the dispute involves allegations that private
respondents Daya, et al., sought the help of non-members of the union in their election
campaign to the detriment of FLAMES, the same does not detract from the real character of
the controversy. It remains as one which involves the grievance over the constitution and
bylaws of a union, and it is a controversy involving members of the union. Moreover, the
non-members of the union who were alleged to have aided private respondents Daya, et al.,
are not parties in the case. The Court is therefore, unable to understand petitioners
persistence in placing the controversy outside of the jurisdiction of the BLR. The law is very
clear. The Petition which was initiated by private respondents Daya, et al., before the BLR
was properly within its cognizance, it being an intra-union dispute. Indubitably, when private
respondents Daya, et al., brought the case to the BLR, it was an invocation of the power and
authority of the BLR to act on an intra-union conflict.
- If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction when such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power
can be sought. The premature invocation of courts judicial intervention is fatal to ones
cause of action. Verily, there are exceptions to the applicability of the doctrine: (the one
applicable in this case) (11) where the facts show that there was violation of due process.
Private respondents Daya et al were prejudiced by the disqualification order of the
COMELEC. They endeavored to seek reconsideration but the COMELEC failed to act
thereon.
- BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union and intra-union
conflicts, there should be no more doubt as to its jurisdiction. As defined, an intra-union
conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union, while an inter-union
controversy or dispute is one occurring or carried on between or among unions.
18
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

Employees Union of Bayer Phils. V. Bayer Phils. Inc.

- An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation
of or disagreement over any provision of the unions constitution and by-laws, or disputes
arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union.
- It must be remembered that a CBA is entered into in order to foster stability and mutual
cooperation between labor and capital. An employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had previously contracted with,
and decide to bargain anew with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for doing
so and without first following the proper procedure. If such behavior would be tolerated,
bargaining and negotiations between the employer and the union will never be truthful and
meaningful, and no CBA forged after arduous negotiations will ever be honored or be relied
upon.

Rodriguez v. Director
- A report of a violation of rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization may
be made at least 30% of all the members of a union or any member or members especially
concerned. The assent of 30% of all the union members is not a factor in the acquisition of
jurisdiction by the BLR.

Duyag v. Inciong
- BLR has jurisdiction to expel the union officers. The power of removal belongs to union
members since they were the ones who elected them; the med-arbiter and the Director are
only tasked to assist the union members to assist the union members in enforcing its
constitution and by-laws.
- Respondents violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within the
meaning of Art. 242 LC. Hence, their expulsion is justified. Said violation may be reported to
the BLR by at least 30% of all the union members or any member or members especially
concerned. In effect, the Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported
violation in order to impose the appropriate penalty.

San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. SM Packing

- PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued a certificate of registration for it.
Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a legitimate
labor organization subsists. Once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization, it
continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked
in an independent action for cancellation. It bears to emphasize that what is being directly
challenged is the personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization and not that of
PDMP. This being a collateral attack, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain questions
indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.
- Evidently, while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten
locals or chapters or affiliates, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective
bargaining agent; a trade union center, on the other hand, is composed of a group of
registered national unions or federations. Department Order No. 9 mentions two labor
19
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through

chartering a duly registered federation or a national union. Department Order No. 9 defines a
"chartered local" as a labor organization in the private sector operating at the enterprise level
that acquired legal personality through a charter certificate, issued by a duly registered
federation or national union and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with Rule III,
Section 2-E of these Rules. Clearly, there is nothing in the said Department Order which
allows a trade union to create a local chapter. Also worth emphasizing is that even in the
most recent amendment of the implementing rules, there was no mention of a trade union
center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter. Thus, the power granted
to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a
federation or national union, then a trade union center, such as PDMP, is without authority
to charter directly.

Progressive Devt Corp v. Sec of Labor (supra)

- The mother union, acting for an in behalf of its affiliate had the status of an agent while the
local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to serve the common interest of
all its members subject only to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the
association.

Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corp v. NLRC

- There is no dispute that FPWU-NLU is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
the rank and file employees of FPFC. As the local union, it is considered as the principal; the
entity which staged the illegal strike and the one responsible for the resulting damages
allegedly sustained by FPFC. Direct and primary responsibility for the damages allegedly
caused by the illegal strike sued upon fall on the local union FPWU, being the principal, and
not on NLU-TUCP, a mere agent, the notice of strike.

National Union of Bank Employees v. Philnabank Employees Assoc

- A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing
that the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule.
- A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure and maintain
an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members. A local
union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate
and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. The mere act
of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality; neither does it give the
mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a
contract of agency where the former acts in representation of the latter.

Alliance of Nationalist ad Genuine Labor Org v. Samana

- The SC ruled that the non-compliance with the procedure on disaffiliation, being premised
on purely technical grounds cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-organization. In
interpreting labor laws, rules and regulations, the court adopts liberal approach which favors
the exercise of labor rights.
- ANGLO's alleged acts inimical to the interests of SAMANA have not been sufficiently
rebutted. It is clear SAMANA members have unanimously decided to disaffiliate from the
20
LABOR RELATIONS | ATTY. AONUEVO
TRICIA CRUZ
JDCTR DLSU LAW
CASE DOCTRINES

mother federation ANGLO.

- On the second ground, although P.D. 1391 provides (Item No. 6) that no petition for
certification election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall be entertained or given due
course except within the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of a
collective bargaining agreement, said law is definitely not without exceptions. Settled is the
rule that a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union when circumstances
warrant. 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. However, even before the onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation
may be carried out when there is a shift of allegiance on the part of the majority of the
members of the union.