PALACOL vs.

PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

through a secret referendum held in separate

FACTS: October 12, 1987, the respondent

local membership meetings on various dates

Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union (hereinafter

800

referred to as the Union), as the collective

authorized the 10% special assessment, while

bargaining agent of all regular salesmen, regular

173 opposed the same. 170) members of the

helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant

Union submitted documents to the Company

and Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent

stating that although they have ratified the new

Coca-Cola

Inc.

CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the

Company)

deduction of any amount from their CBA lump

bargaining

sum. Later, 185 other union members submitted

agreement with the latter. Salary increase given

similar documents expressing the same intent.

in lump sum.

These members, numbering 355 in all (170 +

Bottlers

(hereinafter

referred

concluded

president

of

(Philippines),
to

new

the

as

the

collective

Union

submitted

to

the

Company the ratification by the union members

of the new CBA and authorization for the
Company to deduct union dues equivalent to

members.

672

members

originally

185), added to the original oppositors of 173,

turned the tide in favor of disauthorization for the
special assessment, with a total of 528 objectors
and a remainder of 272 supporters.

P10.00 every payday or P20.00 every month

The company filed an action for interpleader with

and, in addition, 10% by way of special

the Bureau of Labor Relations in order to resolve

assessment, from the CBA lump-sum pay

the conflicting claims of the parties concerned.

granted to the union members.

Petitioners,

Board Resolution of the Union dated September

29, 1987, the purpose of the special assessment
sought to be levied is to put up a cooperative
and credit union; purchase vehicles and other
items needed for the benefit of the officers and
the general membership; and for the payment
for

services

rendered

by

union

officers,

consultants and others. There was also an

who

are

regular

rank-and-file

employees of the Company and bona fide

members of the Union, filed a motion/complaint
for intervention therein in two groups of 161 and
94, respectively. They claimed to be among
those union members who either did not sign
any individual written authorization, or having
signed one, subsequently withdrew or retracted
their signatures therefrom.

additional proviso stating that the matter of

Union countered that the deductions not only

allocation shall be at the discretion of our

have the popular indorsement and approval of

incumbent Union President. Authorization and

the general membership, but likewise complied

CBA Ratificationwas obtained by the Union

with the legal requirements of Article 241 (n) and

(o) of the Labor Code in that the board resolution

held local membership meetings on separate

of the Union imposing the questioned special

occasions, on different dates and at various

assessment had been duly approved in a

venues, contrary to the express requirement that

general membership meeting and that the

there must be a general membership meeting.

collection of a special fund for labor education

The contention of the Union that the local

and research is mandated.

membership meetings are precisely the very

Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz ruled in favor of

petitioners in an order dated February 15, 1988
whereby he directed the Company to remit the
amount it had kept in trust directly to the rankand-file personnel without delay. Appealed to
BLR, reversed.

general meetings required by law is untenable

because the law would not have specified a
general membership meeting had the legislative
intent been to allow local meetings in lieu of the
latter.
submitted only minutes of the local membership

RULING: convinced that the deduction of the

10% special assessmentby the Union was not

meetings when what is required is a written

resolution adopted at the general meeting.

made in accordance with the requirements

The

provided by law.

contained no list of the members present and no

The principle that employees are protected by

minutes

submitted

to

the

Company

record of the votes cast.

law from unwarranted practices that diminish

Handwritten authorization which complied with

their compensation without their known edge

the law is valid. However, its withdrawal means

andconsent is in accord with the constitutional

no authorization was given.

principle of the State affording full protection to

labor.
the failure of the Union to comply strictly with the
requirements set out by the law invalidates the
questioned

special

assessment.

Substantialcompliance is not enough in view of

the fact that the special assessment will diminish
the compensation of the union members. Their
express consent is required, and this consent
must be obtained in accordance with the steps
outlined by law, which must be followed to the
letter. No shortcuts are allowed.

Benjamin Vidoriano Vs Elizalde

Rope Workers union GR No. L25246 September 12 1974
FACTS: Benjamin victoriano a member
of iglesia ni cristo had been in the
employ of the Elizalde Rope factory Inc
since 1958. Her was a member of
elizalde rope workers union which had
with the company a CBA containing a
closed shop provision which reads as
follow Membership union shall be
required as a condition of employment
for all permanent employees worker
covered by this agreement. RA 3350
was
enacted
introducing
an
amendment
to
paragraph
(4)

subsection (a) of section 4 of RA 875

as follows but such agreement shall
not cover members of any religious
sect which prohibit affiliation of their
member
in
any
such
0labor
organization
Benjamin
victoriano
presents his resignation to appellant
union thereupon the union wrote a
formal letter to separate the appellee
from the service in view of the fact
that he was resigning from the union
as member of the company notified
the apellee and his counsel that unless
the
appellee
could
achieve
a
satisfactory arrangement with the
union
the
company
would
be
constrained to dismiss him from the
service . this prompted appellee to file
an action for injunction to enjoin the
company
and
the
union
from
dismissing
apallee.
ISSUE:
WON
unconstitutional

RA

3350

is

HELD: the constitution provision only

prohibits legislation for the support of
any religious tenets or the modes of
worship of any sect, thus forestalling
compulsion by law of the acceptance
of any creed or the chosen form of
religion within limits of utmost
amplitude. RA 3350 does not require
as a qualification on condition in
joining
any
lawful
association
membership in any particular religion
on in any religious sect neither does
the act requires affiliation with a
religious sect that prohibits its
member from joining a labor union as
a condition on qualification for
withdrawing from labor union RA 3350
only exempts member with such
religious affililiation from the required
to do a positive act to exercise the
right to join or to resign from the
union. He is exempted from form the

coverage
of
any
closed
shop
agreement that a labor union may
have entered into. Therefore RA 3350
is never an illegal evasion of
constitutional provision or prohibition
to accomplish a desired result which is
lawful in itself by vering or following a
legal way to do it.

Ebralinag, et al vs. Div. Supt. of Schools of

Cebu
G.R.

No.

95770,

March

1,

1993

Facts:
In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received
complaints about teachers and pupils belonging
to the Jehovahs Witness, and enrolled in
various public and private schools, which
refused to sing the Phil. National Anthem, salute
the flag and recite the patriotic pledge.
Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B.
Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and her
Assistant issued Division Memorandum No. 108,
dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing District
Supervisors, High School Principals and Heads
of Private Educational institutions to remove
from service, after due process, teachers and
school employees, and to deprive the students
and pupils from the benefit of public education, if
they do not participate in daily flag ceremony
and
doesnt
obey
flag
salute
rule.
Members of the Jehovahs Witness sect find
such memorandum to be contrary to their
religious belief and choose not to obey. Despite
a number of appropriate persuasions made by
the Cebu officials to let them obey the directives,
still they opted to follow their conviction to their
belief. As a result, an order was issued by the
district supervisor of Daan Bantayan District of
Cebu, dated July 24, 1990, ordering the
dropping from the list in the school register of
all Jehovahs Witness teachers and pupils from
Grade 1 to Grade 6 who opted to follow their
belief which is against the Flag Salute Law,
however, given a chance to be re-accepted if

they

change

their

mind.

Some Jehovahs Witness members appealed to

the Secretary of Education but the latter did not
answer
to
their
letter.
On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents
filed special civil actions for Mandamus,
Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the
respondents acted without or in excess of their
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in
ordering their expulsion without prior notice and
hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due
process, their right to free public education and
their right to freedom of speech, religion and
worship. Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the
order of expulsion or dropping from the rolls
issued by the District Supervisor; prohibiting and
enjoining respondent from barring them from
classes; and compelling the respondent and all
persons acting for him to admit and order
their(Petitioners) re-admission I their respective
schools.
On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO
and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
commanding the respondents to immediately readmit the petitioners to their respective classes
until
further
orders.
On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a
consolidated comment to the petitions defending
the expulsion orders issued by the respondents.
Petitioners stressed that while they do not take
part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do
not engage in external acts or behavior that
would offend their countrymen who believe in
expressing their love of country through
observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly
stand at attention during the flag ceremony to
show their respect for the right of those who
choose to participate in the solemn proceedings.
Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior,
there is no warrant for their expulsion.
Issue:
Whether or not the expulsion of the members of
Jehovahs Witness from the schools violates
right
receive
free
education.

Held:
The expulsion of the members of Jehovahs
Witness from the schools where they are
enrolled will violate their right as Philippine
citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive
free education, for it is the duty of the state to
protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education, and to make such education
accessible to all (Sec. I, Art XIV). Nevertheless,
their right not to participate in the Flag
Ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt
such patriotic exercises. If they quietly stand at
attention during flag ceremony while their
classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing
the national anthem and recite the patriotic
pledge, we do not see how such conduct may
possibly disturb the peace, or pose a grave and
present danger of a serious evil to public safety,
public morals, public health or any legitimate
public interest that the state has a right and duty
to
prevent.
It is appropriate to recall the Japanese
occupation of our country in 1942-1944 when
every
Filipino,
regardless
of
religious
persuasion, in fear of the invader, saluted the
Japanese flag and bowed before every
Japanese soldier, perhaps if petitioners had
lived through that dark period of our history, they
would not quibble now about saluting the Phil.
Flag.
The petitions for certiorari and prohibition are
granted and expulsion orders are hereby
annulled and set aside.
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
ALLIED
SERVICES, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION and
ATTY. VIRGILIO SY, as Officer-in-Charge of
the Bureau of Labor Relations, respondents.
FACTS:
Respondent National Housing Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as NHC) is a corporation
organized in 1959 in accordance with Executive
Order No. 399, otherwise known as the Uniform
Charter of Government Corporations, dated
January 1, 1951. Its shares of stock are and
have been one hundred percent (100%) owned

by the Government from its incorporation under

Act 459, the former corporation law.
Petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines and
Allied Services (TUPAS, for brevity) is a
legitimate labor organization with a chapter in
NHC.
On July 13, 1977, TUPAS filed a petition for the
conduct of a certification election with Regional
Office No. IV of the Department of Labor in order
to
determine
the
exclusive
bargaining
representative of the workers in NHC. It was
claimed that its members comprised the majority
of the employees of the corporation. 2 The
petition was dismissed by med-arbiter Eusebio
M. Jimenez in an order, dated November 7,
1977, holding that NHC "being a governmentowned and/or controlled corporation its
employees/workers are prohibited to form, join
or assist any labor organization for purposes of
collective bargaining pursuant to Section 1, Rule
II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code." 3
ISSUE:
WON TUPAS has a right to self organization
HELD:
YES
RATIO
The workers or employees of NHC undoubtedly
have the right to form unions or employees'
organizations. The right to unionize or to form

organizations is now explicitly recognized and

granted to employees in both the governmental
and the private sectors. The Bill of Rights
provides that "(t)he right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged"
There is, therefore, no impediment to the holding
of a certification election among the workers of
NHC for it is clear that they are covered by the
Labor Code, the NHC being a governmentowned and/or controlled corporation without an
original charter. Statutory implementation of the
last cited section of the Constitution is found in
Article 244 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Executive Order No. 111, thus:
... Right of employees in the
public service Employees of
the government corporations
established
under
the
Corporation Code shall have the
right to organize and to bargain
collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees
in the civil service shall have the
right to form associations for
purposes not contrary to law.