FullLaborRelationTSN2017 18 PDF

LABOR RELATION BASED ON LECTURES OF ATTY EDIG 2017-2018
December 6, 2017 protestors again are small group of

employees, still it a concerted activity
Transcribed by Glowing Gloria protected by industrial peace act. It is
not necessary that the union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining is
No recording… contemplated. Page | 1
---------------- END OF CLASS--------------
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE
Atty Edig: So in this case, the Supreme

December 8 2017 Court did not say that the right to
exercise freedom of religion is superior
Transcribed by: Glowing Gloria to the right of self-organization. What
Recitation on cases the SC said is that the free exercise of
the freedom of religion is superior to
Still we are on the right to self- contract rights. What we are discussion
organization here is the union security clause
agreement. Here what happen is
Let’s start with the cases
Victoriano wanted to be out the union
because of his religion. The union also
wanted vctoriano out here because he
REPUBLIC SAVINGS VS CIR
did not want to follow the USC. So here
Atty Edig : What was the contention of SC held that the contract here on the
the letter? What was the issue in this union cannot be made superior of that
case? Why the letter would considered right to free exercise of religion.
concerted activity? They were attacking
Even if the state afford protection in the
the character of the president how did it
labor, promotes employment, the
become a union activity? As to
enactment of RA 3350 is still consistent in
nepotism, how does it affect the
the provision that protects labor. It
employees?
merely relievethe exercise of religion by
As to nepotism: it affects the employees certain persons of a burden that is
because the president failed to be an impose by the union security
example by practicing favoritism to agreement. If your religious belief
other employees. Because the president precludes you from joining labor union,
acted in this manner, he failed to that should not be taken against you
provide wholesome recommendations that you should be dismissed by work.
towards the employees. The exemption in the law was upheld by
the constitutional _(dli gyd madungog)
So in this case class, even if it was not a in this case.
collective bargaining issue, the right to
self-organizational issue was still being
exercised for mutual aide and
protection of the employees. Even if the
B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

Nada Es Imposible
collective bargaining. As repeatedly

stated, the right of self-organization
REYES VS TRAJANO embraces not only the right to form, join
Even though they are not part of any or assist labor organizations, but the
union, there can still validly cast their concomitant, converse right NOT to
vote in the election. form, join or assist any labor union. Page | 2
NOTE: atty ask about the employees

Lets stop here…
who were not part of any union, minority
employee. ----------------END OF CLASS------------------
The purpose of a certification election is Jan 4 2018,

precisely the ascertainment of the No recording.. absent ko
wishes of the majority of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be
or not to be represented by a labor
organization, and in the affirmative
case, by which particular labor
organization. If the results of the election
should disclose that the majority of the
workers do not wish to be represented
by any union, then their wishes must be
respected, and no union may properly
be certified as the exclusive
representative of the workers in the
bargaining unit in dealing with the
employer regarding wages, hours and
other terms and conditions of
employment. The minority employees —
who wish to have a union represent
them in collective bargaining — can do
nothing but wait for another suitable
occasion to petition for a certification
election and hope that the results will
be different. They may not and should
not be permitted, however, to impose
their will on the majority — who do not
desire to have a union certified as the
exclusive workers' benefit in the
bargaining unit — upon the plea that
they, the minority workers, are being
denied the right of self-organization and

Nada Es Imposible
1. Any falsehood about the

constitutional by laws;
2. Any falsehood about election of
officers; and
Jan 5 2018, 3. Voluntary dissolution.
Transcribed by GlowingGloria Page | 3
So, if the constitution and bylaws or the
So yesterday we discussed what labor election has been found to be fraud or
unions, what are their rights and the was simulated, according to
process of its registration, like an jurisprudence, the BIR can cancel the
independent union, etc. union registration.
What are the grounds to cancel union The 3rd ground which is the voluntary
registration? Before it was 9 now its was dissolution which is 2/3 votes of the
3 under article 245 of the labor code. entire membership with a subsequent
application to cancel the said union
NOTE: please check the submitted by the board and attested by
numbering of the provision, the president of the organization.
maam said it was Article 245, but
in book dated on 2015, the Q: WHAT HAPPEN TO THE OTHER
ground for cancellation is 247. But GROUNDS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY TO
the content are the same CANCEL THE UNION REGISTRATION?
ART. 245. Grounds for Cancellation of A: Those other grounds they will
Union Registration. - The following may become or they will only affect the
constitute grounds for cancellation of airing officers. Example: Non submission
union registration: of reportorial requirement such as
financial statements, updated consti-or
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or by laws. So here the non-submission now
fraud in connection with the adoption of the consti and by laws are not
or ratification of the constitution and by- considered as a ground to cancel the
laws or amendments thereto, the union registration. But it may cause
minutes of ratification, and the list of punishment for the airing officers of the
members who took part in the union.
ratification;
Also previously, supervisor and rank and
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements file employees are found in one union, it
or fraud in connection with the election was a ground to cancel, however the
of officers, minutes of the election of amendment remove that. So now the
officers, and the list of voters; excluded member are deemed
AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE from the list of
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the the listed members. So that is the effect.
members." Read article 245.
Union affiicatitions it applies to local or

So here are the three in condensed
charter union.
from but I suggest that you read the law
proper for exam:

Nada Es Imposible
GR:A labor union may disaafilate from union must carried now since the
the mother union, to form an federation is no longer_.
independent union during the 60 days
freedom period immediately WHAT IS THE LIMITATION OF THIS
preceeding the expiration of the CBA DISAFFILIATION? Can the union say, ok I
will now disaffiliates arbitrarily? Page | 4
Usually the CBA has a life for 5 years.
2months before it expires, that is what ANS: this should be done in accordance
we call the freedom period and at that to the rules of procedure stated in the
time aside from negotiating for a new consti and by laws of the federation.
CBA, the charter or the local may Usually, a charter local does not have
disaafilliate from the mother union. their own consti and bylaws. They adopt
the consti and bylaws of their
federation. How do they disaffiliates? So
accordance to the bylaws of the
HOW DO THEY DISAFFILIATE? federation. This is also to protect the
employees of the BU, so that their
ANS: upon a written resolution officers will act arbitrary to their
approved by the majority of the local prejudice.
membership. Adopted by the general
membership meeting called by that
purpose.
WHO HAS JURISDICTION?
Note that kanina cancellation
which needs 2/3 votes, ngaun ANS: BLR – Bureau Of Labor Relation
naman disaffiliation which needs cause it is considered as an inter-union
a majority vote. Also dapat conflict.
meron talaga sya sa agenda.
Hindi sya pwde issinngit singit
lang sa meeting.Dapat talaga
called for that purpose. Let’s go WHAT IS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY
to the exception of this rule. DOCTRINE?
EXCEPTION: The disaffiliation by the Ans: it is connected with the

majority where the union may disaffiliate disaffiliation by majority. Even if the
from the mother union even before the union would disaffiliates from the mother
60 days freedom period. So it may be federation, the CBA entered into by the
carried out but still by the majority federation since ( do u remember the
member of the union members in the principle of agency, the P is the
BU. This happens when there is a shift in employee, the A is the union and the A
allegiance by the majority members of of the A is the federation) since the
the union. They can disaffiliate, federation represents the union, which
however, the CBA continuous to bind in turns represents the employees, they
the members of the (new) union up to are the ones who are considered the
its expiration date. For this to happen, a exclusive bargaining agent during the
consent (?) election must be entire proceedings.
administered again to determine which

Nada Es Imposible
c) The members shall directly elect their

So even if the local union would
officers in the local union, as well as
disaffiliate from the mother union, the
their national officers in the national
CBA would still hold true for the BU.
union or federation to which they or
Employees, cannot revoke validly
their local union is affiliated, by
executed CBA with there employer by
secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
simple changing their bargaining agent.
years. No qualification requirement Page 5
for candidacy to any position shall
be imposed other than membership
in good standing in subject labor
WHAT IS EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT? organization. The secretary or any
other responsible union officer shall
ARTICLE 240( or Article 240) – All existing furnish the Secretary of Labor and
federation and national unions which Employment with a list of the newly-
meet the qualification of a elected officers, together with the
legitimatelabor organization and none appointive officers or agents who
of the grounds for cancelation shall are entrusted with the handling of
continue to maintain their existing funds within thirty (30) calendar days
affiliates regardless of the nature of the after the election of officers or from
industry and the location of the affiliates the occurrence of any change in the
list of officers of the labor
This was asked in my bar exam. organization;
d) The members shall determine by
secret ballot, after due deliberation,
any question of major policy
CHAPTER II affecting the entire membership of
the organization, unless the nature of
RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF the organization or force majeure
MEMBERSHIP renders such secret ballot
impractical, in which case, the
board of directors of the
ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of
organization may make the decision
Membership in a Labor Organization.
in behalf of the general membership;
The following are the rights and conditions e) No labor organization shall knowingly
of membership in a labor organization: admit as members or continue in
membership any individual who
a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation belongs to a subversive organization
fees shall be required of the or who is engaged directly or
members of a legitimate labor indirectly in any subversive activity;
organization nor shall arbitrary, f) No person who has been convicted
excessive or oppressive fine and of a crime involving moral turpitude
forfeiture be imposed; shall be eligible for election as a
b) The members shall be entitled to full
union officer or for appointment to
and detailed reports from their any position in the union;
officers and representatives of all g) No officer, agent or member of a
financial transactions as provided for
labor organization shall collect any
in the constitution and by-laws of the fees, dues, or other contributions in
organization; its behalf or make any disbursement
of its money or funds unless he is duly

Nada Es Imposible
authorized pursuant to its constitution this Act shall automatically result in

and by-laws; the cancellation of union registration
h) Every payment of fees, dues or other of such labor organization;
contributions by a member shall be k) The officers of any labor organization
evidenced by a receipt signed by the shall not be paid any compensation
officer or agent making the other than the salaries and expenses
collection and entered into the due to their positions as specifically Page 6
record of the organization to be kept provided for in its constitution and
and maintained for the purpose; by-laws, or in a written resolution duly
i) The funds of the organization shall authorized by a majority of all the
not be applied for any purpose or members at a general membership
object other than those expressly meeting duly called for the purpose.
provided by its constitution and by- The minutes of the meeting and the
laws or those expressly authorized by list of participants and ballots cast
written resolution adopted by the shall be subject to inspection by the
majority of the members at a Secretary of Labor or his duly
general meeting duly called for the authorized representatives. Any
purpose; irregularities in the approval of the
j) Every income or revenue of the resolutions shall be a ground for
organization shall be evidenced by a impeachment or expulsion from the
record showing its source, and organization;
every expenditure of its funds shall l) The treasurer of any labor
be evidenced by a receipt from the organization and every officer
person to whom the payment is thereof who is responsible for the
made, which shall state the date, account of such organization or for
place and purpose of such payment. the collection, management,
Such record or receipt shall form disbursement, custody or control of
part of the financial records of the the funds, moneys and other
organization. properties of the organization, shall
render to the organization and to its
Any action involving the members a true and correct account
funds of the organization shall of all moneys received and paid by
prescribe after three (3) years from him since he assumed office or since
the date of submission of the annual the last day on which he rendered
financial report to the Department of such account, and of all bonds,
Labor and Employment or from the securities and other properties of
date the same should have been the organization entrusted to his
submitted as required by law, custody or under his control. The
whichever comes earlier: Provided, rendering of such account shall be
That this provision shall apply only to made:
a legitimate labor organization a. (1) At least once a year
which has submitted the financial within thirty (30) days after
report requirements under this Code: the close of its fiscal year;
Provided, further, That failure of any b. (2) At such other times as
labor organization to comply with may be required by a
the periodic financial reports resolution of the majority of
required by law and such rules and the members of the
regulations promulgated thereunder organization; and
six (6) months after the effectivity of

Nada Es Imposible
c. (3) Upon vacating his office. Any violation of the above rights and
The account shall be duly conditions of membership shall be a ground
audited and verified by for cancellation of union registration or
affidavit and a copy thereof expulsion of officers from office, whichever is
shall be furnished the appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of
Secretary of Labor the members of a union or any member or Page 7
m) The books of accounts and other members specially concerned may report
records of the financial activities of such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau
any labor organization shall be open shall have the power to hear and decide
to inspection by any officer or any reported violation to mete the
member thereof during office hours; appropriate penalty.
n) No special assessment or other Criminal and civil liabilities arising from
extraordinary fees may be levied violations of above rights and conditions of
upon the members of a labor membership shall continue to be under the
organization unless authorized by a jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
written resolution of a majority of all
the members in a general
membership meeting duly called for
the purpose. The secretary of the
Discussion:so the one I have is
organization shall record the minutes
condensed version. So better read
of the meeting including the list of all
you’re codal.
members present, the votes cast, the
purpose of the special assessment or
They have the following rights:
fees and the recipient of such
assessment or fees. The record shall
be attested to by the president. 1. They have the right to decision
o) Other than for mandatory activities making;
under the Code, no special 2. They have the right to vote;
assessments, from any amount due 3. They have the right to include
to an employee without an themselves fund-raising(?)in the
individual written authorization duly labor organization;
signed by the employee. The 4. They have the right to information
authorization should specifically on the content of the consti and
state the amount, purpose and bylaws, access to the CBA and
beneficiary of the deduction; and access to the labor laws;-
p) It shall be the duty of any labor actually labor organizations are
organization and its officers to inform mandated by the labor code to
its members on the provisions of its educate their members about
constitution and by-laws, collective their rights under the labor laws.
bargaining agreement, the 5. They have the right to vote and
prevailing labor relations system and be voted for subject to provisions
all their rights and obligations under of their qualifications and
existing labor laws. disqualifications;
6. They have the right related to
For this purpose, registered labor
monetary matters- so they may
organizations may assess reasonable dues
have vote on the compensation
to finance labor relations seminars and
of their officers, vote on special
other labor education activities.
assesments where atty fees come

Nada Es Imposible
from so these can be voted by must be regular WON they are

them on how much are they probationary. So in these scenario or
going to pay and who are going eligibilities, two criteria must be
to pay. compiled for an employee to be eligible
7. They have the right to be to vote. The qualifications must be
deducted a special assessment applied to all members. Dili pwde may
Page | 8
only with members’ written special . hindi yan pwde. Kung ordinary
authorization – this is an important yan, ordinary lahat. Wla dapat ice
provision. A lot o cases deals with cream lahat kasi dapat walang special.
this matter. There must be this You should be given time and
requirement of written opportunity to know also the
authorization. qualifications required.
8. They have the right to impositions
of excessive feesagainst Ito we go to check-off dues. Ito talaga,
unauthorized collection of marami talaga itong cases sa SC.
contribution or disbursement and
they are required adequate
records to the expenses
9. They have the access to the CHECK OFF
financial records of the union or
LO. – WHAT IS A CHECK OFF?
It is a method of deducting from an

employee’s pay at a prescribed period,
MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE LABOR the amounts due the union for fees,
ORGANIZATIONS fines and assessments.
WHO ARE PROHIBITED OF BECOMING So here before you receive your salary
MEMBERS OR OFFICERS? here, there is automatic deductions for
the check-off. Si ER mismo ang makuha
1. Non-employees ;
2. Those engaged in subversive Deductions for unions service fees are
activities; authorized by the law and do not
3. Those persons convicted of crime require individual check-off
involving moral turpitude; authorization
WHO MAY VOTE?Ans: Only members of NATURE AND PURPOSE OF CHECK OFF-
the union union dues are the lifeblood of the
union. All unions are authorized to
HOW DOES THE UNION QUALIFY WHO collect All unions are authorized to
MAY VOTE? collect reasonable membership fees,
union dues, assessments and fines and
They may put criteria Ex. If the other contributions for labor education
employees are seasonal or irregular and and research, mutual death and
there is requirement that for a member hospitalization benefits, welfare fund,
to vote, there should be that, for a strike fund and credit and cooperative
particular payroll period and the status undertakings.(Article 292 (277), LC)

Nada Es Imposible
GR:No special assessment,attorney’s

fees, negotiations fees or any other
extraordinary fees may be checked off WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION OF THE
from any amount due to an EE without REQUIREMENT OF INDIVIDUAL WRTTEN
individual written authorization duly AUTHORIZATION?
signed by the employee. Page | 9
1. Mandatory activities under the
The authorization should specify labor code;
the following: 2. For agency fees;
3. When non-member of the union
1. Amount; avail of the benefits of the CBA:
2. Purpose; a. Nonmembers may be
3. Beneficiary of the deductions. assesed union dues
equivalent to that paid by
union members;
b. Only by board resolution
WHAT IS A SPECIAL ASSESMENT? – kasi approved by majority of
usually pag sinabing union dues,these the members in general
are already provided by the law. So meeting called for that
what is the example of SA, example purpose
when the union would hire a lawyer to 4. Union service fee authorized by
represent a case. So SA yan sya. law- we will discuss these on the
case.
So under number 3, example class, the

WHAT ARE THE REQUREMENTS OF SA? BU already has an EBA. So even if your
Para automatic sya deducted sa salary. union did not win the BU, they will still
charge agency fees.
1. Authorization by a written
resolution of the majority of the
members at the general meeting
called for that purpose; WHAT ARE THE MANDATORY ACTIVTIES
2. Secretary’s record of the minutes AUTHORIZED BY LAW?
of the meetings which must
include the: 1. The union is required to educate
a. List of the members the members. Under section2
present; (huh) there is a special fund that
b. Votes case; can be part of the check off
c. Purpose of the special without individual written
assessment; authorization
d. Receipt of such 2. Mandatory seminars, conducted
assessment. to educate the members. Read
3. Individual written authorization to Rule 10 of the omnibus rules
check off duly signed by the implementing union.
Employees concerned- to levy
such assessment ( ART 241,lc)

Nada Es Imposible
Rule X Sec. 5. Grounds for impeachment or

expulsion. Failure to provide adequate
LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH labor education and research services
to members of a labor organization shall
be a ground for the impeachment or
expulsion of the officer or officers Page 10
Sec. 1. Enlightenment of unionists as a responsible therefor in accordance with
duty. It shall be the duty of every the provisions of the constitution and by-
legitimate labor organization to laws of the labor organization
enlighten its members on their rights and concerned. Misuse or illegal
obligations as unionists and as disbursement of the labor education
employees. and research fund shall be a ground for
impeachment or expulsion from the
Sec. 2. Special fund for labor education union and punishable under the
and research. Every legitimate labor relevant provisions of the constitution
organization shall, for the above and by-laws of the union and other
purpose, maintain a special fund for applicable laws.
labor education and research. Existing
strike funds may be transformed into
labor education and research funds, in
whole or in part. The union may also WHAT ARE THE UNION SERVICE FEES
periodically assess and collect a AUTHROIZED BY LAW? These was
reasonable amount from its members included because of the case Radio
for such fund. Communication PH vs Secretary of
labor. Magolo ito masyado class
Sec. 3. Mandatory seminars. It shall be
mandatory for every legitimate labor
organization to conduct seminars and
similar activities on existing labor laws, CASE: RADIO COMMUNICATION VS
collective agreements, company rules SECRETARY OF LABOR
and regulations, and other relevant
matters. The union seminars and similar Atty Edig: The lawyer was denied of his
activities may be conducted atty’s fees kay gimaniobra sa mga
independently or in cooperation with officials para maadto ang attys fees sa
the Department of Labor and isa ka non-existent na lawyer. This went
Employment, the Asian Labor Education court and the union contended there
Center, the Institute of Labor and was no individual written authorization
Manpower Studies, and other labor- for his attys fees. Because the attorney’s
education groups. fees here was from a decision rendered
by the BLR. SC HELD: union service fees
Sec. 4. Official receipts. All collections authorized by law under section 11 in
and expenditures of funds for labor relation to section 13. The SC considered
research and education shall be duly the attorney’s fees as part of union
covered by official receipts subject to service fees authorized by law under
account examination by the Secretary section11 in relation to sec 13.
of Labor and Employment or his Attorney’s fees, in any judicial or
representative. administrative proceedings for the court

Nada Es Imposible
not exceed 10%. These may be of the petitioner and the employees do
deducted from the total amount due of not run counter to the express mandate
the winning party. Since the lawyer won of the law since the same are not
the case for the union, there was the unwarranted or without their knowledge
amount given to the union. So doon and consent. Also, the deductions for
magkuha ng 10% and lawyer. Even the union service fee in question are Page 11
without individual written authorization. authorized by law and do not require
The 10% should be given to the lawyer. ( individual check-off authorizations. 22
so murag sa judgment sya kuhaon)
OK LETS GO TO THE CASES
FROM THE CASE: petitioner cannot

invoke the lack of an individual written CSAI VS FERRER-CALLEJA
authorization from the employees as a
shield for its fraudulent refusal to pay the FROM KADZ FACTS: Cebu Seaman’s
service fee of private respondent. Prior Association, Inc. (CSAI) was organized
to the payment made to its employees, by marine engineers and deck officers
petitioner was ordered by the Regional of vessels plying Cebu and other ports
Director to deduct the 15% attorney's of PH. The same group was registered as
fee from the total amount due its a labor union before the BLR as the
employees and to deposit the same Seaman’s Association of the Philippines,
with the Regional Labor Office. Inc (SAPI).
Petitioner failed to do so allegedly
because of the absence of individual Two sets of officers are claiming to be
written authorizations. Be that as it may, entitled of the union dues. The first
the lack thereof was remedied and one was led by Nacua and the other
supplied by the execution of the was led by Gabayoyo. According to
compromise agreement whereby the the latter, Nacua has already been
employees, expressly approved the 10% expelled as member/officer of the
corporation and that the corporation
from any claim, suit or complaint arising is one and the same with SAPI.
from the deduction thereof. When
petitioner was thereafter again ordered ISSUE: Who is entitled to the union
to pay the 10% fees to respondent fees?
union, it no longer had any legal basis or RULING: SAPI.
subterfuge for refusing to pay the latter.
Public respondent Bureau of Labor
We agree that Article 222 of the Labor Relations correctly ruled based on the
Code requiring an individual written evidence presented by the parties
authorization as a prerequisite to wage that SAPI, the legitimate labor union,
deductions seeks to protect the registered with its office, is not the
employee against unwarranted same association as CSAI, the
practices that would diminish his corporation, insofar as their rights
compensation without his knowledge under the Labor Code are concerned.
and consent. 21 However, for all intents Hence, the former and not the latter
and purposes, the deductions required association is entitled to

Nada Es Imposible
the release and custody of union fees personality by labor organizations,

with Aboitiz Shipping and other associations or unions and the
shipping companies with whom it possession of the "rights and privileges
had an existing CBA. granted by law to legitimate labor
The expulsion of Nacua from the organizations". The Constitution does
not guarantee these rights and Page | 12

corporation, of which she denied privileges, much less said personality,
being a member, has however, not which are mere statutory creations,
affected her membership with the for the possession and exercise of
labor union. Whatever acts their which registration is required to
group had done in the corporation do protect both labor and the public
not bind the labor union. against abuses, fraud, or impostors
who pose as organizers, although not
Atty Edig: truly accredited agents of the union
they purport to represent. Such
PAFLU VS SEC OF LABOR requirement is a valid exercise of the
FACTS: The registration certificate of police power.
Security System Employees
Association (SSSEA), which is affiliated Atty Edig: what was the position of the
to Philippine Association of Labor court on the 30 day period invoke the
Unions (PAFLU), was cancelled by the petitioner?
Registrar of Labor Organizations for
failure to comply with some SMCEU-PTGWO VS SMCEU PDMP
requirements in violation of Section 23 FACTS: SMCEU-PTGWO is the
of Republic Act No. 875.
incumbent bargaining agent of three
While a motion for reconsideration divisions of SMC. SMCEU-PDMP is a
was still pending, SSSSEA and PAFLU registered chapter of PDMP, a
sought to annul all proceedings in legitimate labor organization.
connection to the cancellation. Subsequently, SMCEU-PDMP filed a
According to SSSEA and PAFLU, Sec. petition to represent the afore-
23 of RA No. 875 violates their mentioned three divisions of SMC.
freedom to assembly and
SCMEU-PTGWO sought to cancel the
association. registration of SMCEU-PDMP. In its
ISSUE: WON Sec. 23 of 875 violates petition, petitioner accused
their freedom to assembly and respondent of committing fraud and
association falsification, and failure to submit the
number of employees and names of
RULING: NO. all its members comprising at least
The registration prescribed in 20% of the employees in the
paragraph (b) of said section bargaining unit where it seeks to
1 is not a limitation to the right of operate.
assembly or association, which ISSUE: Is SMCEU-PDMP a legitimate
may be exercised with or labor organization?
without said registration. 2 The
latter is merely a condition sine qua RULING: NO. Although PDMP as a
non for the acquisition of legal trade union center is a legitimate
Nada Es Imposible
labor organization, it has no power to After an exhaustive study of the

directly create a local or chapter. governing labor law provisions, both
Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be statutory and regulatory, we find no
created under the more lenient
requirements for chartering, but must conclusion that a trade union center is
have complied with the more allowed to directly create a local or Page 13
stringent rules for creation and chapter through chartering.
registration of an independent union,
including the 20% membership
requirement.
PDC VS SEC. OF DOLE
Atty Edig: Maam ask about the non-
compliance of the requirement for FACTS: Kilusan filed a petition for
registration. What was the ruling? What certification election among rank-
was exclude by the law? What was the and-file employees of PDC, alleging
is a TRADE UNION CENTER? Can a Trade that it is a legitimate labor federation
union center create a local?What and that its local chapter PDEU
happen to the 20% requirement under (Progressive Development
the law? ( It must be complied with) Employee’s Union) was issued charter
certifcation.
From the case : as has been held in a PDC filed a motion to dismiss
long line of cases, the legal personality contending that Kilusan failed to
of a legitimate labor organization, such submit necessary documents, one of
which is the book of accounts
collateral attack. The law is very clear required under Sec. 3 Book V of Rules
on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the Implementing Labor Code.
Labor Code, as amended, defines a
legitimate labor organization[37] as ISSUE: WON Kilusan failed to
“any labor organization duly registered substantially comply with the
with the DOLE, and includes any branch registration requirements
or local thereof.”[38] RULING: YES.
On the other hand, a trade union center Where as in this case the petition for
is any group of registered national certification election was filed by the
unions or federations organized for the federation which is merely an agent,
mutual aid and protection of its the petition is deemed to be filed by
members; for assisting such members in the chapter, the principal, which
collective bargaining; or for must be a legitimate labor
participating in the formulation of social organization. The chapter cannot
and employment policies, standards, merely rely on the legitimate status of
and programs, and is duly registered the mother union.
with the DOLE in accordance with Rule
The Court's conclusion should not be
ement
misconstrued as impairing the local
union's right to be certified as the
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
employees' bargaining agent in the
petitioner's establishment. We are
merely saying that the local union

Nada Es Imposible
must first comply with the statutory election of the new set of officers. The
requirements in order to exercise this GA was attended by members of the
right. Union AND non-Union members. The
petitioners are the newly-elected
Atty Edig: was the charter or local here officers in the said GA. Marino et al
afforded status as an LLO? There were filed a case, questioning the GA Page | 14
not afforded with that status, Y? In the election, alleging that the same did
case , SC held that they do not not follow the procedures under the
depriving them of the chance to comply Union by-laws. The petitioners insist
with the requirements but since they do that the election held was a
not comply with the reportorial legitimate exercise of their right to
requirements they cannot file for self-organization.
petition of COE. They cannot be the EBA
ISSUE: Was the union election valid?
here, so the petition was granted.
NO, VOID.
-------------------END OF CLASS----------------- HELD: A union election should be
distinguished from a certification
election, which is the process of
determining, through secret ballot,
January 10 2018 the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees in the
Transcribed by GlowingGloria appropriate bargaining unit, for
purposes of collective bargaining.
QUIZ 1st half
Specifically, while all legitimate faculty
Recitation of cases members of the University of Santo
Tomas (UST) belonging to a collective
Q: was the failure to submit bargaining unit may take part in a duly
reportorialrequirements a ground for convened certification election, only
dissolution? bona fide members of the UST Faculty
Union (USTFU) may participate and vote
A: No maam, what is important is the in a legally called election for union
fundamental right to self-organization. officers
Atty Edig: so here, it was only a general

faculty meeting, this is not limited to
This is a very interesting case of UST vs union members. It was general faculty
BITONIO member kahit dl member of union
andun. Note here class there was an
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU) vs election of the officers of the union
DIRECTOR offcers. There is now two sets of union
officers/members, one elected
FACTS: Respondents Marino et al are previously and the other elected by the
duly-elected officers of USTFU. In a general faculty. What was the ruling of
memorandum dated 21 Sept 1996, the SC here? So here, the election itself
members of the Union were informed is void cause it go against the
that they will have a GA for the constitutional bylaws of the union. Even

Nada Es Imposible
if the management or the UST affirmed written authorization duly signed

the new set of officers, that cannot be him/her.
done, since nangingi-alam ang ER in this
case. How are we going now to know As there were no individual written
the will of the EE. Also SC here, said that authorizations signed by any of the
even if the whole faculty is in favor of member-employees, the check-off Page | 15
the new set of officers, SC said cannot made by Solid Bank and the Union is
substitute the rule of law. They are invalid.As provided under Art. 222, the
bound by the by laws and consti of the attorney's fees must be deducted from
union. There is a right way, to do the right the Union's general fund
thing at the right time.. (alright??)
Atty Edig: From what funds? From the

GABRIEL vs HON. SECRETARY union general fund. Remember that this
is the check off. since the EE here did
FACTS: Gabriel et al comprise the
not give their individual written
Executive Board of the Union Solid
authorization, it cannot be deducted
Bank's rank-and-file employees. The
from their salaries. What the SC did was
Union's Exec Board decided to retain
that it was payable not from their
anew the service of Atty Lacsina, and
salaries but from the union general fund.
it was approved in their resolution
that 10% of the total economic
benefits secured thru negotiations be
given to Atty. Lacsina as attorney's
EMPLOYEE’S UNION OF BAYER PHIL vs
fees.
BAYER PHILIPPINES
Deductions were made on the payroll
FACTS: EUBP is the Union of all of
of the employees. The employees
Bayer Phil's rank-and-file employees.
filed a complaint for illegal deduction
In the CBA negotiation, EUBP rejected
of attorney's fees. The Union argues
Bayer's 9.9% wage-increase proposal,
that the agreement in the CBA for the
resulting in a bargaining deadlock. In
check-off meets the legal
1997, Remigio et al, without any
requirements.
authority from their union leaders,
ISSUES: WON the check-off valid. NO accepted Bayer's proposal. Remigio's
group formed REUBP, while Facundo's
HELD: The pertinent legal provisions remained as EUBP.
on check-offs are found in Article 222
(b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor REUBP questioned Bayer's non-
Code. Art. 222 provides that no remittance of union dues, and Bayer
attorney's fees may be imposed on decided to turn over the same to
any individual member of the Union, REUBP.. EUBP maintains that Bayer act
but it may be charged against Union is unfair labor practice (ULP) as it
funds. Art 241 provides that no dealt and negotiated with REUBP
attorney's fees may be checked-off despite the existence and validity of
from any amount due to the the CBA with EUBP.
employee, without an individual
ISSUE: Did Bayer commit ULP? YES.

Nada Es Imposible
HELD: An employer should not be JANUARY 11, 2018

allowed to rescind unilaterally its CBA
with the duly certified bargaining Notebook submission, QUIZ , continue
agent it had previously contracted with the cases
with, and decide to bargain anew
with a different group if there is no Page | 16
legitimate reason for doing so and
without first following the proper RODRIGUEZ v HON. DIRECTOR OF BLR
procedure.
FACTS: Under the Union by-laws, the
Thus, when a valid and binding CBA election of officers must be had every
had been entered into by the workers three (3) years in July. The provincial
and the employer, the latter is elections were set. When the
behooved to observe the terms and candidate fees were increased, the
conditions thereof bearing on union candidates filed cases, yet the
dues and representation. If the elections were nevertheless held in
employer grossly violates its CBA with July 1986. The validity of the elections
the duly recognized union, the former was questioned, and the members
may be held administratively and requested that the holding be
criminally liable for ULP. restrained until ground rules were set.
Sumangil filed a case questioning the
validity of the increase, arguing that
ATTY EDIG: So what happen here there the resolution for such was not
were two groups, the facundo group approved by 2/3 of the vote of the
and the other group? What did the ER council members, as provided in the
do? The facundo group has already CBL. The Med-Arbiter denied the
have a CB. ER recognized the group of petition, ruling that under Art. 242 of
Eugenio group. So facundo team filed the LC, at least 30% of the members
ULP. what did SC said about bayer and of the Union must report the violation,
the new CBA ? An employer should not and Sumangil failed to reach such.
be allowed to rescind unilaterally its ISSUES: Is the 30% membership support
CBA with the duly certified bargaining indispensable for the acquisition of
agent it had previously contracted with, the BLR's jurisdiction? NO.
and decide to bargain anew with a
different group if there is no legitimate HELD: Law states that a report of a
reason for doing so and without first violation of rights and conditions of
following the proper procedure. Bayer membership in a labor organization
here just decided that there be another maybe made by "(a)t least thirty
set of employee to represent the union. percent (30%) of all the members of a
It is not allowed considering that there is union or any member or members
an existing CBA. specially concerned." 4 The use of the
permissive "may" in the provision at once
------------------ END OF CLASS------------------ negates the notion that the assent of
30% of all the members is mandatory.

Nada Es Imposible
Atty Edig: did they comply with the the union constitution and by-laws; and
30%? Was there a need to comply with that proof is wanting of proper
the 30%? No need, y? it is considered as ratification of the resolution by a
an inter-union conflict so there was no majority of the general union
requirement for the 30% . upon request membership at a plebiscite called and
by the party or at the initative of the conducted for that purpose, again in
Page | 17
BLR. violation of the constitution and by-laws.
The resolution increasing the union dues
1st issue: FROM THE CASE: And further must therefore be struck down, as illegal
and void, arbitrary and oppressive. The
confirmation that the assent of 30% of
collection of union dues at the
the union members is not a factor in the
increased rates must be discontinued;
acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau and the dues thus far improperly
of Labor Relations is furnished by Article collected must be refunded to the union
226 of the same Labor Code, which members or held in trust for disposition
grants original and exclusive jurisdiction by them in accordance with their
to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations charter and rules, in line with this
Division in the Regional Offices of the Court's ruling in a parallel situation,
Department of Labor, over "all inter-
union and intra-union conflicts, and all
disputes, grievances or problems arising
from or affecting labor management NUBE vs. PEMA AND PNB
relations," making no reference FACTS: Philippine National Bank (PNB)
whatsoever to any such 30%-support used to be a GOCC banking
requirement. Indeed, the officials institution until in 1996, the Securities
mentioned are given the power to act and Exchange Commission changed
"on all inter-union and intra-union status of PNB as a private
conflicts (1) "upon request of either or corporation. Philnabank Employees
both parties" as well as (2) "at their own Association (PEMA), a public sector
initiative." There can thus be no question union affiliated with petitioner
about the capacity of Rey Sumangil National Union of Bank Employees
(NUBE), which is a labor federation
and his group of more than eight
composed of unions in the banking
hundred, to report and seek redress in
industry, adopting the name NUBE-
an intra-union conflict involving a matter PNB Employees Chapter (NUBE-PEC).
they are specially concerned, i.e., the
rates of union dues being imposed on Later, NUBE-PEC was certified as the
them. sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of the PNB rank-and-file employees. A
2ND ISSUE: Union dues: As regards the collective bargaining agreement
final issue concerning the increase of (CBA) was subsequently signed
union dues, the respondent Director between NUBE-PEC and PNB.
found that the resolution of the union's Following the expiration of the CBA,
Legislative Council to this effect 6 does the Philnabank Employees
not bear the signature of at least two- Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed a
thirds (2/3) of the members of the petition for certification election
Council, contrary to the requirement of among the rank-and-file employees

Nada Es Imposible
of PNB. The petition sought the Atty Edig: no questioned asked .. good
conduct of a certification election to
be participated in by PEMA-FFW and
NUBE-PEC.
While the petition for certification ANGLOV. SAMANA BAY
election was still pending, two FACTS: In December 1993, SAMANA to act
significant events transpired – the BAY (SamahanNg Mga independe
independent union registration of Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa ntly of
NUBE- PEC and its disaffiliation with Manila BaySpinning Mills and J.P. thelocal
NUBE.PEMA sent a letter to the PNB Coats) decided to disaffiliatefrom
management informing its ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and
disaffiliation from NUBE and GenuineLabor Organization) due to
requesting to stop, effective the latter’s dereliction ofduty to
immediately, the check-off of the promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY
P15.00 due for NUBE. andthe alleged case of corruption.
ANGLO overthrew allofficers of the
ISSUE: WON PEMA validly disaffiliated
respondent, and appointed new set
itself from NUBE, the resolution of
ofofficers, for non-remittance of
which, in turn, inevitably affects the
federation dues.ANGLO contended
latter’s right to collect the union dues
that the disaffiliation was voidsince
held in trust by PNB.
the freedom period has not yet set in.
HELD: YES. The right of the local
MED ARBITER declared the
members to withdraw from the
disaffiliation void butmaintained that
federation and to form a new local
the dismissal of officers was illegal.
union depends upon the provisions of
DOLE reversed and declared that the
the union's constitution, by-laws and
disaffiliation was VALIDDirected the
charter and, in the absence of
Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills)
enforceable provisions in the
toremit the dues directly to SAMANA
federation's constitution preventing
disaffiliation of a local union, a local ISSUE: Whether or not the disaffiliation
may sever its relationship with its of SAMANA wasvalid.
parent. PEMA is not precluded to
disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring HELD: YES. As a rule, a labor union
the status of an independent labor may disaffiliatefrom the mother union
organization duly registered before only within the freedomperiod. (PD
the DOLE 1391 – “No petition for
certificationelection, for intervention
By PEMA's valid disaffiliation from NUBE, and disaffiliation shallbe entertained
the bond between the two entities was or given due course except withinthe
completely severed. As NUBE was 60-day freedom period…”)
divested of any and all power to act in In addition, with respect to
representation of PEMA, NUBE loses it theremoval of the officers, a local
right to collect all union dues held in its union does not oweits existence to
trust by PNB. the federation with which it
isaffiliated. Having its own personality,
the motherfederation has no license
Nada Es Imposible
Page | 18

Nada Es Imposible
union. Any act performed by ANGLO

affectingthe interest and affairs of
SAMANA, including theouster of -------------------- END OF CLASS ----------------
herein individual private respondent,
isrendered without force and effect.
Page | 19
January 24, 2018
Atty Edig: We already know that a local Transcribed by: BONITA BHEN
can disaffiliate at any time. But in this
case there was a valid CBA. In this case
the CBA is still existing and the 60 days
period has not yet commenced. How --------------------END OF CLASS----------------
did the SC ruled about this. Class the
GR, you can only disaffiliate during the
freedom period. So what is the
exception? So this case, even before
the onset of the 60 period, there was a
change/shift of allegiance of the
JANUARY 25, 2018
majority of the members. Remember this
case there was allegation of corruption
Transcribed By: GLOWING GLORIA
and it was well substantiated.
Remember class majority shifted their
QUIZ – lets continue with the cases
allegiance. It must be supported by the
recitation.
majority of the members.
On the 2nd issue: we go back to the

principle of agency. The mother union is
ATLANTIC VS. LAGUESMA
merely an agent of an agent. The local
union is the agent of the ER. And the [G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992]
mother union is the agent of the union
and not the employees. Ultimately, the ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC
one who represents the employee is still COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. vs. HON.
the local union. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT; HON. TOMAS
F. FALCONITIN MED-ARBITER, BUREAU
------------END OF CLASS----------------- OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPT. OF
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT; LAKAS NG
MANGGAGAWA SA AG & P-SMSG-
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR
(LAKASNFL)
JANUARY 18, 2018
FACTS: In 1990, Atlantic executed a
TRANSCRIBED BY Collective Bargaining Agreement
with the AG&P United Rank & File
BONITA BEHN Association ("URFA") which is the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all

Nada Es Imposible
the regular rank-and-file employees service and the subsequent

of Atlantic. membership of said employees with
the URFA mean that the alleged
Meanwhile, Lakas ng Manggagawa project employees whom LAKAS-NFL
sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation
of Labor ("LAKAS-NFL”) filed a Petition seeks to represent are, in fact, regular
employees by contemplation of law Page | 20
for Certification Election to be and included in the appropriate
certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining unit of said Collective
bargaining agent of the project
Bargaining Agreement.
employees of the Steel and Marine
Structure at the BMFY representing II. Yes. The existence of a duly
approximately 1,000 employees. The registered Collective Bargaining
petition was granted by the Med- Agreement between Atlantic and
Arbiter, and affirmed by the DOLE in URFA, which is the sole and exclusive
an appeal. Consequently, a bargaining representative of all the
certification election was ordered to regular rank-and-file employees of
be conducted. the former, including the regular
project employees with more than
When the project employees with at one year of service, bars any other
least one year of service were labor organization from filing a
regularized, Atlantic moved for
petition for certification election
reconsideration alleging that the
except within the 60-day period prior
employees sought to be represented
to the expiration of the Collective
by LAKAS-NFL are regular employees
Bargaining Agreement.
of Atlantic and are deemed included
in the existing Collective Bargaining
ATTY EDIG: Why was there no anymore?
Agreement of the regular rank-and
file employees of the latter. The
NATIONAL CONGRESS VS. FERRER-
motion was denied by the Secretary
CALLEJA
of Labor, hence this present petition.
[G.R. No. 89609 January 27, 1992]
ISSUES:
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN
I. Whether the bargaining unit of the
THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE
project workers had ceased to exist in
PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP vs. HON.
light of the regularization of the said
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her
workers.
capacity as Director of the Bureau of
II. Whether the contract-bar rule Labor Relations; and the NATIONAL
applies in this case. FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS
(NFSW)-FGT-KMU
RULING:
FACTS: NFSW-FGT-KMU and
I. Yes. Although the definition in Dacongcogon negotiated for the
URFA’s CBA does not include renewal of their CBA. However, a
Atlantic’s regular project employees deadlock in negotiation ensued on
in the coverage of the existing CBA the matter of wage increases and
between it and Atlantic, the optional retirement. In order to
regularization of all the project obviate friction and tension, the
employees with at least one year of parties agreed on a suspension to
Nada Es Imposible
provide a cooling-off period to give was a deadlock. This was filed after the
them time to evaluate and further freedom period and there was still no
study their positions. CBA then or there is existing CBA pero
expired nah. What was the ruling of this
Four years thereafter, NACUSIP-TUCP
filed a petition for direct certification case? What was the principle laid
down? Here even if no contract or new election

or certification election among the CBA, the contract bar rule still applies. was
rank and file workers of Remember the hold-over principle that I valid.
Dacongcogon. NFSW-FGT-KMU discuss last meeting? it shall be the duty
moved to dismiss the petition on the of both parties to keep the status quo
grounds that there is a deadlock of and to continue in full force and effect
CBA negotiations between it and the terms and conditions of the existing
Dacongcogon, but the same was agreement during the 60-day period
denied. and/or until a new agreement is
ISSUE: reached by the parties. Since there was
a deadlock, there is a continuing
II. Whether the contract-bar rule negotiation, of the new CBA. It would
applies in this case. be different if there was no negotiation
RULING: at all. So here, until a new agreement is
reach by the parties, the contract bar
it shall be the duty of both parties to rule, still applies.
keep the status quo and to continue
in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement
during the 60-day period and/or until DHL-URFA-FFW VS. BUKLOD NG
a new agreement is reached by the MANGGAGAWA
parties. Despite the lapse of the
formal effectivity of the CBA the law FACTS: A certification election was
still considers the same as continuing conducted among the regular rank
in force and effect until a new CBA and file employees in the main office
shall have been validly executed. and the regional branches of DHL
Hence, the contract bar rule still Philippines Corporation. The
applies. contending choices were DHL-URFA-
FFW and "no union."
Besides, it should be emphasized that
Dacongcogon, in its answer stated Meanwhile, Buklod filed a Petition for
that the CBA was extended for the nullification of the certification
another three (3) years and that the election before the DOLE. The officers
deadlock was submitted to the Labor of DHL-URFA-FFW were charged with
Management Council. committing fraud and deceit in the
election proceedings, particularly by
misrepresenting to the voter-
employees that it was an
ATTY EDIG: So the issue here, WON the independent union, when it was in
petition for COE may be filed after the fact an affiliate of the Federation of
60 days freedom period and Free Workers (FFW).
considering that there was no existing ISSUE: Whether the first certification
CBA considered still because here there
Nada Es Imposible
Page | 21

Nada Es Imposible
RULING: NO. The Med-Arbiter and the Workers (FFW) to file a petition for
CA was correct in ordering a new certification election. However, this
certification election. petition was repudiated via a written
waiver by 115 of the signatories who
The making of false statements or
misrepresentations that interfere with ratified the CBA on the same date.
Page | 22
the free choice of the employees is a OTCWU-FFW filed a petition for
valid ground for protest. The fact that certificationaccompanied by the
the officers of DHL-URFA-FFW authentic signatures of 25% of the
especially its president, employees/workers in the bargaining
misrepresented it to the voting unit.OCTLU filed a motion to dismiss
employees as an independent union on the grounds that the petition did
constituted a substantial not comply with the 25% signature
misrepresentation of material facts of requirement and maintaining that the
vital concern to those employees. new CBA was a bar to a certification
The materiality of such election.
misrepresentation is self-evident.
ISSUE: WON the employees’
The purpose of a certification ratification of the new CBA nullify the
election is precisely to ascertain the timely-filed petition for certification
majority of the employees’ choice of election
an appropriate bargaining unit -- to
RULING:
be or not to be represented by a
labor organization and, in the II. No. The filing of a petition for
affirmative case, by which one. certification election during the 60-
day freedom period gives rise to a
representation case that must be
resolved even though a new CBA has
ATTY EDIG: this case is a clear exception been entered into within that period.
to the ELECTION YEAR BAR This is clearly provided for in Section 4,
RULE,because false misrepresentation Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
was given by the union officers that Implementing the Labor Code.
prejudice freedom of choice of the
employees, a new COE was allowed in Hence, the agreement prematurely
the case. signed by the union and the
company during the freedom period
does not affect the petition for
certification election filed by another
ORIENTAL TIN CAN VS. SEC union.
[G.R. No. 116751 & G.R. No. 116779.

August 28, 1998]
ATTY EDIG: no questions
FACTS: Oriental Tin Can (OCT)
entered into a CBA with OCTLU as
their existing CBA was about to
expire. Four days later, 248 of the
company’s rank-and-file employees
authorized the Federation of Free
Nada Es Imposible
SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA labor organization. Nothing is said

therein that prohibits such automatic
[G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000] conduct of the certification election if
the management appeals on the
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs.
HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO issue of the validity of the union's
E. LAGUESMA, DEPARTMENT OF registration. Page | 23

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-
ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. ATTY EDIG:what principle apply? It is the
7, CEBU CITY, AND SUGBUANON bystander principle. Even if there was
RURAL BANK, INC. — ASSOCIATION inaction (or action?) of the employer, it
OF PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, cannot affect the petition for COE. Y?
OFFICE, AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES
UNION-TRADE UNIONS CONGRESS OF
THE PHILIPPINES
---------------------- END OF CLASS---------------
FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition ---
for certification election of the
supervisory employees of SRBI. The January 18, 2018 transcription
latter opposed the petition in a

motion to dismiss on the grounds that
the alleged supervisory employees petition by a legitimate
were actually managerial and
confidential employees.
The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to
dismiss, while the SOLE denied the
consequent appeal. The certification
election was ordered to be
conducted. The DOLE denied the
appeal as well as the subsequent
motion for reconsideration, hence this
present petition.
ISSUE:
II. Whether the Med-Arbiter may
validly order the holding of a
certification election despite an
appeal pending against the issuance
of the union's registration.
RULING:
II. Yes. Article 257 of the Labor Code
mandates that a certification election
shall automatically be conducted by
the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
Nada Es Imposible
We will see later that

just because you are all
regular employees,
doesn’t immediately
mean that you will
belong in one
bargaining unit. Certain
circumstances may
present differences.
Jurisprudence tells us
that also, an
appropriate bargaining
unit is that which best
suits the reciprocal
rights and duties
of the parties under the

collective bargaining
provisions of the law.
Factors in determining
the
appropriat
e
bargainin
g unit
So there are several

factors that can
determine what is an
appropriate bargaining
unit.
MUTUAL INTERESTS –
wages, hours of work,
working conditions and
other subjects for
collective bargaining.

Nada Es Imposible
1. Globe doctrine – essentially is the so much that past facts are no

will of the employees to be longer reliable, only those factors
represented. This can be that have remained the same
ascertained through the conduct should be considered.
of a certification election. Where
other considerations 5. One Company, One Union policy Page | 24
determinative of an appropriate – the purpose of this policy, is that
bargaining unit is equally if there is one union in one
balanced, the decisive factor for company, this strengthens the
what is an appropriate union’s unity. The Supreme Court
bargaining unit is the desire of the seriously discourages disunity in
employees involved. one company, as it defeats the
purpose of having a union.
2. Community of interest rule – also
known as the substantial mutual
interest rule. This is where the EXCEPTIONS:
affinity and unity of the
employees’ interest is considered, 1. Supervisory employees must
such as substantial similarity in have a separate union from
work and duties, and similarities in rank-and-file employees.
working conditions.
2. When the employer unit has
3. Similarity of employment status to give way to other
rule – under this rule, the main bargaining units due to
consideration for an appropriate different job groupings.
bargaining unit is the work status 3. When a certain class of
of employment. This rule requires employees are exempted
that non-regular employees be from the coverage in an
grouped as one category and existing CBA.
they be considered separately In a decided case, the SC has said that
from regular employees. for every corporation, there must be
separate bargaining units. So, two
4. Prior collective bargaining history corporations CANNOT be treated as a
– jurisprudence has held that this single bargaining unit even if their
is not a decisive or conclusive businesses are directly related.
factor in the determination of an
appropriate bargaining unit. It For example, Ayala Corp. Let’s say
can be one of the determinants Ayala has many branches. So, even if
only. For example, if the history of these branches are owned by one and
the company’s appropriate the same mother company, they are
bargaining unit has been altered considered separate entities.

Nada Es Imposible
So what is the rationale behind this? Two Proper when:

companies are distinct entities with 1. No exclusive bargaining
separate juridical personalities. The SC representative in a bargaining
has held that even if employees of one unit (UNORGANIZED)
corporation were originally employees
2. No other legitimate labor Page | 25
of the other corporation: Ayala in the
organization within the
1950s was only one company. Then, it
bargaining unit.
decided to create an accounting arm
called Concentrix. So, some employees Essentially, no union has existed in this
of Ayala went to Concentrix. Can the establishment. That is why the employer
employees of Concentrix say that they may merely acknowledge the
demand to still be part of the legitimate labor organization as the
bargaining unit of Ayala? exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees.
The SC said NO. By corporate fiction,
these two are separate companies Requirements for voluntary recognition:
already. Thus, you cannot say that the
1. Joint affidavit of the ER and the
employees’ interest in Concentrix is the
Union attesting that the Union is
same as those in Ayala.
the only legitimate labor
Also, the SC said that even if the organization in the bargaining
employees of one company are the unit and it has been accorded
same persons manning and providing voluntary recognition;
for security services to another 2. Such JA must be posted for 15
corporation, they cannot be considered consecutive days in at least two
as the same bargaining unit, even if (2) conspicuous places within the
they share the same compound. establishment.
3. A certificate of Voluntary
So now we know what an appropriate
Recognition filed before the
bargaining unit is.
DOLE within thirty (30) days from
the recognition.
The employees must be aware that

there is a LLO being recognized by the
UNION REPRESENTATION
employer. As no certification election
So how do we determine union had been conducted, such notice to the
representation? What are the modes of employees is essential.
determining who should represent the
So, upon filing of the Notice of Voluntary
employees?
Recognition, the recognized Union
There are two modes: 1. Certification becomes the EBR.
election, and 2. Voluntary recognition.
This is one of the more popular topics in
Voluntary Recognition jurisprudence when it comes to
Nada Es Imposible
certification election because a lot of Freedom Period: the 60-day period

the problems arise during such. immediately preceding the expiration of
a VALIDLY REGISTERED collective
Certification Election bargaining agreement.
It is defined as the process of Remember that the CBA must have Page | 26
determining the sole and exclusive been validly registered, if not, the unions
bargaining representative of the may file a petition for CE anytime.
employees through secret balloting in
an appropriate bargaining unit. During the 60-day freedom period,
either party may serve written notice to
terminate or modify the CBA.
Requirement for a CE: During the freedom period, or even
1. Notice for the CE should be after the freedom period, if there is no
posted ten (10) days BEFORE the new CBA, both parties are under the
election, in two (2) conspicuous duties to keep the status quo and abide
places within the establishment; by the conditions set under the CBA
until a new agreement is reached by
This requirement is mandatory. Absent the parties.
such notice, the CE is invalid.
How does the petitioning union file the
Who may file? PCE?
1. Legitimate labor organization 1. By a verified petition consented
(LLO) of a local chapter, and by 25% of all employees within
duly issued a chapter certificate; the bargaining unit
(Remember that the Federation is
just an agent of the agent of the These are favorite bar questions.
employees) When is the filing of a petition for cert
When can the petition of CE be filed? election BARRED?
1. Unorganized establishment: 1. Election year bar rule – within one

ANYTIME (1) year after the holding of a
2. Organized establishment: only successful cert election;
within the 60-day freedom
period. 2. Voluntary recognition year bar
rule – the same as the election
When we say organized establishment, year bar rule, in that one (1) year
this means that there are already after the voluntary recognition by
several LLOs within the establishment, the ER, a petition for CE is not
and there is an existing CBA with one of allowed;
them. In this situation the petition for
certification election may be filed only
within the freedom period.

Nada Es Imposible
3. Negotiation year barrule – when 1. Unorganized establishment –

the bargaining agent has verified petition consented to by
commenced and sustained 25% of all employees in the
bargaining negotiations with the bargaining unit;
employer, within one (1) year 2. Organized establishment –
a. verified petition; and Page | 27
from the voluntary recognition or
holding of a successful CE, the b. written consent of 25% of all
petition is not allowed. the employees in the bargaining
unit
4. Deadlock bar rule – here, the What is the reason for the non-
freedom period had already requirement of such written consent in
lapsed but there is no new CBA UNORGANIZED establishments? This is
entered into. So even if there is a because the LC wants to promote the
deadlock, and the same has formation of labor unions in
been submitted to conciliation or establishments. So, as there yet no LLO
arbitration, or the deadlock has in unorganized establishments, even if
been the subject of a valid there is non-compliance of the 20%
notice of lockout, there could be requirement, there can still be an LLO
no petition for CE filed. formed.
5. Contract bar rule – if there is a So upon compliance of the bargaining

validly registered CBA, a petition unit of the written consent, it is
for CE cannot be filed during MANDATORY for the Med-Arbiter in the
such existence, except within the DOLE to order a certification election.
60-day freedom period. As it is mandatory, it can be compelled
So class, if the CBA says it shall be valid via a Petition for Mandamus.
for five (5) years, does this mean that no But if the 25% statutory requirement is
petition for CE absolutely cannot be NOT complied with, the decision to hold
filed for the same duration? YES, except a CE becomes DISCRETIONARY upon
during the 60-day freedom period. the Med-Arbiter.
Where should the petition for CE be Thus…
filed?
1. 25% complied with – mandatory
It should be filed before the DOLE upon the Med-Arbiter;
Regional Office which issued the 2. NOT complied with –
petitioning Union’s certificate of discretionary upon the Med-
registration. Arbiter.
Requisites for a valid petition for Role of the Employer during the
certification election: Certification Election

Nada Es Imposible
In a CE, we are only concerned with the 5. The petition is not supported by
representation of the employees. This is the written consent of 25% of the
the sole concern of the employees, and employees in the BU (applicable
the employer has nothing to do with only in organized establishments);
this. 6. If the petition is filed within 1 year
from the voluntary recognition Page | 28
Bystander Principle – the ER cannot OR certification election;
intervene during the CE, and should 7. The EBR has commenced
strictly maintain a hands-off policy on negotiations with the ER;
the CE proceedings. 8. When there is a bargaining
We do not want an employer- deadlock;
dominated union, so the ER cannot 9. If the petition is filed during the
have a hand in the proceedings. But this existence of a registered CBA
does not mean that the ER cannot do (exception: freedom period)
anything during the CE. What issues may the Med-Arbiter resolve
So during this time, the ER may in a petition for CE?
participate by: 1. Existence of EER;
1. Submitting the list of the names of 2. Eligibility or mixture in union
the employees during the membership.
preliminary conference; What issues are the Med-Arbiter NOT
2. Required to be notified that a allowed to resolve in a petition for CE?
petition for CE has been filed
within the bargaining unit. 1. Validity of the union’s registration,
EXCEPT if on the face of the
So when can the ER oppose the petition petition, the union is not included
for CE? in the roster of LLOs;
Exceptions to the By-stander Principle: 2. Validity of the registration of the
CBA, EXCEPT if the CBA is not
1. When there is no employer- registered at all with the DOLE.
employee relationship
(EER)between the petitioning Who are qualified to vote in a CE?
union and the employer; All employees covered in the BU, at the
2. If the petitioning union is not listed time of the issuance of the certification
in the registry of legitimate labor for CE, are eligible to vote.
unions;
3. If the registration of the Absent any prohibitions, probationary
petitioning union is cancelled (3 employees, or those who are members
grounds); of religious sects that prohibit their
4. The BU is not appropriate members from joining labor unions may
(mixing); vote. This also includes dismissed

Nada Es Imposible
employees whose complaints for illegal 2. None of the contending unions

dismissal have not yet been resolved. obtained the majority of votes
cast.
Challenging of votes
1. The voter is not an employee of 3. Total number of votes for all
contending unions must be 50% Page | 29

the company, or
of the votes.
2. is not a member of the involved
bargaining unit 4. There are no challenged
ballots which can materially alter
Who can challenge?
the results.
1. Not an employee –
For the EBR to be held as such, it must
a.) any of the authorized
have garnered the majority of the valid
representatives of any of the
votes cast.
contending unions; or
b.) the employer (exception to the Example, 200 voted. Majority would be
By-stander Principle) 101 votes. As for #3, if there are three
choices namely, “Union A, B, and No
When should the vote be challenged?
Union,” A and B must have garnered
Before the ballot is deposited in the 100 votes together.
ballot box.
Who can participate in a run-off
How can you know if there are voters election?
who cast votes despite not being
Only two labor unions which received
employees? Remember that the
the highest number of votes can
employer must submit a list of the names
participate in a run-off election.
of the employees during the preliminary
conference before the conduct of a CE. A “No Union” option must always be
present. When is the election considered
Before he/she can vote, the Union or
the ER must immediately challenge the FAILED?
vote.
When majority of the eligible voters
RUN-OFF ELECTION – when no winner failed to vote.
emerged in the CE, and there is a need
A Motion for the Holding of a New
to have an election to declare a winner.
Certification Election may be filed within
Requirements: six (6) months AFTER the Declaration of
Failure of Elections is issued.
1. CE conducted should have at
least three (3) choices; If majority of the eligible voters voted for
No Union, there is no failure of elections.
The employees clearly do not want to
be represented.
Nada Es Imposible
What if the election was SUCCESSFUL? Actually class, the book says that CB is a
continuing process that never stops. If
The proclamation of the winning union there are provisions in the CBA that
shall be done when: need to be changed or amended,
1. No protest has been filed or collective bargaining can again
perfected within the five (5)-day resume, subject to the guidelines Page | 30
reglementary period; or provided by the Labor Code.
2. No challenge or eligibility issue Preconditions for CB:
was raised; or
3. If there was a challenge raised, 1. The Union must possess the status
the resolution of the same will of majority representation in the
NOT materially change the result BU;
of the election. 2. Proof of such majority
representation thru a CE; and
The winning union will now represent ALL 3. A demand to bargain was made,
of the employees in the bargaining unit, as required under Art. 250 (a) of
and not only its members. the LC.
Agency fees – dues collected from non- Who are the parties in CB?
union members of the bargaining unit.
1. The employer’s representative;
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING and
2. The employee’s representative
Collective Bargaining Agreement – a
contract executed upon request of
either the EBR or the employer himself
after negotiating regarding wages,
hours of work, and all other terms and Who has the duty to bargain?
conditions of employment, including the
Absent the preconditions we stated, the
grievance machinery.
ER is not under any duty to initiate CB
What are the processes involved? negotiations.
1. Negotiation of the terms of But upon compliance of the

employment; preconditions above, the ER’s duty to
2. Execution of the written contract; bargain begins during the certification
3. After execution of the CBA, there year.
will be questions interpreting the
What does this mean? Within one (1)
contract, and negotiating in the
year from the certification of the EBR,
terms of the new contract, or
the employer is compelled to bargain,
amendment of a new
but this duty to meet and convene
agreement.
promptly for negotiations does not
Thus, the execution of the CBA does not include the duty to agree to a proposal.
end the collective bargaining process.

Nada Es Imposible
Who signs the CBA? During the freedom period, this only
refers to proposals to negotiate non-
1. Union officers; and representational provisions of the CBA.
2. Union managers Meaning economic provisions.
shall sign the CBA for it to be valid. After Outside the freedom period, there Page | 31
signing, the CBA must be posted for five should be no petition for CE filed, since
(5) days in two (2) conspicuous places under the LC, the representation aspect
in the establishment. of the CBA may be for a term of five (5)
This is a mandatory requirement, under years.
the rules of the DOLE. All other CBA provisions may be
After posting, the CBA must be renegotiated within three (3) years after
submitted for ratification by the EEs of the execution of the CBA.
the BU. The ratification must be made Example, there is a valid CBA. The LC
by majority of the covered employees. provides that economic provisions may
After ratification, the CBA is then be renegotiated within three (3) years
submitted to the DOLE for ratification. after the execution of the CBA. After
expiration of the freedom period, the ER
If the CBA is UNREGISTERED, it is still shall continue to recognize the majority
binding between the parties. But, the status of the incumbent EBR.
CBA will NOT bar the filing of a petition
for CE by another union. So, if no one will a petition for CE during
the freedom period, the status of the
So for example, if the union that signed Union as the EBR shall continue. It does
the CBA did not register the CBA, not expire even if the CBA has expired.
another union may filed a petition for
CE. This is because the contract-bar rule Effectivity and Retroactivity of the CBA
DOES NOT apply to an unregistered 1. New CBA – effectivity date must
CBA. be agreed upon by the parties;
During the 60-day freedom period, 2. Renegotiated CBA or there was
either party may serve written notice to an old CBA and you desire to
terminate or modify the CBA. replace it with a new CBA:
a. Renegotiated DURING or
During the freedom period, or even WITHIN freedom period: takes
after the freedom period, if there is no effect after the expiry of the
new CBA, both parties are under the old CBA;
duties to keep the status quo and abide b. Renegotiated AFTER the
by the conditions set under the CBA freedom period: effectivity
until a new agreement is reached by date of the new CBA should
the parties. be agreed upon by the

Nada Es Imposible
parties. No automatic confidential employees ineligible from

retroaction. forming or joining a labor union. He
c. Absent agreement and the ordered S3, S4 and the so-called
case is submitted to the DOLE exempt employees to be excluded
Sec, the arbitral award that from those participating in the
Page | 32
states when the effectivity of certification election, and directed
the CBA is to take place is the conduct of separate certification
upon the discretion of the elections in each of the 3 plants.
DOLE Sec or the NLRC.
Prospective or retroactive ISSUE: WON that the employees of the
3 plants constitute an appropriate
Hold-over Principle – in the absence of
single bargaining unit?
a new CBA, the parties should maintain
the status quo, and existing terms and
conditions of employment must
The SC held that S3, S4 and the
continue in full force and effect.
exempt employees do not fall within
the term “confidential employees”
who may be prohibited from joining a
January 24, 2018 transcription
union. In the case at bar, S3, S4 and
the exempt employees handle
confidential information which relate
to product formulation, product
18. SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS standards and product specification
AND EXEMPT UNION V. LAGUESMA which concerns the employer’s
G.R. No. 110399 | August 15, 1997 internal business operations and not to
FACTS: SMC Supervisors and Exempt the field of labor relations.
Union filed before DOLE a Petition for Moreover, SC held that the
Certification Election among the employees of the 3 plants constitute
supervisors and exempt employees of an appropriate single bargaining unit
the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products for they have community or mutuality
Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and of interest, performing work of the
Otis. Med-Arbiter Reynante then same nature and receiving the same
ordered their conduct of certification wages and compensation although
as one bargaining unit. But San Miguel belonging to 3 different plants of the
appealed with DOLE contending that Magnolia Division of
(1) the 3 separate plants should not Miguel.
be grouped into one bargaining unit,
and (2) supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3
& S4) should be excluded because
these positions are confidential in
nature.
Undersecretary Laguesma declared
Nada Es Imposible
Corporation Magnolia
19. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, Products Plants constitute a single
INCORPORATED VS SAN MIGUEL bargaining unit, which is not contrary
CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and to the one-company, one-union
EXEMPT UNION policy. It held that while the existence
Page | 33
G.R. No. 146206 of a bargaining history is a factor that
FACTS: Following the case of San may be reckoned with in determining
Miguel Corporation Supervisors and the appropriate bargaining unit, the
Exempt Union v. Laguesma, a same is not decisive or conclusive.
certification election was conducted. The test of grouping is community or
On the date of the election, SanMig mutuality of interest. This is so because
questioned the eligibility to vote by the basic test of an asserted
some of its employees on the grounds bargaining unit’s acceptability is
that some employees do not belong whether or not it is fundamentally the
to the bargaining unit which combination which will best assure to
respondent seeks to represent or that all employees the exercise of their
there is no existence of ER-EE collective bargaining rights. Certainly,
relationship with petitioner. there is a mutuality of interest among
the employees.
Based on the results of the election, The Court affirms the finding of the CA
the Med-Arbiter issued the Order that there should be only one
stating that since the Yes vote bargaining unit for the employees in
received 97% of the valid votes cast, Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of
respondent is certified to be the Magnolia Products
exclusive bargaining agent of the involved in dressed chicken
supervisors and exempt employees of
petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Farms engaged in chicken
Plants. CA affirmed the Resolution with
modification stating that those
holding the positions of Human
Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant are excluded from the 17. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
bargaining unit. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 96189, 14 July 1992

ISSUE: WON CA departed from FACTS: The Organization of Non-
jurisprudence when it expanded the Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP)
scope of the bargaining unit. filed a petition for certification
election with Bureau of Legal
RULING: NO. In San Miguel vs Relations (BLR). It claimed to represent
Laguesma, the Court explained that 33% of all the non-academic
the employees of San Miguel personnel of UP-Diliman, Los Baños,

Nada Es Imposible
Manila, and Visayas. All UP Workers’ history; and

Union opposed the same and asked (4) employment status, such as
that the appropriate organizational temporary, seasonal probationary
unistructure be first defined. It alleged employees.
that its membership composed of Out of the four, it is the
Page | 34
both academic and non-academic “community/mutuality of interests”
test that stands out the most. Applying
UP. the same, it's clear that the acad and
UP then made a comment on such non-academic personnel’s respective
that there should indeed be 2 distinct interests contradict with each other,
unions, one for academic EEs and the and in effect, failed to satisfy the
other for the non-academic EEs, “community/mutuality of interest test.”
considering their dichotomy of Thus, the 2 separate and distinct
interests. Director Calleja however bargaining units, one unit is for
declared that the appropriate academics and the other for non-
bargaining unit should comprise of academic unit personnel, is essential
both groups, stating that the intent of to assure it to all the EEs the exercise
EO 180 was to not fragmentalize the of their collective bargaining rights.
sought to exclude from the

positions,
alleging that there still existed that
held supervisory powers over her
20. MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR
other EEs.
UNION SA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
RAILWAYS V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
ISSUE: WON academic and non-
RELATIONS (CIR), SAMAHAN NG MGA
academic EEs of UP should comprise
MANGGAGAWA SA CALOOCAN
a single collective bargaining unit.
SHOPS
24 SCRA 925 (1968)
HELD: NO. A “bargaining unit” has FACTS: There were three (3) union in
been defined as a group of
the Caloocan shops of the Philippine
employees, consistent with equity to
National Railways (PNR): the
the ER, cases have shown the 4
“Samahan”, the “Kapisanan ng mga
te
Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad
will of the employees;
Company”, and the Mechanical
affinity and unit of employees'
Department Labor Union. A petition
was filed by Samahan calling
work and duties, or similarity of
attention to the fact that no
compensation certification election had been held in
the last 12 months in the Caloocan
(3) prior collective bargaining shops.

Nada Es Imposible
Caloocan shops require special skill

The petition was opposed by which set them apart from the rest of
management as well as the the workers in the Mechanical
Mechanical Department Labor Union, Department.
the latter averring that it had been
Page | 35
previously certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees and laborer of the PNR’s 21. FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION –
mechanical department and it had VS– FILOIL SUPERVISORY &
negotiated two CBAs with CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOC &
management in 1961 and 1963 and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
that a renewal of the CBA had been 46 SCRA 512 [1972]
re-negotiated and is yet to be signed. FACTS: Filoil Supervisory & Confidential
Employees Assoc (FSCA) filed petition
Caloocan shops are separate and for certification as sole and exclusive
distinct from the rest of the workers collective bargaining agent of all of
under the Mechanical Department the supervisory and confidential
unit represented by the Mechanical employees. The petitioner (Employer
Department Labor Union. Company) filed a Motion to dismiss
arguing that supervisors are not
ISSUE: WON the holding of a plebiscite employees, since they are part of
election be allowed to determine the management, they do not have the
desire of the workers of the Caloocan right to bargain collectively.
shops to have a separate bargaining The then Court of Industrial Relations
unit (CIA) and NLRB (National labor
relations board) ruled in favor of FSCA.
HELD: YES. Bargaining units may be
formed through separation of new ISSUE:WON supervisors form part of the
units from existing ones whenever management and are not considered
plebiscites had shown the workers’ as employees entitled to bargain
desire to have their own collectively.
representatives.
HELD:NO. Supervisor has a dual status
difference, in that those in the as a representative of the
Caloocan shops not only have a management and as an employee.
community of interest and working “Supervisors and confidential
conditions but perform major repairs employees, even though they may
of railway rolling stock, using heavy exercise the prerogatives of
equipment and machineries management as regards the rank and
others perform minor file employees are indeed employees
Therefore, the the in relation to their employer, the

Nada Es Imposible
company which is owned by the employees are allowed to form or join

stockholders and bondholders a union.
(capital) and should therefore by
entitled under the law to bargain
collectively with the top management The members of NATU are not
Page | 36
with respect to their terms and managerial employees as claimed by
conditions of employment”. GRFC but merely considered as rank-
and-file employees who have every
right to self-organization or to be
heard through a duly certified
22. GENERAL RUBBER VS. BLR collective bargaining union. The
[G.R. No. 74262 October 29, Supervisory power of the members of
1987] GENERAL RUBBER and NATU consists merely
FOOTWEAR recommending as to what
CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF LABOR
managerial actions to take in
RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
disciplinary cases. Therefore, they are
OF TRADE UNION OF MONTHLY PAID
not prohibited from forming their own
EMPLOYEES-NATU.
collective bargaining unit since it has
FACTS: In 1985, the Samahang
not been shown by GRFC that "the
Manggagawa sa General Rubber
Corporation-ANGLO was formed by employees) inherently require the
the daily-paid rank and file
exercise of discretion and
employees as their union for collective
bargaining.
or that "they possess the power and
In the same year, the monthly-paid
authority to lay down or exercise
employees of GRFC, formed their own
management policies."
collective bargaining unit, named as To prevent any difficulty. and to avoid
National Association of Trade Unions
confusion to all concerned and, more
of Monthly Paid Employees (NATU).
importantly, to fulfill the policy of the
NATU then filed a petition for
New Labor Code as well as to be
certification election, which the BLR
granted. GRFC fontested the Order, case, supra, the monthly-paid rank-
but both its appeal and MFR were
and-file employees should be allowed
denied, hence this present petition. to join the union of the daily-paid-
GRFC argued that (1) there is already
rank-and-file employees of GRFC so
an existing bargaining unit in GRFC,
that they can also avail of the CBA
which is the Samahang, (2) the
benefits or to form their own rank-and-
monthly paid employees are not file union, without prejudice to the
legally allowed to form or join a union
certification election that has been
as they exercised managerial ordered.
functions.
ISSUE: Whether the monthly-paid

Nada Es Imposible
[appropriate] bargaining unit.

II. Whether the contract-bar rule
23. SAMAHANG VS. SEC. applies in this case
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA RULING:

I. No. If a union asks the employer to Page | 37
voluntarily recognize it as the
bargaining agent of the employees, it
in effect asks the employer to certify it
CORPORATION as the bargaining representative of
FACTS: The employees of Permex the employees - A CERTIFICATION
conducted a certification election, WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS NO
where majority of the employees AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the
voted for No Union. employees prerogative (not the
Nevertheless, some employees of employers) to determine whether they
Permex formed their own labor want a union to represent them, and,
organization known as the Samahang if so, which one it should be.1
Manggagawa sa By virtue of Executive Order No. 111,
which they registered with the DOLE. which became effective on March 4,
The union later affiliated with the 1987, the direct certification previously
allowed under the Labor Code had
Union (PIILU). been discontinued as a method of
selecting the exclusive bargaining
Soon agents of the workers. Certification
Permex requesting recognition as the election is the most effective and the
sole bargaining most democratic way of determining
representative of the company’s which labor organization can truly
employees. Permex recognized SMP- represent the working force in the
PIILU and entered into a collective appropriate bargaining unit of a
bargaining agreement with the said company.
union. The CBA was ratified by the II. No. The purpose of the rule is to
members and was subsequently ensure stability in the relationships of
certified by the DOLE. the workers and the management by
preventing frequent modifications of
NFL filed a petition for certification any collective bargaining agreement
election but the same was dismissed. earlier entered into by them in good
An appeal to the Secretary of Labor faith and for the stipulated original
caused the setting aside of the period. Excepted from the contract-
dismissal and the order of certification bar rule are certain types of contracts
election among the rank-and-file which do not foster industrial stability,
employees of Permex. The choices such as contracts where the identity
were NFL, SMP, and No Union. of the representative is in doubt. Any
SMP moved for reconsideration, but stability derived from such contracts
the motion was dismissed, hence this must be subordinated to the
present petition. employees’ freedom of choice
1 Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, 182 SCRA 561

recognized as Permex’s valid (1990).

Nada Es Imposible
2. No request for bargaining;

because it does not establish the kind
of industrial peace contemplated by 3. If the Union seeks to represent an
the law. Such situation obtains in this inappropriate bargaining unit;
case. SMP entered into a CBA with 4. There is comingling of supervisors
Permex when its status as exclusive and rank-and-file employees in
bargaining agent of the employees the same BU; Page | 38
had not been established yet.
5. If the BU chose ‘No Union’;
6. If there are unlawful bargaining
demands by the union;
January 31, 2018 transcription B. Failure or refusal to bargain on
mandatory subjects
Unfair Labor Practices in Collective
Mandatory subjects: wages, hours,
Bargaining
terms and conditions of
What are these ULP? employments, bonuses, retirement
and pension, transfer.
A. If the employer failed or refuses
to meet and convene with the Why is there an importance to know
Union who demanded the difference between mandatory
negotiations for CBA: Instances: and non-mandatory subjects?
1. May opt to not recognize the
If for example, there is a bargaining
EBR;
impasse and a deadlock, and the
2. The ER, in the guise of
reason for such is NON-mandatory
transferring his assets to
subjects, this cannot be a ground for
another ER, but still, there is
a valid strike or lockout due to a
continuity of business;
bargaining deadlock.
3. Financial hardship of the ER
cannot be used as an excuse If there is a deadlock, there is a need
to meet and convene for CBA for a third-party to come up to the
negotiations; negotiations as a negotiator or
arbitrator.
Bargaining in good faith: No specific test
on what is good faith-bargaining. Case In a conciliation for deadlock, both
to case basis. the ER and EE representatives agree
that the deadlock should be
What are the acts which are NOT
submitted to a third-party who will
deemed as a refusal to bargain by the
decide upon the conditions of the
ER?
CBA that will be a win-win solution
1. If the EEs have committed ULP for both parties under the CBA.
such as an illegal strike, the ER
But even if there is a conciliator or
may choose not to bargain with
arbitrator, this does not mean that
the union which committed the
he can compel the parties to agree
illegal strike;

Nada Es Imposible
to the CBA. What he can do is, to

draft a CBA that will be favorable to
Union Security Agreements (USA)
both.
C. Bargaining in bad faith Union Security - is a generic term of an
agreement which imposes upon the EEs

Page | 39
Blue Sky Bargaining – you come to the of an organization the obligation to
negotiation table but had no good faith acquire or retain union membership as
in doing so because the ER or the EE a condition affecting employment.
demands are too high. They come to
Why are union security agreements
the table with the intention of
important in CBAs? It’s because USAs
demanding terms that are too high, to
ensure the continuity of a union. Since it
cause the non-signing of any CBA.
is a precondition to employment, there
Inflexible demands.
is little chance that the ER will bust the
Bargaining in bad faith means there is union.
unwarranted delay in the negotiations,
Kinds of USA:
or there it a time limit set when to
conclude the negotiations. 1. Closed-shop agreement – most
prized achievement of unionism.
If the ER or EE representative are in good
Here, only union members can
faith, there must do all in their power to
be hired by the company, and
come to an agreement.
they must remain as such to
Boulwarism – this term came from a US continue employment. This must
jurisprudence. In a motor company, the CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY appear
ER advertised to his EEs a pre-crafted in the CBA which was duly signed
terms and conditions of a CBA. They by both parties, to warrant a
gave out ads and flyers, and the ER said valid dismissal.
that this is the most beneficial contract
for the EEs. 2. Union-shop agreement – A non-
union member may be hired by
What the US Court said about
the ER, but to retain employment,
Boulwarism is that such practice does
the EE must acquire union
not give the EE representative any
membership after a certain
leeway to negotiate beneficial terms for
period. Applies to both and
the EEs. This is a take it or leave it
present and future EEs.
principle. If you do not agree, the ER will
refuse to bargain. This is bargaining in
3. Maintenance of membership-
bad faith.
shop agreement – No EEs may be
D. Gross violation of a contract (not compelled to join the union, but
included in exam) all present and future members
E. Grievance Machinery Procedure must, as a condition for

Nada Es Imposible
continued employment, remain that all workers, as a condition of

in good standing in the union. their continued employment, must
maintain membership in good
4. Treasury-shop agreement – EEs standing in the union for the duration
are not compelled to join the of the CBA.
Page | 40
union, but the union shall charge Some members joined and
agency fees against non- organized a different union in TDI.
member EEs. Agency fee in lieu Under the CBA by-laws, disaffiliating
of union membership. members must explain their action
When does the use of a Union Security lest they be meted with termination
Clause come as an issue? Once the USA for disloyalty. An investigation was
is used on an erring union member, it conducted and the disaffiliating
can turn into a termination issue. members were terminated from
employment.
When a closed-shop agreement NOT
applicable: ISSUE: Was their termination by the
ER proper?
1. Any EE who, at the time
agreement took effect, is a bona HELD:YES. The stipulation in the CBA
fide member of a religious sect by-laws of the maintenance of good
which prohibits membership in a membership standing is necessary to
labor union based on religious preserve the integrity of the union. It
grounds; is also allowed by the Magna Carta
2. Any EE already employed and of Labor.
working, who, at the time While it may be true that employees
agreement took effect, was have the right to self-organization,
already a member of a union such right shall not injure the right of
other than the majority union that the Union to proscribe its own rules
crafted the CBA; with respect to retention of
3. Confidential EEs who are not part membership therein.
of the rank-and-file employees.
Since they cannot participate in Since the ER merely imposed the
a BU, the closed-shop agreement provisions of the CBA, there was a
cannot apply to them; valid dismissal of the disaffiliated
4. Employees who are expressly members. As the CBA signed while
excluded from the CBA; the erring EEs were union members, it
is presumed that they knew that
Tanduay distillery case there was a closed-shop agreement
FACTS: TDI and the Union therein in such CBA.
entered into a CBA for three years.
The CBA expressly and clearly
contained a USA which provided

Nada Es Imposible
February 1, 2018 transcription CALLEJA
29. HERCULES INDUSTRIES VS BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

SECRETARY OF LABOR INC., petitioner, vs. HON. PURA
September 1992 FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the
Page | 41
Bureau of Labor Relations, and
FACTS: National Federation of Labor BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR
as the sole and exclusive bargaining UNION, respondents.
agent of the rank and file employees
of the petitioner. Petitioner as the G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989.
Employer now questions and assail the
validity of the result of the certification FACTS: Beneco Worker's Labor Union-
of election. Association of Democratic Labor
Organizations (BWLU- ADLO) filed a
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, petition for direct certification as the
Hercules Industries, Inc., as employer, sole and exclusive bargaining
may question the validity of the representative of all the rank and file
certification election among its rank- employees of Benguet Electric
and-file employees. NO. Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO).
HELD:Employer is not a party to a BENECO, on the other hand, filed a

certification election which is the sole motion to dismiss the petition claiming
or exclusive concern of the workers. In , that the employees sought to be
the choice of their collective represented by BWLU-ADLO are not
bargaining representative, the eligible to form, join or assist labor
employer is definitely an intruder. His organizations of their own choosing
participation, to put it mildly, deserves because they are members and joint
no encouragement. The only instance owners of the cooperative.
when the employer may be involved
in that process is when it is obliged to ISSUE: W/N employees of a
file a petition for certification election cooperative are qualified to form or
on its workers’ request to bargain join a labor organization for purposes
collectively pursuant to Article 258 of of collective bargaining. NO
the Labor Code. After the order for a
certification election issues, the HELD: The right to collective
employer’s involvement ceases, and it bargaining is not available to an
becomes a neutral bystander. employee of a cooperative who at the
same time is a member and co-
owner thereof. With respect, however,
to employees who are neither
30. BENGUET ELECTRIC CORP. v HON. members nor co-owners of the
cooperative they are entitled to

Nada Es Imposible
exercise the rights to self-organization, conciliation proceedings were

collective bargaining and negotiation conducted. However, a day before a
as mandated by the 1987 Constitution scheduled conciliation meeting, the
and applicable statutes. union suddenly went on strike! ER filed
a petition to declare the strike illegal.
Page | 42
The fact that the members-employees NLRC- the strike was illegal. CA- the
of petitioner do not participate in the strike was illegal.
actual management of the Argument of union: it sought to
cooperative does not make them bargain for its members only and that
eligible to form, assist or join a labor the ER’s refusal to bargain would
organization for the purpose of prompt the union to engage in
collective bargaining with petitioner. It concerted activities.
is the fact of ownership of the
cooperative, and not involvement in
the management thereof, which Can the union represent its members
disqualifies a member from joining any in the negotiations for a CBA?
labor organization within the
cooperative.
No. As per LC 255 (now 267), the labor
organization designated or selected
by the majority of the employees in an
31. PHIL DIAMOD HOTEL v MANILA appropriate collective bargaining unit
DIAMOND HOTEL EEs UNION shall be the exclusive representative
GR NO 158075 of the employees in such unit for the
JUNE 30, 2006 purpose of collective bargaining. Only
the labor organization designated or
FACTS: The Manila Diamond Hotel selected by the majority of the
Employee’s Union (the union) filed a an appropriate
Petition for CE seeking certification as collective bargaining
the exclusive bargaining exclusive representative of
representative of its members. DOLE- employees such the
NCR denied the petition for failure to purpose of collective bargaining.
comply with the legal requirements The union is admittedly not the
and that the CE was seen to fragment exclusive representative of the
the EEs of the ER (Phil Diamond Hotel). majority of the EEs of the ER, hence, it
ER advised the union that it was not could not demand from ER the right
certified by the DOLE as the exclusive to bargain collectively in their behalf.
bargaining representative and ER
could not recognize the union as Union insists, however, that it could
such. Because of this, the union filed a validly bargain in behalf of "its
Notice of Strike and thereafter, members," relying on LC 242 (now

Nada Es Imposible
251) - A legitimate labor organization had been submitted to conciliation or

shall have the right: (a) To act as arbitration or had become the subject
representative of its members for the of a valid notice of strike or lockout
purpose of collective bargaining.
Union’s reliance on said article, HELD:
Page | 43
general provision on the rights of KAMPIL petition should be granted. It
legitimate labor is evident that the prohibition imposed
misplaced, for not every legitimate by law on the holding of a
certification election "within one year
mentioned therein. Article 242 (a) from the date of issuance of
(now 251- a) must be read in relation declaration of a final certification
to above-quoted Article 255 (now election result' — in this case, from
February 27, 1981, the date of the
Resolution declaring NAFLU the
exclusive bargaining representative of
rank-and-file workers of VIRON — can
have no application to the case at
bar.
The fact is that from February 27, 1981
G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991 — when NAFLU was proclaimed the
exclusive bargaining representative of
all VIRON employees — to April 11,
FACTS: Kaisahan ng Manggagawang 1985 — when KAMPIL filed its petition
unan for certification election or a period of
the BLR a petition for certification more than four (4) years, no collective
election among the employees of bargaining agreement was ever
VIRON. executed, and no deadlock ever
NAFLU opposed the petition. t arose from negotiations between
contended that at the time the NAFLU and VIRON resulting in
petition for certification election was conciliation proceedings or the filing
filed on April 11, 1985, it was in process of a valid strike notice. It being
of collective bargaining with VIRON; apparent that none of the
that there was in fact a deadlock in proscriptions to certification election
the negotiations which had prompted set out in the law exists in the case at
it to file a notice of strike; and that bar.
these circumstances constituted a bar
to the petition for election
certification election barred

because, before its filing, a bargaining 33. DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF
deadlock between VIRON and NAFLU TACLOBAN VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
as the incumbent bargaining agent,

Nada Es Imposible
GR. NO. 91915 within one year from the issuance of a

final certification election result OR 2)
FACTS: On Sept 6, 1984 the med- when a bargaining deadlock had
arbiter certified the Divine Word been submitted to conciliation or
University Employees Union as the sole arbitration or had become the
Page | 44
and exclusive bargaining agent of the lockout.
Divine Word University. After three Deadlock is the counteraction of
years, the affiliate of the union, things producing entire stoppage: a
Associated Labor Union, requested a state of inaction or of neutralization
conference with the University for the caused by the opposition of persons
purposes of continuing the bargaining or factions. There is a deadlock when
negotiations. The university there is a complete blocking or
maintained it silence. stoppage resulting from the action of
The union thereafter filed a notice of equal and opposed forces.
strike on the grounds of bargaining The records of the case shows that
deadlock and ULP, refusal to bargain, there was no reasonable effort at
discrimination and coercion. good faith bargaining on the part of
Conferences were held after the filing the university. The
of the notice of strike and the parties union
came to an agreement. It was found submitting which were
however, that the university filed for a ignored by the university, remained
petition for certification election one
hour before the agreement was the right to file the petition for
concluded. certification election as there was no
The union then submitted proposals bargaining deadlock. However such
which were again ignored by the right was forfeited by its inaction.
university. Marathon conciliations
were held to no avail. The Sec of
Labor assumed jurisdiction and
directed that all striking workers to
report back to work within 24 hours. 34. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN
V. ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES AND
ISSUE: WON certification election can FACULTY OF LETRAN
be held after CBA was agreed upon [G.R. 141471, September 18, 2001]
after 5 years.
FACTS: Abtria, President of union
HELD: An employer who is requested initiated renegotiations of its CBA with
to bargain collectively may file a petitioner for the last two years of
petition for certification election any CBA’s 5 years lifetime from 1989-1994.
time except upon clear showing the On the same year, the union elected
existence of either: 1) petition is filed a new set of officers with private

Nada Es Imposible
respondents Eleanor Ambas as the provided in Article 250. In order to

newly elected President. Ambas allow the employer to validly suspend
wanted to continue renegotiation, the bargaining process, there must be
but petitioner claimed that the CBA a valid PCE raising a legitimate
was already prepared for signing. representation issue, in this case, the
Page | 45
Thereafter, the parties agreed petition was filed outside the 60-dayt
to disregard the unsigned CBA and to freedom period; therefore there was
start negotiation on a new five-year no legitimate representation issue and
CBA. The union submitted its proposals the filing of the PCE did not constitute
to petitioner, which notified the union to the ongoing negotiation.
that the same was submitted to its
Board of Trustees. Both parties again The dismissal of Ambas was in violation
discussed the ground rules for the CBA of the employee’s right to self-
renegotiations; however petitioner organization. The dismissal must be
stopped negotiations after allegedly made pursuant to the tenets of equity
receiving information that a new and fair play wherein the employers
group of employees had filed a PCE. right to terminate the services of an
The union struck and the Secretary employee must be exercised in good
assumed jurisdiction ordering all faith, furthermore, it must not amount
striking workers to return to work. All to interfering with, restraining, or
were readmitted except Ambas. coercing, employees in their right to
self- organization.
ISSUE:Whether petitioner is guilty of
unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain within the union when it
unilaterally suspended the ongoing
negotiations for a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon
mere information that a petition for
certification has been filed by another
legitimate labor organization. FACTS: Petitioner SAMAHAN NG
HELD: NO. the duty to bargain (SAMAHAN) and respondent

collectively includes the mutual
obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and
faith for the purpose of negotiating an file employees at the Pacific Plastic
agreement. Petitioner failed to make Corporation (PPC)
a timely reply to the unions proposals, Metro Manila.
thereby violating the proper MNMPP filed a Petition
procedure in collective bargaining as Certification Election. Accordingly,

Nada Es Imposible
the representation officer of the elections from being held.

Secretary of Labor held a pre-election the
conference, during which the PPC presented find no
was required to submit the list of its to the
rank and file employees based on the certification election conducted on
Page | 46
company payroll 3 months prior to the the basis of a mere technicality.
filing of the petition. Respondent
company failed to submit the list. The
certification election was held, using
as voter’s list the list of PPC employees 28. SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA
requested from the SSS. MNMPP won. [G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000]
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. vs.
ISSUE: HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO
Was the use of the SSS list in violation E. LAGUESMA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-ARBITER
the Labor Code which prescribes the ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT OF
use of the company payroll as basis LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL
for the voter’s list? OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU CITY, AND
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. —
HELD: ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL,
NO. It should ideally be the payroll SUPERVISORY, OFFICE, AND
which should have been used for the TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE
purpose of the election. However, the UNIONS CONGRESS OF THE
unjustified refusal of a company to PHILIPPINES
submit the payroll in its custody,
despite efforts to make it produce it, FACTS: APSOTEU-TUCP filed a petition
compelled resort to the SSS list as the for certification election of the
next best source of information. After supervisory employees of SRBI. The
all, the SSS list is a public record whose latter opposed the petition in a
regularity is presumed. It is the policy motion to dismiss on the grounds that
of the Labor Code to encourage the the alleged supervisory employees
holding of a certification election as were actually managerial and
the definitive and certain way of confidential employees prohibited
ascertaining the choice of employees from forming or joining a union, and
as to the labor organization in a that ALU-TUCP also sought to
collective bargaining unit. Insistence represent the rank and file employees
on the application of the Omnibus of SRBI, thereby violating the principle
Implementing Rules could defeat this of separation of unions.
policy. Worse, it could facilitate fraud The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to
by employers who can easily suppress dismiss, while the SOLE denied the
the payroll to prevent certification consequent appeal. The certification

Nada Es Imposible
election was ordered election

conducted. then sought automatically be conducted by the
cancel the of Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
APSOTEU-TUCP. The DOLE denied the petition by a legitimate labor
appeal as well as the subsequent organization. Nothing is said therein
Page | 47
motion for reconsideration, hence this that prohibits such automatic
present petition. conduct of the certification election if
the management appeals on the
issue of the validity of the union's
Whether the alleged supervisory
employees are actually managerial appeal was correctly dismissed.
and confidential employees. SRBI argues that giving due course to
Whether the Med-Arbiter may APSOTEU-TUCP’s petition for
validly order the holding of a certification election would violate
certification election despite an the separation of unions doctrine.
appeal pending before the DOLE Note that the petition was filed by
Secretary against the issuance of the APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor
union's registration. organization. It was not filed by ALU.
Nor was it filed by TUCP, which is a
national labor federation of with
No. Cashiers, Accountant, and which respondent union is affiliated.
Acting Chief of the Loans Department
of SRBI did not possess managerial alter ego of ALU. The records show
powers and duties. Nor are they nothing to this effect. What the
confidential employee in light of the records instead reveal is that
fact that SRBI did not state who
among the employees has access to ALU during its preliminary stages of
information specifically relating to its organization. A local union maintains
labor to relations policies. its separate personality despite
Yes. One of the rights of a legitimate affiliation with a national
labor organization under Article
242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to represent both APSOTEU-TUCP and
to be certified as the exclusive the rank-and-file union. Again, we find
representative of all employees in an nothing in the records to support this
appropriate bargaining unit for bare assertion.
purposes of collective bargaining.
Having complied with the
requirements of Article 234, it is our
view that respondent union is a
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of
the Labor Code mandates that a

Nada Es Imposible
about to give testimony under this Cod” (ULP of

the Employer)
2ND EXAM
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ULP?

Page | 48
February 21, 2018 By: Arafol 1. Disrupt industrial peace
2. Inimical to the legitimate interest of both
labor and management
3. Criminal offense against the state
UNFAIR LABOR 4. Violatescivil rights of both labor and
management
PRACTICE 5. Violates constitutional right of workers
and employees to self-organization
6. Creates an atmosphere of unstable
labor management relations.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE can be committed
by:
1. ER ULP is a technical term

2. Labor Organization
ART. 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF Employers.203 It shall be unlawful for an
EMPLOYERS employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practices:
a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce

TWO ELEMENTS employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization;
1. Employer- employee relation between b) To require as a condition of employment
the offender and the offended party; and that a person or an employee shall not
2. The act done is prohibited by the code, join a labor organization or shall withdraw
specifically in article 259 (ULP of the from one to which he belongs;
employer) and article 260 ( ULP of the c) To contract out services or functions
labor organization) being performed by union members
when such will interfere with, restrain or
ULP is not a general term. It is a technical term coerce employees in the exercise of their
with as specific meaning. It cannot be applied to right to self-organization;
all unfair acts of the employer or labor d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
organization. It may only be applied to acts as interfere with the formation or
determine by the labor code and also in administration of any labor organization,
compliance with the 2 elements above. including the giving of financial or other
support to it or its organizers or
supporters;
e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours
General rule: Prohibited acts are related to of work and other terms and conditions of
workers’ self-organizational right and the employment in order to encourage or
observance of the CBA. As a GR it all about discourage membership in any labor
violation of the CBA organization. Nothing in this Code or in
any other law shall stop the parties from
Exception: Article 259 (f) “To dismiss, discharge requiring membership in a recognized
or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against collective bargaining agent as a condition
anemployee for having given or being for employment, except
Nada Es Imposible
those employees who are already 3. Contracting out functions of union members
members of another union at the time of 4. Company domination of union
the signing of the collective bargaining 5. Yellow dog condition in employment
agreement. ------------- contract;
Employees of an appropriate 6. Discrimination to en(dis)courage unionism
bargaining unit who are not members of 7. Violation of duty to bargain
the recognized collective bargaining 8. Gross violation of CBA provision Page | 49
agent may be assessed a reasonable fee 9. Discrimination or dismissal due to testimony.
equivalent to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the recognized Lets start with
collective bargaining agent, if such non-
union members accept the benefits
under the collective bargaining
INTERFERENCE IN THE WORKERS RIGHT
agreement: Provided, That the individual
TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
authorization required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code204 shall not
apply to the non-members of the
recognized collective bargaining agent; WHAT IS INTERFERENCE BY THE ER? If the
f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise ER would commit acts such as:
prejudice or discriminate against an
employee for having given or being about
to give testimony under this Code;
g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively 1. Interrogation re: union activities
as prescribed by this Code; a. It becomes interference when
h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to ER wants to know what happen
the union or its officers or agents as part in the meetings. When he
of the settlement of any issue in collective present a hostile atmosphere to
bargaining or any other dispute; or the EE be interrogation union
i) To violate a collective bargaining members. There is also
agreement. interefence when he violates
bystander principle when he
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of commits acts that
corporations, associations or partnerships who 2. Formation/ administration of union
have actually participated in, authorized or ratified a. It happen when the ER
unfair labor practices shall be held criminally encourage the EE to join a
liable. specific union, it which in this
AttyEdig: So better read your labor code guys ha. case they are deprived of their
free will to choose. Dba vitiated
ang consent ngmgaee.
3. Prohibiting organizing activities (non-
working time)
HOW DOES ULP BY THE ER CAN BE a. It can be a ULP of the ER if he
COMMITTED? prohibtes organizing of union
activities even if it is non-
ULP by the employers can be committed by the working time. During working
following: time, the ER may prohibit union
1. Paid negotiations in CBA or settlement of activities. It is not a ULP. But if it
issues – meaning the ER here violated the is non-working time, that is
bystander principle. considered as interference ULP.
2. Interference in workers’ right to self- b. There was a case where there
organization was a mass resignation of the
EE (I think PAL) and the union
argued that the acceptance of

Nada Es Imposible
the ER of the mass resignation b. EX. So meron sale just like

was a ULP. SC HELD: The above, so in this scenario SC
acceptance of the ER of the would pierce the veil of corporate
mass resignation of its EE did fiction and make the
not constitute a ULP. Since the stockholders or owners liable to
resignation is a voluntary act of the EE.
the EE. It was not an act of the Page | 50
ER. But take note, that when the
employer authorize a mass lay WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE ER
off, particularly targeting union IS GUILTY OF INTEREFENCE?
members, this constitute a ULP.
4. Violence or intimidation Test of interference, restraint or coercion
a. For it to be a ULP, the violence Whether or not the ER has engaged in conduct
and intimidation must be which may reasonably tend to interfere with the
connected with the union free exercise of the EE rights to self organization.
activities. Baliktayosa elements,
the act should be connected with It is not necessary that there is a direct evidence
the workers’ exercise of right to that any employee was intimidated or coerce by
self-organization. Hindi pwdena the statements or threats of the ER, if there is a
may ginawasya violence ULP reasonable interference that the anti-union
syaagad. Always go back to the conduct of the ER does have an adverse effect
elements. on the exercise of the right to self-organization
5. Espionage or surveillance and collective bargaining.
a. Similar to interrogation
6. Economic inducement
a. To join or not to join. To elect or
not to elect union officers. So TOTALITY OF THE CONDUCT DOCTRINE
every time the ER interfere with
the union activities it could be an Whether the act of the ER constitute interference
ULP. with, restraint or coercion of the EE right to self-
7. Employer’s expression of opinion organization of CB, the “totality of the conduct
subject to totality of his conduct; doctrine” must be applied.
a. You must put context the
expression of the ER expression. There are instances naparangwalang direct act
The totality of ER conduct must ang ER pero when you look at the circumtances
be considered. Not all opinion of the Labor arbiter would determine
ER is interference. Consider the namerontalagang ULP.
totality of conduct of the ER if it
affects the exercise of right to
self- organization of the EE. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE MOTIVES OF THE
8. Mass lay-off vs mass resignation ER? Check the attending circumstances under
9. Lock-out or closure to discourage union; the TOTALITY rule. So you check
10. Sale in bad faith/ assumption of new
owner(piercing the veil of corporate - his past conduct regarding labor relation
fiction). - past bargaining experience;
a. Here the ER will sell his - the connection between ER acts and
company for it not to be union activities being conducted in his
compelled to collectively bargain work place and the rationale of his
or engage with union members, actions.
that is ULP. - Such actions shall be justified
CHAN reviewer

Nada Es Imposible
TOTALITY CONDUCT DOCTRINE Lets go to number 3 Contracting out of services

and function
Expression of opinion by an ER, through innocent
in themselves, may be held to constitute an ULP
because of the circumstances under they were
uttered, the history of the ER labor relation or anti- CONTRACTING OUT OF SERVICES AND
union bias or because of their connections with FUNCTIONS
Page | 51
an established collateral plan of coercion or Basis: Article 259 ( c )
interference.
To contract out services or functions being
The failure of the ER to ascribe a valid reason
performed by union members when such
therefor may justify an interference that his will interfere with, restrain or coerce
unexplained conduct in respect of the particular employees in the exercise of their right to
ee or ees was inspired by the latter’s union self-organization;
membership or activities.
Lets go to number 5 yellow dog contract GR: outsourcing is not prohibited by the Labor
code. Ex janitorial services ect.
EXCEPTION: contracting out services or

YELLOW DOG CONTRACT functions being performed by union members
when the same will interfere, restraint or coerce
Basis: Article 259 (b) (b)
To require as a condition of employment employees, in the exercise of their right to self
that a person or an employee shall not join organization
a labor organization or shall withdraw from
one to which he belongs;
So even if, contracting out is a legitimate exercise
of ER, if the ER has a motive to discourage
It is a promise exacted from workers as a unionism (secretary lawyer example)
condition of employment that they are not allowed
Freedom of the management “ to regulate ,
to join or belong to a labor organization or,
according to its own discretion and judgment, all
attempt to organize one during the period of
aspect of employment, including hiring, work
employment ( Add CHAN: or that they shall
assignment, working method, time place and
withdraw therefrom in case they are already
manner of work, processes to be followed,
members of the labor organization. )
supervision of workers, working regulations,
This condition in any employment contract is null transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of
and void and ER is guilty by ULP. NULL and viod, workers and discipline , dismissal and recall of
contrary to public policy and tantamount to workers.”
involuntary servitude. Unionism is presumed to
With the condition that management control is
benefit the employees as a whole.
NOT exercised to violate a worker’s right to self-
organization
QUESTION: dbameron man ung 2 elements of

ULP. What if the employment contract was not
Determination of validity: appraisal of his
yet signed? So no er-ee relationship. Can there
motives
be a ULP?
- Attendant circumstances
ANSWER: YES, even if no employment contract
- Employer’s past conduct re: labor
that is consummated? ULP can still be committed
relation or bargaining history
when it provides for a yellow dog condition.
- Connection between employer’s acts
and union affiliations/ activities

Nada Es Imposible
- Totality of acts (“totality of conduct” It includes the “ALL” kinds of financial support
doctrine) example: free lunch/snacks, free legal service in
- Rationale of management decision drafting the by laws. Also all kinds of assistance.
Remember to consider here the totality of the So there is an EXCEPTION: the union security
Page | 52
conduct doctrine. For it not to be a ULP, it must clause. The ER can compel the EE to be a
be done is good faith and that ER must not have member of the union as a condition for
resulted to means to circumvent the law. It must employment provided it is stated in the CBA and
be for legitimate reasons for it to be a valid CBA is registered to DOLE.
exercise of management prerogative.
The burden of proof to prove ULP is the

petitioner. DISCRIMINATION: TO ENCOURAGE OR
DISCOURAGE UNIONISM
Let go to number 4: Company union
Basis: Article 259 (e)
To discriminate in regard to wages, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or
COMPANY UNION discourage membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any
Or other law shall stop the parties from
requiring membership in a recognized
Company Initiated, dominated or assisted collective bargaining agent as a condition
union for employment, except those employees
who are already members of another union
Basis: Article 259 (d) at the time of the signing of the collective
bargaining agreement.
To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
interfere with the formation or Employees of an appropriate bargaining
administration of any labor organization, unit who are not members of the
including the giving of financial or other recognized collective bargaining agent may
support to it or its organizers or supporters; be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to
the dues and other fees paid by members
of the recognized collective bargaining
When ER initiate etc… agent, if such non-union members accept
Why is in discourage? so if the ER give 1million the benefits under the collective bargaining
agreement: Provided, That the individual
to each officer, can it be done?
authorization required under Article 242,
When the union become dominated by the ER, paragraph (o) of this Code204 shall not apply
to the nonmembers of the recognized
obvious it will not now look at the interest of the
collective bargaining agent;
union itself dba. They cease to represent the
union. So human nature.
So even if ER would support unionism, it is still
This company domination may come to different not allowed.
form. The initiation of company union, example
when ER say I support union A, this is still a The discrimination is with respect to … read
company unionism. What we learned from the provision .
bystander principle is that, ER should not have
any hand in the formation of the union aside from
giving the list of the employees.

Nada Es Imposible
WHAT IS THE TEST OF DISCRIMINATION? Basis: Article 259 (f)

f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise
prejudice or discriminate against an
WON benefits or privileges are given to one employee for having given or being about
which is not given to another entity under similar
conditions and circumstances and this is to give testimony under this Code;
motivated to encourage or discourage union Page | 53

membership. it can be any violation of the labor code. Hind
kailangannaang testimony niya is connected with
So here the discrimination here is to interfere.
ULP violation. It can be any violation of LC.
Examine the motive of the ER.
Example: witness ka in a case against the
employer. The ER cannot
CLASSIFICATION VS DISCREMINATION dismiss/discrimination. Once u give testimony for
a violation of LC.
While discrimination is considered as ULP,
classification is not because it merely
differentiates the employees in accordance with PAYMENT OF NEGOTIATION AND
their respective jobs and accords them ATTORNEY’S FEES
appropriate levels of pay or benefits due them by
reason thereof. Basis: Article 259 (h)
So take note the motive of discrimination. To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to
the union or its officers or agents as part
of the settlement of any issue in collective
bargaining or any other dispute
VIOLATION OF CBA
This was discuss last exam, so how do you know When the ER, fails to (read prov.)
if there is a gross violation of CBA? Freedom of the management “ to regulate ,
Note: To become ULP, it must be gross, flagrant according to its own discretion and judgment, all
and malicious failure to comply with the economic aspect of employment, including hiring, work
provisions of CBA. assignment, working method, time place and
manner of work, processes to be followed,
The burden of proof is with the petitioner claiming supervision of workers, working regulations,
ER is guilty of ULP by substantial evidence or transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of
such relevant evidence at a reasonable mind workers and discipline , dismissal and recall of
might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. workers.”
Violation of CBA- grievance committee With the condition that management control is
NOT exercised to violate a worker’s right to self-
Gross Violation CBA - ULP
organization
Determination of validity: appraisal of his motives

DISCRIMINATION IN GIVING TESTIMONY OR
FILING OF CHARGES OR GIVING OF
TESTIMONY

Nada Es Imposible
- Employer’s past conduct re: labor substantial evidence to support the allegation of
ULP.
relation or bargaining history
- Connection between employer’s acts On the issue on termination:
and union affiliations/ activities
- Totality of acts (“totality of conduct” AttyEdig: So here, the contracting out was
doctrine) justified and there was no bad faith on er when it
- Rationale of management decision downsized the business. Page | 54
---------------------- END OF CLASS--------------------

GALAXY STEEL WORKERS VS NLRC 2006
Galaxy alleged that that ER is guilty for ULP for

its anti- union stance.
February 23 2018
Galaxie’s documentary evidence shows that it
By: Gloria Arafol had been experiencing serious financial losses at
CASES RECITATION the time it closed business operations.
Galaxy failed to present concrete evidence

supporting their claim of ULP. The burden of
CULILI VS EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATION proof lies to the union. Remember it class. Take
2011 note the discussion on termination.
Acts complained: Culili, senior technician, was

terminated. There was a retirement or right sizing
STERLING PRODUCTS VS SECRETARY 1963
program where some of the EE where given
motorcycle. Culili alleged contracting out and Loreta C. Sol charged the herein petitioners
discrimination. Sterling Products International and its Radio
Art 259 © and (e)- the basis discrimination he was Director V. San Pedro with having committed an
singled act there were others who opted unfair labor practice act. In her complaint she
retirement and was given motorcycle incentives. alleged among others that she has been a regular
Radio Monitor of respondents- petitioners; that on
Culili asserted that ETPI, is guilty of ULP, January 8, 1960, she filed a complaint against the
because his functions were sourced out to labor- said firm for underpayment, money equivalent of
only contractors and he was discriminated her vacation leave from 1952 to 1959, and
against when his other friends have motorcycle Christmas bonus for 1959, equivalent to one
( ) month salary. The complaint resulted in her
dismissal, without just cause, on December 16,
SC HELD: NO ULP
1960.
ULP refers to acts that violates the workers right
According to ER: She was an independent
to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the Contractor.
workers’ right to self-organization and to the
observance of CBA. An ER may only be liable for SC HELD: NO ulp
ULP if it can be shown that his acts affects in
whatever manner the right of his ee to self- The term unfair labor practice has been defined
organize. as any of those acts listed in Sec. 4 of the Act.
The respondent Sol has never been found to
There was no showing that ETPI and its right commit any of the acts mentioned in paragraph
sizing program was motivated by ill will, bad faith (a) of Sec. 4. Respondent Sol was not connected
or malice, or that it was aimed in interfering the with any labor organization, nor has she ever
ee RSO. Presumption of good faith subsist. Culili attempted to join a labor organization,
has the burden of proof to show or present

Nada Es Imposible
or to assist, or contribute to a labor organization. practical purpose. Considering that the NCMB
The company, cannot therefore, be considered has yet to resolve CAB’s query in its letter-
as having committed an unfair labor practice. response, CAB was left without any choice but
accede to the demands of CABELA. In
As termination: she was not an employee but an concluding a CBA with CABELA, CAB claims that
independent contractor. it acted in the best interest of the rank-and- file
workers which belied bad faith. Page | 55
Issue: WON CAB is guilty of ULP.
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS UNION VS
CENTRAL AZUCARERA 2010 SC HELD: NO
What was the act of the ER: Failure to bargain in For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it
good faith. must be shown that CAB was motivated by ill will,
“bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or
The important event to discuss in the instant case done in a manner contrary to morals, good
is ER act of concluding a CBA with CABELA. As customs, or public policy, and, of course, that
gleaned from ER letter to NCMB dated June 14, social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave
2005, it concluded a CBA with CABELA because anxiety resulted x xx” in suspending negotiations
they opined that complainant lost its majority with CABEU-NFL. Notably, CAB believed that
status in January 2005 when 90% of the rank- CABEU-NFL was no longer the representative of
and-file employees disauthorized and withdrew the workers.[34] It just wanted to foster industrial
their support to complainant. These rank-and-file peace by bowing to the wishes of the
employees who withdrew their support, organized overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers
and formed CABELA. In fine, ER believed that and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a
CABELA enjoyed the majority status of CABELA CBA with CABELA.”[35] Such actions of CAB are
since it was supported by 90% of all employees nowhere tantamount to anti-unionism, the evil
in the bargaining unit. sought to be punished in cases of unfair labor
In resolving the issue of whether ER act of practices. The presumption of good faith was not
rebutted.
concluding a CBA with CABELA is warranted
under the circumstances is to examine the validity AttyEdig : so here there was no decision yet
of such act. The mechanics of collective NCMB . somurag premature pa sya
bargaining are set in motion only when the
following jurisdictional preconditions are present,
namely: 1) possession of the status of majority
CALTEX vs CIR
representation of the employees’ representative
in accordance with any of the means of selection There was a ULP. There was a dilatory act of the
and designation provided for by the Labor Code, ER.
2) proof of majority representation, and 3) a
demand to bargain under Article 250, par. (a) of So here you have to discuss what prompted the
the Labor Code x xx. workers to strike. So there was supposed to be a
conciliation meeting between the EE
On the issue of unfair labor practice, CAB ( the representative and the ER representative.
ER) counters that in view of the disassociation of However the representative of the ER was in
more than 90% of rank-and-file workers from davao. It would seem that the ER introduce
CABEU-NFL, it was constrained to negotiate and dilatory tactics para hindimatuloyung meeting.
conclude in good faith a new CBA with CABELA,
the newly established union by workers who The sc here said that the strike was not unlawful.
disassociated from CABEU-NFL. CAB The company here issued a statement at the time
emphasizes that it declined further negotiations when the union was seeking for recognition
with CABEU-NFL in good faith because to stating that:
continue with it would serve no

Nada Es Imposible
"We sincerely believe that good employee interference with which is an unfair labor
relations can be maintained and essential practice.
employee needs fulfilled through sound Indeed, the finding of refusal to bargain is based
management administration without the on the Bank's failure to process its own
necessity of employee organization and
representations. We respect an employee's right grievance — what it considered was the
to present his grievances, regardless of whether employees, libel in giving undue publicity to their Page | 56
or not he is represented by a labor organization." grievances — through a grievance committee
meeting. As stated in the main decision in this
So here the statement was regarded as an case, not even the Bank's judgment that the
interference. Remember we discuss we said that respondent employees committed libel could
when the employer release its statement or excuse it from its duty to bargain collectively,
opinion regarding the COE or formation of the which includes the adjustment of grievances.
union but it should be put in context.
Furthermore, even assuming that the respondent
So clearly my interference didto. The statement employees failed to observe procedure, the Bank
with the context that that time, the BU was still was not thereby justified in unilaterally
seeking for recognition. It would in effect the ER discharging them. At most such failure could
suggested na there is still no need of a union. justify the Bank in ignoring their demand.
That is why there is ULP. This is the reason why
the union stage a strike without a notice of strike.
AttyEdig: The EE here was exercising concerted
activities when they write the letter and thus was
REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK VS CIR 1967 exercising their right to self-organization ( for
mutual aide and protection. So it is protected by
THERE IS ULP: Remember the case where is the RSO. What about management prerogative?
this letter alleging the immorality and nepotism of
the bank president. As a result 10 employees The MP- does not touch the exercise of ER right
were dismissed. to select of its EE, but it is directed to the exercise
of such right by interfering with the RSO. Failure
The Bank said that there was no ULP because of the bank to refer the same to the grievance was
the respondent was not discharge for union considered ulp.
activities but for writing to the president.
The court ruled here that when the bank did not
According to the bank- the Bank could not be allow its EE to air sentiments against the
found guilty of a refusal to bargain because the president, it amounted to ULP because by aside
respondent employees, in the first instance, did from the interference made by the ER in airing
not follow the grievance procedure outlined in the their grievances as a concerted activity, the bank
collective bargaining agreement with the was also not in good faith by not listening towards
R.S.B. Employees Union, which called for the its EE grievances.
creation of a union committee to take up
grievances with the Bank's representative. CONCURRING OPINION OF FERNANDEZ:
(nganga..)so in Justice Fernando opinion, he did
SC HELD: The argument is fallacious. It assumes not agree with the decision of SC that the act of
the existence of a specific procedure for the the bank in dismissing his EE without grievance
handling of grievances when the fact is that no procedure amounts to bad faith bargaining (ULP).
specific procedure governs the present case Kasisabi here by the SC , bargaining does not
because the respondent employees do not end in the signing of CBA, it is a continuing
belong to one union. They are officers of different ;process. According to justice Fernando, the
unions from three bargaining units in the bank. As writing of the letter even though is not a union
a group they are governed by no collective action for it is an individual act, does not amount
bargaining with the Bank. Yet they were engaged to bad faith bargaining.
in a concerted activity,
Nada Es Imposible
The act of dismissing these EE who criticizes the Indeed, some such similar actions are illegal as
ER president was to him, was an act that is unfair. constituting unwarranted acts of interference.
That is why he still concur on the bad faith Thus, the act of a company president in writing
bargaining. letters to the strikers, urging their return to work
on terms inconsistent with their union
membership, was adjudged as constituting
interference with the exercise of his employees' Page | 57
HACIENDA FATIMA vs NATIONAL right to collective bargaining (Lighter Publishing,
FEDERATION 2003 CCA 7th, 133 F2d 621). It is likewise an act of
There was termination of EEs. They alleged that interference for the employer to send a letter to all
there where regular EE and not seasonal as employees notifying them to return to work at a
argued by the ER. Court ruled that they are time specified therein, otherwise new employees
would be engaged to perform their jobs.
regular. There was a ULP. There was illegal
termination. From respondents’ refusal to Individual solicitation of the employees or visiting
bargain, to their acts of economic inducements their homes, with the employer or his
resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew representative urging the employees to cease
from the union, the use of armed guards to union activity or cease striking, constitutes unfair
prevent the organizers to come in, and the labor practice. All the above-detailed activities are
dismissal of union officials and members, one unfair labor practices because they tend to
cannot but conclude that respondents did not undermine the concerted activity of the
want a union in their hacienda—a clear employees, an activity to which they are entitled
interference in the right of the workers to self- free from the employer's molestation
organization The letter containing promises of benefits to the
employees in order to entice them to return to
work, it is not protected by the free speech
provisions of the Constitution. The same is true
with exhibit B since it contained threats to obtain
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO VS replacements for the striking employees in the
INSULAR LIFE 1971 event they did not report for work on June 2 1958.
The free speech protection under the Constitution
There was a strike. The company made a counter
is inapplicable where the expression of opinion
proposal or a letter. The company was trying
by the employer or his agent contains a promise
bribe the EEs directed to the member of the union
of benefit, or threats, or reprisal.
individually.
Indeed, when the respondents offered
SC ruled that there is ULP. Instead of the union,
reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the
they try to settle the matter individually.
strikers with "comfortable cots," "free coffee and
occasional movies," "overtime" pay for "work
performed in excess of eight hours," and
FULL TEXT: Indeed, it is an unfair labor practice "arrangements" for their families, so they would
for an employer operating under a collective abandon the strike and return to work, they were
bargaining agreement to negotiate or to attempt guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and,
to negotiate with his employees individually in consequently, of unfair labor practice. It is
connection with changes in the agreement. And equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an
the basis of the prohibition regarding individual employer to offer reinstatement to striking
bargaining with the strikers is that although the employees individually, when they are
union is on strike, the employer is still under represented by a union, since the employees thus
obligation to bargain with the union as the offered reinstatement are unable to determine
employees' bargaining representative (Melo what the consequences of returning to work
Photo Supply Corporation vs. National Labor would be.
Relations Board, 321 U.S. 332).

Nada Es Imposible
---------- end of class----------------------- TEST: WON the contracting out is done in good
faith or from the circumstances the ER is just
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---------- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx resourcing out of the job of the union member so
that it would discourage unionism.
March 1, 2018
Page | 58
By: Arafol WHAT IS MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE?It is
the freedom of the management to regulate
Quiz according to its sole discretion and judgmenton
all aspect of employment, hiring, work
assignment, work method, and other working
Lets continue..How can ULP be committed by an conditions in the employment. However this
ER. management prerogative is not absolute and
must be exercise under a condition that it must
violate workers right to self-organization.
Let go to letter c of Art 259 HOW DO WE DETERMINE MANAGEMENT
PREROGATIVE? There is no one test that would
To contract out services or functions being
performed by union members when such will determine WON MP is valid. We will always, have
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the to consider the attending circumstances/
exercise of their right to self-organization;
- Employer’s past conduct re: labor
Last meeting we discuss management relation or bargaining history
prerogative. The company can lay down rules - Connection between employer’s acts
and policies in hiring or firing employees. It can and union affiliations/ activities
also create measures to make operations more - Totality of acts (“totality of conduct”
profitable. The labor code recognize the right of doctrine)
the company it is management prerogative, but - Rationale of management decision
this management prerogative must be exercised (VERY IMPORTANT ITO,
in good faith. itoungttignanng SC)
EXAMPLE: GR contracting out of services is not PROCEDURE
a ULP. How can it be a ULP? It must be exercised
in good faith and it must be for the purpose of Labor code priory ULP in labor cases and
circumventing the law. Baliktayosa totality of it is under the jurisdiction of LABOR
conduct doctrine. Even if it would seem that the ARBITER, and the LA is given 30 days
ER did not violate any law, but the totality of his within which to resolve the case after the
conduct or circumstances would suggest that parties have submitted their respective
there is ULP. positions paper.
Example, there is a condition called _ ULP case have 2 components

shop wherein the ER shall move its
industrial plant from location to another to
escape union activities or discriminates COMPONENTS OF ULP
against its employees involve in union
activities. This relocation is not made in 1. Criminal
good faith and is motivated to discourage 2. Administrative – In this proceeding, what
unionism. may only be decided upon is the civil
liability of the erring party.
However, when the contracting out is being done
with a valid business reasons(reduce cost) so this
a valid management prerogative.

Nada Es Imposible
WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE IN A ULP?
Answer: Last paragraph of article 259 ULP OF LABOR ORGANIZATION.

Only the officers and agents of
corporations, associations or ART. 260. [249] Unfair Labor Practices of Labor
partnerships who have actually Organizations.205 It shall be unfair labor practice for Page | 59
participated in, authorized or ratified a labor organization, its officers, agents or
unfair labor practices shall be held representatives:
criminally liable.
a) To restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization.
However, a labor organization shall have
AttyEdig: Offices and agents of the ER since the the right to prescribe its own rules with
ULP act cannot be committed by a corporation. respect to the acquisition or retention of
Offices/officers and agent of the labor membership;
organization and lastly, those not connected with b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer
the ER or LO, who participated in, authorized or to discriminate against an employee,
ratified ULP. including discrimination against an
employee with respect to whom
If there is a favorable ruling in the admin membership in such organization has been
proceedings, the civil liability to the winning party, denied or to terminate an employee on any
ground other than the usual terms and
this abar to another proceeding to the same civil
conditions under which membership or
liability. (huh?) continuation of membership is made
available to other members;
Example: alamnyonamandbausuall,civil liability is c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain
deemed instituted in the criminal liability except collectively with the employer, provided it is
on certain example. So here in an admin the representative of the employees;
proceeding, you already claim civil liability ( d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer
award) you can no longer clam payment for civil to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver
liability in a criminal case. You cannot claim twice any money or other things of value, in the
for the same criminal act. nature of an exaction, for services which
are not performed or not to be performed,
Meaning to say there must be a ULP 1st in the including the demand for fee for union
administrativeproceeding before there can negotiations;
beinstitution of criminal proceeding. TAKE NOTE:
e) e. to ask for or accept negotiation or
final judgment in an administrative proceeding is attorney’s fees as part of the settlement of
not binding in a criminal proceeding. The any issue in collective bargaining or any
prosecution must still relay on its own evidence other dispute; or
parin.
f) To violate a collective bargaining
Final judgment in an administrative proceeding is agreement.
merely a prerequisites and shall not be binding
upon the court in its criminal prosecution. The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers, members of
WHAT is merely require is the filing of the admin governing boards, representatives or agents or
case, before the filing of the criminal case. members of labor associations or organizations who
have actually participated in, authorized or ratified
(What is correct, Final judgment in admin case or unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
mere filing of admin case before there can be fling
of criminal case? Ask maam. )
LET’S Now go to ULP of Labor Organization

Nada Es Imposible
VIOLATION OF THE CBA It is ULP for a labor organization, its officers,

agents or representatives to ask for or accept
ARTICLE 260 (F) negotiation fees or attorney’s fees from
employers as part of the settlement of any issue
To violate a collective bargaining in CBA or any other dispute.
agreement.
NOTE: counter part of ART 250 (H)
Page | 60
Under Article 260 or Article 249, It is ULP Payment here does not have to be in a cash or
for a labor organization, its officers, agents or any other monetary form. It could be accepatnces
representatives to violate CBA. of hotel accommodations, sack of rice.
There must be a gross violation of the The reason behind this prohibition is to avoid
CBA. If it is not gross, remember you have to file undue influence on the part of the ER.
it in the grievance machinery. Note that in ULP of
employers there are 3 major act there name:
Interference, restraint and coercion to exercise of DISCRIMINATION
employee’s right to self-organization and CB.
However in ULP of LO, dalawanlngangmaiwan, Article 260 (b) or 249 (old LC)
COERCE and RESTRAINT the employees of
To cause or attempt to cause an employer
their right to self-organization.
to discriminate against an employee,
Bakittagalang interference? Kasi as a including discrimination against an
labor organization, it has the right to exercise employee with respect to whom
membership in such organization has been
RSO. However, it cannot coerce them to join a denied or to terminate an employee on any
union and may not also restraint the employees ground other than the usual terms and
from joining a union. conditions under which membership or
continuation of membership is made
available to other members;
NOTE: GR: violation of CBA of LO, is merely
grievable issue.
EXCEPT: it becomes a ULP only if the violation is Counterpart of Article 259 (e)
gross in character which means that there is a
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to compywth the
economic (as distinguish from non- economic) ATTY EDIG: may instance bah naang LO in a
stipulations in the CBA. This principle eqally workers right to SO. May instance bah
applies to ULP by er. nasabihnng LO nadiscrimination is OK in a BU?
YESYESYOH. Meron in a valid union security

agreement, which must be stated in the CBA and
must be validly registered in DOLE. This is the
DEMAND or ACCEPTANCE OF exception under the discrimination prohibition
NEGOTIATION FEES OR ATTORNEY’S FEES under the ULP. Ex. Closed shop security clause.
Article 249-260 (e)

to ask for or accept negotiation or What are the kinds of union security clause?
attorney’s fees as part of the settlement of
any issue in collective bargaining or any
other dispute;

Nada Es Imposible
ANTI-FEATHERBEDDING DOCTRINE VIOLATING ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN
Article 260 or 249 ©

To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain
Under article 260 (d)
collectively with the employer, provided it is
To cause or attempt to cause an employer the representative of the employees;
to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver Page | 61
any money or other things of value, in the
nature of an exaction, for services which AttyEdig: we already discussed this, remember
are not performed or not to be performed, that the violation of the duty to bargain is not only
including the demand for fee for union committed when there is failure to appear to
negotiations; bargain in the bargaining table. Even bargaining
in bad faith, surfacebargaining,boulwarism(take it
or leave stand).
Featherbedding- it is the practice of the union as

unduly and unnecessarily maintains or increase
the number of employees used or amount of time
consumed to work on a specific job. CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ULP OF L.O.
Article 260 – the said provisionCleary provides

that: representatives or agents or members of labor
associations or organizations who have actually
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
It is the practice of the union or the agent of the
practices shall be held criminally liable.
union in causing or attempting to cause an
employer to pay or deliver or agreed to pay It must be noted that the law only speaks about
money or other things of value in the nature of the criminal liability.
exaction for services in the _ part or not to be
performed as well the union demands that the Ok let’s start the quiz.
employer would take personnel in extent of the Resume the recitation for the next 3 cases focus
latter requirement .?? (loooooossss) on the USC and WON there was discrimination.
What does this mean?This is a kind of coercion
on the part of the LO. It can be considered as a
bribe. CASE RECITATION
Ex: the union would say to ER JOLIBEE, I would BANKARD VS NLRC 2013
not hold strike if you would maintain 100%
employees in the Union. So if Jolibee would say The ground here for ULP is contracting out or
na I only want 150 ee, and the union would say I outsourcing. Bankard deny that the outsourcing
would not hold strike if you maintain the 200 ee of (call center services) is a ULP on the ground that
the union, that is a bribe, that is featherbedding. the management is only to invite EE for voluntary
So in effect you are coercing the ER to maintain resignation and for improvement of the
personnel in excess of what the ER require so industry.Bankard also deny bad fath bargaining
that you would do some activities that will not because the demands of the union were below
affect the ER. Or that you do something for the the demands of the ER. The lower tribunal held
benefit of the ER. This pertains to any kind of that there is ULP and also as to the issue on bad
bribe and until now there is no SC decisions faith bargaining the court ruled in negative. CA
regarding this doctrine. ruled that there is ULP.
Lets go to the last ULP of LO. ISSUE: WON there was ULP?
SC HELD: NO. The manpower rationalization

program is within the ambit of the management

Nada Es Imposible
prerogative of bankard. Such program is within termination even if the employer failed to render
the its policy to implement a valid cross cutting the statutory notice and hearing requirement. At
measures with regard to commit their business the same time, it should be understood that in the
exigencies and as such in the absence of any ill matter of determining whether cause exists for
will or bad on the bankard there is no ULP. The termination, whether under Book Six, Title I of the
law of ULP is not intended to deprive the ER to Labor Code or under a valid CBA, substantive
promote or prescribed means.. due process must be observed as a means of Page | 62
ensuring that security of tenure is not infringed.
ATTY EDIG: so in this case class, what was fatal
by the cause of the union is that they did not ON THE ISSUE ON THE CLOSE SHOP
present any evidence to show that the ER is doing AGREEMENT: Article 279 of the Labor Code
acts to prevent unionism. Since in any case, the ordains that “in cases of regular employment, the
burden of proof is with the one who alleges. The employer shall not terminate the services of an
union failed to discharge the burden of proof. employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by [Title I, Book Six of the Labor
For example, they could have presented Code].” Admittedly, the enforcement of a closed-
evidence that would prove that the company is shop or union security provision in the CBA as a
reducing its works force would discourage unions ground for termination finds no extension within
or to reduce the number of workers who may any of the provisions under Title I, Book Six of the
qualify to join the union, this case would prosper. Labor Code. Yet jurisprudence has consistently
But here, they did not give any other evidence recognized, thus: “It is State policy to promote
that would support their contentions. So unionism to enable workers to negotiate with
remember that always class. management on an even playing field and with
more persuasiveness than if they were
The management here also substantial gave the toindividually and separately bargain with the
rationale for its contracting out program. employer. For this reason, the law has allowed
stipulations for ‘union shop’ and ‘closed shop’ as
means of encouraging workers to join and
DEL MONTE VS ZALDIVAR 2006 support the union of their choice in the protection
of their rights and interests vis-a-vis the employer
Timbal and other EE where charge disloyalty by
the union. There was an affidavit that So here, the basis of the dismissal was only a
Timbalrecruited other EE to join the rival testimony. There was failure to comply with the
union.This was denied by Timbal. Timbal was substantive due process.
subsequently dismissed by the ER because of
ATTY: even if there is a closed shop agreement
the CLOSE SHOP AGREEMENT, so if the union
here, it cannot do away that the dismissed ee
member would discontinued membership to the
should be given substantive due process. There
union, such EE would be dismissed form his
was no due process here for the dismissal was
employment. Timbal filed ULP and Illegal
based on disloyalty and the board was not
dismissal. According to Timbal there was ULP
impartial. We nonetheless hold that in order that
because he was denied by substantive due
the dismissal of an employee may be validated by
process as in the landmark case of Agabon.
this Court, it is necessary that the grounds for
ISSUE: WON timbal was I.D. and WON there was dismissal are justified by substantial evidence as
ULP. duly appreciated by an impartial trier of facts.[40]
The existence of Piquero’s testimony was
SC HELD: YES there was Illegal dismissal. appreciated only by the Disloyalty Board, but not
Timbal dismissal was allegedly because of his by any of the impartial tribunals which heard
disloyalty to the union. Timbal’s case. The appreciation of such
FULL TEXT: constitutional due process or testimony by the Disloyalty Board without any
security of tenure did not shield from dismissal an similar affirmation or concurrence by the NLRC-
employee found guilty of a just cause for

Nada Es Imposible
RAB, the NLRC, or the Court of Appeals, cannot SC said that they don’t fall on the 1st 3 exception.
satisfy the substantive due process requirement It could be in number 4 but it has to be qualified.
as a means of upholding Timbal’s dismissal. It was argued by BPI that the ee are considered
The ER here should done a separate
proceedings. Assests and liabilities assumed and shall be

considered as employees of BPI.SC HELD: In Page | 63
legal parlance, however, human beings are never
BPI VS BLI EMPLOYEES 2010-2011 embraced in the term “assets and liabilities.”
Moreover, BPI’s absorption of former FEBTC
Class note this is a landmark case. There was a employees was neither by operation of law nor by
merger of BPI. As part of the merger, the ee are legal consequence of contract. There was no
absorbed. After the absorption the former FBTC government regulation or law that compelled the
employees were called by the union president of merger of the two banks or the absorption of the
BPI to be part of the union and some of the FBTC employees of the dissolved corporation by the
union employees refuse to join and some who are surviving corporation. Had there been such law or
members retracted from the members of such regulation, the absorption of employees of the
union. So now the BPI union wanted to enforce non-surviving entities of the merger would have
the CBA which has a USC. been mandatory on the surviving corporation.[27]
In the present case, the merger was voluntarily
ISSUE: WON the former FBTC employess entered into by both banks presumably for some
absorbed by reason of merger should be covered mutually acceptable consideration. In fact, the
by the CBA USC- CSA. Corporation Code does not also mandate the
absorption of the employees of the non-surviving
corporation by the surviving corporation in the
SC HELD: the EE of FBTC is covered by the USC case of a merger. Section 80 of the Corporation
Code provides:
GR: ( Full text)All employees in the bargaining
unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with management are subject to its terms.
Indeed, the situation of the former FEBTC
EXCEPTION: However, under law and employees in this case clearly does not fall within
jurisprudence, the following kinds of employees the first three exceptions to the application of the
are exempted from its coverage, namely, Union Shop Clause discussed earlier. No
allegation or evidence of religious exemption or
1. employees who at the time the union prior membership in another union or
shop agreement takes effect are bona engagement as a confidential employee was
fide members of a religious organization presented by both parties. The sole category
which prohibits its members from joining therefore in which petitioner may prove its claim
labor unions on religious grounds; is the fourth recognized exception or whether the
2. employees already in the service and former FEBTC employees are excluded by the
already members of a union other than express terms of the existing CBA between
the majority at the time the union shop petitioner and respondent.
agreement took effect;
3. Confidential employees who are “new employees,” as the same is used in the
excluded from the rank and file Union Shop Clause of the CBA at issue, refers
bargaining unit; only to employees hired by BPI as non-regular
4. and employees excluded from the union employees who later qualify for regular
shop by express terms of the agreement. employment and become regular employees, and
not those who, as a legal consequence of a
merger, are allegedly automatically deemed
regular employees of BPI. However, the CBA

Nada Es Imposible
does not make a distinction as to how a regular --------------- end of the classs------------------
employee attains such a status. Moreover, there
is nothing in the Corporation Law and the merger
agreement mandating the automatic employment
as regular employees by the surviving
March 2, 2018
corporation in the merger.
Page | 64
By: Gloria Arafol
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the case at bar, since the former FEBTC

employees are deemed covered by the Union ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB VS NLRC 2008
Shop Clause, they are required to join the

certified bargaining agent, which supposedly has There is a USC which states: . All regular rank-
gathered the support of the majority of workers
and-file employees, who are members or
within the bargaining unit in the appropriate
subsequently become members of the UNION shall
certification proceeding. Their joining the certified
maintain their membership in good standing as a
union would, in fact, be in the best interests of the
condition for their continued employment by the
former FEBTC employees for it unites their
interests with the majority of employees in the CLUB during the lifetime of this Agreement or any
bargaining unit. It encourages employee extension thereof.
solidarity and affords sufficient protection to the
One of the grounds for termination of the ee in the
majority status of the union during the life of the union is malversation of union funds.
CBA which are the precisely the objectives of
union security clauses, such as the Union Shop The union wanted to terminate the 3 respondent
Clause involved herein. We are indeed not being pursuant to the USC. Which was granted by the ER.
called to balance the interests of individual
employees as against the State policy of ISSUE: WON there was due process in the dismissal
promoting unionism, since the employees, who of the respondent.
were parties in the court below, no longer
contested the adverse Court of Appeals’ decision. SC: YESYESYOH. They are afforded with due process.
Nonetheless, settled jurisprudence has already 3 respondents were expelled from and by the Union
swung the balance in favor of unionism, in after due investigation for acts of dishonesty and
recognition that ultimately the individual
malversation of Union funds. In accordance with the
employee will be benefited by that policy. In the
CBA, the Union properly requested the Club, through
hierarchy of constitutional values, this Court has
the October 18, 2001 letter[22] signed by Mario
repeatedly held that the right to abstain from
joining a labor organization is subordinate to the Orense, the Union President, and addressed to
policy of encouraging unionism as an instrument Cynthia Figueroa, the Club’s HRD Manager, to
of social justice. enforce the Union security provision in their CBA and
terminate said respondents. . Then, in compliance
with the Union’s request, the Club reviewed the
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx documents submitted by the Union, requested said
respondents to submit written explanations, and
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the thereafter afforded them reasonable opportunity to
individual employee’s right not to join a union may present their side. After it had determined that
be validly restricted by a union security clause in there was sufficient evidence that said
a CBA[49] and such union security clause is not respondentsmalversed Union funds, the Club
a violation of the employee’s constitutional right
dismissed them from their employment conformably
to freedom of association.[50]
with Sec. 4(f) of the CBA.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AS TO THE CLUB: We rule that the Club
substantially complied with the due process

Nada Es Imposible
requirements before it dismissed the three DEL PILAR ACADEMY VS DEL PILAR
ACADEMY UNION 2008
respondents.
The three respondents aver that the Club violated Facts: The UNION to file a case for unfair labor
their rights to due process as enunciated in practice with the Labor Arbiter against DEL PILAR.
MalayangSamahan,[23] when it failed to conduct an Traversing the complaint, DEL PILAR denied
independent and separate hearing before they were Page | 65
committing unfair labor practices against the UNION.
dismissed from service. It justified the non-deduction of the agency fees by
The CA and the three respondents err in relying on the absence of individual check off authorization
MalayangSamahan, as its ruling has no application to from the non-union employees. As regards the
this case. In MalayangSamahan, the union members proposal to amend the provision on summer
vacation leave with pay, DEL PILAR alleged that the
were expelled from the union and were immediately
proposal cannot be considered unfair for it was done
dismissed from the company without any semblance
to make the provision of the CBA conformable to the
of due process. Both the union and the company did
DECS’ Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
not conduct administrative hearings to give the
employees a chance to explain themselves. In the ISSUE: WON there was ULP
present case, the Club has substantially complied
with due process. The three respondents were SC HELD: NADA, there was none.
notified that their dismissal was being requested by
We do not believe that a finding of unfair labor
the Union, and their explanations were heard. Then,
practice can be had considering the lack of evidence
the Club, through its President, conferred with said
on record that said acts were done to undermine the
respondents during the last week of October 2001.
union or stifle the member’s right to self-
The three respondents were dismissed only after the
organization or that the [petitioners] were in bad
Club reviewed and considered the documents
faith. If at all, it’s (sic) error may have been the
submitted by the Union vis-à-vis the written
result of a mistaken notion that individual check-off
explanations submitted by said respondents. Under
authorization is needed for it to be able to validly
these circumstances, we find that the Club had
and legally deduct assessment especially after
afforded the three respondents a reasonable
individual[s] concerned registered their objection.
opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.
On the other hand, it is not error to negotiate for a
better term in the CBA. So long as [the] parties will
agree. It must be noted that a CBA is a contract
On the applicability of Agabon, the Club points out between labor and management and is not simply a
that the CA ruled that the three respondents were litany of benefits for labor. Moreso, for unfair labor
illegally dismissed primarily because they were not practice to prosper, there must be a clear showing of
afforded due process. We are not unaware of the acts aimed at stifling the worker’s right to self-
doctrine enunciated in Agabon that when there is organization. Mere allegations and mistake notions
just cause for the dismissal of an employee, the lack would not suffice. DISMISSED for want of basis.
of statutory due process should not nullify the
dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual, and the
employer should indemnify the employee for the
violation of his statutory rights.[27] However, we MABEZA vs NLRC 1997
find that we could not apply Agabon to this case as
SC HELD: there was no ULP and there was illegal
we have found that the three respondents were
validly dismissed and were actually afforded due dismissal. There are 2 issues here, WON there
process. was abandonment and WON there was ULP.
For abandonment to arise, there must be

concurrence of two things: 1) lack of intention

Nada Es Imposible
to work; 16 and 2) the presence of overt acts Labor Code" 24 which distinctly makes it an
signifying the employee's intention not to work. unfair labor practice "to dismiss, discharge or
otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an
In the instant case, respondent does not dispute employee for having given or being about to
the fact that petitioner tried to file a leave of give testimony" 25 under the Labor Code. For in
absence when she learned that the hotel
not giving positive testimony in favor of her Page | 66
management was displeased with her refusal to
employer, petitioner had reserved not only her
attest to the affidavit. The fact that she made
right to dispute the claim and proffer evidence
this attempt clearly indicates not an intention
in support thereof but also to work for better
to abandon but an intention to return to work
terms and conditions of employment.
after the period of her leave of absence, had it
been granted, shall have expired.
AS TO THE CONTENTION OF ER OF LOSS OF SAN MIGUEL UNION vs BERSAMIRA 1990

CONFDENCE: we have repeatedly held that loss
of confidence should not be simulated in order Facts: The Union filed a case for ULP. The
to justify what would otherwise be, under the company was question jurisdiction of labor
provisions of law, an illegal dismissal. "It should arbiter.
not be used as a subterfuge for causes which ISSUE: WON there was a labor dispute
are illegal, improper and unjustified. It must be
genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an SC HELD: YES. Under the jurisdiction of LA.A
earlier action taken in bad faith." "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of
the Labor Code includes "any controversy or
AS TO ULP:The pivotal question in any case matter concerning terms and conditions of
where unfair labor practice on the part of the employment or the association or
employer is alleged is whether or not the representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
employer has exerted pressure, in the form of maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms
restraint, interference or coercion, against his and conditions of employment, regardless of
employee's right to institute concerted action whether the disputants stand in the proximate
for better terms and conditions of employment. relation of employer and employee."
Without doubt, the act of compelling
employees to sign an instrument indicating that While it is SanMig's submission that no
the employer observed labor standards employer-employee relationship exists between
provisions of law when he might have not, itself, on the one hand, and the contractual
together with the act of terminating or coercing workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other, a
those who refuse to cooperate with the labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless
employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor of whether the disputants stand in the
practice. The first act clearly preempts the right proximate relationship of employer and
of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and employee" (Article 212 [1], Labor Code, supra)
conditions of employment through concerted provided the controversy concerns, among
action. others, the terms and conditions of
employment or a "change" or "arrangement"
We agree with the Solicitor General's thereof (ibid). Put differently, and as defined by
observation in his manifestation that "[t]his law, the existence of a labor dispute is not
actuation . . . is analogous to the situation negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and
envisaged in paragraph (f) of Article 248 of the
Nada Es Imposible
defendants do not stand in the proximate to strike in accordance with law (Section 3,
relation of employer and employee. Article XIII, 1987 Constitution) equally call for
recognition and protection. Those contending
That a labor dispute, as defined by the interests must be placed in proper perspective
law, does exist herein is evident. At bottom, and equilibrium.
what the Union seeks is to regularize the status Page | 67
of the employees contracted by Lipercon and
D'Rite and, in effect, that they be absorbed into GENERAL MILLING CORP VS CA 2004
the working unit of SanMig. This matter
definitely dwells on the working relationship Facts: The union filled a complaint alleged
between said employees vis-a-visSanMig. unfair labor practice on the part of GMC for: (1)
Terms, tenure and conditions of their refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference
employment and the arrangement of those with the right to self-organization; and (3)
terms are thus involved bringing the matter discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed the
within the purview of a labor dispute. Further, case with the recommendation that a petition
the Union also seeks to represent those for certification election be held to determine if
workers, who have signed up for Union the union still enjoyed the support of the
membership, for the purpose of collective workers.
bargaining. SanMig, for its part, resists that According to ER: The union do not enjoy the
Union demand on the ground that there is no
majority status anymore. ER move to question
employer-employee relationship between it the existence of the union and the status of its
and those workers and because the demand
membership to prevent any negotiation.
violates the terms of their CBA. Obvious then is
that representation and association, for the ISSUE: WON there was ULP.
purpose of negotiating the conditions of
SC HELD: YESYESYOH( there was Failure to duty
employment are also involved. In fact, the
to bargain collectively and interference) The
injunction sought by SanMig was precisely also
law mandates that the representation provision
to prevent such representation. Again, the
of a CBA should last for five years. The relation
matter of representation falls within the scope
between labor and management should be
of a labor dispute. Neither can it be denied that
undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth
the controversy below is directly connected
year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the
with the labor dispute already taken cognizance
union requested for a renegotiation of the
of by the NCMB-DOLE (NCMB-NCR-NS-O1-021-
economic terms of the CBA on November 29,
89; NCMB NCR NS-01-093-83).
1991, it was still the certified collective
WHAT DID THE SC SAID ON THE ISSUE OF bargaining agent of the workers, because it was
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE? We recognize seeking said renegotiation within five (5) years
the proprietary right of SanMig to exercise an from the date of effectivity of the CBA on
inherent management prerogative and its best December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was
business judgment to determine whether it also submitted within the prescribed 3-year
should contract out the performance of some of period from the date of effectivity of the CBA,
its work to independent contractors. However, albeit just before the last day of said period. It
the rights of all workers to self-organization, was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to
collective bargaining and negotiations, and refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union.
peaceful concerted activities, including the right For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the

Nada Es Imposible
union and to bargain anew on the economic it liable for unfair labor practice. Perforce, the
terms of the CBA, the company committed an Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of
unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Labor Code. jurisdiction in finding that GMC is, under the
circumstances, guilty of unfair labor practice.

We have held that the crucial question whether Page | 68
or not a party has met his statutory duty to ATTY EDIG: WHAT DID THE COURT SAY ON THE
bargain in good faith typically turn$ on the facts ISSUE OF INTERFERENCE?Class the letters here
of the individual case.[8] There is no per se test were obvious not voluntarily given. There was
of good faith in bargaining.[9] Good faith or bad pressure exerted by the Er.There was no bargain
faith is an inference to be drawn from the in good faith here. What did the SC do? SC said
facts.[10] The effect of an employer’s or a that the ER may not validly assert that its
union’s actions individually is not the test of consent should be a primordial consideration in
good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such the bargaining process. By its acts, no less than
occasions or actions, considered as a whole.[11] its action which bespeak its insincerity, it has
forfeited whatever rights it could have asserted
Under Article 252 abovecited, both parties are
as an employer. (kiokloy doctrine) So here class
required to perform their mutual obligation to
this was a form of sanction on the part of the ER
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously
for not bargaining in good faith. Lahatnanggi-
in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an
demand ng union, gi-grant ng SC. So very harsh
agreement. The union lived up to this obligation
noh.
when it presented proposals for a new CBA to
GMC within three (3) years from the effectivity The CA found that the letters between February
of the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty to June 1993 by 13 union members signifying
under Article 252. What it did was to devise a their resignation from the union clearly
flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of indicated that GMC exerted pressure on its
the union and the status of its membership to employees. The records show that GMC
prevent any negotiation. presented these letters to prove that the union
no longer enjoyed the support of the workers.
It bears stressing that the procedure in
The fact that the resignations of the union
collective bargaining prescribed by the Code is
members occurred during the pendency of the
mandatory because of the basic interest of the
case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s
state in ensuring lasting industrial peace.
desperate attempts to cast doubt on the
We hold that GMC’s refusal to make a counter- legitimate status of the union. We agree with
proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA the CA’s conclusion that the ill-timed letters of
negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. resignation from the union members indicate
Where the employer did not even bother to that GMC had interfered with the right of its
submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of employees to self-organization. Thus, we hold
the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to that the appellate court did not commit grave
bargain collectively.[12] abuse of discretion in finding GMC guilty of
unfair labor practice for interfering with the
right of its employees to self-organization.
Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation Let go the last case for tonight
to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, GMC
violated its duty to bargain collectively, making
Nada Es Imposible
ST JOHN COLLEGES VS ST. JOHN ACADEMY

FACULTY 2006
ISSUE: WON there was ULP
SC HELD: yesyesyoh!.
Facts: There was a strike due to bargaining
deadlock. Then the strike was ended and there Page | 69
was a return to work order. Subsequently, the ATTY EDIG: is irreconcilable difference a ground
school decided to close down due to the to stop the bargaining. ( NO, ANIYO) so the
irreconcilable difference (murag divorce) of the solution refer the issue to the voultary or
management and the union. So na close sya but dispute arbitrators/ resolution. It s not a
eventually, after one year, nagopensya. Only gorundstop bargaining
the highschoolangnaclose.
As to the second contention: it was dismss by
Employees filed a complaint for unfair labor the SC for there was no valid or evidence to
practice (ULP), illegal dismissal. The Union prove that the students were unduly affected.
members alleged that the closure of the high
As to the issue on reopening: so class, SC said
school was done in bad faith in order to get rid
that the school disregard the whole dispute
of the Union and render useless any decision of
system. The closure was in bad faith. It reopen
the SOLE on the CBA deadlocked issues.
one year after. So it is like evading the CBA.
AttyEdig: what are the 3 defenses of the Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to
school? discern that the closure was done to defeat the
parties’ agreement to refer the labor dispute to
1. SJCI undermined the Labor Code’s
the SOLE; to unilaterally end the bargaining
system of dispute resolution by closing
deadlock; to render nugatory any decision of
down the high school while the 1997
the SOLE; and to circumvent the Union’s right to
CBA negotiations deadlock issues were
collective bargaining and its members’ right to
pending resolution before the SOLE.
security of tenure. By admitting that the
The closure was done in bad faith for
closure was due to irreconcilable differences
the purpose of defeating the Union’s
between the Union and school management,
right to collective bargaining.
specifically, the financial aspect of the ongoing
2. SJCI next argues that the Union unduly
CBA negotiations, SJCI in effect admitted that it
endangered the safety and well-being
wanted to end the bargaining deadlock and
of the students who joined the valid
eliminate the problem of dealing with the
strike held on November 10, 1997, thus
demands of the Union. This is precisely what
it closed down the high school on
the Labor Code abhors and punishes as unfair
March 31, 1998.
labor practice since the net effect is to defeat
3. SJCI next contends that the subsequent
the Union’s right to collective bargaining.
reopening of the high school after only
one year from its closure did not show In sum, the timing of, and the reasons for
that the previous decision to close the the closure of the high school and its reopening
high school was tainted with bad faith after only one year from the time it was closed
because the reopening was done due to down, show that the closure was done in bad
the clamor of the high school’s former faith for the purpose of circumventing the
students and their parents. Union’s right to collective bargaining and its

Nada Es Imposible
members’ right to security of tenure. 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union
may take action immediately.
Consequently, SJCI is liable for ULP and illegal
dismissal. The notice must be in accordance with such
implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of
Labor and Employment may promulgate.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX End of CLASS XXXXXXXXX

the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the
dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite
March 15, 2018 number of days from the mandatory.
By: Basong
Under Sec. 3, Art 13 of the 1987 Constitution:
The State shall afford full protection to labor,

RIGHT TO PEACEFUL CONCERTED local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and
promote full employment and equality of employment
ACTIVITIES opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to

self-organization, collective bargaining and
FORMS OF CONCERTED ACTIVITIES negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law.
1. Strikes ;
2. Lockout; and
3. Strikes WHAT IS CONCERTED ACTIVITY?
Jurisprudence dictates that concerted activity

ARTICLE 278.Strikes, picketing and is one undertaken by two or more employees or even
lockouts.- by one employee on behalf of other employees. Now
strike is any temporary stopage of work by concerted
action of employees as a result of industrial or labor
It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade dispute.
unionism and free collective bargaining.
Workers shall have the right to engage in Point to Remember: there has to be an industrial or
concerted activities for purposes of collective labor dispute.
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.
Note: The Right to Strike is not applicable to
The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and
picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the inter union or inta union disputes. So inter
national interest, shall continue to be recognized and union and intra union disputes are covered by
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no their respective Constitution and By-Laws of
employer may declare a lockout on the Labor Organization. So there must be a
grounds involving inter-union and intra-union grievance machinery to address inter union or
disputes. intra union disputes.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified

or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with STRIKE
the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended date
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
WHAT IS A LABOR DISPUTE FOR IT TO BE A
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization CONSIDERED A GROUND FOR A LEGAL STRIKE?
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal LABOR DISPUTE includes any controversy
from employment of union officers duly elected in
or matter concerning terms or conditions of
accordance with the union constitution and by-laws,
which may constitute union busting, where the employment or association or designation of
existence of the union is threatened, the

Nada Es Imposible
employees, a negotiation fixing, changing or arranging So, they cannot strike to due result in temporary
terms and conditions of employment regardless of stoppage or disruption of government services but they
whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate may still air their grievances to the government. They
can still campaign for better right, however this should
relation of employer and employees.
not affect their employment because what is the
Discussion: So in the previous case already definition of strike, it is a temporary stoppage of work.
discussed, that even if the employer would So this would not mean that the government
disown the laborers, for example the employees cannot air their grievances; they should Page | 71
employer would say that they are make it outside office hours and it should not disrupt of
independent contractor or they are merely stop the giving of public services to the people.
sub-contracting, now it is not considered as a
2) Only legitimate labor organizations the right to
labor dispute and it is under the discretion of
strike. If you are not a legitimate labour organization
the labor arbiter whether or not there is an
you are not registered to the DOLE you are not allowed
employer-employee relationship.
to file a notice of strike.
3) Unionized workers may hold a protest action but not

WHY IS STRIKE AN IMPORTANT PART OF LABOR a strike.The workers by themselves they can air their
RELATIONS? grievances even without a union, however protesting a
valid strike, the strike must be petitioned by the labor
This is the most effective weapon of labor in organization. It does not mean that you are not a
protecting the rights of the employees to imprrove the member of a union you cannot strike, its just that your
terms and conditions of their employment. However, strike is not legal, you may only called a protest, but
not all are afforded the right to strike. this is not considered as legal strike.
Discussion: Not all concerted activities are

strike they may only be protest actions. And it
PRINCIPLES OF STRIKES THAT MUST BE
does not mean that any concerted activities
REMEMBERED BEFORE GOING TO PROCEDURAL
that this would result to a work stoppage by
REQUIREMENTS OF A LEGAL STRIKE:
the protesters.
1. Government Employees are allowed to form
A strike in contrast to a mere protest action, is always
labor unions but are not allowed to strike;
a group action accompanied by work stoppage. It is
2. Only legitimate labor organizations the right to
important because, when there is a temporary
strike
stoppage of work the employer is to compelled to
3. Unionized workers may hold a protest action
bargain or negotiate to the workers because usually
but not a strike;
what is the precursor of right, the employer is not
4. 4) The law may prohibit a strike but it may not
responding to the needs or the demand of the union.
be considered as the right to self- organiztion.
As discussed in previous meetings, collective
1) Government Employees are allowed to form labor bargaining does not ends with the tying of the collective
unions but are not allowed to strike.Employees in the bargaining agreement, it is a continuous process so at
public service may not engage in strike, while the any time of there is a valid ground, the CBA can always
constitution recognizes their right of government be negotiated and amended.
employees to organize, they are prohibited from
4) The law may prohibit a strike but it may not be
staging strikes, demonstrations and other forms of
considered as the right to self-organiztion.Any law
mass action which would result in temporary stoppage
prohibiting selected sectors of labor resorting to strike
or disruption of public service.
is not allowed. You may only prohibit the right to strike
Reason: It is important that public service but not the right of labor to organize union.
must always continue and they are not on the
Discussion: Now in contrast, if the employees
mercy or the whim of government employees.
have the right to strike, the employer on the
It must always be remembered that a public
other hand has the right to conduct a lockout.
office is a public trust. It is not like a private
job that you can stop anytime you want.
LOCKOUT
WHAT IS A LOCKOUT?

Nada Es Imposible
LOCKOUT defines as a temporary refusal of an in moving to and fro before all points of
employer to (inaudible) as a result of an industrial or entrance and exit from the employers
labor dispute. Always, in a strike or lockout ang establishment.
precursor nito, there is an industrial or labor dispute.
Note: laborers may not block the entrance and exit of
the establishment, since you cannot deprive the
Strike Lock Out employer from access to his establishment, and it also Page | 72
you cannot compel union or non-union members who
temporary stoppage in work do not wish to to join the strike.
Done by the employee Done by the employers

GROUNDS FOR STRIKE AND LOCKOUT:
1) Collective Bargaining Deadlock - this what

you call an economic strike. There is a
OTHER FORMS OF PROTEST OR CONCERTED deadlock in the collective bargaining.
ACTIVITY IN A BARGAINING UNIT OR IN A 2) Unfair Labor Practice (either by the employer
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE SETTING: or employee)
a) Boycott
Which attempts to coerce others by a fear of
a lose to withhold from an employer unfriendly to labor WHO MAY DECLARE A STRIKE OR LOCK OUT?
there beneficial business intercourse.
a) any certified or duly recognize bargaining
Side comment: to impress the examminer, you may representatives on the ground of bargaining
say “to withhold your beneficial business.” deadlock or ULP;
b) an employer; and
c) In the absence of an exclusive bargaining
b) Slows Down agent, any legitimate labor organization on
there is no temporary stoppage of work but it the establishment may declare a strike.
slows down production and distribution in an effort to
compelthe employer to comply with the demand of the
Discussion: once for a purpose not recognized by law
labor union made upon him.
and even if the purpose is valid but it did not go through
the process required by law, even if there is a
Discussion: There is no stoppage of work but
bargaining deadlock, and even if there is ULP, but it did
you are slowing down the operation of the
not comply the procedural requirements, it will still be
employers, which is also adverse to his
considered an illegal strike.
business interest and that would also compel
him to come to the negotiation table.
DOCTRINE OF MEANS AND PURPOSES- a strike is
legal when lawful means concur with lawful purpose.
c) Picketting
An act of marching to and fro the employers
Discussion: So
premises usually accompanied by the display of
dapatmagkasamatalagasilaparati, lawful
plackards other signs making known to the public the
means must concur with lawful purpose.
facts involve in a labor dispute.
Discussion: The labor union and the workers PROCEDURAL REQUISITES FOR THERE TO BE A
may hold the picketting at the strike area. LEGAL STRIKE:
STRIKE AREA: 1. There must be a valid and factual ground; -
 the establishment warehouse; Discussion: For economic purpose, for economic

 plants or offices; or ground it is the collective bargaining deadlock and
 Any other place of work where the employer for the political ground, there is unfair labor
set it out as one of the immediate vicinity practice when the employer or employee is
surrounding that establishment used strikers
considered, has committed unfair labor practice.

Nada Es Imposible
5. The strike or lock out vote must be recorded

2. There must be a notice of strike or lock out filed to the NCMB at least 7 days before the
with NCMB-DOLE at least 30 or 15 days intended strike or lock out; and
depending on the ground;Discussion: If the
ground is economic or there is a collective
bargaining deadlock, the notice of strike or Discussion: So if the strike or lockout vote require is
lockout must be filed at least 30 days from the not been submitted, the 7 day cooling off period cannot
commence, so ibaang notice of strike filed 30 days or
Page | 73
intended date of strike. And in the nature of an
15 days before and iba din ung submission of strike or
unfair labor practices, it must be at least 15 days
lockout vote report to the NCME DOLE at least 7 days
from the intended date of the strike.
before the intended date.
Exemption to the requirement of 15 days from Note: except in cases of union busting, the cooling off
filing of the notice of strike. In case of UNION period by the law should by fully observed.
BUSTING wherein union officers duly elected in
accordance to union’s CBL are dismissed from
employment. The 15 day cooling-off period shall 6. The 7-day cooling off period or the 7-day
not apply. So strikers may file aa notice of strike strike ban.
even the date of the intended strike or less than 15
days. However even if there is union busting, the
union must comply the 7 day strike ban. Discussion: The 7 day strike ban refers to the 7 day
waiting period before the porported strike within which
within the 7 days, the union must at least submit a
3. There must be a notice of conducting a strike report to the department as to the result of a strike vote.
or lock out vote at least 24 hours before the One of the procedural requisites of the (inaudible)
taking of such vote; strike is that a strike vote must be conducted within the
bargaining unit before proceeding to the strike.
Discussion: diba, nag file na kayo ng notice of
strike with the NCMB at least 30 days or at least
15 days before the intended strike,before the
KINDS OF STRIKE:
intended date. Before this day, the union must
conduct a strike vote within the bargaining unit by 1) Legal Strike
secret balloting. 2) Illegal Strike
If it was a lockout, there must be a lockout 3) Wild Cat Strike
vote conducted by the board of directors of the 4) Sympathetic Strike
employer. 5) Sit Down Strike
6) Partial or Quickie Strike
4. There must be a majority vote approving the
strike or lock out in the establishment;
1) Legal strike - Where all procedural requisites of the
NCMB DOLE is complied with by the union.
Discussion: if there is a strike there must be a strike
vote conducted within the members of the union, if 2) Illegal strikeThat even the strike is stage for a
there is an intention to lockout there must be a lockout lawful purpose, but there was no compliance with the
vote where a majority vote of the members of the board procedural requirements, this can be considered an
of directors of the corporation or an association or illegal strike.
partners, that will uphold the holding of a lockout in its
establishment. 3) Wild cat strike- When there is work stoppage that
validates the labor contract and is not authorized and
Purpose of a strike or lockout vote: To ensure that the its disowned laborer. This is still called an illegal strike
decision of strike or lockout is given to the majority of wherein, union members without the concurrence of
the union members and not and not merely to the union the union membership on their own on conducted an
officers, because this is a serious step to take for the illegal strike.
union, because during a strike, there is no giving of
wages, you cannot to tell the employers to give wages 4) Sympathetic strike- Where there is work stoppage
because you are not working. of workers of one company to make common cause
with other strikers to other companies,
Nada Es Imposible
perosilamismowalasilang demand or grievances

against their employer. They are only staging a strike
in sympathy with another bargaining unit or another TESTS TO SEE IF THERE IS A LEGAL STRIKE:
employer’s employees. This still considered an illegal 1) Purpose test
strike because there is no labor dispute within the
workers who are joining the strikers in and the latter’s The following are the lawful purpose:
employer. So dli pwde mag-apil- a) collective bargaining bedlock; and Page | 74
apilporquenakisimpatyamosapikasna employees b) ULP
dilimopwdena mag sympathetic strike.
2) Means employed test
From start to finish. So at the start it complied
5) Sit-down strike- Wherein the workers are not be all the procedural requisites and during and up to the
picketting outside there inside the employer’s premises end of the strike, lawful means was employed by the
but there is a temporary work stoppage since the union in conducting the strike.
workers occupy or seize the property of the employer
and refuse to vacate the premises of the employer.
There is sit-down strike when the strike is inside of the
Good Faith Strike Doctrine
employers establishment, tantamounts to criminal acts
because this can be considered trespass to the
A strike may be considered legal, where the
premises of the employer.
union believe that the company committed an unfair
labor practice and the circumstances surrounding such
belief is in good faith although after hearings, it is found
6) Partial or quickie strike - Brief unannounced that such allegations of unfair labor practice are found
temporary work stoppage including slow-downs, out to be not true. As long as the circumstances
unauthorized extension of rest periods, and walk-outs warranted good faith unit belief that there is ULP, for
of proportions of a share or the entire share. example the officers thought that the union officers
were dismissed by rumors, so they stage based on
rumar but it was so pervasive and it was so renewable
PRINCIPLE:Lawful means must concur with lawful that the unilateral members can be considered as
believing such rumors in good faith, they can still
methods
comply with the law con purpose test even if eventually
Discussion: When you say that lawful means it is found out that the rumors where unfounded.
must concur with lawful methods, so from
start to finish class kailangan lawful ang
WHEN IS THE STRIKE ILLEGAL?
means niyo, kahit pa the strike was started
legally all procedure requirements were If its is specifically prohibited by law. This is in
complied with, however during the conduct of the case of government employees even if they comply
the strike the was violence, there is trespass with all the procedural requirements and there was
of the employers premises, the legal strike will lawful means and lawful purpose, since they are
now become illegal strike. Always from start prohibited by law to stage a strike, the strike is still
to finish lawful means must concur with lawful considered as illegal.
purpose. As term legal at its inception, but
eventually be declared illegal if it is The strike is also considered illegal, if it is in violation
accompanied by violence which is of an existing injunction. Now when can there be an
widespread pervasive and adapted as a injunction against the strike? Because the general rule
matter of policy and not merely which is we cannot stop workers form holding a valid strike. This
sporadic which normally occurs in a strike power injunction is given to the Secretary of Labor.
area.
Example: Dibapag mag strike,

mainitangulongmgatao, minsanmagka-gitgitannasa ok WHEN DO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
langynanaparang at the heat of the moment a little ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER A STRIKE?
violence, may tulakan may nasiranagamit, pero if this
When there exist a labor dispute causing or
was not intentional, and this was not widespread and
lightly to cause a strike out or lock out in an industry
this was not adapted as a matter of policy by the union
and by its officers, it cannot be considered as an illegal
strike.
Nada Es Imposible
indispensable to the international interest. This is the SECTORS THAT ARE INDISPENSABLE TO THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, AS HELD BY THE COURT:
requirement of that industry is indispensible to the
national interest is discretionary upon the secretary of
labor.
Example: Bagoong industry, is this 1) Hospital Sector;
considered aindespensble to the national 2) Electrical Power Supply;
interest? So a lot of you at first glance will say 3) Water Supply Services; Page | 75
that it is not indispenseble to the national 4) Air Traffic Control; and
interest you can live without the law. But for 5) Such other sectors that may be
example in region 3, unang main produce ng recommended by the national tripartite
region 3 and lahatng workers ng region 3 industry and Industrial Peace Council.
yunngtalgaangpinoproducenila. If there is
strike or lockout lahatngtaosa region 3
wlangkakaininkahitbagoongwalasilangkakain
in. At the discretion of the Secretary of Labor,
he or she can declare that this is an industry EFFECT WHEN THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
indispensible to the national interest. ASSUMES JURISDICTION OVER A LABOR
DISPUTE:
Note: The assumption powers of the secretary of labor,
is in the nature of a police power. 1) Automatically enjoys intended or impending strike
or lock out as specified in the assumption of
certification order. Even if the union complied with all
the procedural requisites, but once the Secretary of
WHEN MAY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
Labor assumes jurisdiction, you may not anymore
ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER A LABOR
stage a strike or the employer may not anymore
DISPUTE:
conduct a lock out of his employees.
1) Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor
2) If the Strike or Lock Out has already been
to assume jurisdiction over the Labor Dispute or after a
undertaken at the place of employment, all striking or
conference called by a Secretary of Labor, the
lock out employees shall within 24 hours return to work
Secretary of labor motopropio exercises jurisdiction
from the day of receipt of an assumption of certification
over a labor dispute.
order from the Secretary of Labor or from the NLRC.
Discussion: A Labor Dispute maybe assumes by the
3) GENERAL RULE :The employer shall readmit all
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Labor may
employees under the same terms and conditions
certify the same to NLRC even before the actual
prevailing before the strike or lock out. So
staging of strike or lock out. Since the Labor Code does
hindipwedenamagbigaynang sanctions ang employer
not require the existence of a strike before the
na nag strike kayo, nag lock out kayo, I will not accept
Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction over a
you anymore. I will only accept those who did not join.
labor dispute involving a national interest.
So that is not allowed once the Secretary of Labor
What constitutes indispensable industry is based upon assumes jurisdiction.
the sole discretion of the Secretary of Labor. However,
EXCEPTION:When the reinstatement of workers is
the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded
impacticable and this will only exacerbate or worsen
to determine on its own as to what industry is
the situation, such as when the employees are very
indispensable to the national interest. The President is
hostile to work with the employers. When it is not
given this power because the Secretary of labor is a
anymore possible to reinstate the workers because
mere alter ego of the President. So even if the
there is high intentions, highten emotions and it is not
Secretary of Labor will say that this is indispensable to
practical anymore that the employees would be
the national interest but if the President says no, the
allowed to enter the employer’s premises, the employer
President’s decision will prevail because the Secretary
may choose payroll reinstatement wherein the
of Labor is only the alter ego of the President.
employers are still be pain but there will not be allowed
to work in the employer’s premises until the Labor
Dispute is settled.

Nada Es Imposible
PROCESS: and the strikers already offered to return to

work but they were not allowed to return, they
a. From the assumption of Labor Dispute, within 5 are entitle to backwages from the date that
days thereof ; they were not allowed to return by the
b. the preliminary conference or hearing shall be employer.
conducted by the Secretary of Labor or he has to
certify this to the NLRC; 3) When there is a return to work order and the
c. this will be conducted by the voluntary arbitrator Page | 76
employees are discriminated again.This is
or a panel of voluntary arbitrators; when the Secretary of Labor assumes
d. The decision of the Secretary of Labor or to the jurisdiction. So the employer must admit all
office which certified it, shall be rendered within
workers. If the employer choses not to admit
30 days from submission of the case for
those workers, he is compelled to pay those
resolution; and
e. shall be final and executory within 10 days from strikers who are willing to return to work but
the receipt of the decision by the parties. they did not accept then.
4) Where the employees did not participate in

the strike but were only lock out by the
NOTE: The speedy resolution of the case is very much employer.As long as the employee is willing
important since there is a labor dispute that may affect to return to work and they were not admitted
national interest. That is why the case must be decided to work by the employer by no valid reason,
within 30 days from the submission of the case for they are entitled to back wages during the
resolution. time of the strike.
WAGES DURING STRIKE PROCEDURAL REQUISITES OF HOLDING A

STRIKE OR LOCK OUT:
GR: Strikers are not entitled to their wages during the
period of strike even if the strike is legal. This is under 1. There must be a valid and factual ground;
the principle of “No Work, No Pay” “Fair days wage for 2. There must be a notice of strike or lock out
a fair days labor” filed with NCMB at least 30 or 15 days
Remedy: A worker who absence his self from work depending on the ground;
as a result of a strike may: 3. There must be a notice of conducting a strike
or lock out vote at least 24 hours before the
a) seek reimbursement of his wages from his taking of such vote;
union which declare the strike; or 4. There must be a majority vote approving the
b) He may apply absence from work from his strike or lock out in the establishment;
unused vacation leaves. Because you are not 5. The strike or lock out vote must be recorded
compelled to join a labor strike, even if you are to the NCMB at least 7 days before the
a union member. If you do this, the employer intended strike or lock out; and
cannot be compelled to pay the employee. 6. The 7-day cooling off period or the 7-day
strike ban.
Exception:
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES DURING STRIKE OR
1) In case of a strike where the ground is ULP.
LOCK OUT:
This may be under the discretion of the
authority deciding the case, whether or not he 1) No Labor Organization or Employer shall
will give backwages to the striking workers if declare a strike or lock outwihtout first having
the ground of ULP is found to be meritorious. bargain collectively in accordance with the
labor code.Since there is no collective
2) If the strikers voluntarily and unconditionally bargaining deadlock, it is as if the negotiation
offered to return to work but the employer has never started.
refused to accept the offer.If it has been found
that it is the employer’s fault this time 2) It must not be done without first having filed
the notice required under Article 277 of the
Labor Code.

Nada Es Imposible
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE PROHIBITED

ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN A STRIKE?
3) It must not be conducted without the
necessary strike or lock out votes being Any person committed prohibited acts under
conducted and subsequently recorded to the the Labor Code during a strike or picketing shall be
DOLE. punished by a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not
more that P10,000.00 and/or imprisonment not more
than 3 months but not more than 3 years both as to the Page | 77
IMPROVE OFFER BALLOTING. discretion of the court. If the person convicted is a
There is now an exisiting economic dispute. foreigner, he shall be subjected to immediate summary
There is a collective bargaining deadlock. An improve deportation.
offer balloting is a referendum conducted by the NCMB
on or before the 30th day of the strike for the purpose of GR: A police officer cannot arrest or detain a union
determining whether or not the improved offer of the member where union activities without previous
employer is acceptable to the union members. Always, consultation with the Secretary of Labor.
the NCMB DOLE would want that the labor dispute will
be settled amicably within the parties as soon as Exceptions:
possible.
1) On the ground of national security, public
peace or there is already a commision of a
This improve offer balloting, must be accepted of at
least majority of the union members vote to accept the crime. An arrest can be made on the following
improve offer. The striking member shall immediately cases and the person who obstructs the
return to work and also the employer shall immediately entrance and exit of the employer’s premises.
readmit the said workers upon signing the improve
offer agreement. 2) If the person has in his possession deadly
weapons in violation of BP no. 6 and fire arms
and explosives.
REDUCE OFFER BALLOTING.
Same concept with Improve Offer Balloting, -------------------------- END OF CLASS----------------------
but this is in the case of an employer where at least a
majority of the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees
holding the controlling interest vote to accept the
reduce offer of the workers. The reduce offer upon March 16, 2018
majority vote of the Bard of Dirrectors, the workers shall By: KrismaeBasaong
immediately return to work and the employer shall
readmit them upon signing the reduce offer agreement.
The Reduce Offer Balloting must be filed on

or before the 30th day of the lock out and the improve TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES
offer balloting must be filed 30 days on or before the
30th day of the strike. Basis:
Art. 294. of the Labor Code. Security of tenure.- In

cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
PROHIBITED ACTS DURING STRIKE OR terminate the services of an employee except for a just
PICKETING cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee
who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
No person engage in Picketing shall:
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
1) Commit any acts of violence, coercion or privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
intimidation; allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
2) No person must obstruct the free ingress and equivalent computed from the time his compensation
egress to the employer’s premises for lawful was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.
purposes;
3) The picketers must not obstruct public streets Under Sec. 3, Article 13 of the 1987 Constitution and
or any public area without a permit. Article 294 of the Labor Code, it is the policy of the state
to assure the right of workers to security of tenure. This
is a guarantee as an act of social justice.

Nada Es Imposible
provisions of the Labor Code and the Sate Policies in

WHAT IS SECURITY OF TENURE? the Constitution are deemed written to that contract
even if hindisiyakasali. Hindi siyanakasulatdoon but
Security of Tenure these labor laws are considered written in the
employer-employee contract.
A constitutional right granted to an employee
that the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for just and authorize causes. Art. 295 of the Labor Code. Regular and casual
employment. The provisions of written agreement to Page | 78
Termination must always pursuant to just cause or an
authorize cause. the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been
Attyedig: So, there is always 2, just and authorized
engaged to perform activities which are usually
casue. When we say J and A cause, this s where the
following conditions apply: necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the employment has
Just or Authorize cause been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been
a) This is where substantive due process determined at the time of the engagement of the
comes in. Whether or not there is a valid employee or where the work or service to be performed
cause to the termination of an employee. is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
b) Whether or not procedural due process
was followed in terminating an employee. Discussion: Art. 295 is not applicable to the
determination of employer-employee relationship as
Discussion: Under the Labor Code, it only discusses the 4-fold test is still controlling. Art. 295 merely
security of tenure with regards to regular employees. describes regular employment because usually
However, under the Constitution which is the primary security of tenure applies to regular employees.
law and is controlling, security of tenure is granted not However, with probationary and seasonal employees,
only to regular employees but also to all types of the right to security of tenure is still available, however,
employees whether regular or non-regular. Whether this is only for a limited time of security of tenure.
permanent or only for a temporary period of time.
Example: For a project employee, his security
POLICIES: of tenure only lasts upto the period of
employment specified in his contract. Outside
the period specified in the contract,
1) Security of Tenure is not confined in cases of walanasiyang security of tenure within the
termination of an employer-employee term of the employment contract for a fixed
relationship. period that is indicated in his contract, he is
afforded the right to security of tenure.
2) There is also security of tenure as regards in:

i. your position; and TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT
i. your place of work.
3) Security of Tenure is also intended to shield 1) Regular Employment
workers from unwarranted and unconsented
demotion.
4) Security of Tenure maybe contracted away even a. he has been engaged to perform an activities
if the contract is deemed to be executed with the which are usually necessary and/or desirable in
consent of the employee concerned. the usual business or trade of the employer;
b. one who has rendered at least 1 year of service
when such service is continuous or broken with
Discussion: Since an employer-employee contract is respect to the activity in which he is employed; and
always imbued with public interest and even if it c. an employee is considered regular once he is
complies with what constitutes a valid contract, it must allowed to work after his probationary period.
not also contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
policy and public order. When an employer and
employee executes an employment contract, all the

Nada Es Imposible
Discussion: Under the law, the probationary period is considered as regular employee even if he signs a
usually 6 months, but if in the contract less than 6 contract for a fixed period of time.
months, for example the contract says “that he is only
a probationary employee for a period of 3 months.”
When may a project employee become a regular
After that 3 months, he was not terminated from work,
employee?
he is now considered a regular employee.
Tests to determine whether the employee is regular:
1) Continuous Rehiring. Jurisprudence has held that if Page | 79
a) Nature of work test; there is continuous rehiring of project employees even
b) Priod of service test; and after the cessation of the project for the same task or
c) Probationary employment test. the same nature of task, the employee is can be
considered now as a regular employee. Even if there
are gaps within the period which he hired but the
2) Casual Employment rehiring is continuous, he may still be considered a
regular employee. For example, in a project for 6
An employee who is engaged to perform months then for another 3 months he is not employed
activities which are not necessary or desirable in the and he is again rehired for another 6 months without
usual trade or business of the employer. any condition, he may now be considered a regular
employee.
Discussion: example en a law firm, the janitor’s job is
not considered as necessary and desirable in the usual 2) If the task perform by alleged project employee are
trade or business of the employer. However, even vital, necessary, indispensable to the usual business or
without the nature of work test for example you apply trade of the employer. This is where the nature of work
the period of service test that you allow him to work for test comes in.
more than one year whether continuous or broken, he
is still be considered a regualr employee. 3) Even if the project was not really connected with the
usual business of the employer but ther there was a
A casual employee only be casual for 1 year and it is continuous rehiring of the project employees in the
the passage of time that gives hiim the status of a same project, he may still be considered a regular
regular employee. His status of regular employment employee. This is where a period of service test comes
shall attach at least 1 year of his service whether it is in. That if you continually rehire the project employee,
continuous or broken woth respect to the activity where and the rehiring is continuous, even if there is gaps, he
he perform for the employer. may still be considered a regular employee.
3) Project Employment 4) Members of a work pool from which a construction

company draws its project employees, the same
When the employee has been employed for a specific employees are considered as regular in the work pool
project or undertaking, the completion or termination is where the construction company get its workers. The
determined at the time of his employment. completion of the project did not mean the severance
of the employer-employee relationship, they can still be
Discussion: So there is a definite term or period within considered regular employees, unless the workers in
which he is considered as an employee in a project. the work pool are free to leave any time and offer their
Where the employment of project employee is services to other employers, now this is where the
extended long after the supposed project has been interpretation may come in that they can be considered
finished, the employees are removed from the scope of as merely project employees and not regular
that project and are now considdered regular employees.
employees.
In a case decided by the SC, this was applied in
Example: In a construction firm, you hired a carpenter. agricultural workers. They would only come in 3
So the carpenter was only employed only up to the months before harvest season and then for the rest of
finishing of the condominium building. Upon the year, they are not needed, however they were being
completion of the said building, he was still employed continuously hired for a long period of time. The SC
by the company in another project, for example in the said that since these workers also offering their
main office or head quarters of the construction firm, services other employers when they were not working
even if the project employment has been terminated, for one employer, they are considered as project
since the period of his employment has already been employees and not regular employees.
ended and since he was extended long after the period
had ended, he can now be

Nada Es Imposible
Under Art. 296 of the LC, the employee, upon

his engagement or before he started to work in the
company, he is made to undergo a trial period during
which the employer shall determine his fitness to
REQUISITES FOR VALID PROJECT qualify for regular employment. This must be based on
EMPLOYMENT: reasonbale standards and these standards must be
made known to the potential employee at the time of
a. the face of the specific project must his engagement. Page | 80
stated specifically in the employment
Discussion: In all cases, a probationary employment,
contract;
the employer shall make known also to the employee
b. there must be an estimated date of
the standards under which he will qualify whether or
completion of the project or phase also
not he will become a regualr employee after a specified
indicated in the contract;
period of time.
c. the employee must also be dismissed
after the completion of his project or Note: When the employer does not impose or does not
phase in the specific employment inform the probationary employee of any standard at
contract; and the time of his engagement, he shpuld be regarded as
d. there must be a report to the DOLE of a regular employee.
his dismissal on account of the
completion of his contract.
When can probationary employee be considered

4) Seasonal Employment (Usually applies to as regular employee:
industrial industry.)
a) Upon the end of the probationary period.
Where an employee engages to work during a
particular season or on an activity that is usually GR: The probationary employment shall not
necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade exceed 6 months from the date the employees
of the employer, however during off season the started working. Since the law says that it should
relationship of the employer and the employee is not not exceed 6 months, this can be shortened
severed and the employee is considered to be in leave depending upon the policy of the employer.
of absence without pay.
What is important is that the employee was:
-informed beforehand of the period of his
When seasonal employees are be considered probationary employment and
regular employees: -the standards which he must comply to become
a regualr employee.
a) When there is a reasonable connection on a
particular activity perform by the employee in EXPTN TO 6-MONTH PERIOD:
relation to the usual business or trade of the a. when it is covered by apprenticeship
employer; and agreement stipulating a longer period;
b. when the parties to an employment
b) When the seasonal workers concerned are contract agree otherwise;
repetedly engage to perform the same task c. when established by a company policy ;
for more than 1 season. d. when the same is required by the nature
of the work performed by the employee.
Discussion: you said they are continuously rehired
does not mean that the 1 year serice is require to be Example: For a teacher to become a regualr
complied. The 1 year duration of the job is only relevant employee, it was held in the case that 2 years of
in deciding whether the casual employee is regualr or probationary employment was valid since the
not. However, to a seasonal or project employee, the nature of a teaching job was more difficult than
passage of time is determinant whether or not they be other types of job and the 2-year period was
considered a seasonal worker who is also a regular proven by the employer to be necessary for a
employee. teacher be considered a regular employee.
DOLE Manual: 3 years of probationary period is

valid.
5) Probationary Employment

Nada Es Imposible
However, If there is just cause to terminate the

probationary employee, notice for the standards is not
required anymore. Also even if the period was not
finished if the ground was for just causes, the
May the period for probationary employment be probationary employee may be terminated by the
extended? employer.
The Court held that this may be extended
beyond 6 months as long as the employee: Page | 81
a) voluntarily agree to such an extension Quick Run Down of Just causes:

and
a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by
b) the employee waived any benfit attaching
the employee of the lawful orders of his
to the completion of the period if it still
employer or the employer’s
failed to meet the standards that the
representative.This is what you call
employer had imposed upon his position.
Insubordination;
Discussion: This extension is valid as it was given to b) Gross and habitual neglect of the employee of
the employee as murasiya’ggipagbigyan since wala pa his duties;
siyanaka-abotsa standards within the probationary c) Fraud or wilfull breach of the employee of the
period so you agree with the extension so that you may trust reposed on him by the employer or his
comply the standards set by the employer at that time. duly authorized representative;
d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
General Rule: double or successive probation status employee against the person or his employer
is not allowed. This is because it is to prevent schemy or any immediate member of the employer’s
employers from using double or successive probation
family;
to circumvent the regularization of an employee and in
e) Other causes analogous to the four
making it easier for them to dismiss the said employee.
mentioned.
Dsicussion: I think this is a matter of case to case basis
since it is proven in a case that the successive LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER OF THE EMPLOYEE
probation was not based on standards but merely used TO TERMINATE PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT:
to circumvent the law on regularization. The
a) It must be exercised in accordance with the
succeessive probation is considered to be invalid and
specific requirement of the contract;
the probationary employees are now be considered a
regular employee. b) The reason why the employee did not meet
the standards of the employer was because
of disatisfaction in good faith by the employer
and it must not be made so as to cicumvent
REQUISITES FOR THERE BE VALID TERMINATION
the law. There must no unlawful
OF PROBATIONARY
discriminationation on the dismissal of the
EMPLOYMENT:
employee.
a) There must be just cause;
b) There must be failure to meet the standards,
qualifications of the regular employment; and
c) There were reasonable standards prescribe by MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
the employer at the inception of the employment
contract; and
WHAT MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE?
Note: Even if he is a probationary employee, he is
entitled to procedural due process that he must be
a) This is the right to manage your people.
informed why he is not being made to a regualr
i. Even if our labor laws are more favorable
employee. To be informed with the standards he did
always to the employees, this security of
not meet that is why he is terminated.
tenure or the law protecting the rights of
laborers must not authorize oppression
nor self-destruction of the employer. Even
if our laws heavily protect the rights

Nada Es Imposible
of the laborer, you must not forget also the 1) The fixed period of employment must
right of employer to do his business knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by
according to his policies that will make his the parties without any force, duress or
improper pressure put upon the employee
business more efficient and more
and absence of any other circumstances
profitable to him because if the business
vitiating hs consent; and
will not flourish, there will be no
2) It must be satisfactorily appear that the
employment to speak of
employer and employee dealt with each Page | 82
b) Management Prerogative is also the right to other on more or less equal grounds.
discipline;
GR: Fixed Employment Contract is valid so long as the
c) italso entails the right to transfer employees; two criteria are complied with.
d) the right to demote; and Exptn: When the Supreme court upheld the illegality of
fixed term employment when circumstances become
e) the right to dismiss. apparent that the period has been imposed to deprive
employees of the acquisition of security of tenure, then
the legality of the fixed term of employment maybe
Discussion: Management prerogative should be struck down based on public policy.
exercised to protect legitimate business provided it is
not tainted with abuse of authority nor it should indicate
unfair labor practices.
Management Prerogative on Managerial

Employees JUST CAUSES OF DISMISSAL
I think there is a lower standard whether or not
the managerial employee can be terminated. For
managerial positions, since managerial positions are a) Serious Misconduct;
imbued with utmost trust and confidence of the b) Willful Disobedience or Insubordination;
employer, loss of confidence may become a ground for c) Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty;
an employer to terminate a managerial employee, but d) Fraud or Wilfull Breach of Trust; and
this lower standard for managerial employees do not e) Commission of Crime or Offense
mean that they are not protected with security of
tenure. Loss of confidence by the employer to a GR: If an employee is terminated because of just
managerial employee must be without abuse of his cause, he is not entitled to separation pay ecause his
discretion. So there must not be undue discrimation in dismissal was due to an act imputable to him.
the dismissal of the managerial employee. Kasingakasalananniya that is why he is not entitled to
separation of pay.
Management Prerogative on Rank-and-File
For rank-and-file employees, the employer is Reason: Law breaker should not benefit from their
required a higher standard of proving that the wrong acts. Nag commit kananganang serious
termination was in good faith and for just and authorize misconduct, na terminate kanang employer mo,
causes. taposhihingika pa nang separation pay which is
unreasonable.
WHAT IS FIXED PERIOD EMPLOYMENT ? (FPE) Exptn: The court finds justification of applying social
justice.
When the contract specifies a specific period
Example: An employee was terminated for a
for a specific project or undertaking, any job which is
valid cause, but his employment spanned for
usually necessary and desirable on the business or
a period of 30 years of good and faithful
chain of the employee. The fixed period employee
service and he was caught stealing a one foot
cannot become a regular employee because his
inch steel because he wanted to use it in his
employment is coterminus with a specific period of
house and it was considered as a scrap
time.
material by the employer, however whether or
not it is a scrap, an employee cannot take his
CRITERIA FOR A FIXED PERIOD EMPLOYMENT
employer’s property. In this case the
Tobe valid:

Nada Es Imposible
Supreme Court applies the principle of social 1) The Ees assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness
justice and still gave him an amount of
being characterized by a wrongful and
separation pay considering his 30 years of perverse attitude.
service. So the strict application that if an
employee is separated from employment is 2) The disobeyed orders, regulations or
just cause or a cause imputable to him, this is instructions of the Er must be:
an exception to that general rule. i. Reasonable and lawful; Page | 83
ii. Sufficiently known to the Ee;
iii. In connection with the duties
which the Ee has been
engaged to discharge.
Jurisprudence: When an employee rejected a

promotion, it was not found to be a wilfull disobedience
A. SERIOUS MISCONDUCT because there is no law compelling an employee to
accept promotion since the same is in the nature of a
Transgression is a violation of some established and gift or reward which the employee may validly refused.
definite rule of action which is explicitly forbiden by the
employer, a deriliction of duty wilfull in character and it
implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
C. Gross and Habitual Neglect of
REQUISITES: Duty.
a. The misconduct must be serious and it is of such In order to consider as just cause for dismissal, the
and aggravated character. So it must not be just a neglect of his duty must not only be gross but also
simple misconduct. Example: Do not pee on the habitual. So paulit-ulit, di pwedena one instance lang
wall. unless serious in character that will fall under serious
b. It must relate to the performance of employees misconduct.
duties;
c. It must shown that the employee must become Gross negligence is the absence of that diligence that
unfit to continue working for the employer; and an ordinaruily prudent man to use in his own affairs.
d. It must have been performed with wrongful intent.
So dapatkailangantalaga with criminal intent. Habitual Neglect implies repeated failure to perform
one’s duties over a period of time, depending upon the
circumstance.
EXAMPLES:
Forms of Neglect if Duty:
 Sexual Harrasment; 1) Habitual Tardiness and Absences;
 Fighting within the work premises; 2) Abandonment of Work. For there could be a
valid abandonment of work, the following
 Uttering obscene, insulting or offensive words
requisites must concur:
against superior;
a) Failure to report for work or absence
 falsification of time records; without justifiable reason.
 gross immorality; and b) Clear intention to not to return or
 sexual intercourse inside company premises sever Er-Ee relationship manifested
and during office hours. by some overt acts.
TWIN NOTICE RULE

B. WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OR
Even if the employee has already abandon his work,
INSUBORDINATION syill before terminating, the employee concern due
In serious misconduct, there is a company policy process must be followed:
prohibiting the specific act. In wilfull disobedience or
insubordination, they did not follow a lawful order of a) There must be first notice directing the
your superior. employee to explain why he abandons his job.
You will give the ground why you are
REQUISITES:

Nada Es Imposible
considering termination of his employment 2) It must not be used as a self-refuge or for

and giving him the opportunity to explain causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified.
himself why he should not be dismissed.
b) Second notice to inform him of the employer’s 3) It must not be arbitrarily asserted in the
decision to dismiss him on the ground of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
abandonment.
4) The laws of confidence must be genuine and Page | 84
Note: This also applies to other causes of dismissal. not just a mere afterthought to justify a
previous action taken in bad faith.
Note: Mere absence or failure to return to work does 5) The employee involve holds a position with
not necessarily amount to abandonment. So even if the trust and confidence.
employee did not return to work even after given notice
to return, this does not tastamountagad-
agadinabandonnaniyaang work niya, there must be a Discussion: So usually, the doctrine of loss and
matter of intention, and there must be an operative act confidence cannot be applied to rank-and-file
that the employee has already ultimately severed his employees. This is applied to those who are
employer-employee relationship with his employer. So managerial employees and those in the normal and
paratingnasa losing end ang employer if they do not routine exercise of their functions but they handle
follow substantive due process because the law heavily significant amounts of money and property. So even if
favors that the laborer wants to keep the job but was they are not managerial employees but such as
stop in doing so. cashiers, auditors and property custodians, if there is a
loss of confidence, the ground that there was loss of
Burden of Proof:It is always on the part of the employer confidence can still be applied to rank-and-file
to prove that the employee was terminated with employees since they hold positions as such.
substantive and procedural due process.
E. Commission of Crime or Offense

D. Fraud or Wilfull Breach of Trust The offense or the crime must be committed
Fraud or dolo consist in the intentional propositions to by the employee against his employer or any
evade the normal fulfilment of an obligation. immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative of the employer. Conviction of the
Requisites: employee in the criminal case is not necessary to
a) The fraud must be committed to the warrant his dismissal by the employer.
employer or his representative; and
b) It must be in connection with the employee’s In a labor case, the quantum of proof is only substantial
work. evidence to determine the legality of employee’s
dismissal.
Example:
1) Falsification of time cards; Substantial Evidence means a relevant evidence that
2) Theft of company and unauthorized used of a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
vehicle; support a conclusion.
Breach of Trust and Confidence must be wilfull. It is In a commission of a crime or offense to warrant the
wilfull if it is done: dismissal of the employee this is not required proof
a) intentionally; beyond reasonable doubt but merely substantial
b) knowingly; and
evidence.
c) purposely without justifiable excuse.
Note: The breach of trust must be work related and

must be committed against his employer or his ------------------------------ END OF CLASS------------------
representatives.
Requisites for loss of confidence to apply in managerial

employees: March 21, 2018
1) The loss of confidence is not stimulated by the
employer. It must be based on a reasonable By: Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol
ground for loss of trust and confidence.
QUIZ and Case Recitation

Nada Es Imposible
ST. JOHN COLLEGES, INC., Petitioner, versus ST. JOHN

ACADEMY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.
18. CABEU-NFL VS CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS
2006 Oct 27, G.R. No. 167892
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL
[CABEU-NFL], represented by its President, PABLITO FACTS: Petitioner St. John Colleges, Inc. (SJCI) is a domestic
SAGURAN, Petitioner, versus CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE corporation which owns and operates the St. John’s
BAIS, INC. [CAB], represented by its President, ANTONIO Academy. Prior to 1998, the Academy offered a secondary Page | 85
STEVEN L. CHAN, Respondent course only. The high school then employed about 80
teaching and non-teaching personnel who were members
2010 Nov 17; G.R. No. 186605 of the St. John Academy Faculty & Employees Union
(Union).
FACTS: A CBA negotiation between CABEU-NFL and CAB
(ER) resulted in a deadlock. After that, the union which Mr The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SJCI
Saguran, the Union President represents, has already lost and the Union was set to expire on May 31, 1997. During
its majority status by reason of disauthorizaton and the ensuing collective bargaining negotiations, SJCI
withdrawal of support of thereto by more than 90% of the rejected all the proposals of the Union for an increase in
rank and file. CAB discontinue the negotiation in view of worker’s benefits. This resulted to a bargaining deadlock
the disassociation of more than 90% of rank-and-file which led to the holding of a valid strike by the Union. In
workers from CABEU-NFL, and was constrained to order to end the strike, on November 27, 1997, SJCI and
negotiate and conclude in good faith a new CBA with the Union, through the efforts of the National Conciliation
CABELA, the newly established union by workers who and Mediation Board (NCMB), agreed to refer the labor
disassociated from CABEU-NFL. dispute to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE).
ISSUE: WON CAB was guilty of acts constituting unfair Pending resolution of the labor dispute before the SOLE,
labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively. NO. the Board of Directors of SJCI approved on February 22,
1998 a resolution recommending the closure of the high
HELD: For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it school which was approved by the stockholders on even
must be shown that CAB was motivated by ill will, “bad date dismissing all the EE.
faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, ISSUE: Whether or not SJCI is liable for ULP and illegal
and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings dismissal. YES
or grave anxiety resulted x xx” in suspending negotiations
HELD: When SJCI reopened its high school, it did not rehire
with CABEU-NFL. Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-NFL
the Union members. Evidently, the closure had achieved
was no longer the representative of the workers.It just
its purpose, that is, to get rid of the Union members.
wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes
of the overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers Clearly, these pieces of evidence regarding the subsequent
and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a CBA with reopening of the high school after only one year from its
CABELA.”Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to closure further show that the high school’s closure was
anti-unionism, the evil sought to be punished in cases of done in bad faith. Lastly, SJCI asserts that the strike
unfair labor practices. conducted by the 25 employees on May 4, 1998 was illegal
Furthermore, basic is the principle that good faith is for failure to take the necessary strike vote and give a
presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to notice of strike. However, we agree with the findings of
prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of the NLRC and CA that the protest actions of the Union
CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden of proof to present cannot be considered a strike because, by then, the
substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair employer-employee relationship has long ceased to exist
labor practice. As correctly determined by the LA, the filing because of the previous closure of the high school on
of the complaint for unfair labor practice was premature March 31, 1998.
inasmuch as the issue of collective bargaining is still In sum, the timing of, and the reasons for the closure of
pending before the NCMB. the high school and its reopening after only one year from
the time it was closed down, show that the closure was
done in bad faith for the purpose of circumventing the
19. SJCI vs. ST. JOHN ACADEMY FEAU Union’s right to collective bargaining and its members’
right to security of tenure. Consequently, SJCI is liable for

Nada Es Imposible
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Resolution of April 13,

ULP and illegal dismissal. WHEREFORE, the petition is
1999 and Resolution of September 3, 1999 are SET ASIDE.
DENIED. SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
20. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS

UNION VS CA
Page | 86
2006 Sep 19; G.R. No. 139940 21. ROYAL UNDERGARMENT CORP VS CIR
FACTS: The Arellano University Employees and Workers ROYAL UNDERGARMENT CORPORATION OF THE
Union (the Union), the exclusive bargaining representative PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
of about 380 rank-and-file employees of Arellano RELATIONS, ROYAL UNDERGARMENT WORKERS UNION
University, Inc. (the University), filed with the National (PTGWO) and ANTONIO CRUZ, respondents.
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of G.R. No. 39040, [June 6, 1990]
Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice
(ULP). After several controversies and petitions, a strike FACTS: Respondent Antonio Cruz was employed by
was staged. petitioner corporation in 1957 as an electrician. Sometime
in December, 1961, he was elected president of the Royal
Upon lifting the strike, the university filed a petition to Undergarment Workers Union (RUWU-PTGWO), a
declatre the strike as illegal befre the NLRC. The NLRC legitimate labor organization. On December 14, 1961, the
issued a resolution that the university was not guilty of RUWU-PTGWO, represented by the National Secretary of
ULP and the strike was illegal. All the EE who participated PTGWO and respondent Cruz as RUWU President, sent
in the strike was declared to have lost their employment. proposals to petitioner corporation for the purpose of
ISSUE: collective bargaining.
1. WON there was ULP? NO. On the following day, December 15, 1961, petitioner
corporation, thru its personnel manager, terminated the
2. WON an EE is deemed to have lost his employment by services of respondent Cruz allegedly on the basis of the
mere participation in the illegal strike. YES latter's "record and after careful analysis and
deliberation."
HELD:
On March 31, 1962, RUWU-PTGWO and petitioner
1. In the present petition, petitioners insist that the corporation entered into a collective bargaining
University violated the CBA by withholding union dues and agreement which contained a grievance procedure for the
death benefits. To constitute ULP, however, violations of settlement of disputes. Such grievance procedure was
the CBA must be gross. Gross violation of the CBA, under applied on several occasions involving suspensions of
Article 261 of the Labor Code, means flagrant and/or union members-employees through the help and active
malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions participation of respondent Cruz as union president.
thereof. Evidently, the University cannot be faulted for
ULP as it in good faith merely heeded the above-said On December 13, 1962, petitioner corporation dismissed
request of Union members. respondent Cruz for being under the influence of liquor on
November 28, 1962 and for having threatened the lives of
2. Under Article 264, an ordinary striking worker may four of his co-employees.
not be declared to have lost his employment status by
mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof ISSUE: WON the Company committed ULP by terminating
that he knowingly participated in the commission of illegal Cruz.
acts during the strike. While the University adduced
photographs [36] showing strikers picketing outside the HELD: YES.
university premises, it failed to identify who they were. It
The SC found that the totality of evidence supports the
thus failed to meet the “substantiality of evidence
conclusion that respondent Cruz has been unjustly
test”[37] applicable in dismissal cases.
dismissed by reason of his union activities. The charge by
With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, petitioner against respondent Cruz for being under the
their mere participation in the illegal strike warrants their influence of liquor on a certain date and for having
dismissal. threatened the lives of his co-employees is too flimsy to
merit serious consideration. We have on record the

Nada Es Imposible
evidence which would show knowledge not only of the

undisputed facts that private respondent, as president of
CBA but of the existence of the union itself on the part of
RUWU, was known for his aggressive and militant union
respondent AngWo Long.
activities; that he and his wife had been previously
dismissed on the ground of active participation in union ISSUE: WON Ang also committed Unfair Labor Practice?
affairs; that they were re employed only pursuant to the
express terms of the Return-to-Work Agreement executed HELD: YES.
by petitioner corporation. Page | 87
On review, the Supreme Court held that under the facts
Where the attendant circumstances, the history of the and circumstances of this case, there is substantial
employer's past conduct and like considerations, coupled evidence to sustain a finding of respondent Ang's
with an intimate connection between the employer's knowledge of the bargaining negotiations and the
action and the union affiliations or activities of the resulting CBA and, consequently, of unfair labor practice
particular employee or employees taken as a whole raise a on his part.
suspicion as to the motivation for the employer's action,
the failure of the employer to ascribe a valid reason The connection of circumstances clearly indicates the
therefor may justify an inference that his unexplained participation of both Estanislao and Ang in the unfair labor
conduct in respect of the particular employee or practice, hence both of them should be jointly and
employees was inspired by the latter's union membership severally liable for payment of backwages to the
or activities. complaining employees. However, considering practical
considerations, among them the length of time that has
elapsed since the dismissal of complaining employees and
following its rulings in several previous cases, the Court
22. NLRC VS CIR granted three years backwages without deduction or
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF qualification to the dismissed employees whose
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, EVERLASTING MANUFACTURING, reinstatement should be made on the basis of the latter's
ANG WO LONG and BENITO S. ESTANISLAO, respondents. fitness for respective jobs from which they were illegally
ousted. Petition was granted.
G.R. No. L-31276, [September 9, 1982], 202 PHIL 1-16
23. QUADRA VS CA, PCSO
FACTS: Respondent Benito Estanislao sold his company
(respondent Everlasting Manufacturing) to respondent GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
AngWo Long on April 29, 1963 while CBA negotiations APPEALS and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES
were going on and about to be concluded. On May 3, OFFICE, respondents.
1963, a CBA was entered into between petitioner union G.R. No. 147593. July 31, 2006
represented by its officers and the company represented
by respondent Estanislao who, however, signed as general FACTS: Petitioner Geronimo Q. Quadra was the Chief Legal
manager. Officer of PCSO when he organized and actively
participated in the activities of Philippine Charity
After obtaining a registration certificate and a business Sweepstakes Employees Association (CUGCO), an
permit for his company, respondent AngWo Long, as new organization composed of the rank and file employees of
owner, dismissed all 21 union members and replaced PCSO.
them with a completely new set of employees. The new
proprietor, however, used the same premises, the same In April 1964, he was administratively charged before the
business name, machineries, tools and implements and Civil Service Commission with violation of Civil Service Law
the same officials and supervisors, including the assistant and Rules for neglect of duty and misconduct and/or
manager. conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. On July
14, 1965, the Civil Service Commission rendered a decision
On July 10, 1963, petitioner union, representing the 21 finding petitioner guilty of the charges and recommending
dismissed workers, charged respondent company with the penalty of dismissal. Quadra, together with ASSPS
unfair labor practice before respondent Court of Industrial (CUGCO), filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a
Relations which found respondents company and AngWo
complaint for unfair labor practice against respondent
Long guilty. However, CIR modified its decision by holding
PCSO and its officers. On November 19, 1966, the CIR
respondent Estanislao (who had disappeared) fully
issued its decision finding respondent PCSO guilty of unfair
responsible for unfair labor practice and absolving
labor practice for having committed discrimination against
respondents company and AngWo Long of any
responsibility because of its finding that there was lack of

Nada Es Imposible
management refused to acknowledge receipt of said

the union and for having dismissed petitioner due to his
notice.
union activities.
On March 16, 1967, during the pendency of the 1st case in On February 28, 1980, E.G. Gochangco preventively
the Supreme Court, he filed with the CIR a "Petition for suspended the union officers and members who attended
Damages." Respondent PCSO moved to dismiss the the hearing. The common ground alleged by E.G.
petition for damages on the following grounds: (1) the CIR Gochangco for its action was "abandonment of work on
Page | 88
has no jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary February 27, 1980." On the same date, all the gate passes
damages; (2) the cause of action is barred by prior of all the above-mentioned employees to Clark Air Base
judgment, it appearing that two complaints are brought were confiscated by a Base guard.
for different parts of a single cause of action; and (3) the
Petitioner union and its members filed a complaint for
petition states no valid cause of action.
constructive lockout and unfair labor practice against E.G.
ISSUE: WON Quadra is entitled for damages? Gochangco. The latter filed with MOLE, Region III, a Notice
of Termination of Contract together with a list of
HELD: YES. employees affected by the expiration of the contract,
among them, the 39 individual petitioners herein.
It appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately
dismissed from the service by reason of his active ISSUE1: WON the E.G. Gochangco, Inc. Committed ULP.
involvement in the activities of the union groups of both
the rank and file and the supervisory employees of PCSO, HELD1: YES.
which unions he himself organized and headed. As found
It is no coincidence that at the time said respondent issued
by the CIR, petitioner's dismissal constituted unfair labor
its suspension and termination orders, the petitioners
practice. It was done to interfere with, restrain or coerce
were in the midst of a certification election preliminary to
employees in the exercise of their right to self-
a labor-management conference, purportedly, "to
organization.
normalize employer-employee relations." It was within the
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of legal right of the petitioners to do so, the exercise of which
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical was their sole prerogative, and in which management may
to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, not as a rule interfere. In this connection, the respondent
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise company deserves our strongest condemnation for
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and ignoring the petitioners' request for permission for some
mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder time out to attend to the hearing of their petition before
the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management the med-arbiter. It is not only an act of arrogance, but a
relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the brazen interference as well, with the employees' right to
Supreme Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles self-organization, contrary to the prohibition of the Labor
with labor rights. It is proper in this case to impose moral Code against unfair labor practices.
and exemplary damages on Quadra.
But as if to add insult to injury, the company suspended
the petitioners on the ground of "abandonment of work"
10 on February 27, 1980, the date on which, apparently,
24.CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION v. NLRC, E.G. the pre-election conference had been scheduled. (The
GOCHANGCO, INC. petitioners sought permission on February 26, 1980 while
the suspension order was issued on February 28, 1980.)
May 30, 1988, 244 PHIL 674-691
What unfolds here is a clear effort by management to
FACTS: Sometime in January 1980, the majority of the rank punish the petitioners for their union activities.
and file employees of E.G. Gochangco organized the E.G.
ISSUE2: WON the E.G. Gochangco, Inc. Dismissed the
Gochangco Workers Union as an affiliate of the CLLC. On
workers illegally.
February 7, 1980, the CLLC national president wrote the
general manager of E.G. Gochangco informing him of the HELD2: YES.
organization of the union and requesting for a labor-
management conference to normalize employer-employee SC was not persuaded by the E.G. Gochangco's argument
relations. On February 26, 1980, the union sent a written that "[f]inal termination should be effected as the contract
notice to E.G. Gochangco requesting permission for certain has expired." The records show that petitioners were
member officers and members of the union to attend the regular employees whose employment did not terminate
hearing of the petition for certification election. The with the expiration of E.G. Gochangco's contract with the

Nada Es Imposible
Types of employees as they were defined under the

U.S. Air Force. As regular employees, the petitioners'
book V of the labor code under the labor relation:
tenure are secure, and their dismissal must be premised
on a just cause. 1) Regular employees;
2) Casual employees;
There is no merit in the claim that the petitioners' terms
3) Project employees;
were coterminous with the duration of the contract. There
4) Seasonal employees; and
is nothing in the records that would show that the
5) Probationary employeees. Page | 89
petitioners were parties to that contract. It appears
furthermore that the petitioners were in the employ of the
Just causes for dismissal:
respondent company long before that contract was
concluded. They were not contract workers whose work 1. serious misconduct;
terms are tied to the agreement, but were, rather, regular 2. willful disobedient or insubordination;
employees of their employer who entered into that 3. gross and habitual neglect of the duties;
contract. 4. fraud or willful breach of trust;
5. commission of applied offense against the
employer his family or his representative; and
6. analogous cases.
------------------------END OF CLASS --------------------- Q: WHY WAS THIS PHRASE ANALOGOUS CASES

INCLUDED IN THE LIST?
A: Because the law cannot actually comprehend all the

possible scenarios that may happen between an
employer and an employee, so when you say
analogous cases, the cause must be due to the
voluntary or willful act or omission of the employee,
because as you may have observed commission of an
offence is a voluntary act, fraud or willful breach of trust
March 22, 2018 is a voluntary act, serious misconduct willful
disobedience, neglect of duties so all of these are willful
Case recitation acts, they were done by the employee out of his own
volition.
By: Ma. Gloria Trinidad S. Arafol
AUTHORIZED CAUSES
------------------------END OF CLASS ---------------------
Under the labor code, authorized causes are classified
into Two namely:
March 23, 2018
1. Business-related cause- as mentioned in Article
By: KrismaeBasong 283:
1. Installation of labor saving device;
Review of last meeting’s discussion. 2. Redundancy;
Regular Employment under the Labor Code (Who 3. Retrenchment;
are considered Regular Employees?) 4. Closure and cessation of business
operation due to serious business
1) Necessary or desirable in the usual business loss or financial reverse; and
and trade of the employer; 5. Closure and cessation of business
2) One is has rendered at least one year of operation NOT due to serious loss
service whether continuous or broken with or financial reverse.
respect to the activity of which his employed; 2. Heath related causes-referring to disease
covered by article 284 of the LC.
and
3) When employees are allowed to work after
the probationary period.

Nada Es Imposible
WHAT IS REDUNDANCY?
BASIS:
ART. 298. [283] Closure of Establishment and
One job is also doing the same task or the same
Reduction of Personnel . The employer may also
function of another job description. So there is two job
terminate the employment of any employee due to
description but they are doing the same function, so
the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
there is redundancy. This is an excess of what is
retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or Page | 90
required by the business enterprise involved.
cessation of operation of the establishment or Requisites of a valid Redundancy Program?
undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving 1) written notice serve on both the employee and
a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of the Department of Labor at least 1 month prior
Labor and Employment at least one (1) month to the intended date of the termination;
before the intended date thereof. In case of
termination due to the installation of labor- saving 2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at
devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby least one month pay or at least one month pay
shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at for every year of service whichever is higher;
least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses Discussion: if the employee was only
and in cases of closures or cessation of operations hired for less than a year he already
entitled for at least one month of pay,
of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
but if it is two years or higher, so that
business losses or financial reverses, the separation
is when you will apply one month
pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at
pay for every years of service, as the
least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of higher criteria.
service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six
(6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. 3) good faith in abolishing the redundant
position; and
4) fair and reasonable criteria in circlinig what

ART. 299. [284] Disease as Ground for
positions are to be declared redundant.
Termination. An employer may terminate the
services of an employee who has been found to be
suffering from any disease and whose continued Discussion: even we declare redundancy that there are
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to two job positions, you cannot discriminate na since
his health as well as to the health of his co- mas gusto ninyoangga hold sa job number 1 so si job
employees: Provided, That he is paid separation number 2 anginyongtanggalon. Dapat there is fair and
pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to reasonable criteria on which positions are to be given
one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, redundant.
whichever is greater,
1st Example: For automation authorized causes, noon
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST when the typewriter were phased out and they were
CAUSES AND AUTHORIZE CAUSES? replaced by computers, so the skilled workers who only
A: Authorize causes for termination is contained know how to use the typewriters, it can be said that
under article 298 to 299 of the Labor Code: when the computers came into the office setting their
services or their skills are no longer required, so this
1) The automation or installation of labors safety can be an authorized cause of a termination by an
devices; employee, that you are now in solely labor saving
2) When there is redundancy, and this exist devices.
when the services of an employee are in
2nd Example: Dati, in a printing company, you would be
excess of what has been divided of the actual
a hundred of typist, and when the computer came to
requirements of the enterprise; existence so you will only need five people to man the
computer so this a valid cause of termination since you
are now installing labor saving devices.
REDUNDANCY

Nada Es Imposible
3rd Example: In a banana plantation or a banana

packing indusrty. Noon packing was done by man, but Discussion: If the enterprise would know that
now some companies even the packing and the eventually actual loses may be incurred because of
freezing they all done by a machine. These are valid their organizational structure or because there are alot
cause or authorize cause for terminating your of employees beyond their needs even before actual
employees, but this must be done in good faith, and loses set in the employer is allowed by law to reduce
also you must pay the with separation pay, since there its personnel before there are actual loses but you
Page | 91
service and their skills are no longer required in the should always remember that this must be done in
business enterprise. good faith and it must be supported by papers and
documents or studies by the company that they will
4th Example: Even if you will not install labor saving evidently suffer business loses if they would continue
devices but the company reorganize its organizational operating on an organizational structure that is not cost
structure as a cost saving device this will still be an effective and is not efficient for the operation of the
authorized cause to terminate an employee. The company.
employer is not included from adopting a new policy for
a more economical and effective management and the STANDARDS FOR A VALID RETRENCHMENT OR A
law does not required that the employer shall be DOWNSIZING OF THE COMPANY ACCRODING TO
suffering financial loses before you can install cost JURISPRUDENCE:
saving device. Actually, substantial business loses is
also a ground for termination of the emplyees,
however, in the case of redundancy when you re 3. the loses are expected to be substantial and not
organize, like for example previously you have five merely diminished; so they are not nearly minimal.
departments and you will down size into three
departments because, the three department have
become more effective and can effectively operate the Example: for a company as big as Ayala, if they
business enterprise as it exist this is a valid cause or will see that they will lose 1000 pesos a year,
an authorized cause for termination employees who this is not substantial loses, but for example for
may be affected by the reorganization of the company. a chicken company like polangko, 1000 pesos a
day is a big lose for them. This will always be
depending on character of the business and the
size of the business. A case to case basis.
4. the apprehended substantial loss are reasonably

imminent and can proceed objectively and in good
faith by the employer;
RETRENCHMENT
Discussion: So imminent hapitnagyud. This
should not be done as you have seen in
WHAT IS RETRENCHMENT OR DOWNSIZING? previous cases that it is done to circumvent the
law on regularization or the right of the
a) This is the reduction of personnel usually employees to exercise the right to self
due to poor financial returns so that the organization. Still we should consider the totality
company may cut down its cost. of evidence.
b) This may be a cost cutting measure

made immediately necessary to avoid 5. entrenchment must be reasonably necessary to
business reduction or business reverse. prevent the expected losses; and
Discussion: When you are saying that you are

PREVENT BUSINESS LOSES downsizing because you want to prevent losses
The termination or entrenchment from the service of but then the DOLE will see that you are still
some employees is authorized to be undertaken by the hiring new employee, then how can you say that
employer sometime before loses become manifest you are letting go of some of your old employees
because the law will not punish the employer like, you but you are still hiring. So the
should suffer loses already before you can terminate
employees.

Nada Es Imposible
entrenchment is reasonably necessary to 1) The retrenchment is reasonably necessary

prevent your losses in the business. and will likely prevent business losses which
must be substantial and not merely diliminist;
6. expected or actual loses must be proved by 2) the business loss must be substantial
sufficient and convincing evidence.

serious, actual and real and if expected it is
reasonably imminent and it must be done in Page | 92

Discussion: It must be well established by the good faith by the employer;
employer, always the burden of proving whether
or not the cost for terminated employee was 3) that the employer must serve a written notice
valid was on the employer. both to the employees and to the DOLE at
least one month prior to the intended date of
General RULE : Burden of proof that the the retrenchment.
termination was valid is on the employer to
prove that. Exptn: when the employee would say 4) retrenched employees must be given
that there is unfair labor practice committed by separation pay equivalent to one month pay
the employer, the burden of proof is on the one
or at least one half month pay for every year
who is challenging so on the employee.
of service.
Discussion: There is no need for investigating
Discussion: Bakitsa redundancy one month
and hearing by the DOLE before an employee
pay for every year of service, while in
may be dismissed due to retrenchment as long
retrenchment or downsizing it is only one half
as the employer has complied with the
month of separation pay per year of service,
requirements of the law. However the employee
kasinga their business is expecting imminent
was affected by the downsizing may file case
business losses, so why will the law punish it
with the DOLE to controvert the grounds for
more by giving the whole one month pay. In
termination of his employment. So he may still
redundancy they are still not experiencing
file a case, but to implement the retrenchment
business loses they are merely cost saving,
there is no need for investigation of hearing by
however in retrenchment they are expecting
the employer, kasikungwalangempleyadona
substantial business losses.
mag rereklamo the DOLE will not step in. If the
employee will not raise his illegal dismissal
We have said in our policy labor laws do not
before the DOLE, so the DOLE will not
wish to be oppressive upon capital, it wishes
investigate or hear.
that both labor and capital are benefited by
our labor laws so that the workers would not
Rredundancy or when there is an excess of what
be out of a job and the company will not be
reasonably demanded by the requirements of an
out of business. Perokung less than a year
enterprise (now we are discussing reduction of
langang service niya one month pay
personnel due to imminent financial losses).
parinangkanyang separation pay.
5) the employer exercise the right to retrench

REDUNDANCY RETRENCHMENT employees in good faith and not to defeat or
circumvent the employee’s right to security
not experiencing the employer is tenure; and
business loses they actually expecting
are merely cost saving imminent business
losses that is why it Discussion: So nakitaniyo man yunsa case
is downsizing. dibana the owner wishes to circumvent
dealing with the union, they will set it to
another owner but the owner would still use
Separation pay is one Separation pay is the same premises, they will only kickout the
month pay for every one half month of employee forming the union and hire new
year of service separation pay per employees so there is no good faith in the acts
year of service of the employer.
Requirements for a valid retrenchment:

Nada Es Imposible
6) the employer use fair and reasonable criteria NOTE: It is only the 1st that the payment for separation
pay is required. No such requirement s imposed in the
in ascertaining who would be dismissed and
second.
who will be retained;
Criteria would be: FOR AUTHORIZED CAUSE, CLOSURE OR
a) Status; CESSATION OF OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS
b) Efficiency; SO THIS MUST BE DONE IN GOOD FAITH.
c) Seniority; Page | 93
d) Physical fitness; Requisites:
e) Age; and
1) the decision to close or cease operation must
f) Financial hardship for certain
purpose. be done in good faith;
2) there is no intention to circumvent the rules on
termination of the employment;
Last in first out rule. 3) there is no other option available to the
Kung ikawangpinakabagong employee employer except to close the business;
ikawangpinakaunangtanggalon. It applies to 4) the notice requirement under article 298 of the
termination of employment in the same line of labor code should be complied with; and
work so if all other criteria are the same. 5) lastly separation pay.
Example: in terms of status, efficiency the Discussion: GR: When the business closes, where
physical fitness of the workers so what criteria closure is due to serious business loses as a rule there
will you use if they are the same inefficiency is no separation pay required since
they are the same in status, so we apply the wlalanamansiyangperatalaga how can you compel the
last in first out rule. So the last one employed business who is almost bankrupt to instill a separation
will necessarily be the first on to go. pay.
Notee: However no law mandates the last in Burden of proof that actually the business is suffering
first out rule, so it is still upon management a serious business loses is upon the employer.
prerogative whether or not to apply the said
criteria. Exptn: when under another source of contract or
another source of obligation is not source form the
labor code as when the source of the obligation came
Discussion: In determining the criteria on from a contract or an existing collective bargaining
what criteria will be used on who will stay or agreement there is a necessity to determine whether
who will go, it is still upon management or not the employer is bound to pay the employee
prerogative to set the criteria as long as it is separation pay.
reasonable and fair and there is no
discrimination involved. Note:
1) Where closure is not due to serious business

losses the workers are still entitled to
CLOSURE OR CESSATION OF separation pay.
BUSINESS OPERATION 2) Where closure was due to an act of the
government, workers are not entitled to
separation pay.
Note: closure or cessation of business is the complete Example: a mining company was not
or partial cessation of the operations and/or shutdown given the ECC, the workers are not entitled to
of the establishment of the employer. It is carried out separation pay.
ether to stave off the financial ruin or promote the
business interest of the employer. 3) due to disease
Closer involves two situations:
Discussion: the employer is authorized by law to
1. When NOT due to serious business losses or dismiss you from employment if you are suffering
financial reverses; or from a disease, however this is just not any
2. When due to serious business losses or disease.
financial reverses.

Nada Es Imposible
sakitlangsiyaiteterminatenalngsiyadapat the disease is

of such nature at such a stage that it cannot be cured
within a period of 6 months even with proper medical
DISEASE treatment and the said finding that it cannot be treated
within 6 months must be from a competent public
health authority or government doctor.
REQUISITES FOR YOU TO BE TERMINATED
DUE TO A DISEASE: Page | 94
OTHER AUTHORIZED CAUSES THAT WERE NOT
a) the employee suffering from a disease;
DISCUSS UNDER THE LABOR CODE.
b) his continued employment is either prohibited
by law, prejudicial to his health or prejudicial to a) total and permanent disability of the
the health of his co-employees; employee;
c) there is a certification by competent public b) the application of a union security clause;
health authority that the disease or its nature c) the expiration of the term of employment in a
cannot be cured within a period of 6 months fixed period or fixed termed contract;
even with proper medical treatment; d) the completion of a project in a project
employment
Discussion: Hindi pwedenaang employer e) the failure of the employee to pass the
magkuhalangng private doctor it must be a reasonable standards in his probationary
government doctor who’s specialization employment;
pertains to the disease being suffered by the
f) the relocation of a business to a distant
employee, because employers can merely pay
place;
a private employee so we are assuming that
g) defiance of return to work order duly issued
public employees cannot be paid.
by the Secretary of Labor;
d) the notice of termination based on the ground h) commission of illegal acts on a strike;
of a serious disease should be serve in the i) violation of a contractual commitment or a
employee and the Department of Labor at breach of his employment contract; and
least 30 day prior to the effectivity of the j) Retirement.
termination;
e) There must still be separation pay in the
amount of at least one month salary on the one
half month salary to every year of service
whichever is greater.
Discussion: So I think one half month pay, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FOR
because in redundancy it is wholy the will of TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE:
the employer who terminate to offer. In this
case it is also the fault of the employee, partly Twin Notice Rule
he cannot continue his employment because
of his disease. 1) The first notice is the written notice serve to
the employee specifying the ground which
Conclusion: termination of services for health reasons
he is being considered to be terminated;
must be effected only upon compliance with the 5
Note: Ground that is being alleged upon him
requisites. Hindi pwedenaparang after thought
is just or authorized cause. The employee
nalangna you will comply the requirements but still
must be given reasonable opportunity to
illegal dismissed by the employee before you comply
explain his side,
with the requisites.
The requirement of a medical certificate is cannot be 2) second notice is done after a hearing or
dispense in and the lack of a medical certificate from a conference wherein the notice of termination
competent public health authority shall be taken is served on the employee indicating that
against an employer as an arbitrary determination of upon due consideration of all the
the gravity of the employees illness, and this will defeat circumstances the employer has found
the public policy in protecting labor. You have to enough grounds to establish or to justify the
remember nahindipwedena may termination of the said employee.

Nada Es Imposible
Discussion: Hindi enough that he will serve a notice to a) Committed the acts of which of he is being
the employee that is being dismissed. The first notice complained of;
is that he must be informed of why he is being
considered for termination, then there must be a b) When termination is due to authorized
hearing or conference with at least an opportunity to causes;
be heard during which the employee may be assisted Authorized causes:

by counsel if he so desires and he is given an - Automation Page | 95
opportunity to respond to the charge, present his - redundancy
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him. - down-sizing
Ample opportunity to be heard - closure of business
- disease
Any meaningful opportunity whether verbal or
- termination
written. So even if the explanation of the hearing was
- resignation
merely done by submission of papers as long as the
- termination of casual employment
employee was given the means to answer the charges
- termination of project
against him and submit evidence to support his
- employment
defense this may be considered as ample opportunity
- termination of seasonal employment
heard in a hearing or conference
- termination due to expiration of the
contractual employment
Discussion: so hindikailangannanagkaroontalganang
court type of hearing as long as there is ample Discussion: since there are authorized causes there
opportunity to be heard. is no more need for a formal hearing or conference
because these authorized causes are usually not the
fault of the employer.
WHEN IS A FORMAL HEARING MANDATORY?
a) when requested by the employee in writing

when there is substantial evidentiary dispute; RESIGNATION
Example: theft, like if there are conflicting Resignation is the voluntary act of the employee who
testimonies by the employees and the is who is compelled by personal reasons to severe his
representatives of the employer the formal employment contract, it must be done with:
hearing or conference may become mandatory. 1) Intention in abandoning with the office; and
2) Actual abandonment of the said office.
b) when a company rule or a company practice
requires that the formal hearing is required.
Voluntary resignation
The act of an employee who for personal
Discussion. So usually when you start your
reason which cannot be sacrificed in favor of his
employment, especially in big companies you are
service, thus he has no choice but to disassociate
given a handbook of employees conduct and if in
himself from his employment.
that company policy that is contained that when
you are charged for a just and authorized cause
Rule: the employee must serve a written notice on the
that a formal hearing or conference is exercised
employer at least 1 month in advance.
by the company then this company policy
becomes mandatory that you must be given the
Note: Once the voluntary resignation of the employee
opportunity to be heard in a formal hearing or
is accepted by the employer, it cannot be withdrawn
conference.
without the consent of the employer.
Conclusion: A formal hearing or conference only
becomes mandatory when it is requested with an GR: An employee who voluntary resigns is not
employee in writing or there is a substantial evidentiary entitled to separation pay
dispute or if there is a company rule or a practice which
requires the holding of a formal hearing. EXPTN: a) if it is specifically stipulated in his
employment contract;
WHEN IS HEARING NOT REQUIRED? c) if it is provided under its collective bargaining

agreement with the bargaining unit; or
d) if the same is sanctioned by company
practice or company policy.
Nada Es Imposible
establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to

retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2)
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at
a) There may be constructive dismissal if least six (6) months being considered as one whole
year.
there is an act of near discrimination,
insensibility or disdained by the employer Unless the parties provide for broader
that if becomes so unbearable on the part inclusions, the term ‘one-half (1/2) month salary’ shall Page | 96
of the employee to continue his mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the
employment; 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more
b) if there is an demotion in rank or a than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
diminution of pay without reasonable
cause; An underground mining employee upon
c) the employee is given a floating status. reaching the age of fifty (50) years or more, but not
beyond sixty (60) years which is hereby declared the
Test of constructive dismissal: Whether a reasonable compulsory retirement age for underground mine
person in the employee’s positions would have felt workers, who has served at least five (5) years as
compelled to give up his position under the prevailing underground mine worker, may retire and shall be
circumstances. entitled to all the retirement benefits provided for in
this Article.
Discussion: So when the floating status of the
employee last for more than 6 months, he may be Retail, service and agricultural
considered to have been constructively dismissed from establishments or operations employing not more
service, thus when he is been constructively than ten (10) employees or workers are exempted
dismissed, he is entitled to corresponding separation from the coverage of this provision.
payment.
Violation of this provision is hereby declared

unlawful and subject to the penal provisions provided
RETIREMENT under Article 288 of this Code.
Retirement form service Nothing in this Article shall deprive any

the result of a bilateral act of the parties a employee of benefits to which he may be entitled
voluntary agreement between the employer and the under existing laws or company policies or practices.
employee that upon reaching a certain age, the
employee agrees or consent to severe his employment
with the employer so under article 302 of the LC. Note: 65 years old is considered as a compulsory
retirement age for one was served at least five years
Art. 302. Retirement.Any employee may be retired in the establishment.
upon reaching the retirement age established in the
collective bargaining agreement or other applicable
employment contract. Discussion:. If he complies with the two requirements
either 60 or 65 years old and he has served at least 5
In case of retirement, the employee shall be year at the company:
entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may
have earned under existing laws and any collective - -he may retire and
bargaining agreement and other agreements: - -shall be entitled to retirement pay
Provided, however, That an employee’s retirement - -equivalent to at least one half month salary
benefits under any collective bargaining and other - -for every year of service and
agreements shall not be less than those provided - -any service that is a fraction of 1 year or at
herein. least 6 months, it will be considered as one
whole year.
In the absence of a retirement plan or
agreement providing for retirement benefits of
employees in the establishment, an employee upon Note: Now this 60 and 65 year old now is not applicable
reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not to everyone.
beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared
the compulsory retirement age, who has served at Applicability of Article 302:
least five (5) years in the said

Nada Es Imposible
o This applies to all employees in the

private sector regardless of position, GR: when the employer is already gave his retirement
resignation or status. pensions, he may not anymore apply for another
o This does not apply to employees of retirement package.
the national government including
GOCCs since they are covered by EXPTN: if management will still give him retirement
civil service laws and not by the benefits a second time it is upon management
Labor Code. Page | 97
prerogative but it can’t be imposed by law.
o This is not applicable who employs
retail service and agricultural RETIREMENT BENEFITS
establishments who are employing
not more than 10 employees. An employee’s retirement benefits under
collective bargaining or any other agreement or any
other employment contract shall not be less than the
Discussion: Actually there is a law, that when you are one provided under article 302 of the labor code.
employing less than 10 employees in a retail or a
service establishment you are not required to comply a The retirement package for each retiredee
Labor Standards. may not be less than one half month pay for every year
of service and 1/12 of the 13th month pay since by law
Applicability of60 and 65 years old retirement 13th month pay is mandated to be paid to all regular
age:- employee, so even in this case class the definition of a
The article is only applicable if there is no regular employee would be relevant when you are
collective bargaining agreement or there is no discussing retirement package because, if you are not
retirement provision in the employment contract. So a regular employee, the employer is not bound to give
another standard may be observed in an establishment you benefits of book V if you are not a regular
as long as it is more beneficial than the one provided employee.
by the Labor Code.
Notes:
Compulsory retirement agefor mining employees
1) It is very important that you will
Optional retirement age is 50 year old or more distinguish what kind of employment
but not beyond 60 years old which is the compulsory a certain employee falls under, for
retirement age for the underground mining workers. you to apply book V of the labor
code.
Reason: Because in the mining industry, the job are 2) The definition under book5 is not the
more toxic to bodies. That is why it is specifically same definition in your labor
mentioned in the Labor Code that for underground standards law, so it is different.
mining employees the optional retirement age is 50
years old and the compulsory age is 60 years old
--------NOTHING FOLLOWS--------
Compulsory retirement age for judges
I think the compulsory retirement age is 70-

80 years old. So even with the compulsory retirement
age.
Q: MAY A RETIREE EXTEND HIS SERVICE IN A

BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT?
March 23, 2018
A: NO. So upon compulsory retirement of an employee
By: BehniceTesiorna
in a public or service, his employment already been
terminated . The matter and extension of service of
such employee even beyond his retirement age is upon
RESIGNATION
the sound special of the employer.
Resignation is the action done by an employee,

for personal reasons, to sever his employment

Nada Es Imposible
contract. It must be done with: 1. Intention of WHAT IS THE TEST OF CONSTRUCTIVE

abandoning the office; and 2. Actual DISMISSAL?
abandonment of the office.
The test is whether a reasonable person, in the
Voluntary resignation is the act of an EE who for employee’s position would have felt compelled to
personal reasons which cannot be sacrificed, in give up his position under the prevailing
favour his service, thus he has no other choice circumstances. Page | 98
but to disassociate himself from his employment.
The rule is that the EE must serve a written notice So when the floating status of an employee lasts
to his ER 30 days in advance. for more than six (6) months, he may be
considered to have been constructively dismissed
Once the voluntary resignation of an EE is from service. Thus, when he is constructively
accepted by the ER, it cannot be withdrawn dismissed, he is entitled to corresponding
without the consent of the ER. separation pay.
An employee who voluntary resigns is NOT

entitled to separation pay EXCEPT: RETIREMENT
1. if it is specifically stipulated in his So another mode of post-employment under the

employment contract or; Labor Code is retirement from service.
2. it is provided in the CBA of the bargaining Retirement is defined as the result of a voluntary
unit, or; agreement between the ER and the EE that upon
3. if the same is sanctioned by company reaching a certain age, the EE consents or agrees
practice or policy. to sever his employment with the ER.
So even if an EE voluntarily resigns, he may be Under Article 301 of the LC, any EE may be retired
entitled to separation pay if any of the above upon reaching the retirement age established in
exists. the CBA or any applicable employment contract.
Now, in the absence of a CBA or an agreement in

the employment contract, any EE may, upon
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL reaching the age of 60 years old, may apply for
So what is considered as constructive dismissal? retirement, but NOT beyond 65 years old. So 65
So sometimes, an ER will not actually terminate years old is considered as the compulsory
you from employment, however, he may do acts retirement age, for one who has served at least
which may compel the EE to resign. five (5) years in the establishment.
So what constitutes constructive dismissal? There So if he/she complies with the two
may be constructive dismissal if: requirements:
1. Is either 60 or 65 years old;

1. There is an act of clear discrimination, 2. Has served at least five (5) years in the
insensibility, or disdain by the ER that it establishment;
becomes so unbearable on the part of
the EE to continue his employment. He can retire and be entitled to Retirement Pay
2. Demotion in rank or diminution of pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for
without reasonable cause; every year of service; and any service that is the
3. If an EE is given a floating status; (for fraction of one (1) year, or a fraction of at least
those working in the gov’t, you may six (6) months, it shall be considered as one (1)
notice that when the mayor changes, whole year.
suddenly a gov’t employee has a floating
status. An example is from Mayor X to
Mayor Y.)

Nada Es Imposible
This 60 and 65 years old is NOT applicable to another retirement package, they can. But, such
everyone. Now under Article 302, this applies to is not required by law.
employees under the private sector, regardless of
position, designation, or status. However, this So an EE’s retirement benefit under any CBA or
does not apply to EEs of the national government, any other agreement, shall NOT be less than that
including GOCCs, since they are covered under provided under Article 302 of the LC. Thus, it
the civil service laws, and NOT under the Labor cannot be less than one-half (1/2) month pay for Page | 99
Code. eveyr year of service, and one-twelfth (1/12) of
the 13th month pay. 13th month is mandated to be
Also, this provision on retirement is NOT paid to a regular employee under the law.
applicable to:
So even in this case, the definition of a regular
1. EEs of retail service and; employee would be relevant when you are
2. Agricultural establishments that employ discussing retirement package, because if you are
NOT MORE than ten (10) employees. not a regular EE, the ER is not bound to give you
the benefits of Book V.
There is a special law which provides that if you
are a service or agricultural establishment Actually, it is very important for you to distinguish
employing not more than ten (10) employees, what kind of employment a certain EE falls under
you are not required to comply with labor for you to apply Book V. You must also
standards. remember, that the definition of a regular EE
under Book V is not the same as the one under
Thus, the 60 and 65 years old retirement age your labor standards.
apply to everyone. Now, in case the company has
a more beneficial employment package, such will Next we’ll be discussing grievance machinery, the
apply. Since under the LC, the Article I read is composition of the DOLE, and the power and
only applicable if there is NO retirement provision function of each office. Here, remedial law as
in the CBA, or there is no retirement agreement pertains to labor law will be discussed. As what I
in the employment contract. Another standard have experienced, the procedure under labor law
may be observed in an establishment, as long as is different from the remedial law you’re used to.
it is more beneficial than that provided in the LC.
Also, the compulsory retirement age is different
APRIL 11, 2018 TRANSCRIPTION
for mining employees. For underground mining
By BehniceTesiorna
employees, the compulsory retirement age is 50
years old or not beyond 60 years old. Why is this?
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
It’s because for underground mining workers,
COMMISSION, GRIEVANCE MACHINERY,
their jobs are more taxing to their bodies. They
AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
actually have a shortened lifespan. I think it’s also
different for judges, I think their compulsory
Article 220 to 239 of the LC provides for the
retirement age is 70 years old.
composition, powers, and functions of the
So even with the compulsory retirement age
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
(CRA), may the retiree extend his service in a
business establishment? So, upon reaching the
Articles 273 to 277 of the LC provides for the
CRA of an EE in the public or private service, his
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration,
employment is already deemed terminated. The
and these two topics are all we have left to cover
matter of extension of service of such retired EE
your final exam.
even beyond his CRA the is upon the sound
discretion of his ER.
Initially, when we say “labor cases,” we get
As a GR, when an EE has already claimed his
confused as to who has jurisdiction over the
retirement benefit, he may not anymore apply for
same. Is it with the DOLE Secretary, Labor
another retirement package. However, if the
Arbiter, Regional Directors, Voluntary Arbitrators,
manager deems it that they will still give him
BLR and others pa.

Nada Es Imposible
organization, and the Chairman and the 7

JURISDICTION OVER LABOR CASES remaining members shall come from the public
TRIBUNAL/OFFICER ARTICLE OF THE sector. That’s the composition of the NLRC.
LC
Secretary of Labor Article 128 Upon assumption into office, the members
nominated by the workers and employers
DOLE Regional Article 129
organizations shall divest themselves of any Page | 100
Director
affiliation with or interest in the federation or
Labor Arbiter Article 224
association to which they belong.
Bureau of Labor Article 226
Relations
As you can see, the NLRC has three parts: those
Voluntary Article 274 that are employed by the public or the
Arbitrators government, part of the employers’ association,
and part of the workers’ association.
The voluntary arbitrators’ jurisdiction is regarding
the implementation of the pertinent provision of COMMISSION EN BANC
the CBA; and the implementation of company The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8)
personnel policies that sometimes lead to the divisions, each composed of three (3) members.
sanction or termination of EEs. Thus, they are The Commission shall sit en banc only for
under the grievance machinery. purposes of promulgating rules and regulations
governing the hearing and disposition of cases
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS before any of its divisions and regional branches
COMMISSION (NLRC) and formulating policies affectingits
administration and operations.
First, we will discuss the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
So you always encounter the term “Labor The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory
Arbiter”. The Labor Arbiter still falls under the and all other powers, functions and duties
NLRC. Labor Arbiters are the ones assigned to the through its divisions. Provided, That the
regional arbitration branches of the NLRC. Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or
emergency basis, allow cases within the
What is the NLRC? Under Article 220 of the LC, it jurisdiction of any division to be heard and
is an administrative body with quasi-judicial decided by any other division whose docket
functions and it is the principal gov’t agency that allows the additional workload and such transfer
hears and decides labour management disputes. will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional
It is attached to the Dep’t of Labor and expense.
Employment only for purposes of program and NLRC DIVISIONS
policy coordination. So, it is attached to the
DOLE, its function is wholly different from the Now, a Division is composed of three (3)
DOLE. It has quasi-judicial functions. members each. In the NLRC, there are eight (8)
Divisions, with three (3) members each. The
COMPOSITION OF THE NLRC divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over cases within their
So, the composition of the NLRC is one (1) respective territorial jurisdiction, and all other
Chairman and twenty-three (23) members. powers and functions as contained in the Labor
Code.
Of this 24-member Commission, eight (8)
members each shall be chosen only from the I will give you the responsibility of reading the
nominees of the workers and employers’ Labor Code and the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
organizations, while the Chairman and the seven So, for the NLRC to adjudicate cases by Division,
(7) remaining members shall come from the the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a
public sector, to be chosen from incumbent labor division shall be necessary for the
arbiters. pronouncement of judgment or resolution.
So that’s 8 members from the workers’ Whenever the required membership in a division
organization, 8 from the employers’

Nada Es Imposible
is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) labor arbiters, these are given much weight by
Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or the CA and the SC.
resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall
designate such number of additional So what is under the EXCLUSIVE AND
Commissioners from the other divisions as may ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the NLRC?
be necessary. 1. Those cases certified to it for compulsory
arbitration by the Sec of Labor under Article Page | 101
It shall be mandatory for the division to meet for 277 or 278 of the LC;
purposes of the consultation ordained therein. 2. Injunction cases under Article 225 or 278;
However, the writing of the actual decision may 3. contempt cases;
be assigned to one (1) member only of the 4. verified petition under the 2011 NLRC
decision. Rules.
Now, what are the qualifications of the Chairman These do not need that there be a case in the
and the Commissioners? lower regional arbitration branches. They are
cognizable by the NLRC in the first instance.
1. Must be members of the Philippine Bar; What is the NLRC’s exclusive APPELLATE
2. They must have been in the practice of jurisdiction?
law for at least 15 years in the
Philippines; 1. Cases decided by the LA;
3. They must have experience handling 2. Cases decided by the regional offices of
labor management relations for at least a the DOLE; (usually about monetary
period of five (5) years and; claims of workers that do not exceed five
4. Preferably, must be a resident of the thousand pesos without reinstatement)
region they are handling. 3. Contempt cases decided by the LA;
How about if you want to be a Labor Arbiter? There is no appellate jurisdiction over disputes
decided upon by voluntary arbitrators. These are
1. Must be members of the Philippine Bar; decisions rendered pursuant to the interpretation
2. Must have been in the practice of law for of the CBA or company personnel policies. Thus,
at least 10 years in the Philippines; the NLRC has no appellate power over such.
3. Must have experience handling labor
management relations for at least a There is also no appellate jurisdiction over
period of five (5) years decisions rendered upon by the Sec of Labor and
decisions of the BLR Director.
What is the retirement age of the Chairman and
Commissioners? As a general rule, the decisions of the NLRC are
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65,
The Chairman, the other Commissioners and the through a petition for certiorari.
Labor Arbiters shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of sixty-five It is up to you to read the location of the NLRC
(65) years, unless sooner removed for cause as branches, appointments, salaries. I cannot
provided by law or become incapacitated to overemphasize the reading of your codals.
discharge the duties of their office: Provided,
however, That the President of the Republic of LABOR ARBITER
the Philippines may extend the services of the
Commissioners and Labor Arbiters up to the What is the jurisdiction of the LA?
maximum age of seventy (70) years upon the As a general rule, when do labor cases fall under
recommendation of the Commission en banc. the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter?
As a general rule, the findings of facts of labor Requisites:
tribunals are afforded utmost respect by the
courts since they are considered experts of labor
law. So, whatever factual findings are interpreted
or decided upon by the NLRC or

Nada Es Imposible
1. There must be employer-employee (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or

relationship (EER); implementation of collective bargaining
2. A reasonable causal connection between agreements and those arising from the
the claim asserted and the EER; interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies shall be disposed of by the
In the absence of EER, it is the regular courts that Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
have jurisdiction over the case. grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration Page | 102
The NLRC has jurisdiction to determine as may be provided in said agreements.
preliminarily the party’s right over a property
when the same issue is necessary to determine The law assumes that labor cases are given
rights and claims arising from an EER. utmost priority because if one does not have
employment, one will perish. Thus, they are given
urgency from the viewpoint of the law. That’s
why these are given only thirty (30) days after
EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL submission of the case.
JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER
Thus, the LA has exclusive and original
ART. 224. [217] Jurisdiction of the Labor jurisdiction over:
Arbiters and the Commission.165 (a)
Except as otherwise provided under this Code, 1. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and
the Labor Arbiters shall have original and other damages arising from EER;
2. Unfair labor practice cases;
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within
thirty (30) calendar days after the submission 3. Wage distortion disputes in an organized
of the case by the parties for decision without establishment;
4. Monetary claims of overseas contract
extension, even in the absence of stenographic
notes, the following cases involving all workers also arising from EER (if the
workers, whether agricultural or non- OFW has no EER with the employee
agricultural: abroad, this cannot fall under the
(1) Unfair labor practice cases; jurisdiction of the LA);
(2) Termination disputes; 5. Claims arising from the violation of Article
(3) If accompanied with a claim for 278, including strikes and lockouts;
reinstatement, those cases that workers may 6. All other claims arising from EER,
file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of including those persons in domestic or
work and other terms and conditions of household services, because a special
employment; law governs them, namely the
(4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and Kasambahay Law, involving an amount
other forms of damages arising from the exceeding five thousand pesos
employer-employee relations; (P5,000.00) whether or not accompanied
(5) Cases arising from any violation of Article by a claim for reinstatement. Except
264 of this Code, including questions involving claims for Employees Compensation,
the legality of strikes and lockouts; and Social Security, Medicare and maternity
(6) Except claims for Employees benefits.
Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and This is because ECC and the SSS have their own
maternity benefits, all other claims arising from separate tribunal quasi-judicial body that governs
employer-employee relations, including those monetary claims.
of persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding five thousand Illegal dismissal cases and termination cases are
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether still under the jurisdiction of the LA and also cases
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. under Article 128 of the LC which involves the
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by of the DOLE Secretary.
Labor Arbiters.

Nada Es Imposible
AWARDING OF DAMAGES
VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS
So aside from deciding the issue on labor, the LA OF THE DOLE SECRETARY
also has the power to award damages to the
injured party. ART. 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Page | 103
Power. (a) The Secretary of Labor and
It is generally frowned upon that you split your Employment or his duly authorized
cause of action. For example, a plaintiff went to representatives, including labor regulation
the labor courts for his illegal termination, and officers, shall have access to employer's
another case before the regular courts to claim records and premises at any time of the day or
moral and exemplary damages still pursuant to night whenever work is being undertaken
the illegal termination case because he failed to therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to
ask for, or was not rewarded damages before the question any employee and investigate any
labor courts. The SC however said that the power fact, condition or matter which may be
of the LA includes the award of damages arising necessary to determine violations or which
from the illegal termination case, and did not may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of
allow such splitting of action. any labor law, wage order or rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto.
NO JURISIDICTION
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles
When does the LA lack jurisdiction? 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and
The LA has no jurisdiction over: in cases where the relationship of employer-
employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor
1. Foreign governments (state and Employment or his duly authorized
immunity); representatives shall have the power to issue
2. International agencies; compliance orders to give effect to the labor
3. Intra-corporate disputes which fall standards provisions of this Code and other
under the Securities Regulation labor legislation based on the findings of labor
Code – in one case, the SC has ruled that employment and enforcement officers or
when the issue is between corporate industrial safety engineers made in the course
officers, it was decided that it should be of inspection. The Secretary or his duly
under the regular courts. However, in authorized representatives shall issue writs of
another decided case, the SC said that execution to the appropriate authority for the
termination disputes between corporate enforcement of their orders, except in cases
officers is not entirely under the regular where the employer contests the findings of
courts because when the law to be used the labor employment and enforcement officer
is labor law, then it should be under the and raises issues supported by documentary
labor courts. So there are two different proofs which were not considered in the course
views. But as a GR, when the issue is the of inspection.
termination of a corporate officer, who is
considered not to be a regular employee,
The Sec of Labor has power to access the
as he could be elected as a Board
employer’s records and premises and copies
Member and has no security of tenure, it
therefrom. So this is the Secretary’s visitorial and
should be under the regular courts.
enforcement powers, and any violations form this
4. When the aggregate money claim is can be lodged before the LA.
not more than five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) and there is no claim
To question any EE and investigate any fact,
for reinstatement – under the DOLE
condition, or matter which may be necessary to
Regional offices, not the LA.
determine violations of the labor code in the work
premises. So this is the visitation powers.

Nada Es Imposible
THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE SEC OF

LABOR IS THE POWER:
1. To issue compliance orders to give effect

to the labor standards provisions of this Page | 104
Code and other labor legislation;
2. To issue writs of execution for the
enforcement of said orders;
3. To order the stoppage of work or
suspension of any operations in any
establishment where there is non-
compliance of rules to safeguard the
health and safety or workers in the
workplace;
4. The power to require employees to keep
and maintain employment records when
the Sec of Labor will exercise his visitorial
and enforcement powers;
5. To enforce compromise agreements
when there is non-compliance by any of
the parties;
6. All other cases as may be provided by
law.
However, when you speak of exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the LA, since our law lean
toward the speedy settlement of labor issues, it
is still preferred that issues in the work place are
settled through the voluntary arbitrators. Since it
is assumed that cases submitted to the can be
settled swiftly since in voluntary arbitration, the
EE and the ER come to the table so that they can
formulate their own solution to their labor
dispute.
If it is provided in the CBA that if an issue falling

under the jurisdiction of the LA shall be submitted
to voluntary arbitrators, this is allowed by law. As
long as the CBA was duly executed and registered
with the DOLE.
The law prefers voluntary arbitration over

compulsory arbitration.

Nada Es Imposible

FullLaborRelationTSN2017 18 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FullLaborRelationTSN2017 18 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR RELATION BASED ON LECTURES OF ATTY EDIG 2017-2018

December 6, 2017 protestors again are small group of

Atty Edig: So in this case, the Supreme

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

collective bargaining. As repeatedly

NOTE: atty ask about the employees

The purpose of a certification election is Jan 4 2018,

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

1. Any falsehood about the

Union affiicatitions it applies to local or

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

EXCEPTION: The disaffiliation by the Ans: it is connected with the

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

c) The members shall directly elect their

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

authorized pursuant to its constitution this Act shall automatically result in

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

from so these can be voted by must be regular WON they are

It is a method of deducting from an

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

GR:No special assessment,attorney’s

So under number 3, example class, the

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

Rule X Sec. 5. Grounds for impeachment or

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

FROM THE CASE: petitioner cannot

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

the release and custody of union fees personality by labor organizations,

The expulsion of Nacua from the organizations". The Constitution does

not guarantee these rights and Page | 12

labor organization, it has no power to After an exhaustive study of the

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

Atty Edig: so here, it was only a general

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

if the management or the UST affirmed written authorization duly signed

Atty Edig: From what funds? From the

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

HELD: An employer should not be JANUARY 11, 2018

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

While the petition for certification ANGLOV. SAMANA BAY

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

union. Any act performed by ANGLO

On the 2nd issue: we go back to the

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

the regular rank-and-file employees service and the subsequent

down? Here even if no contract or new election

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

[G.R. No. 116751 & G.R. No. 116779.

SUGBUANON VS. LAGUESMA labor organization. Nothing is said

HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO issue of the validity of the union's

E. LAGUESMA, DEPARTMENT OF registration. Page | 23

latter opposed the petition in a

We will see later that

of the parties under the

So there are several

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

1. Globe doctrine – essentially is the so much that past facts are no

B.A.T Notes :Basong, Arafol, Tesiorna

So what is the rationale behind this? Two Proper when:

The employees must be aware that

certification election because a lot of Freedom Period: the 60-day period