Labor Cases – Part 4

Facts Issue Ruling

81. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing, G.R. No. 128845 [2000]

International School, Inc. is a domestic educational Whether or No. Foreign-hire should not be included in the
institution established primarily for dependents of foreign not foreign- appropriate bargaining unit.
diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. To hire should A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given
enable the School to continue carrying out its educational be included employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire
program and improve its standard of instruction, it employs in the body of employees, consistent with equity to the
its own teaching and management personnel selected by it appropriate employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the
either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other bargaining reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
nationalities unit? collective bargaining provisions of the law. The factors
Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit
teachers as members of its faculty, classifying them either are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2)
(1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School grants affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as
foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires such substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
as housing, transportation, etc. and are also paid a salary compensation and working conditions (Substantial
rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining
School justifies the difference on two "significant economic history; and (4) similarity of employment status. The
disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability
the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination
International School Alliance of Educators is a legitimate which will best assure to all employees the exercise of
labor union and the collective bargaining representative of their collective bargaining rights.
all faculty members of the School. When the negotiations In this case, Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-
for a new collective bargaining agreement were held, it hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign perform similar functions under the same working
and local-hires as well as the question of whether foreign- conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded
hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These
which eventually caused a deadlock between the parties. benefits, such as housing, transportation, shipping
costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are
In this regard, the petitioner filed a notice of strike. The reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and
National Conciliation and Mediation Board failed to bring justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To
the parties to a compromise which prompted the include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume would not assure either group the exercise of their
jurisdiction over the dispute. The DOLE Acting Secretary respective collective bargaining rights.
Trajano resolved the issues in favor of the School. Then
DOLE Secretary Quisumbing subsequently denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

82. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corp. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment 596 SCRA 92 [2009]
The Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP), Whether or Yes. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union is
in behalf of its chartered local, instituted a petition for not CLUP- a legitimate labor organization
certification election among the regular rank-and-file SLECC and
employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation its Affiliates Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor
(SLECC) and its Affiliates. The affiliate companies included Workers organization as "any union or association of employees
in the petition were SLE Commercial, SLE Department Union is a which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of
Store, SLE Cinema, Robsan East Trading, Bowling Center, legitimate collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
Planet Toys, Home Gallery and Essentials. labor concerning terms and conditions of employment." Upon
However, the Med-Arbiter ordered the dismissal of the organization compliance with all the documentary requirements, the
petition due to inappropriateness of the bargaining unit. ? Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the
CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union appealed applicant labor organization a certificate indicating that
the order of dismissal but later on moved for the withdrawal it is included in the roster of legitimate labor
of the appeal. organizations.6 Any applicant labor organization shall
In the meantime, CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the
Union reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
(CLUP-SLECCWA), limiting its membership to the rank- registration.
and-file employees of SLECC and filed for a certification
1
 Facts Issue Ruling
election alleging that SLECC employs about 115 In this case, CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers
employees and that more than 20% of employees Union is a legitimate labor organization having been
belonging to the rank-and-file category are its members. It validly issued a certificate of registration. Thus, SLECC
also claimed that no certification election has been held was not an unorganized establishment when it
among them within the last 12 months prior to the filing of voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive
the petition, and while there is another union (SMSLEC) bargaining representative. Hence, the subsequent
registered with DOLE covering the same employees, it has negotiations and resulting registration of a CBA
not been recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent. executed by SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot
SLECC filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It averred that bar CLUP-SLECCWA’s present petition for certification
it has voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as the exclusive election.
bargaining agent of its regular rank-and-file employees,
and that collective bargaining negotiations already
commenced between them. SLECC argued that the
petition should be dismissed for violating the one year and
negotiation bar rules. Consequently, a CBA between
SMSLEC and SLECC was ratified by its rank-and-file
employees and registered with DOLE.
CLUP-SLECCWA assailed the validity of the voluntary
recognition of SMSLEC by SLECC and their consequent
negotiations and execution of a CBA on the ground that the
registration as CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers
Union which covers the same group of employees covered
by SMSLEC was existing and has neither been cancelled
or abandoned. Hence, the voluntary recognition of
SMSLEC by SLECC is void because it violated one of the
major requirements for voluntary recognition, i.e., non-
existence of another labor organization in the same
bargaining unit.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed CLUP-SLECCWA’s petition for
direct certification on the ground of contract bar rule. On
the other hand, the Secretary found merit in CLUP-
SLECCWA’s appeal and held that the subsequent
negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC
with SMSLEC could not bar CLUP-SLECCWA’s petition
because CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union
constituted a registered labor organization at the time of
SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC. SLECC filed a
motion for reconsideration which the Secretary denied for
lack of merit. SLECC then filed a petition for certiorari
before the appellate court which affirmed the ruling of the
Secretary.

83. UP v. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451 [1992]

Case involves a special civic action of certiorari where UP 1. whether or
seeks to annul the Order of Director Calleja holding that not
"professors, associate professors and assistant professors professors,
are rank-and-file employees; and consequently, they associate
should, together with the so-called non-academic, non- professors
teaching, and all other employees of UP, be represented and
by only one labor organization. This stemmed from a filing assistant
of a petition by the "Organization of Non-Academic professors
Personnel of UP" (ONAPUP), a registered labor are "high-
organization in UP, with the Bureau of Labor Relations, that level
sought for the holding of a certification election among non- employees"
academic employees. All-UP Workers’ Union, another
registered labor union filed a comment as intervenor it
declaring its assent to the holding of the election provided
2
First Issue
Professors cannot be considered as exercising such
managerial or highly confidential functions as would
justify their being categorized as "high-level employees"
of the institution. The policy-determining functions of
the University Council refer to academic matters, i.e.
those governing the relationship between the University
and its students, and not the University as an employer
and the professors as employees. It is thus evident that
no conflict of interest results in the professors being
members of the University Council and being classified
as rank-and-file employees.
Doctrine:
The power to recommend, in order to qualify an
 Facts
the appropriate organizational unit was first clearly defined
by the Bureau. Director Calleja ruled that "the appropriate
organizational unit . . should embrace all the regular rank-
and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching, and that
there was no sufficient evidence "to justify the grouping of
the non-academic or administrative personnel into an
organization unit apart and distinct from that of the
academic or teaching personnel."
Director thus commanded that a certification election be
"conducted among rank-and-file employees, teaching and
non-teaching" in all four autonomous campuses of the UP
where the petitioner sought clarification on the coverage of
rank-and-file employees. UP filed a Manifestation seeking
the exclusion from the organizational unit of those
employees holding supervisory positions among non-
academic personnel, and those in teaching staff with the
rank of Assistant Professor or higher. "All UP Workers'
Union" opposed the view of the petitioner University. The
respondent Director ruled resolving the "sole issue" of
"whether or not professors, associate professors and
assistant professors are included in the definition of high-
level employee(s)" adjudging that said teachers are rank-
and-file employees "qualified to join unions and vote in
certification elections.
84. San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 595 [1994]
Issue Ruling
employee as a supervisor or managerial employee
"must not only be effective but the exercise of such
authority should not be merely of a routinary or clerical
nature but should require the use of independent
judgment." Where such recommendatory powers, as in
the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and
final action by the department heads and other higher
executives of the company, the same, although
present, are not effective and not an exercise of
independent judgment as required by law.
The reason why 'policy-determining' has been laid
down as a test in segregating rank-and-file from
2. whether or management is to ensure that those who lay down
not policies in areas that are still negotiable in public sector
employees collective bargaining do not themselves become part of
performing those employees who seek to change these policies for
academic their collective welfare."
functions, sh Second Issue
ould There should be a separate collective bargaining unit
comprise a for academic personnel, distinct from the bargaining
collective unit for the non-academic personnel.
bargaining Doctrine(s):
unit distinct When first confronted with the task of determining the
and different proper collective bargaining unit in a particular
from that controversy, the "community or mutuality of interests"
consisting of test is used; that is in determining the appropriate
the non- bargaining unit, that unit must affect a grouping of
academic employees who have substantial, mutual interests in
employees wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of
of the collective bargaining. Not much reflection is needed to
University perceive that the community or mutuality of interests
which justifies the formation of a single collective
bargaining unit is wanting between the academic and
non-academic personnel of the university. Dissimilarity
in the nature of the work and duties as well as in the
compensation and working conditions of the academic
and non-academic personnel dictate the separation.
Note: The case gave a definition of bargaining unit, A
"bargaining unit" has been defined as a group of
employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less
than all of the entire body of employees, which the
collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
[T]here are various factors which must be satisfied and
considered in determining the proper constituency of a
bargaining unit. No one particular factor is itself
decisive of the determination, but the most pertinent to
our case are: (1) will of the employees (Globe
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unit of employees interest,
such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions; (3)
prior collective bargaining history; and (4) employment
status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary
3
 Facts
San Miguel Corporation and the petitioner-union
entered into a CBA in 1990 which provided that it shall
remain in effect until June of 1992, but in so far as the
representation aspect is concerned, it shall last until July of
1994. On 1991, the company announced it was
restructuring and would result to the spinning-off of
Magnolia Corp. and San Miguel Foods Incorporated, from
San Miguel Corp. Notwithstanding the spin-off the CBA
remained in force up until June of 1992 where it was
renegotiated. During renegotiations, petitioner-union
insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include
the employees of the spun-off corporations: Magnolia and
SMFI; and that the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be
effective only for the remaining period of two years or
until June 30, 1994. SMC, on the other hand, contended
that the members/employees who had moved to Magnolia
and SMFI, automatically ceased to be part of the
bargaining unit at the SMC. Furthermore, the CBA should
be effective for three years in accordance with Art. 253-A of
the Labor Code. Unable to agree a Notice of Strike was
filed, resulting to the Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction. Conciliation meetings were held but still no
agreement was reached, and so the Secretary issued the
Order being challenged which sided with SMC on the two
points; that the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be
effective for the period of three (3) years from June 30,
1992; and that such CBA shall cover only the employees of
SMC and not of Magnolia and SMFI.
Issue Ruling
1. Whether First Issue
or not the There is no grave abuse of discretion on the
duration of part of the Secretary of Labor in declaring that the
the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective for the
renegotiated period of three (3) years from June 30, 1992; and that
terms of the such CBA shall cover only the employees of SMC and
CBA is to be not of Magnolia and SMFI. This is because a perusal of
effective for the discussions made by the legislators on the matter
three years that with respect to provisions not relating to
or for only representation in a CBA, it was their intention and
two years; preference that the period of effectivity of these
and provisions be for 3 years.
Doctrine:
As a matter of policy the parties are encourages (sic) to
enter into a renegotiated CBA with a term which would
coincidde (sic) with the aforesaid five (5) year term of
the bargaining representative. In the event however,
that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a
renegotiated contract with a term of three (3) years or
one which does not coincide with the said 5-year term,
and said agreement is ratified by majority of the
members in the bargaining unit, the subject contract is
valid.
2. Whether Second Issue
or not the There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
bargaining Secretary of Labor in declaring that such CBA shall
unit of SMC cover only the employees of SMC and not of Magnolia
includes also and SMFI. They were advised that upon the expiration
the of the CBAs, new agreements will be negotiated
employees between the management of the new corporations and
of Magnolia the bargaining representatives of the employees
and SMFI. concerned. Indubitably, therefore, Magnolia and SMFI
became distinct entities with separate juridical
personalities. Thus, they can not belong to a single
bargaining unit.
Undeniably, the transformation of the companies was a
management prerogative and business judgment which
the courts can not look into unless it is contrary to law,
public policy or morals. The fact that their businesses
are related is not a justification for disregarding their
separate personalities
Doctrine:
Interests of employees in different companies perforce
differ.
In determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test
of grouping is mutuality or commonality of
interests. The employees sought to be represented by
the collective bargaining agent must have substantial
mutual interests in terms of employment and working
conditions as evinced by the type of work they
performed.[22] Considering the spin-offs, the
companies would consequently have their respective
and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of work,
wages, hours of work and other conditions of
employment. For such reason, the employees of the
different companies see the need to group themselves
together and organize themselves into distinctive and
4
 Facts Issue Ruling
different groups. It would then be best to have separate
bargaining units for the different companies.
85. University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451

86. San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. Confessor, 262 SCRA 81 [1996]

87. Phil. Scouts Veterans, v. Torres, 224 SCRA 682 [1993]

PGA Brotherhood Association- the private respondent (1) Whether (1) Yes. A single petition for certification election or for
labor union filed a Petition for Direct Certification/ or not a recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
Certification Election among: Philippine Scout Veterans single can validly or legally be filed by a labor union in the 3
Security Agency, GVM Security Agecy and Abaquin petition for corporations.
Security Agency. Petitioners filed a single comment certification
alleging therein that the said three security agencies have election or Factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and
separate and distinct corporate personalities by which they for binding on the court when supported by substantial
cannot seek a certification election in three separate recognition evidence. Thus Med-Arbiter and Secretaries Drilon and
bargaining units in one petition. as the sole Torres were not mistaken in holding that the three
and security companies are in reality a single business
exclusive entity operating as a single company called “PGA
bargaining Security Group”. Indeed, 3 agencies are (1) managed
agent can through Utilities Management Corporation (UMC), (2)
validly or all their employees drawing their salaries and wages
legally be from through (UMC), (3) have common and interlocking
filed by a incorporators and officers, (4) employees have a single
labor union Mutual Benefit System and system of compulsory
in the (3) retirement, (5) security guards of one agency could
three easily transfer from one agency to another and then
corporations back again and (6) always hold joint yearly ceremonies.
each of Established on the following circumstances, it goes to
which has a show that the security agencies concerned do not exist
separate and and operate separately and distinctly from each other.
distinct legal
personality Accordingly, the veil of corporate fiction of the three
instead of agencies should be lifted for the purpose of allowing the
filling (3) employees of the 3 agencies to form a single labor
three union. As a single bargaining unit, the employees need
separate not to file 3 separate petitions for certification election,
petitions. thus could be covered in a single petition.

(2) Whether (2) No. Petitioners cannot interfere with the certification
or not election proceeding.
petitioners
can interfere The amended RA 6715 supports that there is no need
with the for the labor union to prove that at least 20% of the
certification security guards in the three agencies. When a duly
election organized union files a petition for certification election,
proceeding. the Med-Arbiter has the duty to automatically conduct
an election.

Employers may rightfully be notified or informed of

petitions of such nature but they should not be
considered parties with concomitant right to oppose it.
88. San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 595 [1994]


89. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors v. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 [1997]
"Geographical location can be completely disregarded if
the communal or mutual interests of the employees are
not sacrificed as demonstrated in UP v. Calleja-Ferrer
5
 Facts Issue Ruling
where all non-academic rank and file employees of the
University of the Philippines inDiliman, Quezon City,
Padre Faura, Manila, Los Baos, Laguna and the
Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification
election. "
90. Mechanical Department Labor Union v. CIR, 24 SCRA 925 [1968]
3 unions in the Caloocan shops at the Philippine National Whether or Yes. A new unit can be established as a separate
Railways had submitted different labor demand upon the not a new bargaining unit.
management for which reason a certification election was unit should
needed to determine the proper collective agency for the be Union and representation in the railway company rely
Caloocan shop workers. established, on the history of PNR on the application of Global
the Doctrine which deals on the bargaining units formed
Caloocan through separation of new units from existing ones
shop whenever plebiscites had show the workers’ desire to
separate and have their own representatives.
distinct from
the rest of Hence, CIR has found that there is a basic difference in
the workers that those in the Caloocan shops not only have a
under the community of interest and working conditions but on the
Mechanical major repairs performed of railway requiring special skill
Department in the use of heavy equipment and machinery, which is
now a sufficient to set them apart from the rest of the
presented by workers.
the
Mechanical Thus, Caloocan shops should be given a chance to
Department vote on whether their group should be separated from
Labor Union that they represented by the Mechanical Department
as separate Labor Union and ordered a plebiscite held for that
bargaining purpose.
unit.

91. Filoil Refinery Corp. v. Filoil Supervisory, et al. 46 SCRA 512 [1972]
Respondent association is a labor organization duly Are
registered with the Department of Labor. It is composed supervisors
exclusively of the supervisory and confidential employees allowed to
of petitioner corporation. There exists another entirely bargain?
distinct labor association composed of the corporation's
rank-and-file employees, the Filoil Employees & Workers
Association (FEWA) with which petitioner executed a
collective bargaining agreement.
The collective bargaining agreement expressly excluded
from its coverage petitioner's supervisory and confidential
employees, who in turn organized their own labor
association, respondent herein which with the industrial
court its petition for certification as the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining agent of all of petitioner's supervisory
and confidential employees working at its refinery in
Rosario, Cavite.
Petitioner corporation filed a motion to dismiss the petition
on the grounds of lack of cause of action and of respondent
court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, under its
claim that supervisors are not employees within the
meaning of Republic Act 875, the Industrial Peace Act, and
that since they are part of management, they do not have
6
Yes. Supervisors (and confidential employees), even
though they may exercise the prerogatives of
management as regards the rank and file employees
are indeed employees in relation to their employer, the
company which is owned by the stockholders and
bondholders (capital) and should therefore be entitled
under the law to bargain collectively with the top
management with respect to their terms and conditions
of employment.
As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG
& P Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. C.I.R., 8 section 3 of the
Industrial Peace Act "explicitly provides that
"employees" — and this term includes supervisors —
"shall have the right to self-organization, and to form,
join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing
for the purpose of collective bargaining through
representations of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection" and that
"individuals employed as supervisors ... may form
separate organizations of their own". Indeed, it is well
settled that "in relation to his employer," a foreman or
supervisor "is an employee within the meaning of the
 Facts
the right to bargain collectively although they may organize
an organization of their own.
Respondent court in its order of May 26, 1965 denied the
dismissal motion. It ruled that under the express provisions
of section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, "(I)ndividuals
employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of employees under
their supervision but may form separate organizations their
own."
92. Negros Oriental Electric Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 357 SCRA 577 [2001]
Some employees of the petitioner organized themselves
into a local chapter of the Philippine Agricultural
Commercial and Industrial Workers Union - Trade Union
Congress of the Philippines (PACIWU-TUCP). The private inclusion of
respondent-union submitted its charter certificate and
supporting documents on the same date.
On December 10, 1997, PACIWU-TUCP filed a petition for union
certification election on behalf of the NORECO 1 chapter,
seeking to represent the seventy-seven (77) rank-and-file
employees of NORECO 1.PACIWU-TUCP alleged in its
petition that it had created a local chapter in NORECO 1
which had been duly reported to the DOLE Regional Office confidential
(Region VII) on December 4, 1997. It was further averred
therein that NORECO 1 is an unorganized establishment,
and that there is no other labor organization presently
existing at the said employer establishment.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition ruling that since the
corresponding certificate has not yet been issued.
Accordingly, it has not yet acquired the status of a
Issue Ruling
Act" ... For this reason, supervisors are entitled to
engage in union activities and any discrimination
against them by reason thereof constitutes an unfair
labor practice."
Also, no arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion can
be attributed against respondent court's allowing the
inclusion of the confidential employees in the
supervisors' association for as admitted by petitioner
itself, the supervisors and confidential employees enjoy
its trust and confidence. This identity of interest logically
calls for their inclusion in the same bargaining unit and
at the same time fulfills the law's objective of insuring to
them the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and to collective bargaining, which could hardly be
accomplished if the respondent association's
membership were to be broken up into five separate
ineffective tiny units, as urged by petitioner.
Respondent court's action not being vulnerable to
challenge as being arbitrary or capricious is therefore
sustained, in line with the Court's consistent rulings that
the industrial court "enjoys a wide discretion in
determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair
and free choice of bargaining representations by
employees," and that its action "in deciding upon an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is
discretionary ... and (that) its judgment in this respect is
entitled to almost complete finality, unless its action is
arbitrary or capricious" and that absent any grave
abuse of discretion as to justify the Court's intervention,
"this Court has repeatedly upheld the exercise of the
Court of Industrial Relations in matters concerning the
representation of employee groups.
When is the In the cited case of Toyota Motor Philippines
best time to Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation
oppose the Labor Union, 268 SCRA 573, the employer, since the
beginning opposed the petition indicating the specific
supervisors names of the supervisory employees and their
in a union? respective job descriptions. In the instant case, movant
Are the not only belatedly raised the issue but miserably failed
to support the same. Hence, between the belated and
members in bare allegation of movant that there are supervisory
this case and confidential employees in the union vis-a-vis the
supervisory open and repeated declaration under oath of the union
and members in the minutes of their organizational meeting
and the ratification of their Constitution and By-Laws
employees? that they are rank and file employees, we are inclined
to give more credence to the latter.
Also, in the instant case, there is no persuasive
evidence to show that there are indeed supervisory and
confidential employees in appellant union who under
the law are disqualified to join the same.
7
 Facts
legitimate labor organization.
PACIWU-TUCP filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
said order, which was treated as an appeal by the public
respondent. On July 31, 1998, the public respondent
rendered the assailed judgment as previously quoted. The
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 24,
1998, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated
September 21, 1998.
Petitioner claims that it challenged the composition of the
union at the earliest possible time after the decision of the
Med-Arbiter was set aside by the DOLE; and that the list of
the names of supervisory or confidential employees was
submitted with the petition for certiorari filed in the Court of
Appeals, which did not consider the same.
93. General Rubber and Footwear Corp. v. BLR, 155 SCRA 283 [1987]
Issue Ruling
In the instant petition, NORECO 1 fails to controvert the
statement of the Court of Appeals that the petitioner
failed to show any proof that any member of the private
respondent was also a member or co-owner of the
petitioner cooperative. More important, the factual issue
is not for the Court of Appeals to resolve in a petition for
certiorari. Finally, the instant petition ambiguously
states that NORECO1 is an electric cooperative and all
the employees of the subject union are members of the
cooperative, but submitted a certified list of employees
who are members-co-owners of the petitioner electric
cooperative. Impliedly, there are rank-and-file
employees of the petitioner who are not themselves
members-co-owners, or who are the ones qualified to
form or join a labor organization. Again, the core issue
raises a question of fact that the appellate court
correctly declined to resolve in the first instance.

94. De La Salle v. De La Salle Employees, 330 SCRA 363 [2000]

Dela Salle University (UNIVERSITY) and Dela Salle (1) whether The Court affirm in part and modify in part.
University Employees Association – National Federation of the computer On the first issue, the Court agrees that the express
Teachers and Employees Union (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), operators exclusion of the computer operators and discipline
which is composed of regular non-academic rank and file assigned at officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees,(UNION) entered for a new collective the employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement
bargaining agreement which, however, turned out to be Universitys does not bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion
unsuccessful. Computer of the said employees in the bargaining unit. As to the
After several conciliation-mediation meetings, five (5) out of Services discipline officers, the Court agree that based on the
the eleven (11) issues raised were resolved by the parties. Center and nature of their duties, they are not confidential
The parties entered into a Submission Agreement, the employees and should therefore be included in the
identifying the remaining six (6) unresolved issues for Universitys d bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. As to the
arbitration, namely: iscipline the employees of the College of St. Benilde, they
(1) scope of the bargaining unit, officers may should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the
(2) union security clause, be rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University,
(3) security of tenure, considered because the two educational institutions have their own
(4) salary increases as separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence
(5) indefinite union leave, reduction of the union presidents confidential was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate
workload, special leave, and finally, employees fiction.
(6) duration of the agreement. and should
therefore be On involving the inclusion of a union shop clause, the
The parties appointed Buenaventura Magsalin as voluntary excluded Court affirm the ruling.
arbitrator. from the
bargaining On the issue regarding the use of the “last-in-first-out”
Voluntary arbitrator rendered the assailed decision as unit which is method, the Court agree that as an exercise of
follows: composed of management prerogative, the University has the right to
rank and file adopt valid and equitable grounds as basis for
On the first issue, he ruled that the Computer Operators employees terminating or transferring employees.
assigned at the Computer Services Center, should be of the
included as members of the bargaining unit; The discipline University, On the issue involving the Unions proposals on the
officers, belong to the rank-and-file on the basis of the and whether deloading of the union president, The Court we agree
nature of their job; and with respect to the employees of the the with the rejection of the said demands, there being no
College of St. Benilde, they had a personality separate and employees justifiable reason for the granting of the same.
distinct from the University and thus, they are outside the of the
bargaining unit of the University’s rank-and-file employees. College of On the sixth issue, the Court finds that the voluntary
On the second issue regarding the propriety of the St. Benilde arbitrator did not gravely abuse his discretion on this
inclusion of a union shop clause, the voluntary arbitrator should also matter.
opined that a union shop clause is a valid form of union be included
8
 Facts Issue Ruling
security while the CBA is in force and in accordance with in the same On last issue involving the ruling that the 70% share in
the Constitutional policy to promote unionism and collective bargaining the incremental tuition proceeds, the Court deems that
bargaining and negotiations. unit; any determination of this alleged error is unnecessary
(2) whether and irrelevant.
With respect to the use of the “last-in-first-out” method in a union shop
case of retrenchment and transfer to other schools or units, clause
the voluntary arbitrator upheld the “elementary right and should be
prerogative of the management of the University to select included in
and/or choose its employees, a right equally recognized by the parties
the Constitution and the law. collective
bargaining
Regarding the fourth issue concerning salary increases, agreement,
the voluntary arbitrator opined that the proposed budget of in addition to
the University for SY 1992-93 could not sufficiently cope up the existing
with the demand for increases by the Union. maintenance
of
As to the Unions demand for a reduction of the workload of membership
the union president, special leave benefits and indefinite clause;
union leave with pay, the voluntary arbitrator denied the (3) whether
Unions demand for special leave benefits. the denial of
the Unions
On the last issue, regarding the duration of the collective proposed
bargaining agreement, the voluntary arbitrator ruled the “last-in-first-
same became a binding agreement between them. out” method
Subsequently, both parties filed their respective motions for of laying-off
reconsideration . employees,
is proper;
(4) whether
the ruling
that on the
basis of the
Universitys
proposed
budget, the
University
can no
longer be
required to
grant a
second
round of
wage
increases, is
correct;
(5) whether
the denial of
the Unions
proposals on
the
deloading of
the union
president,
improved
leave
benefits and
indefinite
union leave

9
 Facts Issue Ruling
with pay, is
proper;
(6) whether
the finding
that the
multi-
sectoral
committee in
the
University is
the
legitimate
group which
determines
and
scrutinizes
the annual
salary
increases
and fringe
benefits of
the
employees
of the
University, is
correct;
(7) whether
the ruling
that the 70%
share in the
incremental
tuition
proceeds is
the only
source of
salary
increases
and fringe
benefits of
the
employees,
is proper.

95. Filoil Refinery Corp. v. Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Assn., 46 SCRA 512 [1972]

10
11