Labor Case 124-147 Digests

8/19/2019 Labor Case 124-147 Digests

1/30

Militante vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Facts:

The Golden Taxi Employees and Workers Union-ANGLO (GTEWU-ANGLO),represented by Ernesto errano, as !nion president, "led a #ase a$ainst respondentGolden Taxi %ab %o& (%ompany) and'or Loreno amora and *ose amora +or ille$allo#k-o!t, iolation o+ &.& l$& /01, as amended by 2&A& No& 34/5, !n+air laborpra#ti#e, and payment o+ a#t!al, moral and exemplary dama$es and attorney6s+ees& 7n his de#ision, Labor Arbiter +o!nd that the #los!re o+ respondent #ompany8as ille$al, and ordered the %ompany to pay the members o+ GTEWU-ANGLOseparation pay& Upon appeal, NL2% reersed the de#ision o+ the Labor Arbiter&

On *an!ary 95, /::0, a #omplaint 8as "led by ;anilo a Nena amora and ;o>a .a#in$ amora +or ille$al lo#ko!t,ille$al dismissal, non-remittan#e o+ ded!#tion, ded!#tion +or b!rial bene"ts,non-payment o+ premi!m pay +or rest day, thirteenth-month pay and separationpay& On =ar#h :, /::0, another #omplaint 8as "led by =i$!el %& alon$a a$ainstrespondent %ompany, Loreno amora, ;o>a Nena amora and ;o>a .a#in$amora, +or ille$al dismissal and non-payment o+ retirement bene"t& On =ar#h /5,/::0, priate respondents "led a motion to dismiss the #omplaints on the $ro!ndso+ res ?!di#ata and pres#ription, ar$!in$ that the NL2% de#ision barred theses!bse@!ent #omplaints&

On =ar#h /:, /::0, another #omplaint 8as "led a$ainst respondent#ompany, Loreno amora, ;o>a Nena amora and ;o>a .a#in$ amora by

ernardino O& Te?ada a$ain +or ille$al lo#ko!t, ille$al ded!#tions o+ and b!rialbene"ts, ille$al dismissal, non-payment o+ separation pay, holiday pay andthirteenth-month pay, and payment o+ moral dama$es and attorney6s +ees&

On April 9, /::0, Labor Arbiter iss!ed an order dismissin$ the three#onsolidated #ases on the $ro!nd o+ bar by prior ?!d$ment& Upon appeal NL2%rendered a de#ision dismissin$ the appeal +or la#k o+ merit& .etitioners appealed tothe !preme %o!rt insistin$ that they, bein$ members o+ the rial !nion .A%7WU-

TU%., 8ere not parties in the "rst #ase "led by GTEWU-ANGLO&

Issue:

Whether or not the #omplaints "led by members o+ the rial !nion .A%7WU- TU%. 8ere barred by prior ?!d$ment on the #omplaint "led members o+ GTEWU-ANGLO 8hi#h is the ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ a$ent o+ all the rank and "le employees6 o+ respondent&

Held:

Bes& 7nasm!#h as GTEWU-ANGLO 8as #erti"ed as the ex#l!sie bar$ainin$a$ent in the #onsent ele#tion, petitioners #annot no8 #laim that they 8ere notparties in the "rst #ase "led by GTEWU-ANGLO, 8hi#h represented not only .A%7WU-

TU%. b!t also GTEWU-ANGLO& Cen#e, all the re@!isites o+ res ?!di#ata bein$present, said prin#iple sho!ld be made to apply, th!s barrin$ any s!bse@!ent a#tions!#h as the #onsolidated #ases s!b?e#t o+ this petition&


2/30

The eDe#t o+ s!#h a #erti"#ation bro!$ht abo!t the le$al mandate thathen#e+orth, #omplainant Union shall be the ex#l!sie representatie6 (Art& 955,Labor %ode) o+ all the rank and "le employees o+ respondent #ompany not only +orthe p!rpose o+ enterin$ into a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement6 on terms and#onditions o+ employment6 b!t also in the matter o+ ri$hts, bene"ts and o+ the saidrepresented 8orkers&


3/30


4/30

Central Ne!ros "lectric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary o# $%L"

Facts:

On A!$!st /5, /:4, %entral Ne$ros Ele#tri# %ooperatie (%ENE%O) enteredinto a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement 8ith %ENE%O Union o+ 2ational Employees(%U2E), a labor !nion representin$ its rank-and-"le employees& On ;e#ember9,/::, %U2E 8rote %ENE%O proposin$ that ne$otiations be #ond!#ted +or a ne8#olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement (%A)&

On *an!ary /, /::1, %ENE%O denied %U2E6s re@!est on the $ro!nd that, !nderappli#able de#isions o+ the !preme %o!rt, employees 8ho at the same time aremembers o+ an ele#tri# #ooperatie are not entitled to +orm or ?oin a !nion& .rior tothe s!bmission o+ the proposal +or %A rene$otiation, %U2E members, in a $eneral

assembly approed 2esol!tion No& 05 8hereby it 8as a$reed that Jall !nionmembers shall 8ithdra8, a8, retra#t, or re#all the !nion members6 membership+rom %ENE%O in order to aail (o+) the +!ll bene"ts !nder the existin$ %A enteredinto by and bet8een %ENE%O and %U2E, and the s!pposed bene"ts that o!r !nionmay aail (o+) !nder the rene8ed %A& Co8eer, the 8ithdra8al +rom membership8as denied by %ENE%O,

y reason o+ %ENE%O6s re+!sal to rene$otiate a ne8 %A, %U2E "led apetition +or dire#t re#o$nition or +or #erti"#ation ele#tion&

%ENE%O "led a motion to dismiss on the $ro!nd that there are le$al#onstraints to the "lin$ o+ the #erti"#ation ele#tion, #itin$ the r!lin$ laid do8n by

the !preme %o!rt in atan$as 7 Ele#tri# %ooperatie Labor Union s& 2omeo A Bo!n$, (ATANGA #ase) to the eDe#t that Jemployees 8ho at the same time aremembers o+ an ele#tri# #ooperatie are not entitled to +orm or ?oin !nions +orp!rposes o+ #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement, +or #ertainly an o8ner #annot bar$ain8ith himsel+ or his #oo8ners&I

Issue:

Whether or not the employees o+ %ENE%O 8ho 8ithdre8 their membership+rom the #ooperatie are entitled to +orm or ?oin %U2E +or p!rposes o+ the

ne$otiations +or a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement&

Held:

The ar$!ment o+ %ENE%O that the 8ithdra8al 8as merely to s!bert ther!lin$ o+ this %o!rt in the ATANGA #ase is 8itho!t merit& The #ase re+erred tomerely de#lared that employees 8ho are at the same time members o+ the#ooperatie #annot ?oin labor !nions +or p!rposes o+ #olle#tie bar$ainin$& Co8eer,no8here in said #ase is it stated that member-employees are prohibited +rom

8ithdra8in$ their membership in the #ooperatie in order to ?oin a labor !nion&

The ri$ht o+ the employees to sel+-or$aniation is a #ompellin$ reason 8hytheir 8ithdra8al +rom the #ooperatie m!st be allo8ed& As pointed o!t by %U2E, theresi$nation o+ the member-employees is an expression o+ their pre+eren#e +or !nionmembership oer that o+ membership in the #ooperatie& The ao8ed poli#y o+ thetate to aDord +!ll prote#tion to labor and to promote the prima#y o+ +ree #olle#tie


5/30

bar$ainin$ mandates that the employees6 ri$ht to +orm and ?oin !nions +or p!rposeso+ #olle#tie bar$ainin$ be a##orded the hi$hest #onsideration&

=embership in an ele#tri# #ooperatie 8hi#h merely ests in the member ari$ht to ote d!rin$ the ann!al meetin$ be#omes too triial and ins!bstantial is-a-is the primordial and more important #onstit!tional ri$ht o+ an employee to ?oin a

!nion o+ his #hoi#e&

Ila& at 'u(lod n! Man!!a!a&a vs. Ferrer)Calle*a

Facts:

.etitioner Union, +ormerly re$istered as the an =i$!el %orporation alesFor#e Union %alasiao eer 2e$ion-7= Lo#al No& 53, a lo#al !nion o+ 7la8 at !klodn$ =an$$a$a8a (7=), 8hi#h is a national !nion, re@!ested an =i$!el %orporation

+or ol!ntary re#o$nition as the sole and ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ representatie o+ allthe #oered employees 8hi#h #onsist o+ the monthly-and daily-paid employees o+the %alasiao ales OM#e, no8 ;a$!pan ales OM#e& As the territorial #oera$e o+the %alasiao eer 2e$ion embra#es the re$ional sales oM#e and the six (3) salesoM#es in %alasiao, %armen, Alaminos, Tarla#, %abanat!an and an 7sidro, =%denied the !nion6s re@!est and instead, s!$$ested that it aail o+ a #erti"#ationele#tion& =% "led a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ the sales personnel o+the 2e$ion only, ex#l!din$ the daily-paid and monthly-paid employees, b!t in#l!din$the sales oM#es o+ the entire beer re$ion&

The Union "led a motion to dismiss alle$in$ that the petition +or #erti"#ationele#tion 8as premat!re as it did not ask =% to bar$ain #olle#tiely 8ith it& The

=ed-Arbiter iss!ed an order +or the #ond!#t o+ #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ the sales+or#e personnel o+ the =%-North %entral L!on eer 2e$ion&

.etitioner appealed the order to the L2 8hi#h denied the appeal +or la#k o+merit& .etitioner "led a petition +or #ertiorari alle$in$ that the L2 $raely ab!sedits dis#retion in orderin$ the holdin$ o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion& .arentheti#ally, the#erti"#ation ele#tion 8as a#t!ally #ond!#ted res!ltin$ in JNO UN7ONI as the 8inner&

Issue:

Whether or not =%6s re@!est +or #erti"#ation ele#tion is proper&

Held:

Bes& Ordinarily, in an !nor$anied establishment like the =% %alasiao eer2e$ion, it is the !nion that "les a petition +or a #erti"#ation ele#tion i+ there is no#erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent +or the 8orkers in the establishment& 7+ a !nion asks theemployer to ol!ntarily re#o$nie it as the bar$ainin$ a$ent o+ the employees, asthe petitioner did, it in eDe#t asks the employer to #erti+y it as the bar$ainin$representatie o+ the employeesa #erti"#ation 8hi#h the employer has noa!thority to $ie, +or it is the employees6 prero$atie (not the employer6s) to

determine 8hether they 8ant a !nion to represent them, and, i+ so, 8hi#h one itsho!ld be&

The petitioner6s re@!est +or ol!ntary re#o$nition as the bar$ainin$representatie o+ the employees 8as in eDe#t a re@!est to bar$ain #olle#tiely, orthe "rst step in that dire#tion, hen#e, the employer6s re@!est +or a #erti"#ationele#tion 8as in a##ordan#e 8ith Arti#le 95 o+ the Labor %ode, and the p!bli#respondents did not ab!se their dis#retion in $rantin$ the re@!est&


6/30


7/30

+l!ire vs. $e Mesa

Facts:

7n the pre-ele#tion #on+eren#e, it 8as a$reed that the ele#tion by se#ret ballot be#ond!#ted bet8een Al$ire and de =esa& The res!lts o+ the ele#tion 8ere as +ollo8sHAl$ire-/00 otes, ;e =esa-/00 otes, and spoiled-3 otes&

Al$ire "led s a protest be+ore the ;OLE6s =ed-Arbitration !nit, to the eDe#t that oneo+ the ballots 8herein one oter pla#ed t8o #he#ks inside the box opposite thephrase JLino Al$ire and his oM#ers,I hereina+ter re+erred to as the J@!estionedballot,I sho!ld not hae been de#lared spoiled, as the same 8as a alid ote in their+aor&

;!rin$ the s#hed!led hearin$ thereo+, both parties a$reed to open the enelope#ontainin$ the spoiled ballots and it 8as +o!nd o!t that, indeed, one ballot#ontained t8o (9) #he#ks in the box opposite petitioner Al$ire6s name and hisoM#ers&

=ed-arbiter iss!ed an Order de#larin$ the @!estioned ballot alid, thereby #o!ntin$the same in Al$ire6s +aor and a##ordin$ly #erti"ed petitioner6s $ro!p as the !nion6sele#ted oM#ers&

;e =esa appealed +rom the de#ision o+ the med-arbiter to the e#retary o+ Labor8hi#h $ranted the appeal and reersed the de#ision o+ med-arbiter& 7n its stead, itentered a ne8 one orderin$ Jthe #allin$ o+ another ele#tion o+ oM#ers o+ the

Uniersal 2obina Textile =onthly alaried Employees Union (U2T=EU)&

Issue:

Whether or not the protest "led by Al$ire re$ardin$ the @!estioned ballotde#lared as spoiled is proper&

Held:

No& 7t is !nmistakable that the ele#tion held 8as a #onsent ele#tion and not a#erti"#ation ele#tion& 7t 8as an a$reed one, the p!rpose bein$ merely to determinethe iss!e o+ ma?ority representation o+ all the 8orkers in the appropriate #olle#tiebar$ainin$ !nit& 7t is a separate and distin#t pro#ess and has nothin$ to do 8ith theimport and eDort o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion&

The r!lin$ o+ ;OLE6s representatie in that ele#tion that the @!estioned ballotis spoiled is not based on any le$al proision or r!le ?!sti+yin$ or re@!irin$ s!#ha#tion by s!#h oM#er b!t simply in p!rs!an#e o+ the intent o+ the parties, expressedin the 8ritten instr!#tions #ontained in the ballot, 8hi#h is to prohibit !na!thoried

markin$s thereon other than a #he#k or a #ross, obio!sly intended to identi+y theotes in order to presere the san#tity o+ the ballot, 8hi#h is in +a#t the ob?e#tie o+the #ontendin$ parties&

7+ indeed petitioner6s $ro!p had any opposition to the representation oM#er6sr!lin$ that the @!estioned ballot 8as spoiled, it sho!ld hae done so seasonablyd!rin$ the #anass o+ otes& 7ts +ail!re or ina#tion to assail s!#h ballot6s alidityshall be deemed a 8aier o+ any de+e#t or irre$!larity arisin$ +rom said ele#tion&


8/30


9/30

Con#ederation o# Citiens Labor -nions vs. Noriel

Facts:

.etitioner %on+ederation o+ Labor Unions (%%LU) 8as one o+ the +o!r !nions 8antin$to be #erti"ed as the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ representatie o+ the employees in the2edson Textile =an!+a#t!rin$ %orporation 7ts #o-petitioner, the 2edson Employeesand Laborers Asso#iation, is a %%LU lo#al in the said #orporation&

The other !nions aspirin$ to be#ome the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ representatie 8erethe National Union o+ Garments Textile and General Workers o+ the .hilippines(GAT%O2;), the National Trade Union (NATU) and the Asso#iated Labor Unions(ALU)&

A #erti"#ation ele#tion 8as held in the premises o+ the #orporation& O!t o+ the 0/otes #ast, %%LU $arnered 053 otesK ALU, 00 otesK NATU, 9 otes andGAT%O2;, 9 otes& Ei$ht otes 8ere spoiled and "e otes 8ere #hallen$ed orse$re$ated& As no !nion obtained a ma?ority ote, %%LU and ALU, a$reed in a pre-ele#tion #on+eren#e that a r!n-oD ele#tion 8o!ld be held&

Ele#tion s!perisors arried at the 2edson Textile #ompo!nd b!t they 8ere notallo8ed by the se#!rity $!ard to enter the #ompany& They de#ided to hold the#erti"#ation ele#tion Jo!tside the premises o+ the #ompany in a small store o!tsideo+ the annex b!ildin$I &They !sed as ballot box Jan improised #arton box&I The!nion representaties did not ob?e#t to the improised pollin$ pla#e and ballot box&

The ALU representatie, Taneo, exe#!ted a 8ritten protest alle$in$ irre$!larities inthe ele#tion& Taneo prayed that the otes sho!ld not be #o!nted, that another daybe s#hed!led +or the #ontin!ation o+ the ele#tion and that the #ompany be orderedto allo8 its 8orkers to ote&

The otes #ast 8ere #anassed& O+ the 3:9 otes #ast, ALU $ot 033 otes as a$ainst%%LU6s 0/0 otes, or a mar$in o+ 50 otes& There 8ere /,1/1 oters& e#a!se ALU8on, Taneo, 8ithdre8 his protest by 8ritin$ on the min!tes o+ the pro#eedin$ thathis protest or mani+estation 8as 8ithdra8n Jbe+ore the #lose o+ the pro#eedin$sI&

On the +ollo8in$ day, %%LU thro!$h its representatie, Fresnoa, "led 8ith the!rea! o+ Labor 2elations a protest 8herein he prayed that the Noember 3

#erti"#ation ele#tion as 8ell as the J#ontin!ation o+ the ele#tionI on Noember 4 beann!lled&

Noriel, OM#er-in-%har$e o+ the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations dismissed %%LU6s protest+or la#k o+ merit& Ce obsered that %%LU +ailed to "le a protest either Jbe+ore ord!rin$ the ele#tion pro#eedin$I and, there+ore, p!rs!ant to se#tion 0, 2!le 7, ook o+ 2!les and 2e$!lations 7mplementin$ the Labor %ode, %%LU is deemed to hae8aied its ri$ht to protest&

Noriel denied %%LU6s motion +or re#onsideration and #erti"ed ALU as the ex#l!siebar$ainin$ representatie o+ the employees in 2edson Textile =an!+a#t!rin$

%orporation&

Issue:

Whether or not the the #erti"#ation ele#tion #ond!#ted is alid&


10/30

Held:

No, the #erti"#ation ele#tion is inalid be#a!se o+ #ertain irre$!larities s!#has that (/) the 8orkers on the ni$ht shi+t (ten p&m& to six a&m&) and some o+ those inthe a+ternoon shi+t 8ere not able to ote, so m!#h so that o!t o+ /,1/1 oters only3:9 oted and abo!t 0/ +ailed to oteK (9) the se#re#y o+ the ballot 8as notsa+e$!ardedK (0) the ele#tion s!perisors 8ere remiss in their d!ties and 8ereapparently JintimidatedI by a !nion representatie and () the parti#ipatin$ !nions8ere oerealo!s in 8ooin$ the employees to ote in their +aor by resortin$ tos!#h ta#ti#s as $iin$ +ree tri#y#le rides and T-shirts&

The p!rpose o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion is to $ie the employees Jtr!e representationin their #olle#tie bar$ainin$ 8ith an employerI (5/ %&*&& :3:)& That p!rpose 8asnot a#hieed in the r!n-oD ele#tion be#a!se many employees or !nion members8ere not, able to ote and the employer, thro!$h apathy or deliberate intent, didnot render assistan#e in the holdin$ o+ the ele#tion&

7t sho!ld be noted that ALU6s 8ritten protest (later 8ithdra8n) 8as based on thesame $ro!nds inoked by %%LU in its protest& That +a#t alone sho!ld hae alertedNoriel to disre$ard the te#hni#ality that %%LU6s protest 8as not "led on time&


11/30

National Con!ress o# -nions in the Su!ar Industry o# the hilippines vs.ra*ano

Facts:

On *!ne 9/, /:9, petitioner National %on$ress o+ Unions in the !$ar 7nd!stry o+the .hilippines (NA%U7.)-TU%., the #erti"ed ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ representatie o+the rank and "le 8orkers o+ %alino$ 2e"nery %orporation, "led a petition +ordeadlo#k in #olle#tie bar$ainin$& 7n order to obiate +ri#tion and tension, the partiesa$reed to s!bmit the petition +or deadlo#k to #omp!lsory arbitration on&

On *!ly 9/, /:9, priate respondent Federation o+ Unions o+ 2ial (FU2-TU%.) "led8ith the 2e$ional OM#e No& 7, ;OLE, a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ therank and "le employees o+ priate respondent #ompany, alle$in$ thatH (/) abo!t

5P o+ priate respondent #ompany6s employees had disaMliated +rom petitioner!nion and ?oined priate respondent !nionK (9) no ele#tion had been held +or thepast /9 monthsK and (0) 8hile petitioner !nion had been #erti"ed as the sole#olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$ent, +or oer a year it +ailed to #on#l!de a #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$reement 8ith priate respondent #ompany&

The A#tin$ =ed-Arbiter dismissed the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion +or la#k o+merit sin#e the petition is barred by a pendin$ bar$ainin$ deadlo#k& .riaterespondent !nion "led an appeal to the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations 8hi#h rendered ade#ision settin$ aside the order o+ the A#tin$ =ed-Arbiter& =ed-Arbiter iss!ed anorder in $iin$ d!e #o!rse to the petition o+ priate respondent FU2-TU%. andorderin$ that an ele#tion be held& From the order o+ =ed-Arbiter, petitioner

interposed an appeal to the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations&

;!rin$ the penden#y o+ the appeal, a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement 8as enteredand exe#!ted by the mana$ement o+ the National !$ar 2e"neries %o&, 7n#& andpetitioner !nion and 8as s!bse@!ently rati"ed by a ma?ority o+ the rank and "leemployees& On the basis o+ the #on#l!ded %A, Exe#!tie Labor Arbiter iss!ed ana8ard adoptin$ the s!bmitted a$reement as the %A bet8een the parties&

2espondent ;ire#tor Tra?ano rendered a de#ision orderin$ the #ond!#t o+ a#erti"#ation ele#tion and to respe#t the #olle#tie a$reement by the !nion that shallpreail in the ele#tion&

Issue:

Whether or not a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion may be "led d!rin$ thependen#y o+ a bar$ainin$ deadlo#k s!bmitted to arbitration or #on#iliation&

Held:

No& The #lear mandate o+ the e#tion 0, ook , 2!le o+ the Omnib!s 2!les7mplementin$ the Labor is that a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion may be "led atany time, in the absen#e o+ a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement& Other8ise p!t, ther!le prohibits the "lin$ o+ a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion in the +ollo8in$ #asesH

(/) d!rin$ the existen#e o+ a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement ex#ept 8ithinthe +reedom periodK


12/30

(9) 8ithin one (/) year +rom the date o+ iss!an#e o+ de#laration o+ a "nal#erti"#ation ele#tion res!ltK or

(0) d!rin$ the existen#e o+ a bar$ainin$ deadlo#k to 8hi#h an in#!mbent or#erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent is a party and 8hi#h had been s!bmitted to #on#iliationor arbitration or had be#ome the s!b?e#t o+ a alid noti#e o+ strike or lo#ko!t&

The ;eadlo#k ar 2!le simply proides that a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion#an only be entertained i+ there is no pendin$ bar$ainin$ deadlo#k s!bmitted to#on#iliation or arbitration or had be#ome the s!b?e#t o+ a alid noti#e o+ strike orlo#ko!t& The prin#ipal p!rpose is to ens!re stability in the relationship o+ the 8orkersand the mana$ement&

7n the #ase at bar, a bar$ainin$ deadlo#k 8as already s!bmitted to arbitration8hen priate respondent FU2-TU%. "led a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion& Thesame petition 8as dismissed +or la#k o+ merit by the A#tin$ =ed-Arbiter on the sole$ro!nd that the petition is barred by a pendin$ bar$ainin$ deadlo#k& Co8eer,respondent ;ire#tor set aside the same order and s!bse@!ently aMrmed an order$iin$ d!e #o!rse to the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion and orderin$ that anele#tion be held&

The la8 demands that the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion sho!ld +ail in thepresen#e o+ a then pendin$ bar$ainin$ deadlo#k&


13/30

Capitol Medical Center +lliance o# Concerned "mployees) -ni/ed FilipinoService 0or(ers vs. La!uesma

Facts:

2espondent %apitol =edi#al %enter Employee6s Asso#iation-Allian#e o+ FilipinoWorkers a+ter bein$ de#lared as the #erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent o+ the rank-and-"leemployees o+ respondent %apitol =edi#al %enter (%=%), presented e#onomi#proposals +or the ne$otiation o+ a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement (%A)& Co8eer,respondent %=% #ontended that %A ne$otiations sho!ld be s!spended in ie8 o+the Order iss!ed by =ed-Arbiter de#larin$ the re$istration o+ respondent !nion asn!ll and oid&

;!e to respondent %=%6s re+!sal to bar$ain #olle#tiely, respondent !nion

"led a noti#e o+ strike& A+ter #omplyin$ 8ith the other le$al re@!irements,respondent !nion sta$ed a strike& The e#retary o+ Labor ass!med ?!risdi#tion oerthe #ase and iss!ed an order #erti+yin$ the same to the National Labor 2elations%ommission +or #omp!lsory arbitration 8here the said #ase is still pendin$&

.etitioner %apitol =edi#al %enter Allian#e o+ %on#erned Employees (%=%-A%E)"led a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ the re$!lar rank-and-"le employeeso+ %=%& 7t alle$ed in its petition thatH /) 00/ o!t o+ 11 total rank-and-"le employeeso+ respondent %=% si$ned a petition to #ond!#t a #erti"#ation ele#tionK and 9) thatthe said employees are 8ithdra8in$ their a!thoriation +or the said !nion torepresent them as they hae ?oined and +ormed the !nion %=%-A%E& They alsoalle$ed that a #erti"#ation ele#tion #an no8 be #ond!#ted as more that /9 months

hae lapsed sin#e the last #erti"#ation ele#tion 8as held& =oreoer, no #erti"#ationele#tion 8as #ond!#ted d!rin$ the /9 months prior to the petition, and no #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$reement has as yet been #on#l!ded bet8een respondent !nion andrespondent %=% despite the lapse o+ /9 months +rom the time the said !nion 8asoted as the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ representatie&

2espondent !nion opposed the petition and moed +or its dismissal& 7t alle$edthat it 8as not remiss in assertin$ its ri$ht as the #erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent +or it#ontin!o!sly demanded the ne$otiation o+ a %A 8ith the hospital despite thelatter6s aoidan#e to bar$ain #olle#tiely&

Issue:

Whether or not the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion m!st be $ranted&

Held:

No& 7+ the la8 pros#ribes the #ond!#t o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion 8hen there isa bar$ainin$ deadlo#k s!bmitted to #on#iliation or arbitration, 8ith more reason

sho!ld it not be #ond!#ted i+, despite attempts to brin$ an employer to thene$otiation table by the #erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent, there 8as Jno reasonable eDortin $ood +aithI on the part o+ the employer to bar$ain #olle#tiely&

There 8as proo+ that the #erti"ed bar$ainin$ a$ent, respondent !nion, hadtaken an a#tion to le$ally #oer#e the employer to #omply 8ith its stat!tory d!ty tobar$ain #olle#tiely, i&e&, #har$in$ the employer 8ith !n+air labor pra#ti#e and#ond!#tin$ a strike in protest a$ainst the employer6s re+!sal to bar$ain& 7t is only


14/30

?!st and e@!itable that the #ir#!mstan#es in this #ase sho!ld be #onsidered assimilar in nat!re to a Jbar$ainin$ deadlo#kI 8hen no #erti"#ation ele#tion #o!ld beheld& This is also to make s!re that no Qood$ates 8ill be opened +or the#ir#!mention o+ the la8 by !ns#r!p!lo!s employers to preent any #erti"edbar$ainin$ a$ent +rom ne$otiatin$ a %A& Th!s, e#tion 0, 2!le , ook o+ the7mplementin$ 2!les sho!ld be interpreted liberally so as to in#l!de a #ir#!mstan#e,

e&$& 8here a %A #o!ld not be #on#l!ded d!e to the +ail!re o+ one party to 8illin$lyper+orm its d!ty to bar$ain #olle#tiely&

National Con!ress o# -nions in the Su!ar Industry o# the hils. vs. Ferrer)Calle*a

Facts:

On Noember /,/:, priate respondent National Federation o+ !$ar

Workers (NFW-FGT-R=U) and employer ;a#on$#o$on !$ar and 2i#e =illin$ %o&,7n#& (;a#on$#o$on) entered into a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement (%A) +or a termo+ three (0) years, 8hi#h 8as to expire on Noember /, /:4&

When the %A expired, priate respondent NFW-FGT-R=U and ;a#on$#o$onne$otiated +or its rene8al& The %A 8as extended +or another three (0) years 8ithreseration to ne$otiate +or its amendment, parti#!larly on 8a$e in#reases, ho!rs o+ 8ork, and other terms and #onditions o+ employment&

Co8eer, a deadlo#k in ne$otiation ens!ed on the matter o+ 8a$e in#reasesand optional retirement& 7n order to obiate +ri#tion and tension, the parties a$reedon a s!spension to proide a #oolin$-oD period to $ie them time to eal!ate and

+!rther st!dy their positions& Cen#e, a Labor =ana$ement %o!n#il 8as set !p and#onened, 8ith a representatie o+ the ;epartment o+ Labor and Employment,a#tin$ as #hairman, to resole the iss!es&

On ;e#ember 5, /:, petitioner NA%U7.-TU%. "led a petition +or dire#t#erti"#ation or #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ the rank and "le 8orkers o+;a#on$#o$on& .riate respondent NFW-FGT-R=U moed to dismiss the petition onthe $ro!nd that there is a deadlo#k o+ %A&

The =ed-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss and dire#ted the #ond!#t o+#erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ the rank and "le 8orkers o+ ;a#on$#o$on& 2espondent;ire#tor o+ the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations rendered a resol!tion reersin$ the order

o+ the =edArbiter&

Issue:

Whether or not a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion may be "led a+ter the 31-day +reedom period&

Held:

No& The #lear mandate o+ 2!le , e#tion 3, ook o+ the 2!les 7mplementin$the Labor %ode, as amended by the r!les implementin$ Exe#!tie Order No& /// isthat the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion "led by the petitioner NA%U7.TU%. sho!ldbe dismissed o!tri$ht, hain$ been "led o!tside the 31-day +reedom period or aperiod o+ more than one (/) year a+ter the %A expired&


15/30

7t is a r!le in this ?!risdi#tion that only a #erti"ed #olle#tie bar$ainin$a$reementi&e&, an a$reement d!ly #erti"ed by the L2 may sere as a bar to#erti"#ation ele#tions& 7t is note8orthy that the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations d!ly#erti"ed the Noember /,/: #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement& Cen#e, the#ontra#t bar is appli#able&

This r!le simply proides that a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion or a motion+or interention #an only be entertained 8ithin sixty days prior to the expiry date o+an existin$ #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement& Other8ise p!t, the r!le prohibits the"lin$ o+ a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion d!rin$ the existen#e o+ a #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$reement ex#ept 8ithin the +reedom period, as it is #alled, 8hen thesaid a$reement is abo!t to expire& The p!rpose, obio!sly, is to ens!re stability inthe relationships o+ the 8orkers and the mana$ement by preentin$ +re@!entmodi"#ations o+ any #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement earlier entered into by them in$ood +aith and +or the stip!lated ori$inal period&

Anent the petitionerSs #ontention that sin#e the expiration o+ the %A in /:4priate respondent NFW-FGT-R=U and ;a#on$#o$on had not #on#l!ded a ne8%A, the !preme %o!rt stress that it shall be the d!ty o+ both parties to keep thestat!s @!o and to #ontin!e in +!ll +or#e and eDe#t the terms and #onditions o+ theexistin$ a$reement d!rin$ the 31-day period and'or !ntil a ne8 a$reement isrea#hed by the parties& ;espite the lapse o+ the +ormal eDe#tiity o+ the %A the la8still #onsiders the same as #ontin!in$ in +or#e and eDe#t !ntil a ne8 %A shall haebeen alidly exe#!ted& Cen#e, the #ontra#t bar r!le still applies&

esides, it sho!ld be emphasied that ;a#on$#o$on, in its ans8er stated thatthe %A 8as extended +or another three (0) years and that the deadlo#k 8ass!bmitted to the Labor =ana$ement %o!n#il&


16/30

+ssociated Labor -nion 1+L-2 vs. Ferrer)Calle*a

Facts:

The Asso#iated Labor Unions (ALU) in+ormed GAW Tradin$, 7n#& that ma?orityo+ the latter6s employees hae a!thoried ALU to be their sole and ex#l!siebar$ainin$ representatie, and re@!ested GAW Tradin$ 7n#& +or a #on+eren#e +or theexe#!tion o+ an initial %olle#tie ar$ainin$ A$reement (%A)&

GAW Tradin$ 7n#& re#o$nied ALU as the sole and ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ a$ent+or the ma?ority o+ its employees and +or 8hi#h it set the time +or #on+eren#e and'orne$otiation& ALU in behal+ o+ the ma?ority o+ the employees o+ GAW Tradin$ 7n#& andGAW Tradin$ 7n#& si$ned and exe#!ted the %olle#tie ar$ainin$ A$reement&

7n the meantime, the o!thern .hilippines Federation o+ Labor (.FL)to$ether 8ith Na$kahi!san$ =am!m!o sa GAW (NA=GAW) !ndertook a trike a+terit +ailed to $et the mana$ement o+ GAW Tradin$ 7n#& to sit +or a #on+eren#erespe#tin$ its demands, as to 8hi#h strike GAW Tradin$ 7n#& "led a petition +or2estrainin$ Order'.reliminary 7n?!n#tion, and 8hi#h strike 8as held as ille$al&

GAW L!mad Labor Union (GALLU-.LU) Federation "led a %erti"#ationEle#tion petition&

7n the meantime, the %olle#tie ar$ainin$ A$reement exe#!ted by ALU andGAW Tradin$ 7n#& 8as d!ly "led 8ith the =inistry o+ Labor and Employment in2e$ion 77, %eb! %ityK

Neertheless, =ed-Arbiter r!led +or the holdin$ o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion inall the bran#hes o+ GAW Tradin$ 7n#& in %eb! %ity&

7ss!eH

Whether or not #ontra#t bar r!le applies in this #ase&

Held:

No& The #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement in @!estion is indeed de+e#tie,hen#e !nprod!#tie o+ the le$al eDe#ts attrib!ted to it& The me#hani#s o+ #olle#tiebar$ainin$ are set in motion only 8hen the +ollo8in$ ?!risdi#tional pre#onditions arepresent, namely, (/) possession o+ the stat!s o+ ma?ority representation by theemployees6 representatie in a##ordan#e 8ith any o+ the means o+ sele#tion and'ordesi$nation proided +or by the Labor %odeK (9) proo+ o+ ma?ority representationKand (0) a demand to bar$ain !nder Arti#le 95/, para$raph (a), o+ the Ne8 Labor%ode& 7n the present #ase, the standin$ o+ petitioner as an ex#l!sie bar$ainin$representatie is d!bio!s, to say the least& At the time o+ the s!pposed re#o$nition,

the employer 8as obio!sly a8are that there 8ere other !nions existin$ in the !nit&As earlier stated, respondent #ompany6s letter is dated =ay /9, /:3 8hile the t8oother !nions, o!thern .hilippine Federation o+ Labor (herea+ter, .FL) and.hilippine o#ial e#!rity Labor Union (.LU, +or short), 8ent on strike earlier on=ay :, /:3& The !n!s!al promptit!de in the re#o$nition o+ petitioner !nion byrespondent #ompany as the ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ representatie o+ the 8orkers inGAW Tradin$, 7n#& !nder the Q!id and amorpho!s #ir#!mstan#es then obtainin$, 8asde#idedly !n8arranted and improident&


17/30

An additional in"rmity o+ the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement inoled 8asthe +ail!re to post the same in at least t8o (9) #onspi#!o!s pla#es in theestablishment at least "e days be+ore its rati"#ation& .etitioner6s rationaliation8as that J(b)e#a!se o+ the real existen#e o+ the ille$al strike sta$ed by .FL in allthe stores o+ GAW Tradin$, 7n#& it had be#ome impossible to #omply 8ith the postin$re@!irement in so +ar as the realiation o+ its p!rpose is #on#erned as there 8ere no

impartial members o+ the !nit 8ho #o!ld be apprised o+ the %A6s #ontents&I This ?!sti"#ation is p!erile and !na##eptable&

7n the "rst pla#e, the postin$ o+ #opies o+ the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reementis the responsibility o+ the employer 8hi#h #an easily #omply 8ith the re@!irementthro!$h a mere me#hani#al a#t& The +a#t that there 8ere Jno impartial members o+the !nitI is immaterial& The p!rpose o+ the re@!irement is pre#isely to in+orm theemployees in the bar$ainin$ !nit o+ the #ontents o+ said a$reement so that they#o!ld intelli$ently de#ide 8hether to a##ept the same or not& The assembly o+ themembers o+ ALU 8herein the a$reement in @!estion 8as alle$edly explained doesnot #!re the de+e#t& The #ontra#t is intended +or all the employees and not only +orthe members o+ the p!rported representatie alone& 7t may een be said that theneed to in+orm the non-members o+ the terms thereo+ is more exi$ent and#ompellin$ sin#e, in all likelihood, their #onta#t 8ith the persons 8ho are s!pposedto represent them is limited& =oreoer, to repeat, there 8as an apparent ands!spi#io!s h!rry in the +orm!lation and "naliation o+ said #olle#tie bar$ainin$a##ord&

Additionally, the inappli#ability o+ the #ontra#t bar r!le is +!rther !nders#oredby the +a#t that 8hen the disp!ted a$reement 8as "led be+ore the Labor 2e$ionalOM#e on =ay 94, /:3, a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion had already been "led on=ay /:, /:3& Altho!$h the petition 8as not s!pported by the si$nat!res o+ thirtyper#ent (01P) o+ the 8orkers in the bar$ainin$ !nit, the same 8as eno!$h toinitiate said #erti"#ation ele#tion&


18/30

Firestone ire 3 Rubber Company "mployees -nion vs. "strella

Facts:

On *!ne 9/, /:40, NL2% #erti"ed a three-year #olle#tie bar$ainin$a$reement bet8een respondents Asso#iated Labor Union (ALU) and Firestone Tire 2!bber %ompany o+ the .hilippines& aid #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement 8as to beeDe#tie +rom Febr!ary /, /:40 to *an!ary 0/, /:43&

On Febr!ary /, /:4, the a+orementioned respondents entered into aJ!pplemental A$reementI extendin$ the li+e o+ the #olle#tie bar$ainin$a$reement +or one year, makin$ it eDe#tie !p to *an!ary 0/, /:44& The extension8as not rati"ed by the #oered employees nor s!bmitted to the ;epartment o+Labor +or #erti"#ation&

Within the sixty-day period prior to the ori$inal expiry date o+ the a$reement,some 900 o!t o+ abo!t 11 rank-and-"le employees o+ respondent %ompanyresi$ned +rom respondent ALU& !bse@!ently, the n!mber o+ these employees 8horesi$ned +rom the !nion 8as in#reased to 943 and, by 8ay o+ letter to the ;ire#toro+ the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations, they re@!ested +or the iss!an#e o+ a #erti"#ate o+re$istration in +aor o+ petitioner Firestone Tire 2!bber %ompany Employees6Union (FEU)& On *an!ary 9, /:43, 2e$istration .ermit No& 54/-7. 8as iss!ed topetitioner FEU&

On Febr!ary /1, /:43, ten (/1) days a+ter the ori$inal expiry date o+ the#olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement, petitioner FEU "led a petition 8ith the !rea! o+

Labor 2elations +or dire#t #erti"#ation or #erti"#ation ele#tion, 8ith the 8ritten#onsent o+ 01 employees, or 44P o+ the 11-man bar$ainin$ !nit&

2espondent ALU "led 8ith the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations a petition +or the#an#ellation o+ the re$istration #erti"#ate o+ petitioner FEU, alle$in$ that at the timeo+ FEU6s re$istration, respondent ALU 8as the re#o$nied and #erti"ed #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$ent in the !nit& 2espondent ALU prayed +or the dismissal o+ petition+or #erti"#ation ele#tion on the $ro!nds, amon$ others, that it has a pendin$petition +or the #an#ellation o+ FEU6s re$istration #erti"#ate and that there is anexistin$ #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement, d!e to expire on *an!ary 0/, /:44, 8hi#h#onstit!tes a alid bar to the holdin$ o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion&

Issue:

Whether or not the existin$ %A bet8een ALU and the #ompany #onstit!tes aalid bar to the petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion "led by FEU&

Held:

No& 7t 8as held that on#e the +a#t o+ disaMliation has been demonstratedbeyond do!bt, a #erti"#ation ele#tion is the most expeditio!s 8ay o+ determinin$8hi#h labor or$aniation is to be the ex#l!sie bar$ainin$ representatie&

7t appearin$ that the extension o+ the li+e o+ the #olle#tie bar$ainin$a$reement +or a period o+ one year 8as not #erti"ed by the !rea! o+ Labor2elations, it #annot, there+ore, also bars the #erti"#ation ele#tion& Only a #erti"ed#olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement 8o!ld sere as a bar to s!#h ele#tion&


19/30

%orollarily, there+ore, petitioner6s appli#ation +or re$istration 8as notpremat!re, as it need not hae 8aited +or the expiration o+ the one-year extension,the a$reement hain$ expired on *an!ary 0/, /:43&

-nited CMC e4tile 0or(ers -nion vs. 'ureau o# Labor Relations

Facts:

.etitioner is a le$itimate labor or$aniation, the in#!mbent #olle#tiebar$ainin$ representatie o+ all rank and "le 8orkers o+ %ENTE sin#e /:53&2espondent .AFLU is also a le$itimate labor or$aniation seekin$ representation asthe bar$ainin$ a$ent o+ the rank and "le 8orkers o+ %ENTE&

.etitioner "led a #omplaint +or Un+air Labor a$ainst %ENTE and .AFLUalle$in$ that %ENTE had Jhelped and #ooperated in the or$aniation o+ the %entral

Textile =ills, 7n#& Lo#al .AFLU by allo8in$ the or$aniin$ members o+ the .AFLU tosoli#it si$nat!res o+ employees o+ the #ompany 8ho are members o+ the

#omplainant !nion to disaMliate +rom #omplainant !nion and ?oin the respondent.AFLU, d!rin$ #ompany time and inside the #ompany premises&

While the UL. %ase 8as pendin$, .AFLU "led a .etition +or %erti"#ationEle#tion amon$ the rank and "le 8orkers o+ %ENTE& .etitioner interened in the%erti"#ation %ase and "led a =otion to ;ismiss on the $ro!nd that the UL. %ase#har$in$ that .AFLU is a #ompany-dominated !nion is a pre?!di#ial @!estion andbars the holdin$ o+ the #erti"#ation ele#tion&

.etitioner "led a Noti#e o+ trike 8ith the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations +ordeadlo#k in the %A ne$otiations 8ith %ENTE& The parties hain$ +ailed to eDe#t#on#iliation, the Labor =inister ass!med ?!risdi#tion& A !pplemental =otion to

;ismiss in the %erti"#ation %ase 8as "led by petitioner alle$in$ that the Labor=inister had already taken #o$nian#e o+ the deadlo#k in the %A ne$otiations and#onstit!ted an impediment to the holdin$ o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion&

7n the ;eadlo#k %ase, the ;ep!ty =inister o+ Labor released a ;e#isiondire#tin$ petitioner and %ENTE to exe#!te and si$n a %A to take eDe#t onNoember /, /:4 !p to O#tober 01, /:/ based on the $!idelines en!meratedtherein, and to +!rnish the OM#e o+ the =inister o+ Labor 8ith a si$ned #opy o+ therene8ed a$reement&

7n the %erti"#ation %ase, the =ed-Arbiter iss!ed an Order +or the holdin$ o+ a#erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ %ENTE rank and "le 8orkers& This 8as aMrmed by

respondent ;ire#tor o+ the !rea! o+ Labor 2elations on appeal&

Issue:

Whether or not the penden#y o+ the UL. %ase #har$in$ a parti#ipatin$ !nionin the #erti"#ation ele#tion pro#eedin$s as #ompany-dominated a pre?!di#ial@!estion to the #ond!#t o+ the ele#tion&

Held:

Bes& Under settled ?!rispr!den#e, the penden#y o+ a +ormal #har$e o+#ompany domination is a pre?!di#ial @!estion that, !ntil de#ided, bars pro#eedin$s+or a #erti"#ation ele#tion, the reason bein$ that the otes o+ the members o+ thedominated !nion 8o!ld not be +ree&


20/30

7+ it 8ere a labor or$aniation ob?e#tin$ to the parti#ipation in a #erti"#ationele#tion o+ a #ompany-dominated !nion, as a res!lt o+ 8hi#h a #omplaint +or an!n+air labor pra#ti#e #ase a$ainst the employer 8as "led, the stat!s o+ the latter!nion m!st be "rst #leared in s!#h a pro#eedin$ be+ore s!#h otin$ #o!ld takepla#e& The reason is that the #erti"#ation ele#tion may lead to the sele#tion o+ anemployer-dominated or #ompany !nion as the employees6 bar$ainin$

representatie, and 8hen the #o!rt "nds that said !nion is employer-dominated inthe !n+air labor pra#ti#e #ase, the !nion sele#ted 8o!ld be de#erti"ed and the8hole ele#tion pro#eedin$s 8o!ld be rendered !seless and n!$atory&


21/30

ro!ressive $evelopment Corp.)ia Hut vs. La!uesma

Facts:

Na$kakaisan$ Lakas n$ =an$$a$a8a (NL=)-Ratip!nan (respondent Union)"led a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion 8ith the ;OLE-N%2 in behal+ o+ the rank and"le employees o+ the .ro$ressie ;eelopment %orporation (.ia C!t)&

.etitioner "led a eri"ed =otion to ;ismiss the petition alle$in$ +ra!d,+alsi"#ation and misrepresentation in the respondent Union6s re$istration makin$ itoid and inalid&

.etitioner "led a .etition seekin$ the #an#ellation o+ the Union6s re$istrationon the $ro!nds o+ +ra!d and +alsi"#ation& =otion 8as like8ise "led by petitioner 8ith

the =ed-Arbiter re@!estin$ s!spension o+ pro#eedin$s in the #erti"#ation ele#tion#ase !ntil a+ter the pre?!di#ial @!estion o+ the Union6s le$al personality isdetermined in the pro#eedin$s +or #an#ellation o+ re$istration&

Co8eer, in an Order by =ed-Arbiter 2asidali %& Abd!llah dire#ted the holdin$o+ a #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$ petitioner6s rank and "le employees&

Issue:

Whether or not the order to #ond!#t a #erti"#ation ele#tion amon$

petitioner6s rank and "le employees is proper #onsiderin$ that respondent Union6sle$al personality 8as s@!arely p!t in iss!e&

Held:

No& The Labor %ode re@!ires that in or$anied and !nor$anied/5establishments, a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion m!st be "led by a le$itimatelabor or$aniation& The a#@!isition o+ ri$hts by any !nion or labor or$aniation,parti#!larly the ri$ht to "le a petition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion, "rst and +oremost,

depends on 8hether or not the labor or$aniation has attained the stat!s o+ ale$itimate labor or$aniation&

7n the #ase be+ore !s, the =ed-Arbiter s!mmarily disre$arded the petitioner6sprayer that the +ormer look into the le$itima#y o+ the respondent Union by as8eepin$ de#laration that the !nion 8as in the possession o+ a #harter #erti"#ate sothat J+or all intents and p!rposes, !masakla8 sa =an$$a$a8a sa .ia C!t (8as) ale$itimate labor or$aniation&I

The $ro!nds entilated in #an#ellation pro#eedin$s in a##ordan#e 8ith Arti#le90: o+ the Labor %ode #onstit!te a $rae #hallen$e to the ri$ht o+ respondent Unionto ask +or #erti"#ation ele#tion& The =ed-Arbiter sho!ld hae looked into the merits

o+ the petition +or #an#ellation be+ore iss!in$ an order #allin$ +or #erti"#ationele#tion& 2e$istration based on +alse and +ra!d!lent statements and do#!ments#on+er no le$itima#y !pon a labor or$aniation irre$!larly re#o$nied, 8hi#h, atbest, holds on to a mere s#rap o+ paper& Under s!#h #ir#!mstan#es, the laboror$aniation, not bein$ a le$itimate labor or$aniation, a#@!ires no ri$hts,parti#!larly the ri$ht to ask +or #erti"#ation ele#tion in a bar$ainin$ !nit&


22/30

- vs. La!uesma

Facts:

Trade Unions o+ the .hilippines-Febr!ary ix =oement (TU.A-F=) "led apetition +or #erti"#ation ele#tion 8ith the ;OLE, +or the p!rpose o+ #hoosin$ abar$ainin$ representatie +or the rank-and-"le employees o+ TransunionCorporation-Glassware Division& .etitioner had then se#!red a %erti"#ation thatTransunion Corporation has no existin$ %A 8ith any labor or$aniation& 7tappears, ho8eer, that be+ore the "lin$ o+ said petition, Integrated LaborOrganization (ILO-Phils.) 8as d!ly #erti"ed by ;OLE as the sole and ex#l!siebar$ainin$ a$ent o+ the rank-and-"le employees o+ Trans!nion %orporation-Glass8are ;iision& A %A 8as then +or$ed bet8een Trans!nion-Glass8are ;iisionand 7LO-.hils& #oerin$ the #ompanySs rank-and-"le employees and 8as rati"ed by a

$reat ma?ority o+ the rank-and V"lers& 7n the meantime, the .resident o+ 7LO-.C7Ldied& An inter-!nion #onQi#t +ollo8ed and the sube!t C"# was $led with DOL%& 'orregistration purposes& more or less, three (0) months +rom its exe#!tion&

7LO-.hils&, interened in the #erti"#ation ele#tion pro#eedin$s initiated by TU.A-F=& 7t opposed the petition in ie8 o+ the existin$ %A bet8een 7LO and the Trans!nion %orporation-Glass8are ;iision& 7t stresses that the petition +or#erti"#ation ele#tion sho!ld be entertained only d!rin$ the +reedom period, or sixtyday be+ore the expiration o+ the %A& =ed-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the$ro!nd o+ premat!rity& TU.A-F= appealed #ontendin$H (/) that p!rs!ant to Arti#le90/ o+ the Labor %ode& %As shall be "le 8ith the 2e$ional OM#e o+ the ;OLE withinthirt (*) das +rom the date o+ si$nin$ thereo+K (9) that said re@!irement is

mandatory, altho!$h it 8o!ld not aDe#t the en+or#eability o+ the %A as bet8eenthe parties theretoK and (0) sin#e the %A 8as "led o!tside the 01-day periodspe#i"ed !nder Arti#le 90/ o+ the Labor %ode, the prohibition a$ainst #erti"#ationele#tion !nder Arti#le 909 o+ the same %ode sho!ld not apply to third parties s!#has petitioner&

Issue:

Whether or not the %A is alid not8ithstandin$ the +a#t that it 8as "ledbeyond 01 days +rom its exe#!tion&

Held:

Bes& 7t appears that the pro#ed!ral re@!irement o+ "lin$ the %A 8ithin 01days +rom date o+ exe#!tion !nder Arti#le 90/ 8as not met& The s!b?e#t %A 8asexe#!ted on Noember 9, /::& 7t 8as rati"ed on ;e#ember , /::, and then"led 8ith ;OLE +or re$istration p!rposes on =ar#h /, /::1& e that as it may, thedelay in the "lin$ o+ the %A 8as s!M#iently explained, i.e&, there 8as an inter-!nion #onQi#t on 8ho 8o!ld s!##eed to the presiden#y o+ 7LO-.C7L& The %A 8asre$istered by the ;OLE only on =ay , /::1& 7t 8o!ld be in?!di#io!s to ass!me thatthe said %A 8as "led only on April 01, /::1, or "e days be+ore its re$istration, onthe !ns!pported s!rmise that it 8as done to s!it the la8 that en?oins 2e$ionalOM#es o+ ;ole to a#t !pon an appli#ation +or re$istration o+ a %A 8ithin "e days+rom its re#eipt thereo+& 7n the absen#e o+ any s!bstantial eiden#e that ;OLEoM#ials or personnel, in #oll!sion 8ith priate respondent, had antedated the "lin$date o+ the %A, the pres!mption on re$!larity in the per+orman#e o+ oM#ial+!n#tions hold&


23/30

=ore importantly, non-#omplian#e 8ith the pro#ed!ral re@!irement sho!ldnot adersely aDe#t the s!bstantie alidity o+ the %A bet8een 7LO-.C7L and the

Trans!nion %orporation-Glass8are ;iision #oerin$ the #ompanySs rank and "leemployees& A #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement is more than a #ontra#t& 7t is hi$hlyimpressed 8ith p!bli# interest +or it is an essential instr!ment to promote ind!strialpea#e& Cen#e, it bears the blessin$s not only o+ the employer and employees

#on#erned b!t een the ;OLE& To set it aside on te#hni#al $ro!nds is not #ond!#ieto the p!bli# $ood&

$avao Inte!rated ort vs. +bar5ue

Facts:

.etitioner ;aao 7nte$rated .ort teedorin$ eri#es (petitioner-#ompany)and priate respondent ATU-TU%. (Union), the ex#l!sie #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$ent

o+ the rank and "le 8orkers o+ petitioner-#ompany, entered into a #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$reement (%A) on O#tober /3, /:5 8hi#h, !nder e#tions / and 0,Arti#le 777 thereo+, proide +or si#k leae 8ith pay bene"ts ea#h year to itsemployees 8ho hae rendered at least one (/) year o+ seri#e 8ith the #ompany&

Upon its rene8al on April /5, /::, the proisions +or si#k leae 8ith paybene"ts 8ere reprod!#ed b!t the #oera$e o+ the said bene"ts 8as expanded toin#l!de the present 2e$!lar Extra Labor .ool as o+ the si$nin$ o+ this A$reement&

;!rin$ the eDe#tiity o+ the %A o+ O#tober /3, /:5, all the "eld 8orkers o+petitioner 8ho are members o+ the re$!lar labor pool and the present re$!lar extralabor pool 8ho had rendered at least 451 ho!rs !p to /,511 ho!rs 8ere extended

si#k leae 8ith pay bene"ts& Any !nen?oyed portion thereo+ at the end o+ the #!rrentyear 8as #onerted to #ash and paid at the end o+ the said one-year periodp!rs!ant to e#tions / and 0, Arti#le 777 o+ the %A&

The #omm!tation o+ the !nen?oyed portion o+ the si#k leae 8ith pay bene"tso+ the intermittent 8orkers or its #onersion to #ash 8as, ho8eer, dis#ontin!ed or8ithdra8n 8hen petitioner-#ompany !nder a ne8 assistant mana$er stopped thepayment o+ its #ash e@!ialent on the $ro!nd that they are not entitled to the saidbene"ts !nder e#tions / and 0 o+ the /:: %A&

Issue:

Whether or not intermittent 8orkers are #oered by the !nder e#tions / and0 o+ the /:: %A&

Held:

Bes& While the terms and #onditions o+ a %A #onstit!te the la8 bet8een theparties, it is not, ho8eer, an ordinary #ontra#t to 8hi#h is applied the prin#iples o+

la8 $oernin$ ordinary #ontra#ts& A %A, as a labor #ontra#t 8ithin the#ontemplation o+ Arti#le /411 o+ the %iil %ode o+ the .hilippines 8hi#h $oerns therelations bet8een labor and #apital, is not merely #ontra#t!al in nat!re b!timpressed 8ith p!bli# interest, th!s, it m!st yield to the #ommon $ood& As s!#h, itm!st be #onstr!ed liberally rather than narro8ly and te#hni#ally, and the #o!rtsm!st pla#e a pra#ti#al and realisti# #onstr!#tion !pon it, $iin$ d!e #onsideration tothe #ontext in 8hi#h it is ne$otiated and p!rpose 8hi#h it is intended to sere&


24/30

7t is th!s erroneo!s +or petitioner to isolate e#tion /, Arti#le 777 o+ the /::%A +rom the other related se#tion on si#k leae 8ith pay bene"ts, spe#i"#allye#tion 0 thereo+, in its attempt to ?!sti+y the dis#ontin!an#e or 8ithdra8al o+ thepriile$e o+ #omm!tation or #onersion to #ash o+ the !nen?oyed portion o+ the si#kleae bene"t to re$!lar intermittent 8orkers& The manner they 8ere depried o+ thepriile$e preio!sly re#o$nied and extended to them by petitioner-#ompany d!rin$

the li+etime o+ the %A o+ O#tober /3, /:5 !ntil three (0) months +rom its rene8alon April /5, /::, or a period o+ three (0) years and nine (:) months, is not onlytainted 8ith arbitrariness b!t like8ise dis#riminatory in nat!re& .etitioner-#ompanyis o+ the mistaken notion that sin#e the priile$e o+ #omm!tation or #onersion to#ash o+ the !nen?oyed portion o+ the si#k leae 8ith pay bene"ts is +o!nd in e#tion/, Arti#le 777, only the re$!lar non-intermittent 8orkers and no other #an aail o+the said priile$e be#a!se o+ the proiso +o!nd in the last senten#e thereo+&

A+ter a #are+!l examination o+ e#tion / in relation to e#tion 0, Arti#le 777 o+the /:: %A in li$ht o+ the +a#ts and #ir#!mstan#es attendant in the instant #ase,the !preme %o!rt "nd and so hold that the last senten#e o+ e#tion /, Arti#le 777o+ the /:: %A, inoked by petitioner-#ompany does not bar the re$!larintermittent 8orkers +rom the priile$e o+ #omm!tation or #onersion to #ash o+ the!nen?oyed portion o+ their si#k leae 8ith pay bene"ts, i+ @!ali"ed& For the phraseherein si#k leae priile$e, as !sed in the last senten#e o+ e#tion /, re+ers to thepriile$e o+ hain$ a "xed /5-day si#k leae 8ith pay 8hi#h, as mandated bye#tion /, only the non-intermittent 8orkers are entitled to& This "xed /5-day si#kleae 8ith pay bene"t sho!ld be distin$!ished +rom the ariable n!mber o+ days o+si#k leae, not to ex#eed /5 days, extended to intermittent 8orkers !nder e#tion 0dependin$ on the n!mber o+ ho!rs o+ seri#e rendered to the #ompany, in#l!din$oertime p!rs!ant to the s#hed!le proided therein& 7t is only +air and reasonable +orpetitioner-#ompany not to stip!late a "xed /5-day si#k leae 8ith pay +or its re$!larintermittent 8orkers sin#e, as the term intermittent implies, there is irre$!larity intheir 8ork-days& 2easonable and pra#ti#al interpretation m!st be pla#ed on#ontra#t!al proisions& 7nterpetatio "enda est !t res ma$is aleat @!am pereat&!#h interpretation is to be adopted, that the thin$ may #ontin!e to hae eM#a#yrather than +ail&

The !preme %o!rt "nds the same to be a reasonable and pra#ti#aldistin#tion readily dis#ernible in e#tion /, in relation to e#tion 0, Arti#le 777 o+ the/:: %A bet8een the t8o #lasses o+ 8orkers in the #ompany inso+ar as si#k leae8ith pay bene"ts are #on#erned& Any other distin#tion 8o!ld #a!se dis#riminationon the part o+ intermittent 8orkers #ontrary to the intention o+ the parties thatm!t!ally a$reed in in#orporatin$ the @!estioned proisions in the /:: %A&


25/30

". Raon vs. Secretary o# Labor and "mployment

Facts:

.etitioner E& 2aon, 7n#& (E27) is a #orporation or$anied in /:39 prin#ipally tobid +or the ri$ht to operate arrastre seri#es in =anila& E27 and the $oernment,thro!$h ..A, exe#!ted a mana$ement #ontra#t #oerin$ all the piers in o!thCarbor, =anila +or a term o+ "e years rene8able +or another "e years& E27 be#ame=etro .ort eri#es, 7n#& (=.7) in /:4& Upon the expiration o+ the mana$ement#ontra#t in /:4, it 8as extended to *!ne 01, /:1& The ..A then exe#!ted a ne8#ontra#t 8ith E27'=.7 +or a term o+ ei$ht () years&

T8o years be+ore the expiration o+ the ei$ht-year term, the ..A #an#elled themana$ement #ontra#t +or alle$ed iolations thereo+& The ..A iss!ed .ermit No&

/193 +or #ar$o-handlin$ seri#es to =arina .ort eri#es, 7n#& (=A27NA)& Thepermit #ontained the +ollo8in$ pertinent para$raph as part o+ the additional termsand #onditions appended as Annex to the permitH

4& Labor and personnel o+ preio!s operator, ex#ept those positions o+ tr!stand #on"den#e, shall be absorbed by $rantee& Labor or employees bene"tsproided +or !nder existin$ %A shall like8ise be honored&

Th!s, =A27NA be$an the arrastre seri#es and re@!ired all 8orkers o+E27'=.7 to a##omplish indiid!al in+ormation sheets& Weeks later, the b!lk o+ the9,411 employees #on#erned dis#oered that they had been hired by =A27NA as ne8employees eDe#tie *!ly 9/, /:3& Cen#e, they #lamored +or the payment o+ their

separation pay b!t both the =A27NA and E27'=.7 re+!sed to be liable there+or&

Issue:

Whether or not =A27NA, as s!##essor o+ =.7, is liable +or the payment o+separation pay !nder the proisions o+ %A exe#!ted bet8een =.7 and its 8orkers&

Held:

No& y absorbin$ E27'=.7 employees and honorin$ the terms and #onditionsin the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement bet8een E27'=.7 and the employees,=A27NA did not ass!me the responsibility o+ E27'=.7 to pay separation pay to itsemployees&

=A27NA mi$ht hae been impelled not only by #ompassion +or the employeesb!t also by their tested skills in hirin$ them ba#k !pon their separation +rom theemployment o+ E27'=.7& 7t sho!ld be re#alled, ho8eer, there is no la8 thatre@!ires the p!r#haser to absorb the employees o+ the sellin$& As s!#h, 8hen=A27NA rehired the E27'=.7 employees, it had all the ri$ht to #onsider them as ne8

ones& On the other hand, E27'=.7, to 8hom years o+ seri#e had been rendered byits s!ddenly ?obless employees, had the #orrespondin$ obli$ation to $rant them8hat is theirs !nder the la8 and the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement& A+ter all, a#olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement is the la8 bet8een the parties&

The sit!ation in this #ase is #ompletely diDerent +rom that obtainin$in +ilipinas Port ,ervi!es& In!. vs. LC, 8here the petitioner 8as obli$ated not onlyto absorb the 8orkers o+ the dissoled #ompanies b!t also to in#l!de the len$th o+


26/30

seri#e earned by the absorbed employees 8ith their +ormer employers as 8ellbe#a!se said #ase inoled a mer$er o+ diDerent #ompanies into a sin$le #ompanyas a res!lt o+ the ..ASs inte$ration o+ steedorin$'arastre seri#es& On the otherhand, in the #ase at bar, there is no priity o+ #ontra#t bet8een E27'=.7 and=A27NA so as to make the latter a #ommon or een s!bstit!te employer that itsho!ld be b!rdened 8ith the obli$ations o+ the +ormer&

Liberty Flour Mills "mployees vs. Liberty Flour Mills

Facts:

2espondent .hilippine Labor Allian#e %o!n#il (.LA%) and respondent LibertyFlo!r =ills, 7n#& entered into a three-year #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement, proidin$+or a daily 8a$e in#rease o+ .9&11 +or /:4, .l&11 +or /:45 and another .l&11 +or/:43& The a$reement #ontained a #omplian#e #la!se 8hi#h states that JThe 8a$e

in#rease in the amo!nts and d!rin$ the period aboe set +orth shall, in the eent o+any stat!tory in#rease o+ the minim!m 8a$e, either as allo8an#e or as basi# 8a$e,d!rin$ the li+e o+ this A$reement, be #onsidered #omplian#e and payment o+ s!#hre@!ired stat!tory in#rease as +ar as it 8ill $o and !nder no #ir#!mstan#es 8ill it be#!m!latie nor d!pli#ation to the diDerential amo!nt inoled #onse@!ent to s!#hstat!tory 8a$e in#reaseI&

.LA% "led a #omplaint a$ainst the respondent #ompany +or non-payment o+the emer$en#y #ost o+ liin$ allo8an#e !nder .&;& No& 595& A similar #omplaint 8as"led by the petitioners, 8ho apparently 8ere already eerin$ a8ay +rom .LA%&

Issue:

Whether or not #omplian#e #la!se o+ the %A is inalid be#a!se it #onstit!tesa 8aier by the laborers o+ +!t!re bene"ts that may be $ranted them by la8&

Held:

No& While the prin#iple is #orre#t, the appli#ation is not, +or there are nobene"ts bein$ 8aied !nder the proision& The bene"ts are already in#l!ded in the8a$e in#reases& 7t is the la8 itsel+ that #onsiders these in#reases, !nder the#onditions pres#ribed in LO7 No& /4, as e@!ialent to, or in lie! o+, the emer$en#yallo8an#e $ranted by .&;& No& 595&

7n +a#t, the #ompany a$reed to $rant the emer$en#y allo8an#e een be+orethe obli$ation 8as imposed by the $oernment& What the petitioners #laim they arebein$ made to 8aie is the additional .51&11 allo8an#e b!t the tr!th is that theyare not entitled to this be#a!se they are already en?oyin$ the stip!lated in#reases&

There is no 8aier o+ these in#reases&

=oreoer, e#tion 9 proides that the 8a$e in#rease shall be #onsidered

payment o+ any stat!tory in#rease o+ the minim!m 8a$e as +ar as it 8ill $o, 8hi#hmeans that any amo!nt not #oered by s!#h 8a$e in#rease 8ill hae to be made$ood by the #ompany& 7n short, the diDeren#e bet8een the stip!lated 8a$e in#reaseand the stat!tory minim!m 8a$e 8ill hae to be paid by the #ompanynot8ithstandin$ and, indeed, p!rs!ant to the said arti#le& There is no 8aier as tothis&


27/30

Metroban( -nion vs. NLRC

Facts:

On 95 =ay /::, the bank entered into a #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement8ith the =T%EU, $rantin$ a monthly .:11 8a$e in#rease eDe#tie 1/ *an!ary/::, .311 8a$e in#rease 1/ *an!ary /::1, and .911 8a$e in#rease eDe#tie 1/

*an!ary /::/& The =T%EU had also bar$ained +or the in#l!sion o+ probationaryemployees in the list o+ employees 8ho 8o!ld bene"t +rom the "rst .:11 in#reaseb!t the bank had adamantly re+!sed to a##ede thereto& %onse@!ently, only re$!laremployees as o+ 1/ *an!ary /:: 8ere $ien the in#rease to the ex#l!sion o+probationary employees&

arely a month later, 2ep!bli# A#t 3494, an a#t to rationalie 8a$e poli#y

determination be establishin$ the me#hanism and proper standards thereo+, "xin$ne8 8a$e rates, proidin$ 8a$e in#enties +or ind!strial dispersal to the#o!ntryside, and +or other p!rposes, took eDe#t&

.!rs!ant to the aboe proisions, the bank $ae the .95 in#rease per day, or.451 a month, to its probationary employees and to those 8ho had been promotedto re$!lar or permanent stat!s be+ore 1/ *!ly /:: b!t 8hose daily rate 8as ./11and belo8& The bank re+!sed to $ie the same in#rease to its re$!lar employees8ho 8ere re#eiin$ more than ./11 per day and re#ipients o+ the .:11 %Ain#rease&

%ontendin$ that the bankSs implementation o+ 2ep!bli# A#t 3494 res!lted a

s!bstantially red!#ed salary $ap, the =T%EU so!$ht +rom the bank the #orre#tiono+ the alle$ed distortion in pay&

Issue:

Whether or not the bene"ts !nder the %A sho!ld be e@!ated 8ith those$ranted 2A3494&

Held:

Bes& The intentional @!antitatie diDeren#es in 8a$e amon$ employees o+the bank has been set by the %A to abo!t .:11 per month as o+ 1/ *an!ary /::&7t is intentional as it has been arried at thro!$h the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ pro#ess to8hi#h the parties are thereby #on#l!ded& The oli#itor General has #orre#tlyemphasied that the intention o+ the parties, 8hether the bene"ts !nder a #olle#tiebar$ainin$ a$reement sho!ld be e@!ated 8ith those $ranted by la8 or not, !nlessthere are #ompellin$ reasons other8ise, m!st preail and be $ien eDe#t&

7n keepin$ then 8ith the intendment o+ the la8 and the a$reement o+ the

parties themseles, alon$ 8ith the o+ten repeated r!le that all do!bts in theinterpretation and implementation o+ labor la8s sho!ld be resoled in +aor o+labor, 67 8e m!st approximate an a##eptable @!antitatie diDeren#e bet8een andamon$ the %A a$reed 8ork leels& The !preme %o!rt is o+ the ie8 that $iin$the employees an a#ross-the-board in#rease o+ .451 may not be #ond!#ie to thepoli#y o+ en#o!ra$in$ employers to $rant 8a$e and allo8an#e in#reases to theiremployees hi$her than the minim!m rates o+ in#reases pres#ribed by stat!te oradministratie re$!lation, parti#!larly in this #ase 8here both 2A 3494 and the %A


28/30

allo8 a #redit +or ol!ntary #omplian#e& As the !preme %o!rt also pointed o!tin #pe/ 0ining Co1pan& In!& v & LCH JTo #ompel employers simply to add onle$islated in#reases in salaries or allo8an#es 8itho!t re$ard to 8hat is alreadybein$ paid, 8o!ld be to penalie employers 8ho $rant their 8orkers more than thestat!torily pres#ribed minim!m rates o+ in#reases& %learly, this 8o!ld be #o!nter-prod!#tie so +ar as se#!rin$ the interests o+ labor is #on#erned&


29/30

SMFM)-0 vs. NLRC

Facts:

.etitioner amahan$ =an$$a$a8a sa Top Form =an!+a#t!rin$ UnitedWorkers o+ the .hilippines (=TF=) 8as the #erti"ed #olle#tie bar$ainin$representatie o+ all re$!lar rank and "le employees o+ priate respondent Top Form=an!+a#t!rin$ .hilippines, 7n#& At the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ ne$otiation held, theparties a$reed to dis#!ss !nresoled e#onomi# iss!es& A##ordin$ to the min!tes o+the meetin$, Arti#le 77 o+ the #olle#tie bar$ainin$ a$reement 8as dis#!ssed& 7tappears in said =in!tes that JUnion proposed that any +!t!re 8a$e in#rease $ienby the $oernment sho!ld be implemented by the #ompany a#ross-the-board ornon-#onditionalI&

On O#tober /5, /::1, the 2TW.-N%2 iss!ed Wa$e Order No& 1/ $rantin$ anin#rease o+ ./4&11 per day in the salary o+ 8orkers& This 8as +ollo8ed by Wa$eOrder No& 19 dated ;e#ember 91, /::1 proidin$ +or a ./9&11 daily in#rease insalary&

As expe#ted, the !nion re@!ested the implementation o+ said 8a$e orders&Co8eer, they demanded that the in#rease be on an a#ross-the-board basis& .riaterespondent re+!sed to a##ede to that demand& 7nstead, it implemented a s#heme o+in#reases p!rportedly to aoid 8a$e distortion&

Issue:

Whether or not the =in!tes o+ the meetin$ re$ardin$ the ne$otiation o+ a %Aproision +orms part o+ the entire a$reement bet8een the parties&

Held:

No, i+ there 8as indeed a promise or !ndertakin$ on the part o+ priaterespondent to obli$ate itsel+ to $rant an a!tomati# a#ross-the-board 8a$e in#rease,petitioner !nion sho!ld hae re@!ested or demanded that s!#h promise or!ndertakin$ be in#orporated in the %A& A+ter all, petitioner !nion has the means!nder the la8 to #ompel priate respondent to in#orporate this spe#i"# e#onomi#proposal in the %A& 7t #o!ld hae inoked Arti#le 959 o+ the Labor %ode de"nin$d!ty to bar$ain, th!s, the d!ty in#l!des exe#!tin$ a #ontra#t in#orporatin$ s!#ha$reements i+ re@!ested by either party& .etitioner !nionSs assertion that it hadinsisted on the in#orporation o+ the same proposal may hae a +a#t!al basis#onsiderin$ the alle$ations in the a+orementioned ?oint aMdait o+ its members&Co8eer, Arti#le 959 also states that the d!ty to bar$ain does not #ompel anyparty to a$ree to a proposal or make any #on#ession& Th!s, petitioner !nion maynot alidly #laim that the proposal embodied in the =in!tes o+ the ne$otiation +ormspart o+ the %A that it "nally entered into 8ith priate respondent&

Only proisions embodied in the %A sho!ld be so interpreted and #omplied8ith& Where a proposal raised by a #ontra#tin$ party does not "nd print in the%A, it is not a part thereo+ and the proponent has no #laim 8hatsoeer to itsimplementation& Cen#e, petitioner !nionSs #ontention that the =in!tes o+ the#olle#tie bar$ainin$ ne$otiation meetin$ +orms part o+ the entire a$reement ispointless& The =in!tes reQe#ts the pro#eedin$s and dis#!ssions !ndertaken in thepro#ess o+ bar$ainin$ +or 8orker bene"ts in the same 8ay that the min!tes o+ #o!rt


30/30

pro#eedin$s sho8 8hat transpired therein& At the ne$otiations, it is b!t nat!ral +orboth mana$ement and labor to adopt positions or make demands and oDerproposals and #o!nter-proposals& Co8eer, nothin$ is #onsidered "nal !ntil theparties hae rea#hed an a$reement& 7+ indeed priate respondent pro1ised to#ontin!e 8ith the pra#ti#e o+ $rantin$ a#ross-the-board salary in#reases ordered bythe $oernment, s!#h pro1ise #o!ld only be demandable in la8 i+ in#orporated in

the %A&

Documents

Labor Case 124-147 Digests