Labor Relations Law

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
LAST-MINUTE
NOTES ON THE 2012 BAR EXAMINATION IN LABOR LAW BASED ON THE
SUPREME COURT-PRESCRIBED SYLLABUS
Ch
a
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW
Ch
na
Ch
to
os
Jo
f.
Pr
o
Pr
3. Right to Peaceful Concerted Activities

a. Forms of Concerted Activities
b. Who may declare a strike or lockout?
c. Requisites for a valid strike
d. Requisites for a valid lockout
e. Requisites for lawful picketing
f. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor
or Certification of the Labor dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration
g. Nature of Assumption Order or Certification Order
h. Effect of defiance of Assumption or Certification Orders
se
li
.J
of
Pr
of
.J
el
it
os
2. Right to Collective Bargaining

a. Duty to bargain collectively
(1) Kiok Loy ruling
b. Mandatory provisions of CBA
(1) Grievance Procedure
(2) Voluntary Arbitration
(3) No Strike-No Lockout Clause
(4) Labor Management Council
c. ULP in Collective Bargaining
(1) Bargaining in bad faith
(2) Refusal to bargain
(3) Individual bargaining
(4) Blue sky bargaining
(5) Surface bargaining
d. Unfair Labor Practice
(1) ULP of Employers
(2) ULP of Labor Organizations
an
el
Gu
ia
it
o
na
Gu
ia
to
na
Gu
ia
1. Right to Self-organization
a. Who may unionize for purposes of collective bargaining
(1) Who cannot form, join or assist labor organizations
(2) Executive Order No. 180
b. Bargaining unit
(1) Test to determine the constituency of an appropriate bargaining unit
(2) Voluntary Recognition
(a) Requirements
(3) Certification election
(a) In an unorganized establishment
(b) In an organized establishment
(c) Rules prohibiting the filing of petition for certification election
(d) Requirements for validity of certification election
(e) Protests and other questions arising from conduct of certification election
(4) Run-off election
(a) Requirements
(5) Re-run election
(6) Consent election
(7) Affiliation and disaffiliation of the local union from the mother union
(a) Substitutionary doctrine
(8) Union dues and special assessments
(a) Requirements for validity
(9) Agency fees
(a) Requisites for assessment
an
TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS
Gu
ia
n
==================================================================
se
li
Jo
an
[These 8-part Notes discuss all topics/sub-topics in the Supreme Court-prescribed Syllabus for Labor Law]
LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

Ch
a
i. Illegal Strike
(1) Liability of officers of the unions
(2) Liability of ordinary workers
(3) Waiver of illegality of strike
j. Injunctions
(1) Requisites for Labor Injunctions
(2) Innocent Bystander Rule
an
Ch
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
==============================
TOPIC UNDER THE SYLLABUS:
a. Who may unionize for purposes
of collective bargaining
(1) Who cannot form, join or
assist labor organizations
(2) Executive Order No. 180
==============================
Relevant Provisions: Book V, Labor Code

Executive Order No. 180, Series of 1987 [June 01, 1987]
ia
to
1.CONSTITUTIONALBASIS.
Gu
ia
n
to
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
Gu
1.CONSTITUTIONALBASIS.
Underthe1987Constitution,itismandatedthattheStateaffirmslaborasaprimarysocialeconomicforce.It
shallprotecttherightsofworkersandpromotetheirwelfare.4Consequently,theStateisrequiredtoguaranteethe
rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
includingtherighttostrikeinaccordancewithlaw.5Further,theConstitutiondeclaresthattherightofthepeople,
includingthoseemployedinthepublicandprivatesectors,toformunions,associations,orsocietiesforpurposesnot
contrarytolaw,shallnotbeabridged.6
1.WHOMAYUNIONIZEFORPURPOSESOFCOLLECTIVEBARGAINING.
a.Personswhomayjoin,formorassistalabororganizationforcollectivebargainingpurposes.
Thefollowingareeligibletojoin,formorassistalabororganization:
1. Allpersonsemployedincommercial,industrialandagriculturalenterprises;
2. Employees of governmentowned or controlled corporations without original charters established under
theCorporationCode;
3. Employeesofreligious,charitable,medicaloreducationalinstitutions,whetheroperatingforprofitornot;7
b.Employeeswhoareallowedtoorganizealabororganizationonlyformutualaidandprotectionbutnot
forcollectivebargainingpurposes.
Ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the selfemployed, rural workers and those without any definite
employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes except
collectivebargaining.8Thereasonforthisruleisthatthesepersonshavenoemployerstocollectivelybargainwith.
c.Ruleontherightofsupervisorstojoinaunion.
Thereisnoprohibitioninthelaworintheimplementingrulesregardingtherightofsupervisoryemployeesto
organizealabororganizationorworkersassociationoftheirown.Theyare,however,notallowedtobecomemembers
ofalaborunioncomposedofrankandfileemployees.ThisisclearunderArticle245oftheLaborCode.9Incasethereis
Section 18, Article II [Declaration of Principles and State Policies], 1987 Constitution.
Section 3 [Labor], Article XIII [Social Justice and Human Rights], 1987 Constitution.
Section 8, Article III [Bill of Rights], 1987 Constitution.
4 Section 18, Article II [Declaration of Principles and State Policies], 1987 Constitution.
5 Section 3 [Labor], Article XIII [Social Justice and Human Rights], 1987 Constitution.
6 Section 8, Article III [Bill of Rights], 1987 Constitution.
7 Article 243, Labor Code; Section 2, Rule II, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003] and further amended by Department Order No. 40-C-05, Series of 2005 [March 7, 2005]; See also Article 243,
Labor Code.
8 Article 243, Labor Code; FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, Inc. v. Trajano, G.R. No. 76273, July 31, 1987.
9 Ibid..
1
2
3
an
ia
it
o
na
Gu
Underthe1987Constitution,itismandatedthattheStateaffirmslaborasaprimarysocialeconomicforce.It
shallprotecttherightsofworkersandpromotetheirwelfare.1Consequently,theStateisrequiredtoguaranteethe
rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
includingtherighttostrikeinaccordancewithlaw.2Further,theConstitutiondeclaresthattherightofthepeople,
includingthoseemployedinthepublicandprivatesectors,toformunions,associations,orsocietiesforpurposesnot
contrarytolaw,shallnotbeabridged.3
se
li
Jo
an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
to
os
of
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
Pr
a.Personsnotallowedtoform,joinorassistlabororganizations.
1. Managerialemployees;and
2. Confidentialemployees.
b.Typesofmanagerialemployeesforpurposesofexercisingrighttoselforganization.
Thereare3typesofmanagerialemployees:
1.TopManagement
2.MiddleManagement
3.FirstLineManagement(alsocalledsupervisorylevel)21
TopManagement.Thisiscomposedofacomparativelysmallgroupofexecutives.Itisresponsibleforthe
overallmanagementoftheorganization.Itestablishesoperatingpoliciesandguidestheorganizationsinteractionswith
A new provision inserted into the Labor Code by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9481 (effective on June 14, 2007).
Ibid..
Under Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 87 [Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize] of which the Philippines is a signatory, workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and subject only to the rules of the organization
concerned, job organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.
13 Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 98 which dwells on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining.
14 Article 111, Chapter 3, Title VI, P.D. No. 603, otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1179 which took effect on Aug. 15, 1977.
15 Section 3, Department Order No. 5, Feb. 04, 1992.
16 Section 4, Ibid..
17 Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002, [Feb. 21, 2002].
18 Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 77951, Sept. 26, 1988; San Jose Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Ministry of Labor, G.R. No. 77231, May 31, 1989.
19 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 79025, Dec. 29, 1989.
20 Central Negros Electric Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 94045, Sept. 13, 1991.
21 Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Laguesma, [G.R. No. 101738, April 12, 2000]; United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union [UPSU] v. Laguesma, [G.R. No. 122226, March 25, 1998, 288 SCRA 15, 21-23].
Pr
o
10
11
12
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
mixedmembershipofsupervisorsandrankandfileemployeesinoneunion,thenewruleenunciatedinArticle245A10
oftheLaborCode,unlikeintheoldrules,isthatitcannotbeinvokedasagroundforthecancellationoftheregistration
oftheunion.Theemployeessoimproperlyincludedareautomaticallydeemedremovedfromthelistofmembersof
saidunion.Inotherwords,theirremovalfromthesaidlistisbyoperationoflaw.
d.Ruleontherightofmanagerialemployeestojoinaunion.
Asfarasmanagerialemployeesareconcerned,theyareabsolutelyprohibitedfromforming,joiningorassisting
anylaborunionsforpurposesofcollectivebargaining.ThisisalsoclearunderArticle245oftheLaborCode.11
e.Ruleontherightofalienemployeestojoinaunion.
AlienemployeeswithvalidworkingpermitsissuedbytheDepartmentofLaborandEmploymentmayexercise
theirrighttoselforganizationandjoinorassistlaborunionsforpurposesofcollectivebargainingbutonlyiftheyare
nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers, as certified by the Department of
ForeignAffairs,orwhichhasratifiedeitherILOConventionNo.8712orILOConventionNo.98.13
f.Ruleontherightofworkingchildrentoselforganization.
Workingchildrenhavethesamefreedomasadultstojointhecollectivebargainingunionoftheirownchoosing
inaccordancewithexistinglaw.UnderPresidentialDecreeNo.603,itisclearlyprovidedthatneithermanagementnor
anycollectivebargainingunionshallthreatenorcoerceworkingchildrentojoin,continueorwithdrawasmembersof
suchunion.14
g.Ruleontherightofhomeworkerstoselforganization.
Homeworkers have the right to form, join or assist organizations of their own choosing in accordance with
law.15Theregistrationofhomeworkersorganizationsorassociationsfollowingtherequirementsprescribedbylaw,will
vestlegalpersonalitythereto.16
h.Ruleontherightofemployeesofcontractorstoselforganization.
Acontractualemployeeofalegitimateindependentcontractorisentitledtoalltherightsandprivilegesduea
regular employee as provided in the Labor Code including the right to selforganization, collective bargaining and
peacefulconcertedaction.17
i.Ruleontherightofmembersoremployeesofcooperativestoselforganization.
Members of a cooperative have no right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining for being themselves coowners of the cooperative. This prohibition covers employees of the cooperative
whoareatthesametimemembersthereof.18
However,insofarasthecooperativesemployeeswhoarenotmembersorcoownersthereofareconcerned,
theyareentitledtoexercisetheirrighttoselforganizationandcollectivebargainingasguaranteedintheConstitution
andexistinglaws.Itisthefactofownershipofthecooperativeandnotinvolvementinthemanagementthereofwhich
disqualifiesamemberfromjoininganylabororganizationwithinthecooperative.Thus,irrespectiveofthedegreeof
theirparticipationintheactualmanagementofthecooperative,allmembersthereofcannotform,assistorjoinalabor
organizationforthepurposeofcollectivebargaining.19
Butemployeemembersofacooperativemaywithdrawasmembersofthecooperativeforpurposesofjoining
alaborunion.20
3.WHOCANNOTFORM,JOINORASSISTLABORORGANIZATIONS.
3

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, Aug. 3, 2010; Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116194, Feb. 2, 2000.
San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399, Aug. 15, 1997, 277 SCRA 370, 374-375.
See San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra; National Association of Trade Unions - Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, Dec. 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546, 560.
25 Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116194, Feb. 2, 2000.
26 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union [SCBEU-NUBE] v. Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008; Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 108855, Feb. 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182; 324 Phil. 416.
22
23
24
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
its environment. Typical titles of top managers are chief executive officer, president, or senior vicepresident.
Actualtitlesvaryfromoneorganizationtoanotherandarenotalwaysareliableguidetomembershipinthehighest
managementclassification.
Middle Management. Thisrefers to more than one level in anorganization. Middlemanagers direct the
activities of other managers and sometimes also those of operating employees. The middle managers principal
responsibilitiesaretodirecttheactivitiesthatimplementtheirorganizationspoliciesandtobalancethedemandsof
theirsuperiorswiththecapacitiesoftheirsubordinates.Aplantmanagerinanelectronicfirmisanexampleofamiddle
manager.
FirstLineManagement.Thisisthelowestlevelinanorganizationatwhichindividualsareresponsibleforthe
workofothers.Firstlinemanagersdirectoperatingemployeesonly;theydonotsuperviseothermanagers.Examples
offirstlinemanagersaretheforemanorproductionsupervisorinamanufacturingplant,thetechnicalsupervisorina
researchdepartment,andtheclericalsupervisorinalargeoffice.Firstlevelmanagersareoftencalledsupervisors.
Basedontheaboveclassification,managerialemployeesmayfallintotwo(2)distinctcategories:namely:
1.Themanagerspersecomposedoftopandmiddlemanagers;and
2.Thesupervisorscomposedoffirstlinemanagers.
Only the second above is allowed to form, join or assist a labor organization for purposes of collective
bargaining.
c.Confidentialemployeerule.
Withinthecontextoflaborrelations,confidentialemployeesarethosewhomeetthefollowingcriteria:
(1) Theyassistoractinaconfidentialcapacity;
(2) Topersonsorofficerswhoformulate,determine,andeffectuatemanagementpoliciesspecificallyinthe
fieldoflaborrelations.
Thetwo(2)criteriaarecumulativeandbothmustbemetifanemployeeistobeconsideredaconfidential
employee.22
Aconfidentialemployeemaybearankandfileorsupervisoryemployeebutbecauseinthenormalcourseof
hisduties,hebecomesawareofmanagementpoliciesrelatingtolaborrelations,heisnotallowedtoassist,formorjoin
arankandfileunionorsupervisoryunion,asthecasemaybe.Hisexclusionfromthebargainingunitisjustifiedunder
the confidential employee rule. To allow him to join a union would give rise to a potential conflict of interest.
Managementshouldnotberequiredtohandlelaborrelationsmattersthroughemployeeswhoarerepresentedbythe
union with which the company is required to deal and who, in the normal performance of their duties, may obtain
advance information on the companys position with regard to collective bargaining negotiations, the disposition of
grievances,orotherlaborrelationsmatters.23
However,itmustbestressedthatthemereaccessofanemployeetoconfidentiallaborrelationsinformation
whichismerelyincidentaltohisdutiesand,therefore,knowledgethereofisnotnecessaryintheperformanceofsaid
duties,doesnotmakesuchemployeeaconfidentialemployee.Ifaccesstoconfidentiallaborrelationsinformationisto
beafactorinthedeterminationofanemployeesconfidentialstatus,suchinformationmustrelatetotheemployers
laborrelationspolicies.Therefore,accesstoinformationwhichisregardedbytheemployertobeconfidentialfromthe
businessstandpoint,suchasfinancialinformationortechnicaltradesecrets,willnotrenderanemployeeaconfidential
employee. An employee may not be excluded from an appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to
confidentialinformationconcerningtheemployersinternalbusinessoperationswhichisnotrelatedtothefieldoflabor
relations.24
Thus,evenabankcashierwhoalsoservesasthesecretaryoftheboardofdirectorsmaynotbeclassifiedasa
confidentialemployeedisqualifiedtojoinaunion.True,theboardofdirectorsisresponsibleforcorporatepolicies,the
exerciseofcorporatepowersandthegeneralmanagementofthebusinessandaffairsofthecorporation.Assecretaryof
thebanksgoverningbody,theemployeeservesthebanksmanagement,butcouldnotbedeemedtohaveaccessto
confidential information specifically relating to the banks labor relations policies, absent a clear showing on this
matter.25
Thedoctrineofnecessaryimplicationisthelegalbasisfortheineligibilityofaconfidentialemployeetojoina
union. The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit of rankandfile
employeesorsupervisoryemployeesisalreadywellentrenchedinjurisprudence.WhileArticle245oftheLaborCode
limitstheineligibilitytojoin,assistorformalabororganizationtomanagerialemployees,jurisprudencehasextended
thisprohibitiontoconfidentialemployeesorthosewho,byreasonoftheirpositionsornatureofwork,arerequiredto
assistoractinafiduciarymannertomanagerialemployeesand,therefore,arelikewiseprivytosensitiveandhighly
confidentialrecords.26
Article 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union
activities.Theirdisqualificationproceedsmerelyfromtheapplicationofthedoctrineofnecessaryimplicationbecause
4

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Chua v. Civil Service Commission, [G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992, 206 SCRA 65].
Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, [G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 471].
Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210 SCRA 339].
30 Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, [G.R. No. 110854, February 13, 1995, 241 SCRA 294].
31 Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, [G.R. No. 108855, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182; 324 Phil. 416].
32 San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399, Aug. 15, 1997, 277 SCRA 370; National Association of Trade Unions - Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, Dec. 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546, 560.
33 Article 277 [c], Labor Code; No. 10, Basic Amendments under R. A. 6715, prepared by Members of the Senate-House Conference Committee of Congress.
34 Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) v. Calleja, G.R. No. 80882, April 24, 1989, 172 SCRA 676.
35 Enunciated in Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, [G.R. No. 96566, January 6, 1992]; Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment-Office of the Secretary, [G.R. No. 157117, November 20, 2006] and in other related cases.
36 Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9481 [effective June 14, 2007].
27
28
29
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
what Article 245 singles out as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization are managerial employees. By
necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a
statuteisasmuchapartthereofasthatwhichisexpressed.27
Simplystated,inthecollectivebargainingprocess,managerialemployeesaresupposedtobeonthesideofthe
employertoactasitsrepresentativesandtoseetoitthatitsinterestsarewellprotected.Theemployerisnotassured
ofsuchprotectionifmanagerialemployeesthemselvesareunionmembers.Collectivebargaininginsuchasituationcan
becomeonesided.Itisthesamereasonwhythepositionsofconfidentialemployeesareincludedinthedisqualification
foundinArticle245asifsuchdisqualificationwaswrittenintheprovision.Ifconfidentialemployeescouldunionizein
order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the
interest of the employer. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act in the interest of the
employers.Itisnotfarfetchedthatinthecourseofthecollectivebargainingnegotiations,theymightjeopardizethat
interestwhichtheyaredutyboundtoprotect.
d.Caseswhereconfidentialemployeeswerenotallowedtojoinunions.
Basedonjurisprudence,thefollowingareconsideredconfidentialemployeesundertheconfidentialemployee
rule:
1. Accountingpersonnelandradioandtelegraphoperators;28
2. Division secretaries, all Staff of General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations Department,
SecretariesofAudit,EDPandFinancialSystems;29
3. Legal secretaries who are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and
correspondence,thekeepingofrecordsandfiles,thegivingofandreceivingnotices,andsuchotherduties
asrequiredbythelegalpersonnelofthecorporation,fallunderthecategoryofconfidentialemployeesand,
hence,excludedfromthebargainingunitcomposedofrankandfileemployees.30
4. Executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance
Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System Manager, Human
Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production
Managerwerealsoconsideredconfidentialemployeessincetheyhaveaccesstovitallaborinformation.31
e.Caseswhereconfidentialemployeeswereallowedtojoinunions.
Confidential employees are not completely prohibited from joining unions. This is the correct view since
confidentialemployeesareallowedtojoinunionsinsomecases.
Forinstance,inSouthernPhilippinesFederationofLaborv.FerrerCalleja,[G.R.No.80882,April24,1989,172
SCRA676],theinclusionoftheconfidentialrankandfileemployeesinthebargainingunitofrankandfileemployees
was upheld by the Supreme Court. Much earlier, the High Court proclaimed in Filoil Refinery Corporation v. Filoil
SupervisoryandConfidentialEmployeesAssociation,[G.R.No.L26736,August18,1972],thatconfidentialrankand
fileemployeesmayjointheunionofsupervisors,especiallyinasituationwheretheconfidentialemployeesareveryfew
in number and are, by practice and tradition, identified with the supervisors in their role as representatives of
managementvisvistherankandfileemployees.Suchidentityofinteresthasallowedtheirinclusioninthebargaining
unitofsupervisorsforpurposesofcollectivebargaining.Theyremainemployeesinrelationto thecompanyastheir
employer. This identity of interest logically calls for their inclusion in the samebargaining unit and at the same time
fulfills the laws objective of insuring to them the full benefit of their right to selforganization and to collective
bargainingwhichcouldhardlybeaccomplishediftherespondentassociationsmembershipweretobebrokenupinto
fiveseparateineffectivetinyunits.
Jurisprudence,therefore,hasestablishedthatthereisnolegalprohibitionagainstconfidentialemployeeswho
arenotperformingmanagerialfunctionstoformandjoinaunion.32
f.Someprinciplesontherighttoselforganization.
1. Anyemployee,whetheremployedforadefiniteperiodornot,shall,beginningonthefirstdayofhisservice,
beeligibleformembershipinanylabororganization.33
2. RighttojoinaunioncannotbemadesubjectofaCBAstipulation.34
3. The separation of unions doctrine35 has already been rendered nugatory by the latest amendment of
Article245oftheLaborCodeintroducedbyR.A.No.948136byaddingthephrase:Therankandfileunion
and the supervisors union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or
national union. This doctrine prohibits the situation where the supervisory union and the rankandfile
union operating within the same establishment are both affiliated with one and the same federation
becauseofthepossibleconflictofinterestwhichmayariseintheareas,interalia,ofdiscipline,collective
bargainingandstrike.
5

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Article 244, Labor Code.

See Section 13, Executive Order No. 180, June 01, 1987; Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, Rule III and Section 1, Rule VIII, Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization.
Sections 1 and 2, Executive Order No. 180, June 01, 1987; Sections 1 and 2, Rule II, Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization.
40 Section 3, Executive Order No. 180, June 01, 1987; Section 2, Rule II, Ibid..
41 Section 4, Executive Order No. 180; Section 1, Rule II, Ibid.; See also Chapter 6, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987 [Executive Order No. 292].
42 Home Development Mutual Fund v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 142297, June 15, 2004 citing Association of Dedicated Employees of the Philippine Tourism Authority [ADEPT] v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 119597, Sept. 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 366.
43 Section 13, Executive Order No. 180, June 01, 1987; Section 1, Rule VIII, Ibid..
44 Section 2, Rule VIII, Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization.
37
38
39
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
4.EXECUTIVEORDERNO.180,SERIESOF1987[JUNE01,1987]ENUNCIATINGTHERIGHTTOSELFORGANIZATIONOF
GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES.
a.2kindsofemployeesinthegovernmentsectorforpurposesofexerciseofrighttoselforganization.
1. Employees ofgovernmentcorporationsestablished under the Corporation Codeand,therefore,without
original charters. They are covered by the Labor Code. They have the right to join, assist or form labor
organizationsoftheirownchoosingandtobargaincollectivelywiththeirrespectiveemployersinthesame
mannerasemployeesintheprivatesectordo.37
2. Employees in the government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and
governmentowned and/or controlled corporations with original charters. This explains why the Civil
ServiceLaw,rulesandregulations,andnottheLaborCode,governtheiremployment.Theirrighttoself
organizeisgovernedbyExecutiveOrderNo.180,Seriesof1987[June01,1987]issuedbyPres.CorazonC.
Aquino.38
b.Whomayjoingovernmentemployeesorganizationsforpurposesofcollectivebargaining?
All rankandfile employees of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of government,
includinggovernmentownedand/orcontrolledcorporationswithoriginalcharters,canform,joinorassistemployees
organizationsoftheirownchoosingforthefurtheranceandprotectionoftheirinterests.39
c.Whoarenoteligibletojoingovernmentemployeesorganizationsforpurposesofcollectivebargaining?
Thefollowingarenoteligibletoformemployeesorganizations:
1. Highlevelemployeeswhosefunctionsarenormallyconsideredaspolicymakingormanagerialorwhose
duties are of a highly confidential nature are not eligible to join the organization of rankandfile
governmentemployees;40
2. MembersoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines;
3. Policeofficers;
4. Policemen;
5. Firemen;and
6. Jailguards.41
d.Righttocollectivelybargainwiththeemployer.
Only workers in private corporations and governmentowned and/or controlled corporations, incorporated
under the general corporation law (Corporation Code), have the right to bargain collectively. Those in government
corporationswithoriginalcharterswhicharesubjecttoCivilServiceLaws,havenorighttobargaincollectively,except
wherethetermsandconditionsofemploymentarenotfixedbylaw.Theirrightsanddutiesarenotcomparablewith
thoseintheprivatesector.42
e.Termsandconditionssubjecttonegotiation.
Thetermsandconditionsofemploymentorimprovementsthereof,exceptthosethatarefixedbylaw,maybe
the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees organizations and appropriate government
authorities.43Thefollowingconcerns,amongothers,maybethesubjectofnegotiationbetweentheemployerandthe
accreditedemployeesorganization:
a.Scheduleofvacationandotherleaves;
b.Workassignmentofpregnantwomen;
c.Personnelgrowthanddevelopment;
d.Communicationsystemlateralandvertical;
e.Provisionforprotectionandsafety;
f.Provisionforfacilitiesforhandicappedpersonnel;
g.Provisionforfirstaidmedicalservicesandsupplies;
h.Physicalfitnessprogram;
i.Provisionforfamilyplanningservicesformarriedwomen;
j.Annualmedical/physicalexamination;
k.Recreational,social,athleticandculturalactivitiesandfacilities.44
f.Mattersnotsubjecttonegotiation.
Mattersnotsubjecttonegotiationmaybeclassifiedasfollows:
a.Thosethatrequireappropriationoffunds;and
b.Thosethatinvolvetheexerciseofmanagementprerogatives.
Thosethatrequireappropriationoffunds,suchasthefollowing,arenotnegotiable:
6

Ch
a
a.Increaseinsalaryemolumentsandotherallowancesnotpresentlyprovidedbylaw;
b.Facilitiesrequiringcapitaloutlays;
c.Carplan;
d.Providentfund;
e.Specialhospitalization,medicalanddentalservices;
f.Rice/sugar/othersubsidies;
g.Travelexpenses;
h.Increaseinretirementbenefits.45
an
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 3, Rule VIII, Ibid..

48 Section 1 [h], Rule I, Ibid..
49 Section 1 [i], Rule I, Ibid..
50 Section 1 [j], Rule I, Ibid..
51 Section 9, Executive Order No. 180.
52 Sections 4 and 5, Rule IV, Ibid..
53 Section 10, Executive Order No. 180.
54 Section 11, Ibid..
55 Section 12, Ibid...
56 Section 17, Rule VI, Ibid..
57 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987, [April 21, 1987] promulgated by the Civil Service Commission categorically prohibits all government officials and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in the
temporary stoppage or disruption of public services. Allowing them to strike or conduct the said prohibited acts is to undermine or prejudice the government system. Executive Order No. 180, [June 1, 1987], which provides the guidelines on the exercise of the right of government workers
to organize, implicitly endorsed said CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987, dated April 21, 1987 [supra] by stating that the Civil Service Law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed. (Jacinto v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 124540. Nov.
14, 1997).
45
46
Pr
o
47
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
Thosethatinvolvetheexerciseofmanagementprerogatives,suchasthefollowing,arelikewisenotsubjectto
negotiation:
a. Appointment;
b. Promotion;
c. Assignment/detail;
d. Reclassification/upgradingofpositions;
e. Revisionofthecompensationstructure;
f. Penaltiesimposedasaresultofdisciplinaryactions;
g. Selectionofpersonneltoattendseminars,trainingsorstudygrants;
h. Distributionofworkload;
i. Externalcommunicationlinkages.46
The parties may submit proposals to the proper authorities to improve the terms and conditions of their
employment.47
g.Someprinciplesongovernmentemployeesrighttoselforganization.
1. Thelabororganizationinthegovernmentsectoristechnicallycalledanemployeesorganization.48
2. RegistrationofemployeesorganizationsismadewithbothCivilServiceCommission(CSC)andtheBureau
of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Once registered, it is
technically called a registered employees organization.49 In the private sector, this is theoretically
knownasalegitimatelabororganization.Cancellationofregistrationofanemployeesorganizationis
likewisemadebyboththeCSCandtheBLR.
3. Thesoleandexclusivebargainingunioniscalledanaccreditedemployeesorganization.50Intheprivate
sector,thisisinprincipleknownasarecognizedorcertifiedcollectivebargainingagent.
4. The unit where the government employees organization seeks to operate and represent is called
organizationalunit.Itistheemployersunitconsistingofrankandfileemployeesunlesscircumstances
otherwiserequire.51Intheprivatesector,thisistechnicallyknownasbargainingunit.
5. Rights and privileges of a registered employees organization. Upon the issuance of the certificate of
registration,theemployeesorganizationshallhavethefollowingrightsandprivileges:
a. Tobecertified,subjecttotheconditionsprescribedintheRulesandRegulationstoGoverntheExercise
oftheRightofGovernmentEmployeestoSelfOrganization,asthesolerepresentativeoftherankand
fileemployeeswiththerighttonegotiateforthem.
b. Toundertakeallotheractivitiesnotcontrarytolaworpublicpolicyforthefurtheranceandprotectionof
theinterestsofitsmembers.52
6. Selectionofthesoleandexclusiverepresentative.Thedulyregisteredemployeesorganizationhavingthe
supportofthemajorityoftheemployeesintheappropriateorganizationalunitshouldbedesignatedasthe
sole and exclusive representative of the employees.53 It is designated as such through modes similar to
privatesectorsselectionofsoleandexclusivebargainingagentthroughanyofthefollowing3modes:
a. Voluntaryrecognitionuponashowingthatnootheremployeesorganizationisregisteredorisseeking
registrationintheorganizationalunit,basedontherecordsoftheBLR,andthatthesaidorganization
hasthemajoritysupportoftherankandfileemployeesintheorganizationalunit.54
b. Certificationelection.55
c. Runoffelectionincaseswherethereareatleastthree(3)contendingorganizationsandnonereceived
a majority ofthe valid votescast.Onlythetwo(2) registered employees organizationsreceiving the
largestandsecondlargestnumberofvotesinthefirstvotingshallbevotedon.56
7. Therighttostrikeisabsolutelyprohibitedinthegovernmentsector.57
7

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
59
60
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 1, Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
Dunlop Slazenger [Phils.], Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 131248, Dec. 11, 1998, 300 SCRA 120, 125-126.
Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., G.R. No. 10321, Feb. 28, 1958.
61 International School Alliance of Educators [ISAE] v. Quisumbing, [G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000].
62 San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO v. Confesor, G.R. No. 111262, Sept. 19, 1996, 262 SCRA 81, 98.
58
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
===================================
b. Bargaining unit
(1) Test to determine the constituency
of an appropriate bargaining unit
===================================
1.BARGAININGUNIT.
a.Bargainingunit,meaning.
A bargaining unit refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit,
comprisedofallorlessthanalloftheentirebodyofemployeesintheemployerunitoranyspecificoccupationalor
58
geographicalgroupingwithinsuchemployerunit. Itmayalsorefertothegrouporclusterofjobsorpositionswithin
theemployersestablishmentthatsupportsthelabororganizationwhichisapplyingforregistration.
Itisalegalcollectivityforcollectivebargainingpurposeswhosemembershavesubstantiallymutualbargaining
interestsinthetermsandconditionsofemploymentaswillensuretoallemployeestheircollectivebargainingrights.To
beappropriate,abargainingunitmustinvolveagroupingofemployeeswhohavesubstantial,mutualinterestsinwages,
hoursofwork,workingconditionsandothersubjectsofcollectivebargaining.59
Thereisnohardandfastruleindetermininganappropriatebargainingunit.Thetestwhetherthedesignation
of a bargaining unit is appropriate is whether it will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights. There should be a community of interest which should be reflected in groups having substantial
similarityofworkanddutiesorsimilarityofcompensationandworkingconditions,amongothercriteria.60
b.Testsindetermininganappropriatebargainingunit.
Based on jurisprudence,61 there are certain principles which may be used in determining the appropriate
collectivebargainingunit,towit:
(1) Substantialmutualinterestdoctrine;
(2) Globedoctrine;
(3) Collectivebargaininghistorydoctrine;and
(4) Employmentstatusdoctrine.
2.SUBSTANTIALMUTUALINTERESTPRINCIPLE.
Under this principle, the employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have
substantial mutual interest in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they
perform.Itischaracterizedbysimilarityofemploymentstatus,samedutiesandresponsibilitiesandsubstantiallysimilar
compensationandworkingconditions.62
SanMiguelCorporationv.Laguesma,[G.R.No.100485,September21,1994].
TheSupremeCourtappliedthisprincipleinapetitionoftheunionwhichseekstorepresentthesalespersonnel
in the various Magnolia sales offices in Northern Luzon. Petitioner took the position that each sales office should
constituteonebargainingunit.Indisagreeingwiththispropositionofpetitioner,theHighCourtsaid:Whatgreatly
militatesagainstthisposition(ofthecompany)isthemeagernumberofsalespersonnelineachoftheMagnoliasales
officeinNorthernLuzon.EventhebargainingunitsoughttoberepresentedbyrespondentunionintheentireNorthern
Luzonsalesareaconsistsonlyofapproximatelyfiftyfive(55)employees.Surely,itwouldnotbeforthebestinterestof
theseemployeesiftheywouldfurtherbefractionalized.Theadagethereisstrengthinnumberistheveryrationale
underlyingtheformationofalaborunion.
SanMiguelCorporationSupervisorsandExemptEmployeesUnionv.Laguesma,[G.R.No.110399,August15,
1997,277SCRA370,380381].
The fact that the three (3) plants comprising the bargaining unit are located in three (3) different places,
namely, in Cabuyao, Laguna, in Otis, Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga, was declared
immaterial.Geographicallocationcanbecompletelydisregardedifthecommunalormutualinterestoftheemployees
arenotsacrificed.
UniversityofthePhilippinesv.FerrerCalleja,[G.R.No.96189,July14,1992,211SCRA451].
AllnonacademicrankandfileemployeesoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesinDiliman,QuezonCity,Padre
Faura,Manila,LosBanos,LagunaandtheVisayaswereallowedtoparticipateinacertificationelectionasonebargaining
unit.Thedistanceamongthethree(3)plantsisnotproductiveofinsurmountabledifficultiesintheadministrationof
8

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
64
65
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
See also Mechanical Department Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways v. CIR, G. R. No. L-28223, Aug. 30, 1968.
San Miguel Corporation v. Laguesma, infra; National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union, infra.
Rothenberg on Labor Relations, pp. 482-510.
66 Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992; Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 471.
67 Bulletin Publishing Co., v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 74425, Oct. 7, 1986, 144 SCRA 628.
63
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
union affairs. Neither are there regional differences that are likely to impede the operations of a single bargaining
representative.
St.JamesSchoolofQuezonCityv.SamahangManggagawasaSt.JamesSchoolofQuezonCity,[G.R.No.
151326,November23,2005].
Respondentunionsoughttorepresenttherankandfileemployees(consistingofthemotorpool,construction
andtransportationemployees)ofpetitionerschoolsTandangSoracampus.Petitionerschoolopposeditbycontending
thatthebargainingunitshouldnotonlybecomposedofsaidemployeesbutmustincludeadministrative,teachingand
office personnel in its five (5) campuses.The Supreme Court disagreed with said contention. The motor pool,
construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the
certificationelection,hence,itwasruledthatthe149qualifiedvotersshouldbeusedtodeterminetheexistenceofa
quorumduringtheelection.Sinceamajorityor84outofthe149qualifiedvoterscasttheirvotes,aquorumexisted
during the certification election. The computation of the quorum should be based on the rankandfile motor pool,
constructionandtransportationemployeesoftheTandangSoracampusandnotonalltheemployeesinpetitionersfive
(5)campuses.Moreover,theadministrative,teachingandofficepersonnelarenotmembersoftheunion.Theydonot
belongtothebargainingunitthattheunionseekstorepresent.
3.GLOBEDOCTRINE.
Thisprincipleisbasedonthewilloftheemployees.ItiscalledGlobedoctrinebecausethisprinciplewasfirst
enunciatedintheUnitedStatescaseofGlobeMachineandStampingCo.,[3NLRB294(1937)]whereitwasruled,in
defining the appropriate bargaining unit, that in a case where the companys production workers can be considered
eitherasasinglebargainingunitappropriateforpurposesofcollectivebargainingorasthree(3)separateanddistinct
bargainingunits,thedeterminingfactoristhedesireoftheworkersthemselves.Consequently,acertificationelection
shouldbeheldseparatelytochoosewhichrepresentativeunionwillbechosenbytheworkers.63
InternationalSchoolAllianceofEducators[ISAE]v.Quisumbing,[G.R.No.128845,June1,2000].
The Supreme Courtruledthat foreignhired teachersdonot belongto thebargainingunit of the localhires
becausetheformerhavenotindicatedtheirintentiontobegroupedwiththelatterforpurposesofcollectivebargaining.
Moreover,thecollectivebargaininghistoryoftheschoolalsoshowsthatthesegroupswerealwaystreatedseparately.
4.COLLECTIVEBARGAININGHISTORYDOCTRINE.
This principle puts premium to the prior collective bargaining history and affinity of the employees in
determiningtheappropriatebargainingunit.However,theexistenceofapriorcollectivebargaininghistoryhasbeen
heldasneitherdecisivenorconclusiveinthedeterminationofwhatconstitutesanappropriatebargainingunit.64
NationalAssociationofFreeTradeUnionsv.MainitLumberDevelopmentCompanyWorkersUnion,[G.R.
No.79526,December21,1990].
It was ruled here that there is mutuality of interest among the workers in the sawmill division and logging
divisionastojustifytheirformationofasinglebargainingunit.Thisholdstruedespitethehistoryofsaidtwodivisions
beingtreatedasseparateunitsandnotwithstandingtheirgeographicaldistancefromeachother.
SanMiguelCorporationv.Laguesma,[G.R.No.100485,September21,1994].
Despitethecollectivebargaininghistoryofhavingaseparatebargainingunitforeachsalesoffice,theSupreme
Courtappliedtheprincipleofmutualityorcommonalityofinterestsinholdingthattheappropriatebargainingunitis
comprisedofallthesalesforceinthewholeofNorthernLuzon.
5.EMPLOYMENTSTATUSDOCTRINE.
Thedetermination of the appropriatebargaining unitbased on the employment statusof the employees is

consideredanacceptablemode.65Forinstance,casualemployeesandthoseemployedonadaytodaybasis,according
totheSupremeCourtinPhilippineLandAirSeaLaborUnionv.CIR,[G.R.No.L14656,November29,1960],donothave
themutualityorcommunityofinterestwithregularandpermanentemployees.Hence,theirinclusioninthebargaining
unitcomposedofthelatterisnotjustified.Confidentialemployees,bytheverynatureoftheirfunctions,assistandactin
aconfidentialcapacityto,orhaveaccesstoconfidentialmattersof,personswhoexercisemanagerialfunctionsinthe
fieldoflaborrelations.Assuch,therationalebehindtheineligibilityofmanagerialemployeestoform,assistorjoina
labor union equally applies to them. Hence, they cannot be allowed to be included in the rankandfile employees
bargainingunit.66Therationaleforthisinhibitionisthatifthesemanagerialemployeeswouldbelongtoorbeaffiliated
withaunion,thelattermightnotbeassuredoftheirloyaltytotheunioninviewofevidentconflictofinterest.Theunion
canalsobecomecompanydominatedwiththepresenceofmanagerialemployeesinitsmembership.67
9

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
69
70
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
See also Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., G.R. No. 10321, Feb. 28, 1958, 103 Phil. 1103.
Section 2, Rule VI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
Not found in the Labor Code nor in its Implementing Rules but mentioned in the Syllabus for Labor Law.
71 Section 1 [bbb], Rule I, Book V, Ibid..
72 Section 1, Rule VII, Book V, Ibid..
68
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
BelycaCorporationv.FerrerCalleja,[G.R.No.77395,November29,1988].
Thisinvolvesacorporationengagedinpiggeryandpoultryraising,plantingofagriculturalcropsandoperation
ofsupermartsandcinemas,theSupremeCourtruledthatitisbeyondquestionthattheemployeesofthelivestockagro
divisionofthecorporationperformworkentirelydifferentfromthosebeingperformedbyemployeesinthesupermarts
andcinemas.Thedifferencesamongthemlieintheirworkingconditions,hoursofwork,ratesofpay,includingthe
categoriesoftheirpositionsandemploymentstatus.Asstatedbypetitionerinitspositionpaper,duetothenatureof
the business in which its livestockagro division is engaged, very few of its employees therein are permanent, the
overwhelmingmajorityofwhomareseasonalandcasualandnotregularemployees.Definitely,theyhaveverylittlein
common with the employees of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all its employees in its integrated business
concernscannotresultinanefficaciousbargainingunitcomprisedofconstituentsenjoyingacommunityormutualityof
interest.Undeniably,therankandfileemployeesofthelivestockagrodivisionfullyconstituteabargainingunitthat
satisfiesbothrequirementsofclassificationaccordingtoemploymentstatusandofsubstantialsimilarityofworkand
dutieswhichwillultimatelyassureitsmemberstheexerciseoftheircollectivebargainingrights.68
==========================================
b. Bargaining agent
(1) Voluntary Recognition
(a) Requirements
(2) Certification election
(a) In an unorganized establishment
(b) In an organized establishment
(c) Rules prohibiting the filing of petition
for certification election
(d) Requirements for validity of certification
election
(e) Protests and other questions arising
from conduct of certification election
(3) Run-off election
(a) Requirements
(4) Re-run election
(5) Consent election
==========================================
1.MODESOFDETERMININGTHESOLEANDEXCLUSIVEBARGAININGAGENT.
Thesoleandexclusivebargainingagentoftheemployeesinabargainingunitmaybedeterminedthroughany
ofthefollowingmodes:
1. Voluntaryrecognition;
2. Certificationelection;
3. Consentelection;
69
4. Runoffelection;
70
5. Rerunelection.
2.VOLUNTARYRECOGNITION.
a.Voluntaryrecognition,defined.
Voluntaryrecognitionreferstotheprocessbywhichalegitimatelaborunionisvoluntarilyrecognizedbythe
employerastheexclusivebargainingrepresentativeoragentinabargainingunitandreportedassuchwiththeRegional
71
OfficeinaccordancewithRuleVII,Section2,BookVoftheRulestoImplementtheLaborCode.
b.Voluntaryrecognition,whenproper.
Voluntaryrecognitionisproperonlyincaseswherethereisonlyonelegitimatelabororganizationexistingand
operatinginabargainingunit.Itcannotbedoneincasetherearetwoormoreunionsincontention.
c.Noticeofvoluntaryrecognition,whenandwherefiled.
Withinthirty(30)daysfromsuchvoluntaryrecognition,theemployerandtheunionshouldsubmitanoticeof
voluntaryrecognitiontotheDOLERegionalOfficewhichissuedtherecognizedlaborunionscertificateofregistrationor,
inthecaseoflocalchapter,wherethechartercertificateandtheotherdocumentsrequiredunderArticle234Awere
submittedandfiled.72
10

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 2, Rule VII, Book V, Ibid..

Section 1 [h], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
Philippine Airlines Employees Association v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 76673, June 22, 1988.
76 Associated Labor Unions v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 82260, July 19, 1989; Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union v. Noriel, G.R. No. 53907, May 6, 1988.
77 National Federation of Labor v. The Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 104556, March 9, 1998.
78 Articles 256 and 257, Labor Code, as amended by R. A. No. 9481 [effective on June 14, 2007]..
79 Article 258, Labor Code; Section 1, Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
80 PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-43760, Aug. 21, 1976, 72 SCRA 396.
81 Progressive Development Corp. Pizza Hut v. Laguesma, [G.R. No. 115077, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 593].
82 Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO, G.R. No. 142000, Jan. 22, 2003.
73
74
75
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
d.Requirementsforvoluntaryrecognition.
Thenoticeofvoluntaryrecognitionshouldbeaccompaniedbytheoriginalcopyandtwo(2)duplicatecopiesof
thefollowingdocuments:
(a) Ajointstatementunderoathattestingtothefactofvoluntaryrecognition;
(b) Certificateofpostingofthejointstatementofvoluntaryrecognitionforfifteen(15)consecutivedaysinat
leasttwo(2)conspicuousplacesintheestablishmentorbargainingunitwheretheunionseekstooperate;
(c) Theapproximatenumberofemployeesinthebargainingunit,accompaniedbythenamesofthosewho
supportthevoluntaryrecognitioncomprisingatleastamajorityofthemembersofthebargainingunit;
and
(d) Astatementthatthelaborunionistheonlylegitimatelabororganizationoperatingwithinthebargaining
unit.
Itisfurtherrequiredthatallaccompanyingdocumentsofthenoticeofvoluntaryrecognitionshouldbecertified
underoathbytheemployerrepresentativeandpresidentoftherecognizedlaborunion.73
e. Voluntaryrecognitionofaunionmadeduringpendencyofapetitionforcertificationelectionfiledby
anotherunion,notvalid.
Thevoluntaryrecognitionbytheemployerofaunionwhileapetitionforcertificationelectionfiledbyarival
unionispendingdoesnothaveanyvalideffect.Thus,itwasheldinMeShurnCorporationv.MeShurnWorkersUnion
FSM,[G.R.No.156292,January11,2005],thattheresultsofthecertificationelectionwherethepetitionerunionlost
cannotbesaidtoconstitutearepudiationbytheaffectedemployeesofsaidunionsrighttorepresentthem,inviewof
the discriminatory acts committed by the employer against the said union prior to the holding of the certification
electionactsthatincludedtheemployersimmediategrantofexclusiverecognitiontoanotherunionasabargaining
agentdespitethependingpetitionforcertificationelection.
3.CERTIFICATIONELECTION,INGENERAL(ARTICLES256AND257,LABORCODE).
a.Certificationelection,meaning.
Certification election refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or
negotiations. A certification election is conducted only upon the order of the MedArbiter of the Bureau of Labor
Relations(BLR)oftheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment(DOLE).74Itisthemostdemocraticmethodofdetermining
thechoiceoftheemployeesoftheirbargainingrepresentative.75Itisnotalitigationproceedinginthesenseinwhich
this term is commonly understood. It isa mere investigation of a nonadversaryfactfindingcharacter in whichthe
Department of Labor and Employment plays the part of a disinterested investigator seeking merely to ascertain the
desires of the employees as to the matter of representation. It is not, therefore, bound by the technical rules of
evidence.76Incaseofdoubt,thepetitionshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheholdingofacertificationelection.77
b.Whomayfileapetitionforcertificationelection.
Apetitionforcertificationelectionmaybefiledby:
1. alegitimatelabororganizationwhichmaybe:
(a)anindependentunion;or
(b)a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its local chapter
participatinginthecertificationelection;or
(c)alocalchapterwhichhasbeenissuedachartercertificatebythenationalunionorfederation.78
2. anemployer,whenrequestedbyalabororganizationtobargaincollectivelyanditsmajoritystatusisin
doubt.79
c.Majorityvote,meaning.
Absolutemajorityofallthemembersofthebargainingunitisnotrequiredinorderforauniontobevalidly
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent. Majority of the ballots cast would be sufficient, even if only a small
proportionoftheeligiblevotersparticipatedinthecertificationelection.80
d.Someprinciplesoncertificationelection,ingeneral.
1. Thepetitioningunionshouldbelegitimate.81Theacquisitionofrightsbyanyunionorlabororganization,
particularlytherighttofileapetitionforcertificationelection,firstandforemost,dependsonwhetheror
notthelabororganizationhasattainedthestatusofalegitimatelabororganization.82
2. Thedelayintheissuanceofthecertificateofregistrationtoaunionparticipatinginacertificationelection
case may effectively prevent the conduct thereof. However, where it is shown that such delay was not
11

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
li
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
f.
b.Writtenconsentofatleast25%ofalltheemployeesinthebargainingunit.
The 25% requirement may not be strictly enforced. Compliance therewith need not be established with
absolutecertainty.Evenifthestatutoryrequirementof25%ofthelaborforceaskingforcertificationelectionhasnot
U. E. Automotive Employees and Workers Union v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-44350, Nov. 25, 1978; Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Union Industries, Inc. v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-50874, Oct. 23, 1981.
National Union of Bank Employees v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-53406, Dec. 14, 1981, 110 SCRA 274.
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96663 and Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 103300, Aug. 10, 1999.
86 As inserted by Section 4, Republic Act No. 9481, June 14, 2007.
87 Barrera v. CIR, G,R, No. L-32853, Sept. 25, 1981, 107 SCRA 596.
88 United CMC Workers Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-51337, March 22, 1984; Acoje Mines Employees v. Acoje Labor Union, G.R. No. L-11273, Nov. 21, 1958; 104 Phil. 814; Standard Cigarette v. CIR, G.R. No. L-9908, April 22, 1957, 101 Phil. 126.
89 See Article 248 [d], Labor Code.
90 Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex [SMP-PIILU-TUCP] v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 107792, March 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 692; Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 94045, Sept. 13, 1991, 201 SCRA 591.
91 Western Agusan Workers Union v. Trajano, G.R. No. 75724, May 6, 1991; Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. v. Ople, G.R. No. 73681, June 30, 1988.
92 International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, Sept. 28, 1990; Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 89331, Sept. 28, 1990.
93 Article 253, Labor Code.
94 California Manufacturing Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, June 8, 1992.
95 Article 257, Labor Code, as amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989; Section 1, Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary
of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 121241, Dec. 10, 1997, 282 SCRA 635.
96 Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services World Federation of Trade Unions [TUPAS-WFTU] v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 102350, June 30, 1994.
83
84
Pr
o
85
an
ia
Gu
3.1.CERTIFICATIONELECTIONINANUNORGANIZEDESTABLISHMENT(ARTICLE257,LABORCODE).
a.Unorganizedestablishment,meaning.
Asdistinguishedfromorganizedestablishment,anunorganizedestablishmentisafirmorcompanywhere
there is no recognized or certified collective bargaining union or agent.93 A firm or company, however, may still be
consideredanunorganizedestablishmentevenifthereareunionsinexistencethereinforaslongasnotoneofthemis
dulyrecognizedorcertifiedasthesoleandexclusivebargainingrepresentativeoftheemployeesinthebargainingunitit
seekstooperateandrepresent.Further,afirmorcompanyremainsunorganizedevenifthereisadulyrecognizedor
certified bargaining agent for rankandfile employees, for purposes of the petition for certification election filed by
supervisors.Thereasonisthatthebargainingunitcomposedofsupervisorsisseparateanddistinctfromtheunionized
bargainingunitofrankandfileemployees.Hence,beingunorganized,the25%requiredminimumsupportofemployees
withinthebargainingunitofthesupervisorsneednotbecompliedwith.94
b.Automaticconductofacertificationelectionuponfilingofthepetitionforcertificationelection.
Incaseofapetitionfiledbyalegitimateorganizationinvolvinganunorganizedestablishment,theMedArbiter
isrequiredtoimmediatelyordertheconductofacertificationelectionuponfilingofapetitionforcertificationelection
by a legitimate labor organization.95 The twentyfive percent (25%) minimum support of the employees in the
bargaining unit which is required in organized establishments is not necessary in the case of unorganized
establishments.Theobviouspurposeistomakeiteasyforemployeestoselforganizeapolicywhichisenunciatedin
theConstitutionandlaborlaws.
3.2.CERTIFICATIONELECTIONINANORGANIZEDESTABLISHMENT(ARTICLE256,LABORCODE).
a.Requisitesfortheconductofacertificationelectioninanorganizedestablishments.
UnderArticle256,theMedArbiterisrequiredtoautomaticallyordertheconductofacertificationelectionby
secretballotinanorganizedestablishmentassoonasthefollowingrequisitesarefullymet:
1.ThatapetitionquestioningthemajoritystatusoftheincumbentbargainingagentisfiledbeforetheDOLE
withinthe60dayfreedomperiod;
2.Thatsuchpetitionisverified;and
3.That the petition is supported by the written consent of at least twentyfive percent (25%) of all the
employeesinthebargainingunit.96
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
because of its fault but due mainly to its rivalry with other unions, it shall not stay the conduct of the
certificationelection.Mandamuswilllietocompeltheissuanceofsuchcertificateofregistration.83
3. Thependencyofapetitiontocancelthecertificateofregistrationofaunionparticipatinginacertification
electiondoesnotstaytheconductthereof.84Therationalebehindthisisthatatthetimetheunionfiledits
petition,itstillhadthelegalpersonalitytoperformsuchactabsentanyorderdirectingthecancellation.85
Moreover,itisnowprovidedunderArticle238AoftheLaborCodethatapetitionforcancellationofunion
registrationdoesnotsuspendtheproceedingsforcertificationelectionnordoesitpreventthefilingofa
petitionforcertificationelection.Incaseofcancellation,nothinginthelawcouldrestricttherightofthe
uniontoseekjustandequitableremediesintheappropriatecourts.86
4. As a general rule, the pendency of an unfair labor practice case filed against a labor organization
participatinginthecertificationelectiondoesnotstaytheholdingthereof.87Butthependencyofaformal
chargeofcompanydominationagainstoneoftheunionswhichisparticipatinginthecertificationelection
isaprejudicialquestionthatbarstheholdingthereofuntilitsfinalresolution.88Companydomination
means that the employer has either initiated, dominated, assisted or otherwise interfered with the
formation or administration of the union, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its
organizersorsupporters.89
5. Direct certification as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees is not
allowed.90 This is because the conduct of a certification election is still necessary in order to arrive in a
mannerdefinitiveandcertainconcerningthechoiceofthelabororganizationtorepresenttheworkersina
collectivebargainingunit.91
6. Nocertificationelectioninentitiesimmunefromsuitisallowed.92
12

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
California Manufacturing Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, June 8, 1992; Atlas Free Workers Union-PSSLU Local v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-51905, May 26, 1981, 104 SCRA 565; Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Suerte-FOITAF v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-45475, June 20, 1977,
77 SCRA 414.
Section 3, Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
99 Section 3 [a], Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid..
100 Section 3 [a], Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid..
101 Section 3 [b] and [c], Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid.; National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines-TUCP v. Trajano, G.R. No. 67485, April 10, 1992.
97
98
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
been strictly complied with, the MedArbiter is still empowered to order its conduct for the purpose of ascertaining
whichofthecontendinglabororganizationsshouldbechosenastheexclusivebargainingagent.97
4.RULESPROHIBITINGTHEFILINGOFAPETITIONFORCERTIFICATIONELECTION.
a.Whenfilingofapetitionforcertificationelectionallowed.
ThegeneralruleisthatintheabsenceofaCBAdulyregisteredinaccordancewithArticle231oftheLabor
Code,apetitionforcertificationelectionmaybefiledatanytime.98
b.Rulesprohibitingthefilingofapetitionforcertificationelection(BarRules).
Nocertificationelectionmaybeheldunderthefollowingrules:
1. Certificationyearbarrule;
2. Negotiationsbarrule;
3. Bargainingdeadlockbarrule;or
4. Contractbarrule.
4.1.CERTIFICATIONYEARBARRULE.
Underthisrule,apetitionforcertificationelectionmaynotbefiledwithinone(1)year:
1. fromthedatethefactofvoluntaryrecognitionhasbeenentered;or
2. fromthedateavalidcertification,consentorrunoffelectionhasbeenconductedwithinthebargaining
unit.99
WhereanappealhasbeenfiledfromtheorderoftheMedArbitercertifyingtheresultsoftheelection,the
running of the one (1) year period shall be suspended until the decision on the appeal has become final and
executory.100
4.2.NEGOTIATIONSBARRULE.
Under this rule, no petition for certification election should be entertained while the sole and exclusive
bargainingagentandtheemployerareintheprocessofnegotiatingtheCBA.Whilethepartiesarenegotiatingtheterms
andconditionsoftheCBA,nochallengingunionshouldbeallowedtodisturbtheprocessaswouldundulyforestallthe
earlyconclusionoftheagreement.
4.3.BARGAININGDEADLOCKBARRULE.
Underthisrule,apetitionforcertificationelectionmaynotbeentertained:
1. Whenthedulycertifiedbargainingagenthascommencedandsustainednegotiationsingoodfaithwith
theemployerinaccordancewithArticle250oftheLaborCodewithinaperiodofone(1)yearfromthe
dateofavalidcertification,consentorrunoffelectionorfromthedateofvoluntaryrecognition;or
2. When a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been
submittedtoconciliationorarbitrationorhasbecomethesubjectofavalidnoticeofstrikeorlockout.101
KaisahanngManggagawangPilipino[KAMPILKATIPUNAN]v.Trajano,[G.R.No.75810,September9,1991,
201SCRA453].
Thebargainingdeadlockbarrulewasnotappliedbecauseformorethanfour(4)yearsafteritwascertifiedas
the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rankandfile employees, it did not take any action to legally compel the
employertocomplywithitsdutytobargaincollectively,hence,noCBAwasexecuted.Neitherdiditfileanyunfairlabor
practicesuitagainsttheemployernordiditinitiateastrikeagainstthelatter.Underthecircumstances,acertification
electionmaybevalidlyorderedandheld.
CapitolMedicalCenterAllianceofConcernedEmployeesUnifiedFilipinoServiceWorkersv.Laguesma,[G.R.
No.118915,February4,1997,267SCRA503].
The bargaining deadlockbar rule was applied in this case. Distinguishing this case from that of Kaisahan
[supra], the High Court cited the fact that the bargaining agent here has taken legal actions to legally coerce the
employertocomplywithitsstatutorydutytobargaincollectively.Ithaschargedtheemployerwithunfairlaborpractice
andconductedastriketoprotesttheemployersrefusaltobargain.Itisonlyjustandequitablethatthecircumstancesin
thiscaseshouldbeconsideredassimilarinnaturetoabargainingdeadlockwhennocertificationelectioncouldbe
held. This is also to make sure that no floodgates will be opened for the circumvention of the law by unscrupulous
employerstopreventanycertifiedbargainingagentfromnegotiatingaCBA.
4.4.CONTRACTBARRULE.
13

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 3 [d], Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Republic Planters Bank General Services Employees Union-National Association of Trade Unions v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 119675, Nov.
21, 1996, 264 SCRA 637, 642.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex [SMP-PIILU-TUCP] v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 107792, March 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 692.
104 Section 3 [d], Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; TUPAS v. Inciong, G.R. No. L-46499, Aug. 19, 1982, 114 SCRA 847.
107 PLDT Employees Union v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, G.R. No. L-8138, Aug. 20, 1955.
108 See old provision of Section 4, Rule XVI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Article 1, Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997 [21 June 1997].
109 Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex [SMP-PIILU-TUCP] v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 107792, March 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 692; See also Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Employees Union v. Estrella, G.R. Nos. L-45513-14, Jan. 6, 1978, 81 SCRA 49.
110 Section 24, Rule VIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code; Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 111245, Jan. 31, 1997, 267 SCRA 303, 310.
111 ALU v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85095, Nov. 6, 1989, 179 SCRA 127.
112 Article 256, Labor Code; Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 111245, Jan. 31, 1997, 267 SCRA 303, 309.
113 Section 16, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
Pr
o
102
103
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
a.Concept.
Underthisrule,apetitionforcertificationelectionmaynotbefiledwhenaCBAbetweentheemployeranda
dulyrecognizedorcertifiedbargainingagenthasbeenregisteredwiththeBureauofLaborRelations(BLR)inaccordance
withArticle231oftheLaborCode.WheretheCBAisdulyregistered,apetitionforcertificationelectionmaybefiled
only within the 60day freedom period prior to its expiry.102 The purpose of this rule is to ensure stability in the
relationshipoftheworkersandthemanagementbypreventingfrequentmodificationsofanyCBAearlierenteredinto
bythemingoodfaithandforthestipulatedoriginalperiod.103
b.Justificationsfortherule.
Thereasonsforthisruleareasfollows:
1. Certificationelectionmayonlybeentertainedwithinthe60dayfreedomperiod.Anypetitionfiledbefore
orafterthesixtydayfreedomperiodshouldbedismissedoutright.104
2. WhenthereexistsaCBA,itisthedutyofbothpartiestokeepthestatusquoandtocontinueinfullforce
andeffectthetermsandconditionsoftheexistingagreementduringthe60dayperiodand/oruntilanew
agreementisreachedbytheparties.105
3. Attheexpirationofthe60dayfreedomperiod,theemployershouldcontinuetorecognizethemajority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election challenging such
majoritystatusisfiledbyanyotherunion.106
c.Whencontractbarruledoesnotapply.
Thecontractbarruledoesnotapplyinthefollowingcases:
1. Where there is an automatic renewal provision in the CBA but prior to the date when such automatic
renewal became effective, the employer seasonably filed a manifestation with the Bureau of Labor
Relationsofitsintentiontoterminatethesaidagreementifandwhenitisestablishedthatthebargaining
agentdoesnotrepresentanymorethemajorityoftheworkersinthebargainingunit.107
2. Where the CBA, despite its due registration, is found in appropriate proceedings that: (a) it contains
provisions lower than the standards fixed by law; or (b) the documents supporting its registration are
falsified,fraudulentortaintedwithmisrepresentation.108
3. Where the CBA does not foster industrial stability, such as contracts where the identity of the
representativeisindoubtsincetheemployerextendeddirectrecognitiontotheunionandconcludedaCBA
therewithlessthanone(1)yearfromthetimeacertificationelectionwasconductedwherethenounion
votewon.ThissituationobtainsinacasewherethecompanyenteredintoaCBAwiththeunionwhenits
statusasexclusivebargainingagentoftheemployeeshasnotbeenestablishedyet.109
4.WheretheCBAwasregisteredbeforeorduringthelastsixty(60)daysofasubsistingagreementorduring
thependencyofarepresentationcase.110Itiswellsettledthatthesixtydayfreedomperiodbasedonthe
originalCBAshouldnotbeaffectedbyanyamendment,extensionorrenewaloftheCBAforpurposesof
certificationelection.111
5.REQUIREMENTFORVALIDITYOFCERTIFICATIONELECTION.
a.Requisitesforthevalidityofthepetitionforcertificationelection.
Thefollowingrequisitesshouldconcur:
1. Theunionshouldbelegitimatewhichmeansthatitisdulyregisteredandlistedintheregistryoflegitimate
laborunionsoftheBLRorthatitslegalpersonalityhasnotbeenrevokedorcancelledwithfinality.
2. Incaseoforganizedestablishments,thepetitionforcertificationelectionwasfiledduring(andnotbefore
orafter)the60dayfreedomperiodofadulyregisteredCBA.
3. Incaseoforganizedestablishments,thepetitioncompliedwiththe25%writtensupportofthemembersof
thebargainingunit.
4. Thepetitionwasfilednotinviolationofanyofthe4barrules(seeabovediscussionthereof).
b.Requisitesforthevalidityofthecertificationelectionproceedings.
Thefollowingrequisitesshouldconcur:
1. Number of votes required for the validity of the certification election itself. In order to have a valid
certificationelection,atleastamajorityofalleligiblevotersintheappropriatebargainingunitmusthave
casttheirvotes.112
2. Numberofvotestobecertifiedasthecollectivebargainingagent.Tobecertifiedasthesoleandexclusive
bargainingagent,theunionshouldobtainamajorityofthevalidvotescast.113
14

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 17, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..

117 Section 20, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..
118 Id.
119 Section 1 [p], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
120 Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid..
121 Section 1 [o], Rule I, and Sections 2-5, Rule XII, Book V, Ibid..
114
115
116
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
c.Failureofelection.
Thereisfailureofelectionwhenthenumberofvotescastinacertificationorconsentelectionislessthanthe
majorityofthenumberofeligiblevotersandtherearenochallengedvotesthatcouldmateriallychangetheresultsof
theelection.114
d.Effectoffailureofelection;holdingofanotherelectionwithinsix(6)months.
Afailureofelectionshallnotbarthefilingofamotionfortheimmediateholdingofanothercertificationor
consentelectionwithinsix(6)monthsfromthedateofdeclarationofthefailureofelection.115
e.Actiononthemotiontoholdanothercertificationelectionorconsentelection.
Within twentyfour (24) hours from receipt of the motion to hold another certification election or consent
election, the Election Officer shall immediately schedule the conduct of such election within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the motion and cause the posting of the notice of certification election at least ten (10) days prior to the
scheduled date of election in two (2) most conspicuous places in the establishment. The same guidelines and list of
votersshallbeusedintheelection.116
f.Proclamationandcertificationoftheresultofthecertificationelection.
Withintwentyfour(24)hoursfromthefinalcanvassofvotes,therebeingavalidelection,theElectionOfficer
shalltransmittherecordsofthecasetotheMedArbiterwhoshall,withinthesameperiodfromreceiptoftheminutes
andresultsofelection,issueanorderproclaimingtheresultsoftheelectionandcertifyingtheunionwhichobtainedthe
majorityofthevalidvotescastasthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentinthesubjectbargainingunit,underanyofthe
followingconditions:
(a) Noprotestwasfiledor,evenifonewasfiled,thesamewasnotperfectedwithinthefive(5)dayperiodfor
perfectionoftheprotest;
(b) Nochallengeoreligibilityissuewasraisedor,evenifonewasraised,theresolutionofthesamewillnot
materiallychangetheresultsoftheelections.
Thewinningunionshallhavetherights,privilegesandobligationsofadulycertifiedcollectivebargainingagent
fromthetimethecertificationisissued.117
g.Nounionvote.
TheNoUnionvoteisalwaysoneofthechoicesinacertificationelection.Wheremajorityofthevalidvotes
castresultsinNoUnionobtainingthemajority,theMedArbitershalldeclaresuchfactintheorder.118
6.PROTESTSANDOTHERQUESTIONSARISINGFROMCONDUCTOFCERTIFICATIONELECTION.
Inordertofullyappreciateandcomprehendthetopicofprotestsandotherquestionsthatmayberaisedin
connectionwiththecertificationelection,acomprehensivediscussionoftheelectionproceedingsispresentedbelow.
a.Electionproceedings;definition.
Election proceedings refer to the period during a certification election, consent or runoff election and
electionofunionofficers,startingfromtheopeningtotheclosingofthepolls,includingthecounting,tabulationand
consolidation of votes, but excluding the period for the final determination of the challenged votes and the canvass
thereof.119
b.MedArbiterhearsandresolvespetitionsforcertificationelection.
ThepetitionforcertificationelectionshouldbeheardandresolvedbytheMedArbiter.120
c.ElectionOfficer.
TheMedArbiterdoesnotconductthecertificationelection.ItisconductedbyanElectionOfficer.Heisan
officer of the Bureau of Labor Relations or the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Office authorized to conduct
certificationelections,electionofunionofficersandotherformsofelectionsandreferenda.121
d.Preelectionconference.
Withintwentyfour(24)hoursfromreceiptoftheassignmentfortheconductofacertificationelection,the
ElectionOfficershouldcausetheissuanceofanoticeofpreelectionconferenceuponthecontendingunionsandthe
employerwhichshouldbescheduledwithinten(10)daysfromreceiptoftheassignment.
Thepreelectionconferenceshouldsetthemechanicsfortheelectionandshoulddetermine,amongothers,
thefollowing:
15

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
123
124
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr

Acoje Workers v. NAMAWU, G.R. No. L-18848, April 23, 1963, 7 SCRA 730.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 111245, Jan. 31, 1997, 267 SCRA 303, 310.
125 As inserted by Section 12, Republic Act No. 9481 which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 and became effective on June 14, 2007.
126 Section 1 [q], Rule I, Book V, Ibid..
127 Article 277 [c], Labor Code.
128 Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Director of Labor Relations, G.R. No. 80612-16, Dec. 29, 1989.
129 Eastland Manufacturing Corporation v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-45528, Feb. 10, 1982, 111 SCRA 674.
130 Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency v. Associate Watchmen and Security Union, G.R. No. L-12214-14, May 28, 1958.
131 Sections 5, 10 and 11, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..
132 Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Yokohama Employees Union, [G.R. No. 159553, December 10, 2007].
133 Section 6, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
122
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
(a) Thedate,timeandplaceoftheelectionwhichshallnotbelaterthanfortyfive(45)daysfromthedateof
the first preelection conference, and shall be on a regular working day and within the employers
premises,unlesscircumstancesrequireotherwise;
(b) Thelistofeligibleandchallengedvoters;
(c) The number and location of polling places or booths and the number of ballots to be prepared with
appropriatetranslations,ifnecessary;
(d) The names of the watchers or representatives and their alternates for each of the parties during the
election;
(e) Mechanicsandguidelinesoftheelection.122
e.Propertimetoquestionthelistofqualifiedvoters.
Thepropertimetoquestionthelistofqualifiedvotersisduringthepreelectionconference.Itcannolonger
becontestedduringtheactualconductofthecertificationelection.123
f.Employersobligationtosubmitthelistofemployees.
Theemployerisdutyboundtosubmitthelistofemployeesinthebargainingunit.Incaseofunjustifiedrefusal
by the employer to submit the payroll in its custody despite efforts to make it produce it, the next best source of
informationistheSSSlistwhich,afterall,isapublicrecordwhoseregularityispresumed.124Byexpressprovisionof
Article258AoftheLaborCode,theparticipationoftheemployerwhichistreatedasamerebystanderandnotaparty
tothecertificationelectionwithaconcomitantrighttoopposeit,islimitedtobeingnotifiedorinformedofthefilingof
thepetitionforcertificationelectionandtosubmitthelistofemployeesduringthepreelectionconference.125
g.Qualificationsofvoters;inclusionexclusionofvoters.
Eligiblevoterreferstoavoterbelongingtotheappropriatebargainingunitthatisthesubjectofapetitionfor
certification,consentorrunoffelection.126Allemployeeswhoaremembersoftheappropriatebargainingunitsought
to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a certification,
consentorrunoffelectionshallbeeligibletovote.
h.Righttovotestartsfromfirstdayofemployment.
Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service,
alreadybeconsideredanemployeeforpurposesofmembershipinanylaborunion,hence,eligibletoparticipateina
certificationelection.127Consequently,allemployeeswhetherprobationaryorpermanentorregularmaybeallowed
to participate in the certification election. The law does not make any distinction. It merely mentions the term
employees.128
Itisbasic,however,thatonlypersonswhohavedirectemploymentrelationshipwiththeemployermayvotein
thecertificationelection,regardlessoftheirperiodofemployment.129Forexample,apiecerateworkerdoingworkfor
his own account with minimum interference from his indirect employer is not eligible to vote in the certification
election.130
i.Ruleincaseofcontestedvoters.
Incaseofdisagreementoverthevoterslistorovertheeligibilityofvoters,allcontestedvotersshallbeallowed
tovotebuttheirvotesshallbesegregatedandsealedinindividualenvelopes.131
j.Ruleontherightofdismissedemployeestovote.
Anemployeewhohasbeendismissedfromworkbuthascontestedthelegalityofhisdismissalinaforumof
appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification election shall be
consideredaqualifiedvoter,unlesshisdismissalwasdeclaredvalidinafinaljudgmentatthetimeoftheconductofthe
k.Postingofthenoticeofelection.
TheElectionOfficerisrequiredtocausethepostingofthenoticeofelectionatleastten(10)daysbeforethe
actualdateoftheelectionintwo(2)mostconspicuousplacesinthecompanypremises.Thenoticeshouldcontain:
(a) Thedateandtimeoftheelection;
(b) Thenamesofallcontendingunions;
(c) Thedescriptionofthebargainingunitandthelistofeligibleandchallengedvoters.
Thepostingofthenoticeofelection,theinformationrequiredtobeincludedthereinandthedurationofits
postingcannotbewaivedbythecontendingunionsortheemployer.133
16

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
135
136
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr

140 Section 13, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
141 GOP-CCP Workers Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L-33015, Sept. 10, 1979, 93 SCRA 116.
134
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
l.Secrecyandsanctityoftheballot.
To ensure secrecy of the ballot, the Election Officer, together with the authorized representatives of the
contending unions and the employer shall, before the start of the actual voting, inspect the polling place, the ballot
boxesandthepollingbooths.134
m.Preparationofballots.
TheElectionOfficerisrequiredtopreparetheballotsinEnglishandFilipinoorthelocaldialect,corresponding
tothenumberofvotersandareasonablenumberofextraballots.AllballotsshouldbesignedatthebackbytheElection
Officerandtheauthorizedrepresentativeofeachofthecontendingunionsandtheemployer.Failureorrefusaltosign
theballotsshallbeconsideredawaiverthereofandtheElectionOfficershallenterthefactofsuchrefusalorfailurein
therecordsofthecaseaswellasthereasonfortherefusalorfailuretosign.135
n.Markingofvotes.
Thevotermustputacross(x)oracheck(3)markinthesquareoppositethenameoftheunionofhischoiceor
NoUnionifhedoesnotwanttoberepresentedbyanyunion.
Ifaballotistorn,defacedorleftunfilledinsuchamannerastocreatedoubtorconfusionortoidentifythe
voter,itshallbeconsideredspoiled.Ifthevoterinadvertentlyspoilsaballot,heshouldreturnittotheElectionOfficer
whoshalldestroyitandgivehimanotherballot.136
o.Challengingofvotes,grounds.
Anauthorizedrepresentativeofanyofthecontendingunionsandtheemployermaychallengeavotebeforeit
isdepositedintheballotboxonlyonanyofthefollowinggrounds:
(a) Thatthereisnoemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenthevoterandtheemployer;or
(b) Thatthevoterisnotamemberoftheappropriatebargainingunitwhichpetitionerseekstorepresent.137
p.Procedureinchallengingofvotes.
Whenavoteisproperlychallenged,theElectionOfficershouldplacetheballotinanenvelopewhichshallbe
sealedinthepresenceofthevoterandtherepresentativesofthecontendingunionsandemployer.TheElectionOfficer
shouldindicateontheenvelopethevotersname,theunionoremployerchallengingthevoter,andthegroundforthe
challenge.ThesealedenvelopeshallthenbesignedbytheElectionOfficerandtherepresentativesofthecontending
unions and employer. The Election Officer should note all challenges in the minutes of the election and shall be
responsible for consolidating all envelopes containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be opened and the
questionofeligibilityshallbepassedupononlyifthenumberofsegregatedvoterswillmateriallyaltertheresultsofthe
election.138
q.Onthespotquestions.
TheElectionOfficershouldruleonanyquestionrelatingtoandraisedduringtheconductoftheelection.Inno
case,however,shalltheElectionOfficerruleonanyofthegroundsforchallenge.139
r.Spoiledballotsarenotreckonedtodeterminemajority.
TheearlierrulingoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofAlliedWorkersAssociationofthePhilippinesv.CIR,
[G.R.Nos.L22580andL22950,June6,1967,20SCRA364],thatspoiledballotsshouldbecountedtodeterminethe
majoritydoesnotpossessanyrelevanceanymoreaccordingtoPAFLUv.BureauofLaborRelations,[G.R.No.L43760,
August21,1976].
s.Protest;whenperfected.
Anypartyininterestmayfileaprotestbasedontheconductormechanicsoftheelection.Suchprotestshall
berecordedintheminutesoftheelectionproceedings.Protestsnotsoraisedaredeemedwaived.Theprotestingparty
mustformalizeitsprotestwiththeMedArbiter,withspecificgrounds,argumentsandevidencewithinfive(5)daysafter
thecloseoftheelectionproceedings.Ifnotrecordedintheminutesandformalizedwithinthesaidprescribedperiod,
theprotestshallbedeemeddropped.140
However,inthecaseofNationalFederationofLaborv.TheSecretaryofLabor,[G.R.No.104556,March9,
1998,287SCRA599,607],itwasheldthatwhereasubstantialnumberofworkersweredisenfranchisedsincetheywere
notnotifiedofthedateofthecertificationelection,coupledwiththefactthatthereportoftheMedArbiterconfirmed
tobetruetheallegationsoffraudandirregularities,the5dayperiodshouldbetreatedasameretechnicalitywhich
shouldnotbeallowedtoprevailovertheworkerswelfare.AstheSupremeCourtstressedinLVNPictures,Inc.v.Phil.
MusiciansGuild,[G.R.Nos.L12582andL12598,January28,1961,1SCRA132],itisessentialthattheemployeesmust
beaccordedanopportunitytofreelyandintelligentlydeterminewhichlabororganizationshouldactintheirbehalf.
Itmustbenotedthataprotestcannotbefiledbyalaborunionwhichisnotaparticipantinthecertification
election.141
17

Ch
a
t.Openingandclosingofprecincts.
The election precincts should open and close on the date and time agreed upon during the preelection
conference.Theopeningandcanvassofvotesshouldproceedimmediatelyaftertheprecinctshaveclosed.Failureof
any party or the employer or his/her/their representative to appear during the election proceedings should be
consideredasawaivertobepresentandtoquestiontheconductthereof.143
7.RUNOFFELECTION.
an
ia
Ch
na
an
u.Canvassingofvotes.
ThevotesshouldbecountedandtabulatedbytheElectionOfficerinthepresenceoftherepresentativesofthe
contendingunions.Uponcompletionofthecanvass,theElectionOfficerisrequiredtogiveeachrepresentativeacopyof
theminutesoftheelectionproceedingsandresultsoftheelection.Theballotsandthetallysheetsshallbesealedinan
envelopeandsignedbytheElectionOfficerandtherepresentativesofthecontendingunionsandtransmittedtothe
MedArbiter,togetherwiththeminutesandresultsoftheelectionwithintwentyfour(24)hoursfromthecompletionof
thecanvass.Wheretheelectionisconductedinmorethanoneregion,consolidationofresultsshouldbemadewithin
fifteen(15)daysfromtheconductthereof.144
Gu
Ch
ia
Gu
ia
n
el
Gu
8.RERUNELECTION.
it
o
b.Qualificationofvotersintherunoffelection.
Thesamevoterslistusedinthecertificationelectionorconsentelectionshouldbeusedintherunoffelection.
Theballotsintherunoffelectionshouldprovideaschoicestheunionsreceivingthehighestandsecondhighestnumber
ofthevotescast.Thelaborunionreceivingthegreaternumberofvalidvotescastshouldbecertifiedasthewinner.147
.J
el
it
os
ThismodeofchoosingthesoleandexclusivebargainingunitisnotexpresslyprovidedintheLaborCodenorin
itsimplementingrules.Thecircumstanceswhichwouldjustifytheholdingofarerunelectionarenotsetoutinthelaw.
However, a rerun election may be justified if certain irregularities have been committed during the conduct of the
certificationelection,suchas,interalia,disfranchisement,lackofsecrecyinthevotingandbribery,inwhichcase,the
election should be invalidated.148 Such invalidation would necessitate the conduct of a rerun election among the
contendingunionstodeterminethetruewillanddesireoftheemployeeelectorate.
of
9.CONSENTELECTION.
to
li
.J
Pr
os
a.Consentelection,meaning.
A consent election refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
representativeoftheemployeesinanappropriatebargainingunitforpurposesofcollectivebargainingornegotiation.It
is voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the intervention of the Department of Labor and
Employment.149
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
b.Consentelectionandcertificationelection,distinguished.
Aconsentelectionisonemutuallyagreeduponbytheparties,withorwithouttheinterventionbytheDOLE,its
purposebeingmerelytodeterminetheissueofmajorityrepresentationofalltheworkersinanappropriatecollective
bargainingunit;whileacertificationelectionisonewhichisorderedbytheDOLEandisaimedatdeterminingthesole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining.Fromtheverynatureofconsentelection,itisaseparateanddistinctprocessandhasnothingtodowiththe
importandeffectofacertificationelection.150
Reyes v. Ople, G.R. No. L-48192, March 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 279.
Section 14, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
145 Article 256, Labor Code; Section 1 [ss], Rule I, Book V, Ibid..
146 Section 1, Rule X, Book V, Ibid..
147 See Section 20, Rule IX and Section 2, Rule X, Book V, Ibid..
148 Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions v. Noriel, 116 SCRA 694 [1982]; National Federation of Labor v. The Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 104556, March 9, 1998, 287 SCRA 599, 607.
149 Section 1 [h], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
150 See Section 1 [h], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Algire v. De Mesa, [G.R. No. 97622, October 19, 1994, 237 SCRA 647], the Supreme Court had occasion to reiterate its earlier holding
in Warren Manufacturing Workers Union [WMWU] v. Bureau of Labor Relations, [G.R. No. L-76185, March 30, 1988, 159 SCRA 387] .
142
143
144
an
na
Gu
ia
to
na
a.Runoffelection,meaning.
Arunoffelectionreferstoanelectionbetweenthelaborunionsreceivingthetwo(2)highestnumberof
votesinacertificationelectionorconsentelectionwiththree(3)ormorechoices,wheresuchacertificationelectionor
consentelectionresultsinnoneofthethree(3)ormorechoicesreceivingthemajorityofthevalidvotescast,provided
thatthetotalnumberofvotesforallcontendingunionsisatleastfiftypercent(50%)ofthenumberofvotescast.145
Iftherearenoobjectionsorchallengeswhich,ifsustained,canmateriallyaltertheresults,theElectionOfficer
shouldmotuproprioconductarunoffelectionwithinten(10)daysfromthecloseoftheelectionproceedingsbetween
thelaborunionsreceivingthetwohighestnumberofvotes.Forobviousreason,thechoiceofNoUnionshouldnotbe
includedintherunoffelection.
NoticeoftheconductofarunoffelectionshouldbepostedbytheElectionOfficeratleastfive(5)daysbefore
theactualdatethereof.146
se
li
Jo
Forthesamereasonoflackofpersonality,aunionwhichhasdisaffiliatedfromitsmotherfederationandwhich
hasnoindependentregistrationcannotbeallowedtolodgeaprotest.142
18

Ch
a
an
c.Consentelectionagreeduponbythepartiestoacertificationelectioncase.
During the preliminary conference that the MedArbiter is required to conduct in a certification election
proceeding,heisrequiredtodetermineifthecontendinglaborunionsarewillingtosubmitthemselvestoaconsent
election.Incasethecontendingunionsagreetoaconsentelection,theMedArbiterisnotallowedtoissueaformal
ordercallingfortheconductofacertificationelection.Instead,heshouldenterthefactoftheagreementintheminutes
ofthehearingwhichshouldthenbesignedbythepartiesandattestedtobytheMedArbiter.152
an
ia
Ch
na
d.Holdingofaconsentelectionduringthependencyofapetitionforcertificationelection.
Where apetitionforcertification electionhas beenfiled and uponthe intercession of theMedArbiter, the
parties mutually agree to hold a consent election, the results thereof shall constitute a bar to the holding of a
certificationelectionforone(1)yearfromtheholdingofsuchconsentelection.Whereanappealhasbeenfiledfromthe
resultsoftheconsentelection,therunningoftheoneyearperiodissuspendeduntilthedecisiononappealhasbecome
finalandexecutory.153
ia
it
o
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
Gu
e.Holdingofaconsentelectionwherethereisnopetitionforcertificationelectionfiled.
Wherenopetitionforcertificationelectionisfiledbutthepartiesthemselvesagreetoholdaconsentelection
withtheintercessionoftheDOLERegionalOffice,theresultsthereofshallconstituteabartothefilingofapetitionfor
===================================
b. Bargaining agent
(7) Affiliation and disaffiliation of the
local union from the mother union
(a) Substitutionary doctrine
===================================
to
1.AFFILIATIONOFANINDEPENDENTUNIONWITHAFEDERATIONORANATIONALUNION.
Gu
ia
n
el
it
os
el
Gu
a.Affiliate,meaning.
Anaffiliaterefersto:
(a) Anindependentunionaffiliatedwithafederationoranationalunion;or
(b) Alocalchapter(formerlyknownascharteredlocal)whichhasbeensubsequentlygrantedindependent
registrationbutdidnotdisaffiliatefromthefederationornationalunionwhichcreatedit.155
Technically,alocalchaptercannotbeproperlycalledanaffiliateofafederationoranationalunionifithas
notacquiredanyindependentregistrationofitsown.
.J
b.Purposeofaffiliationwithafederationoranationalunion.
Affiliationwithafederationoranationalunionisprincipallyforthepurposeofstrengtheningthecollective
bargainingleverageoftheaffiliate.
of
to
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
c.Someprinciplesonaffiliation.
1. The relationship between the affiliate union (independent union) and the mother union (federation or
national union) is that of principalagent relationship. The affiliate union is the principal and the mother
union,theagent. 156 Thisprinciplealsoappliesinthecaseofalocalchaptercreatedbyafederationora
nationalunion.157
2.Theaffiliateunion,beinganindependentlyregisteredunion,doesnotoweitsexistencetothefederation
withwhichitisaffiliated.Itisaseparateanddistinctvoluntaryassociationowingitscreationtothewillofits
members.Itdoesnotgivethemotherfederationthelicensetoactindependentlyoftheaffiliateunion.It
onlygivesrisetoacontractofagency,wheretheformeractsinrepresentationofthelatter.Hence,local
unionsareconsideredprincipalswhilethefederationisdeemedtobemerelytheiragent.158
3.Byreasonoftheaffiliation,theaffiliateunionbecomessubjectoftherulesofthefederationornational
union.159
4. The appendage of the federations acronym to the affiliate unions name in the registration with the
Department of Labor and Employment does not change the principalagent relationship between them.
Suchinclusionoftheacronymismerelytoindicatethatthelocalunionisaffiliatedwiththefederationor
United Restaurors Employees and Labor Union-PAFLU v. Torres, G.R. No. L-24993, Dec. 18, 1968, 26 SCRA 435.
See Sections 9 and 10, Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid..
Section 23, Rule VIII, Book V, Ibid..
154 Ibid..
155 Section 1 [a], Rule I, Book V, Ibid..
156 Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, [G.R. No. 96425, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 802]; Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic National Workers Brotherhood v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 111836, Feb. 1,
1996, 253 SCRA 96, 103.
157 Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation v. NLRC, G. R. No. 115180, Nov. 16, 1999.
158 Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, [G.R. Nos. 174040-41, September 22, 2010], citing Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment-Office of the Secretary, [G.R. No. 157117, Nov. 20, 2006]; Alliance of Nationalist and
Genuine Labor Org. v. Samahan ng mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills, G.R. No.118562, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 371, 377.
159 Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union, v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., supra; See also Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos, G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000, 326 SCRA 428; Villar v. Inciong, G.R. Nos. L-50283-84, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 444.
151
152
153
an
se
li
Jo
Bylaw,asaresultoftheconsentelection,therighttobetheexclusiverepresentativeofalltheemployeesinan
appropriatecollectivebargaining unit is vested inthe labor union designated or selected for such purpose by the
majorityoftheemployeesintheunitconcerned.151
19

Ch
a
nationalunionatthetimeoftheregistration.Itdoesnotmeanthattheaffiliateunioncannotindependently
stand on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests
independently of the federation or national union. An affiliate union owes its creation and continued
existencetothewillofitsmembersandnottothefederationornationaluniontowhichitisaffiliated.160
2.DISAFFILIATION.
an
a.Righttodisaffiliate.
Therightoftheaffiliateuniontodisaffiliatefromitsmotherfederationornationalunionisaconstitutionally
guaranteedrightwhichmaybeinvokedbytheformeratanytime.Itisaxiomaticthatanaffiliateunionisaseparateand
voluntary association free to serve the interest of all its members consistent with the freedom of association
guaranteedintheConstitution.161
ia
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
el
os
.J
of
3.SUBSTITUTIONARYDOCTRINE.
to
li
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
DuringthelifetimeoftheCBA,themajoritystatusofthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentwhichnegotiated
itmaybequestionedaswhenthereexistextraordinarycircumstanceswhichaffectitsstandingintermsofmembership,
structureandotherswhichmayhavebeenoccasionedbyunionschismorsplitwhichcompletelychangesthesituation
oftheemployerandthebargainingagent.Apetitionforcertificationelectionmaythusbefiledtodeterminewhichof
theunionshasthemajoritystatus.Theunioncertifiedasthenewsoleandexclusivebargainingagentwillthussubstitute
thepreviousoneasapartytotheexistingCBA.Thisisallowedunderthesocalledsubstitutionarydoctrine.
Theinvocationofthisdoctrine,however,doesnotmeanthattheemployeesareallowedtorevoketheCBA
validlyexecutedwiththeiremployerbyreasonofthechangeinthebargainingagentduringtheeffectivitythereof.
ThenewbargainingagentshouldrespecttheCBAsvalidityandbindingeffect.Itmay,however,negotiateforthe
shorteningofthelifetimeoftheCBA.174
Thisdoctrinecannotbeinvokedtosupportthecontentionthatthenewlycertifiedcollectivebargainingagent
automaticallyassumesallthepersonalundertakingsmadebythedeposedunionlikethenostrikestipulationinthe
Tropical Hut Food Employees Union - CGW v. Tropical Hut Food Market, G.R. No. 43495-99, Jan. 20, 1990; See also St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 99395, June 29, 1993.
Philippine Labor Alliance Council v. BLR, G.R. No. L-41288, Jan. 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 162; Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-45824, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 42.
See Article 234-A, Labor Code; Villar v. Inciong, G.R. Nos. L-50283-84, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 444.
163 Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 127374, Jan. 31, 2002; Peoples Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization [FFW] v. Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. L-37687, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 440
164 Peoples Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization [FFW] v. Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. L-37687, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 440
165 Elisco-Elirol Labor Union [NAFLU] v. Noriel, G. R. L-41955, Dec. 29, 1977.
166 Villar v. Inciong, supra; Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., G.R. No. L-33987, Sept. 4, 1975, 66 SCRA 512.
167 Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-45824, June 19, 1985 137 SCRA 42.
168 Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, supra.
169 Associated Workers Union PTGWO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 87266-69, July 30, 1990.
170 Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 127374, January 31, 2002].
171 Tropical Hut Employees Union - CGW, v. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., [G.R. No. L-43495-99, January 20, 1990].
172 Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 127374, January 31, 2002].
173 Id.
174 Elisco-Elirol Labor Union [NAFLU] v. Noriel, G.R. No. 41955, Dec. 29, 1977.
160
161
Pr
o
162
an
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
c.Someprinciplesondisaffiliation.
1. Disaffiliationdoesnotdivestanaffiliateunionofitslegalpersonality.163
2. Disaffiliationofanaffiliateunionisnotanactofdisloyalty.164
3. Disaffiliationforpurposesofforminganewuniondoesnotterminatethestatusofthemembersthereofas
employeesofthecompany.Bysaidactofdisaffiliation,theemployeeswhoaremembersofthelocalunion
didnotformanewunionbutmerelyexercisedtheirrighttoregistertheirlocalunion.Thelocalunionisfree
todisaffiliatefromitsmotherunion.165
4. Disaffiliationshouldbeapprovedbythemajorityoftheunionmembers.166
5. Disaffiliationterminatestherighttocheckofffederationdues.Theobligationtocheckofffederationdues
isterminatedwiththevaliddisaffiliationofthelocalunionfromthefederationwithwhichitwaspreviously
affiliated.167
6. Disaffiliation does not affect CBA. It does not operate to amend it or change the administration of the
contract.168
7. Asageneralrule,alaborunionmaydisaffiliatefromtheparentuniontoformanindependentuniononly
duringthesixtydayfreedomperiodpriortotheexpirationoftheexistingCBA.Itisnot,however,legally
impossibletoeffectthedisaffiliationpriortothefreedomperiod,providedthatthesameisapprovedby
themajorityofthemembersofthebargainingunit.Underthissituation,theCBAcontinuestobindthe
membersofthenewordisaffiliatedandindependentunionuptotheexpirationthereof.169
8. DisaffiliatingfromthefederationandenteringintoaCBAwiththeemployerdoesnotconstituteanunfair
laborpractice.170
9. Disaffiliation,notaviolationoftheunionsecurityclause.171
10.Electionprotestinvolvingboththemotherfederationandlocalunion,notabartodisaffiliation.172
11.Theissueofaffiliationordisaffiliationisaninterunionconflictthejurisdictionofwhichproperlylieswith
theBureauofLaborRelationsandnotwiththeLaborArbiter.173
it
o
se
li
to
Gu
Jo
an
ia
Ch
na
b.Disaffiliationofindependentlyregisteredunionandlocalchapter,distinguished.
The disaffiliation of an independentlyregistered union does not affect its legitimate status as a labor
organization.However,thesamethingmaynotbesaidofalocalchapterwhichhasnoindependentregistrationsinceits
creationwaseffectedpursuanttothechartercertificateissuedtoitbythefederationornationalunion.Oncealocal
chapterdisaffiliates from the federation or nationalunionwhichcreatedit, itceases tobe entitled tothe rights and
privilegesgrantedtoalegitimatelabororganization.Hence,itcannot,byitself,fileapetitionforcertificationelection.162
20

Ch
a
CBA.Whentheformerbargainingagentbounditselfanditsofficersnottostrike,itcouldnothavevalidlyboundalsoall
theotherrivalunionsexistinginthebargainingunitinquestion.Itwastheagentoftheemployees,notoftheother
unions which possess distinct personalities. To consider the union contractually bound to the nostrike stipulation
would,therefore,violatethelegalmaximresinteraliosactaaliosnecprodestnecnocet.Ofcourse,theunion,asthe
newlycertifiedbargainingagent,mayalwaysvoluntarilyassumeallthepersonalundertakingsmadebythedisplaced
agent.175
Ch
na
ia
1.UNIONDUESANDSPECIALASSESSMENTS.
an
Relevant Provisions: Articles 241 [o] and 277 [a], Labor Code
a.Rightofuniontocollectduesandassessments.
Allunionsareauthorizedtocollectreasonableamountsofthefollowing:
1. membershipfees;
2. uniondues;
3. assessments;
4. fines;
5. contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund,
strikefundandcreditandcooperativeundertakings;176
6.Agencyfees.177
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
Gu
to
ia
Gu
ia
n
el
it
os
el
Gu
c.Requisitesforvalidityofunionspecialassessments.
The following requisites must concur in order for special assessments for the unions incidental expenses,
attorneysfeesandrepresentationexpensestobevalidandupheld,namely:
(1) Authorizationbyawrittenresolutionofthemajorityofallthemembersatageneralmembershipmeeting
dulycalledforthepurpose;
(2) Secretarysrecordoftheminutesofsaidmeeting;and
(3) Individualwrittenauthorizationsforcheckoffdulysignedbytheemployeesconcerned.180
to
Pr
os
of
.J
d.Assessmentforattorneysfees,negotiationfeesandsimilarcharges.
Asfarasattorneysfees,negotiationfeesorsimilarchargesareconcerned,theruleisthatnosuchattorneys
fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from the negotiation or conclusion of the CBA shall be
imposedonanyindividualmemberofthecontractingunion.Suchfeesmaybechargedonlyagainsttheunionfundsin
anamounttobeagreeduponbytheparties.Anycontract,agreementorarrangementofanysorttothecontraryis
deemednullandvoid.181Clearly,whatisprohibitedisthepaymentofattorneysfeeswhenitiseffectedthroughforced
contributionsfromtheworkersfromtheirownfundsasdistinguishedfromtheunionfunds.182
Pr
o
f.
f.Individualwrittenauthorization,whennotrequired.
Inthefollowingcases,individualwrittenauthorizationisnotrequired:
Jo
Pr
se
of
li
.J
e.Individualwrittenauthorization,whenrequired.
Thelawstrictlyprohibitsthecheckofffromanyamountdueanemployeewhoisamemberoftheunion,of
any special assessment, attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees other than for mandatory
activities under the Labor Code, without the individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. Such
authorization must specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.183 The purpose of the
individual written authorization is to protect the employees from unwarranted practices that diminish their
compensationwithouttheirknowledgeorconsent.184
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. BCI Employees & Workers Union [PAFLU], G.R. No. L-24711, April 30, 1968, 23 SCRA 465.
Articles 241[o] and 277[a], Labor Code; Section 1, Rule XIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
Article 248 [e], Labor Code.
178 A. L. Ammen Trans. v. Bicol Transport Employees Mutual Association, G.R. No. L-4941, July 25, 1952, 91 Phil. 649.
179 Gabriel v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 115949, March 16, 2000; ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 106518, March 11, 1999; Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 110007, Oct.
18, 1996, 263 SCRA 358.
180 Article 241[o], Labor Code; Gabriel v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, supra, ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., supra.
181 See Article 241 in relation to paragraph [b] of Article 222 of the Labor Code.
182 Gabriel v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, supra; Vengco v. Trajano, G.R. No. 74453, May 5, 1989; Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117418, Jan. 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 323; Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85333, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 710.
183 Article 241 [o], Labor Code.
184 Galvadores v. Trajano, G.R. No. 70067, Sept. 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 138.
175
176
177
an
b.Checkoff,defined.
The term checkoff means a method of deducting from the employees pay at prescribed periods, any
amountdueforfees,finesorassessments.178Itisaprocessordevicewherebytheemployer,onagreementwiththe
unionrecognizedastheproperbargainingrepresentative,oronpriorauthorizationfromitsemployees,deductsunion
duesoragencyfeesfromthelatterswagesandremitsthemdirectlytotheunion.179
it
o
se
li
Jo
an
====================================
(8) Union dues and special assessments
(a) Requirements for validity
====================================
21

Ch
na
an
Ch
Gu
ia
n
os
el
Gu
ia
it
o
na
Gu
ia
to
na
Gu
ia
g.Someprinciplesonunionduesandassessments.
1. Checkoff for a special assessment is not valid after the withdrawal of the individual written
authorizations.190
2. Unlikeinauthorizationforunionduesandassessments,disauthorizationdoesnotrequirethatitbewritten
individually. The fact that the disauthorizations were collective in form consisting of randomly procured
signaturesandunderloosesheetsofpaper,isofnomomentforthesimplereasonthatthedocuments
containing thedisauthorizationshave the signaturesoftheunion members. Such retractionswere valid.
Thereisnothinginthelawwhichrequiresthatthedisauthorizationsmustbeinindividualform.191
3. Therightoftheincumbentbargainingrepresentativetocheckoffandtocollectduesisnotaffectedbythe
pendencyofarepresentationcaseoranintrauniondispute.192
4. Approvaloftheunionduesandassessmentsbythemajorityofallthemembersoftheunionisrequired.193
Article241[n]oftheLaborCodeandSection13[a],RuleVIII,BookIIIoftheRulestoImplementtheLaborCodedisallow
adeductionforspecialassessmentwhichwaspassedbyamereboardresolutionofthedirectors,andnotbythe
majorityofallthemembersoftheunion.Also,awrittenauthorizationdulysignedindividuallybytheemployees
concernedisaconditionsinequanontherefor.Employeesareprotectedbylawfromunwarrantedpracticesthathave
fortheirobjectthediminutionofthehardearnedcompensationduethem.
=============================
(9) Agency fees
(a) Requisites for assessment
=============================
el
it
Relevant Provision: 2nd Sentence, Paragraph [e], Article 248, Labor Code
to
li
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
1.CHECKOFFOFAGENCYFEESFROMNONMEMBERSOFTHEBARGAININGAGENT.
a.Agencyfees.
Theduesandotherfeesthatmaybeassessedfromnonbargainingagentmemberswithinthebargainingunit
who accept and avail of the benefits flowing from the CBA are called agency fees. Payment of agency fees to the
certifiedcollectivebargainingagentwhichsuccessfullynegotiatedtheCBAisbutareasonablerequirementrecognized
bylaw.Inthisaspect,thelegalbasisoftheunion'srighttoagencyfeesisneithercontractualnorstatutory,butquasi
contractual,derivingfromtheestablishedprinciplethatnonunionemployeesmaynotunjustlyenrichthemselvesby
benefitingfromemploymentconditionsnegotiatedbythebargainingagent.194
se
of
b.Employerhasthedutytocheckoffagencyfees.
Theemployerisrequiredtocheckofffromnonbargainingunionmemberswithinacollectivebargainingunit
thesamereasonablefeesequivalenttotheduesandotherfeesnormallypaidbythebargainingunionmemberswithout
theneedforindividualcheckoffauthorizations.195
f.
Pr
Jo
c.Noindividualwrittenauthorizationbynonbargainingunionmembersrequired.
To effect the checkoff of agency fees, no individual written authorization from the nonbargaining agent
memberswhoacceptthebenefitsresultingfromtheCBAisnecessary.196
Pr
o
Article 248 [e], Labor Code.

Article 241 [o], Labor Code.
RCPI v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 77959, Jan. 9, 1989.
188 Article 1706, Civil Code.
189 Article 1708, Civil Code.
190 Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja, [G.R. No. 85333, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 710-711].
191 Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja, [supra].
192 See old provision of Section 1, Rule XVIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Article 1, Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997 [21 June 1997].
193 Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117418, Jan. 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 323; Palacol v. Calleja, etc., supra.
194 Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 110007, Oct. 18, 1996, 263 SCRA 358; 331 Phil. 680, 692.
195 Article 248 [e], Labor Code; Section 4, Rule XXV, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
196 Del Pilar Academy v. Del Pilar Academy Employees Union, supra; Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, supra.
185
186
187
an
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
1. Assessmentfromnonmembersofthebargainingagentofagencyfeeswhichshouldbeequivalenttothe
duesandotherfeespaidbymembersoftherecognizedbargainingagent,ifsuchnonmembersacceptthe
benefitsundertheCBA.185
2. Deductions for fees for mandatory activities such as labor relations seminars and labor education
activities.186
3. Checkoffforunionservicefeesauthorizedbylaw.187
4. DeductionsforwithholdingtaxmandatedundertheNationalInternalRevenueCode.
5. Deductionsforwithholdingofwagesbecauseofemployeesdebttotheemployerwhichisalreadydue.188
6. Deductionsmadepursuanttoajudgmentagainsttheworkerundercircumstanceswherethewagesmaybe
thesubjectofattachmentorexecutionbutonlyfordebtsincurredforfood,clothing,shelterandmedical
attendance.189
7. Deductionsfromwagesorderedbythecourt.
8. Deductions authorized by law such as for premiums for PhilHealth, social security, PagIBIG, employees
compensationandthelike.
22

Ch
Relevant Provisions: Articles 250 to 253, Article 248, Labor Code

1.COLLECTIVEBARGAININGAGREEMENT,DEFINED.
an
Ch
na
Gu
ia
ACollectiveBargainingAgreementorCBAreferstothenegotiatedcontractbetweenadulyrecognizedor
certifiedexclusivebargainingagentofworkersandtheemployerconcerningwages,hoursofworkandallotherterms
andconditions ofemployment in the appropriatebargainingunit, including mandatoryprovisions forgrievancesand
arbitrationmachineries.197
Duringitslifetime,theCBAisconsideredthelawbetweenthepartiesthecollectivebargainingagentandits
members,ontheonehand,andtheemployer,ontheother.198
ia
to
2.ESSENTIALREQUISITESOFCOLLECTIVEBARGAINING.
ia
3.DUTYTOBARGAINCOLLECTIVELY.
os
el
it
b.Two(2)situationscontemplated.
Thedutytobargaincollectivelyinvolvestwo(2)situations,namely:
1. DutytobargaincollectivelyintheabsenceofaCBA.203
2. DutytobargaincollectivelywhenthereisanexistingCBA.
.J
of
3.1.DUTYTOBARGAINCOLLECTIVELYINTHEABSENCEOFACBA(ARTICLE251,LABORCODE).
to
os
Gu
ia
n
Gu
a.Dutytobargaincollectively,meaning.
Thedutytobargaincollectivelymeanstheperformanceofamutualobligationtomeetandconvenepromptly
andexpeditiouslyingoodfaithforthepurposeofnegotiatinganagreementwithrespecttowages,hoursofworkandall
othertermsandconditionsofemploymentincludingproposalsforadjustinganygrievancesorquestionsarisingunder
suchagreementandexecutingacontractincorporatingsuchagreementsifrequestedbyeitherpartybutsuchdutydoes
notcompelanypartytoagreetoaproposalortomakeanyconcession.202
el
li
se
of
.J
Pr
Essentially,thedutytobargaininthissituationrequiresthattheemployerandthebargainingunionshould
meet,conveneandconferforcollectivebargainingpurposes.TheadvantageofnegotiatingaCBAforthefirsttimeliesin
thefactthatbothpartiesarenotrestrictedorencumberedbyanypreviousagreementsonanyoftheissuesthatmaybe
raisedinthecoursethereof.Theyarefreetotakepositionsonanythingwithouthavingtoworryaboutpossiblepast
agreementsaffectingthecurrentonesfordiscussion.ACBAisanattempttoerectawholesystemofindustrialself
government.Itconstitutesageneralizedcodetogovernamyriadofcaseswhichthedraftsmencannotwhollyanticipate
andis,therefore,morethanacontract.Itcoversthewholeemploymentrelationshipandcallsintobeinganewcommon
lawthecommonlawofaparticularindustryorofaparticularshop.204
Pr
Jo
3.2.DUTYTOBARGAINCOLLECTIVELYWHENTHEREEXISTSACBA(ARTICLE253,LABORCODE).
a.Concept.
Whenthereisacollectivebargainingagreement,thedutytobargaincollectivelyshallmeanthatneitherparty
shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to
terminateormodifytheagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.Itshallbethedutyofbothparties
Pr
o
f.
Section 1 [f], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings [Oct. 15, 2004]; Section 1 [j], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Section 1 [2],
Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; See Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines Employees Association [PALEA], G.R. No. 142399, March 12, 2008.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing-United Workers of the Philippines [SMTFM-UWP] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113856, Sept. 7, 1998; Marcopper Mining Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103525, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 322.
199 Allied Free Workers Union v. Compania Maritima, G.R. No. L-22951, Jan. 31, 1967;
200 See Articles 255 to 258, Labor Code.
201 Article 250, Labor Code; Kiok Loy v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-54334, Jan. 22, 1986.
204 48 Am Jur 1797, p. 248.
197
198
23
an
na
Gu
Priortoanycollectivebargainingnegotiationsbetweentheemployerandthebargainingunion,thefollowing
requisitesmustfirstbesatisfied:
1. Employeremployeerelationshipmustexistbetweentheemployerandthemembersofthebargainingunit
beingrepresentedbythebargainingagent.199
2. Thebargainingagentmusthavethemajoritysupportofthemembersofthebargainingunitestablished
throughthemodessanctionedbylaw.200
3.Alawfuldemandtobargainismadeinaccordancewithlaw.201
it
o
se
li
Jo
na
an
Ch
a
d.Nonmembersofthecertifiedbargainingagentneednotbecomemembersthereof.
It must be emphasized that the employees who are not members of the certified bargaining agent which
successfully concluded the CBA are not requiredto become members of the latter. Their acceptance of the benefits
flowingfromtheCBAandtheiractofpayingtheagencyfeesdonotmakethemmembersthereof.
===========================
a. Duty to bargain collectively
(1) Kiok Loy ruling
===========================

Ch
a
b.Freedomperiod.
Thelastsixty(60)daysofthe5yearlifetimeofaCBAimmediatelypriortoitsexpirationiscalledthefreedom
period.Itisdenominatedassuchbecauseitistheonlytimewhenthelawallowsthepartiestofreelyserveanoticeto
terminate,alterormodifytheexistingCBA.Itisalsothetimewhenthemajoritystatusofthebargainingagentmaybe
challengedbyanotherunionbyfilingtheappropriatepetitionforcertificationelection.206
an
ia
Ch
na
an
c.Automaticrenewalclause.
Ifunchallenged,themajoritystatusoftheexistingbargainingagentshouldberespected.
Apetitionforcertificationelectionchallengingthemajoritystatusoftheexistingbargainingagentshouldbe
filedwithinandnotbeforeorafterthe60dayfreedomperiod.Upontheexpirationofthesaidperiodandnopetition
forcertificationelectionisfiledbyachallengingunion,theemployerisdutyboundtocontinuetorecognizethemajority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent.207 Negotiation for a new CBA may even validly commence between the
incumbent bargaining agent and the employer during the 60day freedom period if no challenge to the bargaining
agentsmajoritystatusisposedbyanotherunion.
ia
to
Gu
ia
it
o
na
Gu
a.KiokLoydoctrine.
ThisdoctrineisbasedontherulingInKiokLoyv.NLRC, [No.L54334,January22,1986,141SCRA179,188],
where the petitioner, Sweden Ice Cream Plant, refused to submit any counterproposal to the CBA proposed by its
employeescertifiedbargainingagent.TheHighCourtruledthattheemployerhadtherebylostitsrighttobargainthe
termsandconditionsoftheCBA.Thus,theCBAproposedbytheunionwasimposedlock,stockandbarrelontheerring
company.
TheKiokLoycaseepitomizestheclassiccaseofnegotiatingaCBAinbadfaithconsistingoftheemployers
refusaltobargainwiththecollectivebargainingagentbyignoringallnoticesfornegotiationsandrequestsforcounter
proposals.SuchrefusaltosendacounterproposaltotheunionandtobargainanewontheeconomictermsoftheCBA
constitutesanunfairlaborpracticeunderArticle248[g]oftheLaborCode(violationofthedutybargaincollectively).209
Gu
ia
n
to
li
Jo
Pr
se
of
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
b.OthercasessubsequenttoKiokLoy.
TherulingthattheCBAproposedbythebargainingunionmaybeadoptedasthenewCBAifemployerrefused
tonegotiatehasbeenreiteratedinthefollowingcases:
1.DivineWordUniversityofTaclobanv.SecretaryofLaborandEmployment,[G.R.No.91915,September11,
1992,213SCRA759],wheretheuniversityrefusedtoperformitsdutytobargaincollectively;hence,the
HighTribunalupheldtheunilateralimpositionontheuniversityoftheCBAproposedbytheDivineWord
UniversityEmployeesUnion.
2. General Milling Corporation v. CA, [G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004], where the Supreme Court
imposed on the employer the draft CBA proposed by the union for two (2) years commencing from the
expiration of the3year term of the original CBA. This was because ofthe employers refusaltocounter
proposetotheunionsproposalswhichwasdeclaredasanunfairlaborpracticeunderArticle248[g]ofthe
LaborCode.
==============================
b. Mandatory provisions of CBA
(1) Grievance Procedure
(2) Voluntary Arbitration
(3) No Strike-No Lockout Clause
(4) Labor-Management Council
==============================
Pr
o
f.
Relevant Provision: Article 260 [Grievance Machinery]; Articles 261 to 262 [Voluntary Arbitration]; and
Article 255 [Labor-Management Council], Labor Code

Picop Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, [G.R. No. 160828, August 9, 2010]; MRR Yard Crew v. PNR, G.R. No. L-33621, July 26, 1976, 72 SCRA 88; General Textiles Allied Workers Association - GTAWA v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-45719, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA
430.
208 Article 253, Labor Code; New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124224, March 17, 2000; Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 110854, Feb. 13, 1995, 241 SCRA 294; Union of Filipro Employees v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91025, Dec.
19, 1990.
209 General Milling Corporation v. CA, [G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004].
205
206
an
4.KIOKLOYRULING.
Ch
na
Gu
d.Statusquoshouldbemaintained.
Pending the renewal of the CBA, the parties are bound to keep the status quo and to treat the terms and
conditions embodied therein still in fullforce andeffectduring the 60dayfreedomperioduntila newagreement is
negotiatedandultimatelyconcludedbytheparties.Thisprincipleisotherwiseknownastheautomaticrenewalclause
whichismandatedbylawanddeemedincorporatedinallCBAs.208
se
li
Jo
tokeepthestatusquoandtocontinueinfullforceandeffectthetermsandconditionsoftheexistingagreementduring
the60dayperiodand/oruntilanewagreementisreachedbytheparties.205
24

1.MANDATORYPROVISIONSOFTHECBA.
Ch
a
TheSyllabusmentions4provisionsthataremandatorilyrequiredtobestatedintheCBA,towit:
1.GrievanceProcedure210
2.VoluntaryArbitration211
3.NoStrikeNoLockoutClause
4.LaborManagementCouncil212
IftheseprovisionsarenotreflectedintheCBA,itsregistrationwillbedeniedbytheBLR.
an
2.GRIEVANCEPROCEDURE.
an
Ch
na
ia
to
Gu
ia
Ch
na
a.Grievanceorgrievableissue,defined.
Agrievanceorgrievableissueisanyquestionraisedbyeithertheemployerortheunionregardinganyof
thefollowingissuesorcontroversies:
1. TheinterpretationorapplicationoftheCBA;
2. Theinterpretationorenforcementofcompanypersonnelpolicies;or
3. AnyclaimbyeitherpartythattheotherpartyisviolatinganyprovisionsoftheCBAorcompanypersonnel
policies.213
Itmustbestressed,however,thatinordertobegrievable,theviolationsoftheCBAshouldbeordinaryandnot
grossincharacter;otherwise,theyshallbeconsideredasunfairlaborpractice.GrossviolationoftheCBAisdefinedas
flagrant and/or malicious refusal by a party thereto to comply with the economic provisions thereof. 214 If what is
violated,therefore,isanoneconomicorapoliticalprovisionoftheCBA,thesameshallnotbeconsideredasunfairlabor
practiceandmaythusbeprocessedasagrievableissueinaccordancewithandfollowingthegrievancemachinerylaid
downintheCBA.
c.Grievanceprocedure,defined.
GrievanceprocedurereferstotheinternalrulesofprocedureestablishedbythepartiesintheirCBAwith
voluntaryarbitrationastheterminalstep,whichareintendedtoresolveallissuesarisingfromtheimplementationand
interpretationoftheircollectiveagreement.216ItisthatpartoftheCBAwhichprovidesforapeacefulwayofsettling
differencesandmisunderstandingbetweentheparties.217
ia
Gu
el
3.VOLUNTARYARBITRATION.
Gu
ia
n
Thetermsgrievanceprocedureandgrievancemachinerymaybeusedinterchangeably.
.J
el
it
os
a.Voluntaryarbitration,defined.
Voluntaryarbitrationreferstothemodeofsettlinglabormanagementdisputesinwhichthepartiesselecta
competent,trainedandimpartialthirdpersonwhoistaskedtodecideonthemeritsofthecaseandwhosedecisionis
finalandexecutory.218
to
se
of
li
.J
Pr
os
of
b.VoluntaryArbitrator.
A Voluntary Arbitrator refers to any person who has been accredited by the National Conciliation and
MediationBoard(NCMBorBoard)assuch,oranypersonnamedordesignatedintheCBAbythepartiesastheir
VoluntaryArbitrator,oronechosenbythepartieswithorwithouttheassistanceoftheNCMB,pursuanttoaselection
procedureagreeduponintheCBAoroneappointedbytheNCMBincaseeitherofthepartiestotheCBArefusesto
submittovoluntaryarbitration.ThistermincludesapanelofVoluntaryArbitrators.219
A Voluntary Arbitrator is not an employee, functionary or part of the government or of the Department of
LaborandEmployment,butheisauthorizedtorenderarbitrationservicesprovidedunderlaborlaws.220
4.NOSTRIKENOLOCKOUTCLAUSE.
f.
Pr
Jo
AnostrikenolockoutclauseintheCBAisanexpressionofthefirmcommitmentofthepartiestheretothat,
onthepartoftheunion,itwillnotmountastrikeduringtheeffectivityoftheCBA,andonthepartoftheemployer,that
itwillnotstagealockoutduringthelifetimethereof.Ithasheretoforebeenheldthatanostrike,nolockoutprovision
intheCBAisavalidstipulationalthoughtheclausemaybeinvokedbyanemployeronlywhenthestrikeiseconomicin
natureoronewhichisconductedtoforcewageorotherconcessionsfromtheemployerthatarenotmandatedtobe
grantedbythelawitself.Itdoesnotbarstrikesgroundedonunfairlaborpractices.221
See Article 260, Labor Code.
See Articles 261 to 262, Labor Code.
213 Section 1 [u], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, Feb. 17, 2003; Section 1[g], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings [Oct. 15, 2004]; No. 4, NCMB
Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration.
214 See Article 261, Labor Code.
216 Rule III [7], NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation.
217 No. 12, NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration; See also Section 1[h], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings [Oct. 15, 2004].
218 Section 1 [d], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings [Oct. 15, 2004].
219 Section 1 [e], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings [Oct. 15, 2004]; See also Article 212 [n], Labor Code; Section 1, Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of
2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Section 1 [27], Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases.
220 Ludo & Luym Corporation v. Saornido, G.R. No. 140960, Jan. 20, 2003.
221 Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield (MSMG-UWP) v. Ramos, G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000, 326 SCRA 428, citing Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 92009, Feb. 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 47; See also Panay Electric Company, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
102672, Oct. 4, 1995, 248 SCRA 688; Peoples Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization [FFW] v. Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. L-37687, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 440.
210
211
Pr
o
212
an
na
Gu
b.Grievancemachinery,defined.
Grievancemachineryreferstothemechanismfortheadjustmentandresolutionofgrievancesarisingfrom
theinterpretationorimplementationofaCBAandthosearisingfromtheinterpretationorenforcementofcompany
personnelpolicies.215
it
o
se
li
Jo
25

na
5.LABORMANAGEMENTCOUNCIL.
an
Ch
na
ia
Gu
ia
n
.J
el
it
os
el
Gu
ia
it
o
na
b.Selectionofrepresentativestolabormanagementcommitteesorcouncils.
Inorganizedestablishments,theworkersrepresentativestothecouncilshouldbenominatedbytheexclusive
bargainingrepresentative.Inestablishmentswherenolegitimatelabororganizationexists,theworkersrepresentative
shouldbeelecteddirectlybytheemployeesatlarge.226
============================
c. ULP in Collective Bargaining
(1) Bargaining in bad faith
(2) Refusal to bargain
(3) Individual bargaining
(4) Blue sky bargaining
(5) Surface bargaining
============================
1.BARGAININGINBADFAITH.
of
to
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
a.Basicprinciples.
Itisessentialthattheemployerandtheemployeesshouldbothactingoodfaith.Itisinthisprincipleofgood
faiththatdependsentirelythesuccessandeffectivenessofmaintainingindustrialstabilityandpeace.Thesigningofthe
CBAisnottheendofthecollectivebargainingandnegotiationsprocess.Itcontinuestothestagewheretheparties
theretoaremandatedtoadministerandimplementtheagreedtermsandconditionsoftheemploymentrelationship.
The CBA process covers, therefore, all aspects of the employment relationship between the employer and the
employees, commencing with the negotiation of its stipulations and finally, its administration, application and
implementation.
Collective bargaining is not merely going through the motions of negotiating. A party must not have a
predeterminedresolvenottobudgefromaninitialposition.Itisnotsurfacebargainingaccompaniedbyapurposeto
defeat it. It is not shadow boxing to a draw. But it is not necessarily incompatible with stubbornness. Good faith
bargainingrequiresthatclaimsmadebyeitherbargainershouldbehonestclaims.Itwouldnotbefarfetchedtoreach
theconclusionthatbargaininglacksgoodfaithwhenanemployermechanicallyrepeatsclaimofinabilitytopaywithout
makingtheslightestefforttosubstantiatetheclaim.227
Whereanemployerdidnotevenbothertosubmitananswertothebargainingproposalsoftheunion,thereis
aclearevasionofthedutytobargaincollectively.228
Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association [TMPCWA] v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786 &158789, October 19, 2007; Filcon Manufacturing Corporation v. Lakas Manggagawa sa Filcon-Lakas Manggagawa Labor Center [LMF-LMLC], G.R. No. 150166, July
26, 2004.
See Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution; Article 255, Labor Code.
224 Section 1, Rule XXI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
225 Article 277 [h], Labor Code, as amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989.
226 Section 2, Rule XXI, Book V, Ibid..
227 NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U. S. 149; 48 Am Jur 2d 1200.
228 The Bradman Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23134, July 21, 1977.
222
223
an
Gu
to
Gu
ia
Ch
a.Creationoflabormanagementcouncils.
LabormanagementcouncilsaremandatedtobecreatedineveryestablishmentpursuanttotheConstitutional
granttoemployeesoftherighttoparticipateinpolicyanddecisionmakingprocessesinallmattersaffectingtheirrights,
duties,benefitsandwelfare.223
Under the Rules to Implement the Labor Code, the Department of Labor and Employment is mandated to
promote the formation of labormanagement councils in organized and unorganized establishments to enable the
workers to participate in policy and decisionmaking processes in the establishment, insofar as said processes will
directlyaffecttheirrights,benefitsandwelfare,exceptthosewhicharecoveredbycollectivebargainingagreementsor
aretraditionalareasofbargaining.224
In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists, labormanagement committees may be
formedvoluntarilybyworkersandemployersforthepurposeofpromotingindustrialpeace.TheDepartmentofLabor
and Employment should endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers and employers on their rights and
responsibilitiesthroughlaboreducationwithemphasisonthepolicythrustsoftheLaborCode.225
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
Thesamerulealsoappliesincaseofalockout.Thesaidclausemayonlybeinvokedbytheunionincasethe
groundforthelockoutiseconomicinnaturebutitmaynotbesocitedifthegroundisunfairlaborpracticecommitted
bytheunion.
TheSupremeCourtconsistentlyruledinalonglineofcasesthatastrikeisillegalifstagedinviolationofthe
saidclauseintheCBAespeciallywhenconclusivearbitrationclauseisprovidedtherein.222Thus,inthe2010caseofC.
Alcantara&Sons,Inc.v.CA,[G.R.No.155109,September29,2010],itwasdeclaredthatastrikemayberegardedas
invalidalthoughthelaborunionhascompliedwiththestrictrequirementsforstagingoneasprovidedinArticle263of
theLaborCodewhenthesameisheldcontrarytoanexistingagreement,suchasanostrike,nolockoutprovisionthat
enjoinsboththeunionandthecompanyfromresortingtotheuseofeconomicweaponsavailabletothemunderthe
lawandtoinsteadtakerecoursetovoluntaryarbitrationinsettlingtheirdisputes.
26

Ch
na
an
b.MakingapromiseduringtheCBAnegotiations,notanindicationofbadfaith.
PromisesmadebymanagementduringtheCBAnegotiationsmaynotbeconsideredanindicationofbadfaith
oraschemeoffeigningtoundertakethenegotiationproceedingsthroughemptypromises.Theunionhas,underthe
law, the right and opportunity to insist on the foreseeable fulfillment of the companys promise by demanding its
incorporation in the CBA. As held in Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form ManufacturingUnited Workers of the
Philippines[SMTFMUWP]v.NLRC,[G.R.No.113856,September7,1998],becausetheproposalwasneverembodied
intheCBA,thepromisehasremainedjustthat,apromise,theimplementationofwhichcannotbevalidlydemanded
underthelaw.
an
Gu
ia
c.Adamantstanceresultinginanimpasse,notanindiciumofbadfaith.
Theadamantinsistenceonabargainingpositiontothepointwherethenegotiationsreachanimpassedoes
not establish bad faith. Neither can bad faith be inferred from a partys insistence on the inclusion of a particular
substantiveprovisionunlessitconcernstrivialmattersorisobviouslyintolerable.230
Ch
na
ia
to
d.Partieshavenoobligationtoprecipitatelyagreetotheproposalsofeachother.
Whilethe lawmakes it an obligationfor the employer and the employees to bargaincollectively with each
other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the
other.Allitcontemplatesisthatbothpartiesshouldapproachthenegotiationwithanopenmindandmakereasonable
efforttoreachacommongroundofagreement.231
ia
it
o
2.REFUSALTOBARGAIN.
Pr
Gu
ia
n
to
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
Gu
a.Effectoffailureorrefusalofmanagementtogivecounterproposalstotheunionsdemands.
Thefailureoftheemployertosubmititscounterproposalstothedemandsofthebargaininguniondoesnot,
byitself,constituterefusaltobargain.233However,itisdifferentiftheemployerrefusestosubmitananswerorreplyto
thewrittenbargainingproposalsofthecertifiedbargainingunion.Inthiscase,unfairlaborpracticeiscommitted.While
thelawdoesnotcompelthepartiestoreachanagreement,itdoescontemplatethatbothpartieswillapproachthe
negotiationwithanopenmindandmakeareasonableefforttoreachacommongroundofagreement.234
InthecaseofGeneralMillingCorporationv.CA,[G.R.No.146728,February11,2004],theSupremeCourt
foundthepetitionerguiltyofunfairlaborpracticeunderArticle248[g]forrefusingtosendacounterproposaltothe
unionandtobargainanewontheeconomictermsoftheCBA.
Similarly, in the earlier case of Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Association of Employees and Faculty of
Letran,[G.R.No.141471,September18,2000],thepetitionerschoolwasdeclaredguiltyofunfairlaborpracticewhenit
failedtomakeatimelyreplytotheproposalsofthecertifiedbargainingunionmorethanamonthafterthesamewere
submittedtoit.Inexplainingitsfailuretoreply,theschoolmerelyofferedthefeebleexcusethatitsBoardofTrustees
hadnotyetconvenedtodiscussthematter.Clearly,itsactuationshowedalackofsinceredesiretonegotiatetheCBA
therebyrenderingitguiltyofanunfairlaborpractice.
se
of
li
.J
b.RefusalofapartytosigntheCBA.
A party to a fullyconcluded CBA may be compelled to sign it, especially if said refusal to sign is the only
remaininghitchtoitsbeingimplemented.Suchrefusalisconsideredanunfairlaborpractice.235
3.INDIVIDUALBARGAINING.
Pr
Jo
Employersactofnegotiatingwithindividualmembersoftheunionisanunfairlaborpractice.Tonegotiateor
attempttonegotiatewithindividualworkersratherthanwiththecertifiedbargainingagentisobviouslyULP.236
4.BLUESKYBARGAINING.
Pr
o
f.
Bluesky bargaining means making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals.237 This kind of unfair labor
practiceactmayonlybecommittedbythebargainingunion.
Inthe2004caseof StandardCharteredBankEmployeesUnion[NUBE]v.Confesor,[G.R.No.114974,June
16, 2004], the minutes of the meeting show that the union based its economic proposals on data of rankandfile
48 Am Jur 1797, p. 248.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing-United Workers of the Philippines [SMTFM-UWP] v. NLRC, supra; Divine Word University of Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 91915, Sept. 11, 1992, 213 SCRA 759, 912-913.
Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno [UFE-DFA-KMU] v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 158930-31, March 3, 2008.
232 Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing-United Workers of the Philippines [supra].
233 Philippine Marine Radio Officers Association v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. Nos. L-10095 and L-10115, Oct. 31, 1957, 102 Phil. 373.
234 Kiok Loy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 54334, Jan. 22, 1986; Bradman Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. Nos. L-24134-35, July 21, 1977, 78 SCRA 10.
235 Roadway Express v. General Teamster, 320 F 2d, 859.
236 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, Jan. 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244.
237 Arthur A. Sloane and Fred Witney, Labor Relations, 7th Edition 1991, p. 195.
229
230
231
an
na
Gu
e.AllegationsofbadfaithwipedoutwiththesigningoftheCBA.
WiththeexecutionoftheCBA,badfaithbargainingcannolongerbeimputeduponanyofthepartiesthereto.
AllprovisionsintheCBAaresupposedtohavebeenjointlyandvoluntarilyincorporatedthereinbytheparties.TheCBA
isproofenoughthatthecompanyexertedreasonableeffortatgoodfaithbargaining.232
se
li
Jo
Ch
a
A CBA is not simply a document by which the union and the employees have imposed upon management
expressrestrictionsofitsotherwiseabsoluterighttomanagetheenterprise.Whileregulatingorrestrainingtheexercise
ofmanagementfunctions,theCBAdoesnotoustmanagementfromtheperformanceofthesefunctions.Thechoice
availabletothepartiestoaCBAisnotbetweenenteringorrefusingtoenterintoarelationshipbutbetweenhavingthat
relationshipgovernedbyanagreeduponruleoflaworleavingeachandeverymattersubjecttoatemporaryresolution
dependentsolelyupontherelativestrength,atanygivenmoment,ofthecontendingforces.229
27

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
Gu
ia
n
to
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
Gu
ia
it
o
na
Gu
Relevant Provision: Article 248, Labor Code
1.UNFAIRLABORPRACTICE(ULP),INGENERAL.
a.Whenanactisconsideredunfairlaborpractice.
At the outset, it must be clarified that not all unfair acts constitute unfair labor practices. While an act or
decisionofanemployeroraunionmaybeunfair,certainlynoteveryunfairactordecisionthereofmayconstitutean
unfairlaborpractice(ULP)asdefinedandenumeratedunderArticles248and249oftheLaborCode.239
TheactcomplainedofasULPmusthaveaproximateandcausalconnectionwiththefollowing:
1.Exerciseoftherighttoselforganization;
2.Exerciseoftherighttocollectivebargaining;or
3.ObservanceofaCBA.
Sans this connection, the unfair acts do not fall within the technical signification of the term unfair labor
practice.240
b.Article248[f],theonlyULPnotrelatedtotheexerciseoftherighttoselforganizationandcollective
bargaining.
TheonlyULPwhichistheexceptionasitmayormaynotrelatetotheexerciseoftherighttoselforganization
andcollectivebargainingistheactdescribedunderArticle248[f],i.e.,todismiss,dischargeorotherwiseprejudiceor
discriminateagainstanemployeeforhavinggivenorbeingabouttogivetestimonyundertheLaborCode.241
c.LaborCodeprovisionsonULP.
UndertheLaborCode,thereareonlyfive(5)provisionsrelatedtounfairlaborpractices,towit:
1. Article 247 which describes the concept of unfair labor practices and prescribes the procedure for their
prosecution;
2. Article248whichenumeratestheunfairlaborpracticesthatmaybecommittedbyemployers;
3. Article249whichenumeratestheunfairlaborpracticesthatmaybecommittedbylabororganizations;
4. Article261whichconsidersviolationsoftheCBAasnolongerunfairlaborpracticesunlessthesameare
grossincharacterwhichmeansflagrantand/ormaliciousrefusaltocomplywiththeeconomicprovisions
thereof.
5. Article263[c]whichreferstounionbustinginvolvingthedismissalfromemploymentofunionofficersduly
elected in accordance with the union constitution and bylaws, where the existence of the union is
threatenedthereby.
d.Partieswho/whichmaycommitULP.
Anunfairlaborpracticemaybecommittedbyanemployerorbyalabororganization.Article248describesthe
unfair labor practices that may be committed by an employer; while Article 249 enumerates those which may be
committedbyalabororganization.
See also National Union of Restaurant Workers [PTUC] v. CIR, G.R. No. L-20044, April 30, 1964, 10 SCRA 843.
Galaxie Steel Workers Union [GSWU-NAFLU-KMU] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 165757, Oct. 17, 2006.
Allied Banking Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 144412, Nov. 18, 2003; See also Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, Aug. 3, 2010.
241 Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006.
238
239
240
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
employeesandtheprevailingeconomicbenefitsreceivedbybankemployeesfromotherforeignbanksdoingbusinessin
thePhilippinesandotherbranchesofthebankintheAsianregion.Hence,itcannotbesaidthattheunionwasguiltyof
anunfairlaborpracticeforblueskybargaining.
5.SURFACEBARGAINING.
Surfacebargainingisdefinedasgoingthroughthemotionsofnegotiatingwithoutanylegalintenttoreach
anagreement.Thiskindofunfairlaborpracticemayonlybecommittedbytheemployer.
AccordingtoStandardCharteredBankEmployeesUnion[NUBE]v.Confesor,[supra],itinvolvesthequestion
ofwhetheranemployersconductdemonstratesanunwillingnesstobargainingoodfaithorismerelyhardbargaining.
Therecanbenosurfacebargaining,absentanyevidencethatmanagementhaddoneacts,bothatandawayfromthe
bargaining table, which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the union or to settle the
differencesbetween itandthe union.Here, admittedly,the parties werenot abletoagree and reached adeadlock.
However,itmustbeemphasizedthatthedutytobargaindoesnotcompeleitherpartytoagreetoaproposalorrequire
the making of a concession. Hence, the parties failure to agree does not amount to an unfair labor practice under
Article248[g].238
=============================
(1) ULP of Employers
=============================
28

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr

245 Under Article 217, Labor Code.
242
243
244
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
Onthepartoftheemployer,onlytheofficersandagentsofcorporations,associationsorpartnershipswho
haveactuallyparticipatedinorauthorizedorratifiedunfairlaborpracticesarecriminallyliable.242
On the part of the union, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or
members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in or authorized or ratified the unfair
laborpracticesarecriminallyliable.243
e.ElementsofULP.
Beforeanemployerorlabororganization,asthecasemaybe,maybesaidtohavecommittedanunfairlabor
practice,thefollowingelementsmustconcur:
1.Thereshouldexistanemployeremployeerelationshipbetweentheoffendedpartyandtheoffender;and
2.The act complained of must be expressly mentioned and defined in the Labor Code as an unfair labor
practice.
Absentoneoftheelementsaforementionedwillnotmaketheactanunfairlaborpractice.
Thefirstrequisiteisnecessarybecauseanunfairlaborpracticemayonlybecommittedinconnectionwiththe
right to selforganization and collective bargaining by employees. Necessarily, there must be an employment
relationshipinorderfortheorganizationalrighttobevalidlyandlawfullyinvoked.
ThesecondrequisiteshouldbepresentsincetheLaborCodeitselfrequiresthattheunfairlaborpracticebe
expresslydefinedbythisCode.Ifanactisnotcoveredbyanyofthegroundsexpresslymentionedinthelaw,itcannot
bedeemedanunfairlaborpracticeact.
f.AspectsofULP.
UnderArticle247,anunfairlaborpracticehastwo(2)aspects,namely:
1.Civilaspect;and
2.Criminalaspect.
Thecivilaspectofanunfairlaborpracticeincludesclaimsforactual,moralandexemplarydamages,attorneys
feesandotheraffirmativereliefs.244Generally,thesecivilclaimsshouldbeassertedinthelaborcasebeforetheLabor
Arbiterswhohaveoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoverunfairlaborpractices.245
2.UNFAIRLABORPRACTICESOFEMPLOYERS(ARTICLE248,LABORCODE).
Article248.UnfairLaborPracticesofEmployers.Itshallbeunlawfulforanemployerto
commitanyofthefollowingunfairlaborpractices:
(a) Tointerferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoself
organization;
(b) Torequireasaconditionofemploymentthatapersonoranemployeeshallnotjoina
labororganizationorshallwithdrawfromonetowhichhebelongs;
(c) Tocontractoutservicesorfunctionsbeingperformedbyunionmemberswhensuch
willinterferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrightstoself
organization;
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other
supporttoitoritsorganizersorsupporters;
(e) Todiscriminateinregardtowages,hoursofworkandothertermsandconditionsof
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from
requiringmembership in a recognized collectivebargaining agent as aconditionfor
employment,exceptthoseemployeeswhoarealreadymembersofanotherunionat
the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective
bargainingagentmaybeassessedareasonablefeeequivalenttotheduesandother
feespaidbymembersoftherecognizedcollectivebargainingagent,ifsuchnonunion
members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided,
that the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this
Code shall not apply to the nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining
agent;
(f) Todismiss,dischargeorotherwiseprejudiceordiscriminateagainstanemployeefor
havinggivenorbeingabouttogivetestimonyunderthisCode;
(g) ToviolatethedutytobargaincollectivelyasprescribedbythisCode;
(h) Topaynegotiationorattorneysfeestotheunionoritsofficersoragentsaspartof
thesettlementofanyissueincollectivebargainingoranyotherdispute;or
(i) Toviolateacollectivebargainingagreement.
29

Theprovisionsoftheprecedingparagraphnotwithstanding,onlytheofficersandagentsof
corporations,associationsorpartnershipswhohaveactuallyparticipatedin,authorizedorratified
unfairlaborpracticesshallbeheldcriminallyliable.246
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981.

Republic Savings Bank v. CIR, G.R. No. L-20303, Sept. 27, 1967, 21 SCRA 226.
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., [G.R. No. 162025, August 3, 2010.
249 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU, v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., supra; Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Bandolino-LMLC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126195, July 17, 1997, 275 SCRA 633.
250 Royal Undergarment Corporation of the Philippines v. CIR, G.R. No. L-39040, June 6, 1990.
246
247
248
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
2.1.INTERFERENCEWITH,RESTRAINTORCOERCIONOFEMPLOYEESINTHEEXERCISEOFTHEIRRIGHTTOSELF
ORGANIZATION.
a.Testofinterference,restraintorcoercion.
Paragraph [a] of Article 248 considers it an unfair labor practice of employers to interfere with, restrain or
coerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganization.Thetermsinterfere,restrainorcoercearevery
broad that any act of management that may reasonably tend to have an influence or effect on the exercise by the
employeesoftheirrighttoselforganizemayfallwithintheirmeaningandcoverage.AccordingtotheSupremeCourtin
InsularLifeAssuranceCo.,Ltd.,EmployeesAssociationNATUv.InsularLifeAssuranceCo.,Ltd.,[G.R.No.L25291,
January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244], the test of whether an employer has interfered with or restrained or coerced
employeeswithinthemeaningofthelawiswhethertheemployerhasengagedinconductwhichmayreasonablytend
tointerferewiththefreeexerciseoftheemployeesrights.Itisnotnecessarythattherebedirectevidencethatany
employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by the statements or threats of the employer if there is a reasonable
inferencethattheantiunionconductoftheemployerdoeshaveanadverseeffectontheexerciseoftherighttoself
organizationandcollectivebargaining.
However the act is called or denominated whether as interference, restraint or coercion, or as a
discriminatorydischarge,orasarefusaltobargain,orevenasacombinationofanyoralloftheseisofnoconsequence.
Whatisimportantisthattheactconstitutesanunfairlaborpractice.247
Thesignificantpointtoconsider,forachargeofunfairlaborpracticetoprosper,isthatitmustbeshownthat
the employers act was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner
contrarytomorals,goodcustoms,orpublicpolicy,and,ofcourse,thatsocialhumiliation,woundedfeelingsorgrave
anxietyresulted.248
b.Totalityofconductdoctrine.
In ascertaining whether the act of the employer constitutes interference with, restraint or coercion of the
employeesexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganizationandcollectivebargaining,thetotalityofconductdoctrinemaybe
applied. This means that expressions of opinion by an employer, though innocent in themselves, may be held to
constitute an unfair labor practice because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the
particularemployerslaborrelationsorantiunionbiasorbecauseoftheirconnectionwithanestablishedcollateralplan
ofcoercionorinterference.Anexpressionwhichmaybepermissiblyutteredbyoneemployer,might,inthemouthofa
morehostileemployer,bedeemedimproperandconsequentlyactionableasanunfairlaborpractice.249
Thepastconductoftheemployerandlikeconsiderations,coupledwithanintimateconnectionbetweenthe
employersactionandtheunionaffiliationoractivitiesoftheparticularemployeeoremployeestakenasawhole,may
raiseasuspicionastothemotivationfortheemployersconduct.Thefailureoftheemployertoascribeavalidreason
thereformayjustifyaninferencethathisunexplainedconductinrespectoftheparticularemployeeoremployeeswas
inspiredbythelattersunionmembershipandactivities.250
c.Someprinciplesoninterference,restraintorcoercionasULP.
1.InterferenceintheemployeesrighttoselforganizationisULP.Forexample:
a. In General Milling Corporation v. CA, [G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004], the Supreme Court
consideredtheactoftheemployerinpresentingthelettersbetweenFebruarytoJune1993bythirteen
(13) union members signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicative of the employers
pressure on its employees and, therefore, ULP. The records show that the employer presented these
letters to prove that the union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that the
resignationsoftheunionmembersoccurredduringthependencyofthecasebeforetheLaborArbiter
showstheemployersdesperateattempttocastdoubtonthelegitimatestatusoftheunion.Theilltimed
lettersofresignationfromtheunionmembersindicatethattheemployerhadinterferedwiththerightof
itsemployeestoselforganization.Becauseofsuchact,theemployerwasdeclaredguiltyofunfairlabor
practice.
b. InHaciendaFatimav.NationalFederationofSugarcaneWorkersFoodandGeneralTrade,[G.R.No.
149440,January28,2003],theSupremeCourtupheldthefactualfindingsoftheNLRCandtheCourtof
Appealsthatfromtheemployersrefusaltobargaintoitsactsofeconomicinducementsresultinginthe
promotionofthosewhowithdrewfromtheunion,theuseofarmedguardstopreventtheorganizersto
comein,andthedismissalofunionofficialsandmembers,onecannotbutconcludethattheemployer
didnotwantaunioninitshaciendaaclearinterferenceintherightoftheworkerstoselforganization.
Hence,theemployerwasheldguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.
30

an
Ch
na
ia
ia
Gu
ia
n
Gu
el
it
.J
li
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
2.2.YELLOWDOGCONTRACT.
Paragraph[b]ofArticle248describeswhatiscommonlyknownasyellowdogcontract.Itisonewhichexacts
fromworkersasaconditionofemploymentthattheyshallnotjoinorbelongtoalabororganization,orattemptto
organize one during their period of employment or that they shall withdraw therefrom in case they are already
membersofalabororganization.
Atypicalyellowdogcontractembodiesthefollowingstipulations:
1. Arepresentationbytheemployeethatheisnotamemberofalabororganization;
2. Apromisebytheemployeethathewillnotjoinaunion;and
251
an
na
Gu
os
el
Jo
it
o
se
li
to
Gu
ia
Ch
na
an
Ch
a
2. Interferenceinthechoiceoftheunionsbargainingpanel.Ifanemployerinterferesintheselectionofthe
unionsnegotiatorsorcoercestheuniontoexcludefromitspanelofnegotiators,arepresentativeofthe
union,andifitcanbeinferredthattheemployeradoptedthesaidacttoyieldadverseeffectsonthefree
exerciseoftherighttoselforganizationorontherighttocollectivebargainingoftheemployees,anunfair
laborpracticeunderArticle248[a],inconnectionwithandinrelationtoArticle243oftheLaborCode,is
committed.251
3.Formationofaunionisneveravalidgroundtodismiss.InMarkRocheInternationalv.NLRC,[G.R.No.
123825, August 31, 1999], in ruling that the private respondents were not constructively dismissed but
illegally dismissed, it was established that it was the filing of the petition for certification election and
organizationofaunionwithinthecompanywhichledpetitionerstodismissprivaterespondentsandnot
petitioners'allegationsofabsenceorabandonmentbyprivaterespondents.Evidently,itwasafterreceiving
the notice of hearing of the petition for certification election on 27 October 1992 that petitioners
immediatelytoldprivaterespondentsthattheywerenolongeremployed.Theformationofalaborunion
hasneverbeenagroundforvalidtermination,andwherethereisanabsenceofclear,validandlegalcause,
thelawconsiderstheterminationillegal.
4. Itisanunfairlaborpracticetodismissaunionofficeroranemployeeforhisunionactivities.Inthe2000
caseofColegiodeSanJuandeLetranv.AssociationofEmployeesandFacultyofLetran,[G.R.No.141471,
September18,2000],theoutrightterminationforallegedinsubordinationoftheunionpresidentwhilethe
CBAnegotiationwasongoingwasdeclaredasanactofunionbustingasitinterferedwiththeemployees
righttoselforganization.Thefactualbackdropoftheterminationoftheunionpresidentleadstonoother
conclusionbutthatshewasdismissedinordertostriptheunionofaleaderwhowouldfightfortherightof
hercoworkersatthebargainingtable.
InCathayPacificSteelCorp.v.Hon.CA,[G.R.No.164561,August30,2006],theactoftheemployerin
dismissingasupervisoryemployee(PersonnelSuperintendent)onaccountofhisunionactivitiesrelatedto
theformationofthesupervisoryunionwasheldasanunfairlaborpractice.
h. When closure constitutes ULP. In holding that petitioner is liable for unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal,theSupremeCourt,inSt.JohnColleges,Inc.v.St.JohnAcademyFacultyandEmployeesUnion,
[G.R.No.167892,October27,2006],pronouncedthatthetimingof,andthereasonsfor,theclosureofthe
highschooldepartmentanditsreopeningafteronlyoneyearfromthetimeitwascloseddown,showthat
theclosurewasdoneinbadfaithforthepurposeofcircumventingtheunionsrighttocollectivebargaining
anditsmembersrighttosecurityoftenure.PetitionerSJCIunderminedtheLaborCodessystemofdispute
resolution by closing down its high school department while the 1997 CBA negotiations deadlock issues
werependingresolutionbeforetheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment.Theclosurewasdoneinbadfaith
forthepurposeofdefeatingtheunionsrighttocollectivebargaining.Besides,asfoundbytheNLRC,the
allegedillegalityandexcessivenessoftheunionsdemandswerenotsufficientlyprovedbySJCI.Evenon
the assumption that the unions demands were illegal or excessive, SJCIs remedy was to await the
resolutionbytheDOLESecretaryandtofileaULPcaseagainsttheunion.However,SJCIdidnothavethe
powertotakemattersintoitsownhandsbyclosingdownitshighschooldepartmentinordertogetridof
theunion.
Inthe2008caseofPurefoodsCorp.v.NagkakaisangSamahangManggagawangPurefoodsRankandFile,
[G.R.No.150896,August28,2008],theclosureofpetitionersSto.Tomasfarmwasdeclaredtohavebeen
madeinbadfaith.Badgesofbadfaithareevidentfromthefollowingactsofthepetitioner:itunjustifiably
refusedtorecognizetheSto.TomasFreeWorkersUnions(STFWUs)andtheotherunionsaffiliationwith
PurefoodsUnifiedLaborOrganization(PULO);itconcludedanewCBAwithanotherunioninanotherfarm
during the agreed indefinite suspension of the collective bargaining negotiations; it surreptitiously
transferredandcontinueditsbusinessinalesshostileenvironment;anditsuddenlyterminatedtheSTFWU
membersbutretainedandbroughtthenonmemberstoitsMalvarfarm.Petitionerpresentednoevidence
tosupportitscontentionthatitwasincurringlossesorthatthesubjectfarmsleaseagreementwaspre
terminated.Ineluctably,theclosureoftheSto.Tomasfarmcircumventedthelabororganizationsrightto
collectivebargainingandviolatedthemembersrighttosecurityoftenure.Thesuddenterminationofthe
STFWUmembersistaintedwithULPbecauseitwasdonetointerferewith,restrainorcoerceitsemployees
intheexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganization.Thus,thepetitionercompanyisliableforthepaymentof
moralandexemplarydamagesofP500,000.00totheillegallydismissedSTFWUmembers.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union [NUBE] v. Confesor, [G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004].
31

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, Jan. 27, 1999, 302 SCRA 173, 214]; See also De Ocampo v. NLRC, 213 SCRA 652 [1992].
Article 248 [c], Labor Code; Section 6 [f], Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002, [Feb. 21, 2002].
Article 212 [i], Labor Code; Section 1 [k], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
255 Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank [Comsavings Bank], G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007 citing Philippine American Life Gen. Insurance Co. v. Gramaje, G.R. No. 156963, Nov. 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 274, 284-285.
256 Article 248 [e], Labor Code.
252
253
254
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
3. Apromisebytheemployeethatuponjoiningalabororganization,hewillquithisemployment.
TheactoftheemployerinimposingsuchaconditionconstitutesunfairlaborpracticeunderArticle248[b]of
theLaborCode.Suchstipulationinthecontractisnullandvoid.
2.3.CONTRACTINGOUTOFSERVICESANDFUNCTIONS.
Paragraph[c]ofArticle248describeswhentheactoftheemployerofcontractingoutofservicesorfunctions
beingperformedbyunionmembersisconsideredanunfairlaborpractice.
Asageneralrule,theactofanemployerinhavingworkorcertainservicesorfunctionsbeingperformedby
unionmemberscontractedoutisnotperseanunfairlaborpractice.Thisissobecausecontractingoutofajob,workor
service is clearly an exercise by the employer of its business judgment and its inherent management rights and
prerogatives.252Itisonlywhenthecontractingoutofajob,workorservicebeingperformedbyunionmemberswill
interferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganizationthatitshallbeunlawfuland
shallconstituteanunfairlaborpractice.253
2.4.COMPANYUNION.
Paragraph [d] of Article 248 considers it an unfair labor practice to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
interferewiththeformationoradministrationofanylabororganization,includingthegivingoffinancialorothersupport
toitoritsorganizersorsupporters.Suchunioniscalledcompanyunionasitsformation,functionoradministrationhas
beenassistedbyanyactdefinedasunfairlaborpracticeundertheLaborCode.254
InPhilippineAmericanCigarandCigaretteFactoryWorkersIndependentUnionv.PhilippineAmericanCigar
and Cigarette Manufacturing Co., [G.R. No. L18364, February 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 375], it was pronounced that one
indicationthattheunioniscompanydominatedconsistsintheactoftheemployerinsecuringauthorizationcardsfrom
employees and by immediately granting the union exclusive recognition as a bargaining agent and entering into a
contracttherewithalthoughitwasnotthedulyauthorizedrepresentativeoftheemployees.Anotheriswhentheunion
approachedthemanagementratherthantheemployeesingettingtheplantorganizedandmanagementextendedthe
requestedassistancetotheunion.Theactsofthecompanyinsolicitingmembershipandallowingunionactivitiestobe
held during working time and coercing employees to join the union under threat of dismissal or demotion are clear
indiciaofcompanydomination.
InOceanicAirProductsv.CIR,[G.R.No.18704,January31,1963,7SCRA208],severalemployeeswereforced
by company officers to join a union. No member of the union had been dismissed despite the implementation of a
retrenchmentpolicywhichresultedinthedismissalofotheremployeeswhoareofficersandmembersofanotherunion.
Afterthedismissals,thecompanyhiredseverallaborers.Alltheseindicatethattheunioniscompanydominated.
2.5.PARAGRAPH[E]OFARTICLE248COVERSTHREESEPARATECONCEPTS.
Thethree(3)sentencescomprisingparagraph[e]ofArticle248treatofthree(3)separatelaborlawconcepts,
towit:
1.Discrimination.Thisisfoundinthefirstsentencethereofwhichconsidersasanunfairlaborpracticeto
discriminateinregardtowages,hoursofworkandothertermsandconditionsofemploymentinorderto
encourageordiscouragemembershipinanylabororganization.
2.Unionsecurityclause.Thisistreatedinthesecondsentencethereofwhichstatesthat(n)othinginthis
Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective
bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of
anotherunionatthetimeofthesigningofthecollectivebargainingagreement.
3.Agency fee. This is described in the third sentence thereof in that (e)mployees of an appropriate
bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a
reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective
bargainingagent,ifsuchnonunionmembersacceptthebenefitsunderthecollectivebargainingagreement
providedthattheindividualauthorizationrequiredunderArticle242,paragraph(o)ofthisCodeshallnot
applytothenonmembersoftherecognizedcollectivebargainingagent.
2.5.1.DISCRIMINATION.
a.Concept.
Discriminationhasbeendefinedasthefailuretotreatallpersonsequallywhennoreasonabledistinctioncan
befoundbetweenthosefavoredandthosenotfavored.255
Whatisprohibitedasunfairlaborpracticeunderthelawistodiscriminateinregardtowages,hoursofwork,
and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.256
32

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010; Picop Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, G.R. No. 160828, Aug. 9, 2010.
Caltex Refinery Employees Association [CREA] v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 123782, Sept. 16, 1997, 279 SCRA 218, 236.
Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010.
260 Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Saldivar, G.R. No. 158620, Oct. 11, 2006.
257
258
259
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
b.Thepurposeoftheallegeddiscriminatoryact,material.
In Manila Pencil Co.,Inc. v. CIR, [G.R. No.L16903, August31,1965,14 SCRA 955], it was ruledthat even
assumingthatbusinessconditionsjustifythedismissalofemployees,itisanunfairlaborpracticeofemployertodismiss
permanentlyonlyunionmembersandnotnonunionists.
InManilaRailroadCo.v.KapisananngmgaManggagawasaManilaRailroadCo.,[G.R.No.L19728,July30,
1964],thenonregularizationoflongtimeemployeesbecauseoftheiraffiliationwiththeunionwhilenewemployees
wereimmediatelyregularizedwasdeclaredanactofdiscrimination.
InAHS/PhilippinesEmployeesUnionv.NLRC,[G.R.No.73721,March30,1987],theemployertransferredthe
unionpresidentfromthemainofficeinManilatoCebuatthetimewhentheunionwasstillbeingorganized.Itwasheld
thattheunevenapplicationofitsmarketingplanresultinginthesaidtransferoftheunionpresidentispatentlyanactof
discriminationconstitutiveofunfairlaborpractice.
In Bondoc v. CIR, [G.R. No. 33955, January 26, 1989], the employee charged his employer as having
discriminatedagainsthiminthegrantofpromotionbecausehewasnotamemberofanylaborunion.TheSupreme
Courtheldthattheemployeescontentionthathewasdiscriminatedagainsttoforcehimtojoinalabororganizationis
untenablebecausehefailedtomentionanyspecificunion.Moreover,itisnotbelievablefortheemployertoharassand
oppressanemployeetoforcehimtojoinaunion,foritcannotbecomprehendedhowhisjoiningaunionwouldbenefit
hisemployer.
2.5.2.UNIONSECURITYCLAUSE.
a.Natureofstipulation.
ThestipulationinaCBAbasedonthesecondsentenceofparagraph[e]ofArticle248commonlyknownasthe
union security clauseallows the parties thereto to enterinto an agreement requiringmembership in the exclusive
collectivebargainingagentwhichsuccessfullynegotiatedsaidCBAasaconditionforcontinuedemploymentwiththe
exceptionofemployeeswhoarealreadymembersofanotherunionatthetimeofthesigningoftheCBA.
Union security is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends closed shop, union shop,
maintenance of membership or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to
acquireorretainunionmembershipasaconditionaffectingtheircontinuedemployment.Inotherwords,thepurpose
ofaunionsecurityarrangementistoguaranteethecontinuedexistenceoftheunionthroughenforcedmembershipfor
thebenefitoftheworkers.257
Theemployerunderthisclauserecognizesthatthemembershipofemployeesintheunionwhichnegotiated
theCBAshouldbemaintainedandcontinuedasaconditionforemploymentorretentionofemployment.Theobvious
purposeistosafeguardandensuretheunionscontinuedexistenceandtostrengthenandprotectitfromthefickleness
orperfidyofitsownmembers.Withoutthisclause,theexistenceoftheunionisalwayssubjecttouncertaintyasits
membersmayresignanytimeresultinginthedecimationofitsranks.258
b.Therightnottojoinaunionisnotabsolutesinceitmayberestricted.
Time and again, it has been ruled that the individual employees right not to join a union may be validly
restricted by a union security clause in a CBA Theoretically, there is nothing in law or jurisprudence to prevent an
employerandaunionfromstipulatingthatexistingemployees(whoalreadyattainedregularandpermanentstatusbut
whoarenotmembersofanyunion)aretobeincludedinthecoverageofaunionsecurityclause.EvenArticle248(e)of
the Labor Code only expressly exempts old employees who already have a union from inclusion in a union security
clause.259
c.Variousformsofunionsecurityarrangements.
Generally,aunionsecurityclausemaytaketheformof:
1.Closedshopagreement;
2.Maintenanceofmembershipagreement;
3.Unionshopagreement;
4.Modifiedunionshopagreement;
5.Exclusivebargainingagreement;
6.Bargainingformembersonlyagreement;
7.Agencyshopagreement;or
8.Preferentialhiringagreement.
The above classification admits of certain modified types which the parties may agree upon in the CBA
dependingonthepeculiarrequirementsofthesituationorthepartiesthereto.
d.ClosedShopAgreement.
A closedshop may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and its
employeesortheirrepresentatives,nopersonmaybeemployedinanyorcertainagreeddepartmentsoftheenterprise
unlessheorsheis,becomes,and,forthedurationoftheagreement,remainsamemberingoodstandingofaunion
entirelycomprisedoforofwhichtheemployeesininterestareapart.260Basically,aclosedshopagreementstipulates
theundertakingbytheemployernottohireoremployanypersonwhoisnotamemberofthebargainingunion.Once
33

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
National Labor Union v. Aguinaldos Echague, G.R. No. L-7358, May 31, 1955; See also Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010.
Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010; Picop Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, G.R. No. 160828, Aug. 9, 2010.
Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC, supra; Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010.
264 Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 54, 68.
265 Article 248 [e], Labor Code; Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-16561, Jan. 28,1961, 1 SCRA 353, 356; Sta. Cecilia Sawmills v. CIR G.R. No. L-19273-4, Feb. 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 433, 437.
266 Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Confesor, G.R. No. 108855, Feb. 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182, 197.
267 Bank of the Philippine islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, Aug. 10, 2010.
268 Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 110007, Oct. 18, 1996, 263 SCRA 358; 331 Phil. 680, 692.
261
262
263
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
employed,itisrequiredthatthesaidpersonshouldremainamemberofthebargainingunioningoodstandingasa
conditionforcontinuedemployment,atleastduringthewholedurationoftheCBA.Thisrequirementforemployeesor
workerstobecomemembersofaunionasaconditionforemploymentredoundstothebenefitandadvantageofsaid
employeesbecausebyholdingouttoloyalmembersapromiseofemploymentintheclosedshop,theunionwields
groupsolidarity.261
e.Maintenanceofmembershipagreement.
Thereismaintenanceofmembershipshopwhenemployees,whoareunionmembersasoftheeffectivedate
oftheagreement,orwhothereafterbecomemembers,mustmaintainunionmembershipasaconditionforcontinued
employmentuntiltheyarepromotedortransferredoutofthebargainingunit,ortheagreementisterminated.262
f.Unionshopagreement.
Thereisunionshopwhenallnewregularemployeesarerequiredtojointheunionwithinacertainperiodasa
conditionfortheircontinuedemployment.263
g.Modifiedunionshopagreement.
Employeesunderthisarrangementwhoarenotunionmembersatthetimeofthesigningorexecutionofthe
CBAarenotrequiredtojointhebargainingunion.However,anyandallworkershiredoremployedafterthesigningor
executionoftheCBAarerequiredtojointhebargainingunion.
h.Exclusivebargainingagentagreement.
TheunionwhichnegotiatedandconcludedtheCBAwithmanagementisconsideredandrecognizedasthesole
andexclusivebargainingagentofallthecoveredemployeesinthebargainingunit,whethertheybemembersornotof
thesaidagent.
i.Bargainingformembersonlyagreement.
Underthisarrangement,theunionwhichnegotiatedandconcludedtheCBAwithmanagementisrecognized
asthebargainingagentonlyforitsownmembers.(RothenbergonLaborRelations,page410).
j.Agencyshopagreement.
Underthisscheme,thereisnorequirementfornonmembersofthebargainingagenttobecomeitsmembers.
However,itisrequiredthatsuchnonunionmembersshouldpaytothebargainingagentanagencyfeeasacondition
fortheircontinuedemployment.ThethirdsentenceofArticle248[e]oftheLaborCodevalidatesthisarrangement.
k.Preferentialhiringagreement.
Itistheprincipalfeatureofthisarrangementthattheemployergivespreferenceinhiringtothemembersof
the bargaining agent under equal circumstances and qualifications. Once hired or employed, they are required to
maintaintheirmembershipingoodstandinginthebargainingagentforthedurationoftheCBAasaconditionfortheir
continuedemployment.
l.Employeesexemptedfromcoverageofunionsecurityclause.
AllemployeesinthebargainingunitcoveredbyaUnionSecurityClauseintheirCBAwithmanagementare
subjecttoitsterms.However,underlawandjurisprudence,thefollowingkindsofemployeesareexemptedfromits
coverage,namely:
1. Employees who, at the time the union security agreement takes effect, are bonafide members of a
religiousorganizationwhichprohibitsitsmembersfromjoininglaborunionsonreligiousgrounds.264
2. Employeesalreadyintheserviceandalreadymembersofaunionotherthanthemajorityatthetimethe
unionsecurityagreementtookeffect.265
3. Confidentialemployeeswhoareexcludedfromtherankandfilebargainingunit.266
4. Employeesexcludedfromtheunionsecurityclausebyexpresstermsoftheagreement.267
2.5.3.CHECKOFFOFAGENCYFEESFROMNONMEMBERSOFTHEBARGAININGAGENT.
a.Agencyfees.
Theduesandotherfeesthatmaybeassessedfromnonbargainingunionmemberswithinthebargainingunit
who accept and avail of the benefits flowing from the CBA are called agency fees. Payment of agency fees to the
certifiedcollectivebargainingagentwhichsuccessfullynegotiatedtheCBAisbutareasonablerequirementrecognized
bylaw.Inthisaspect,thelegalbasisoftheunion'srighttoagencyfeesisneithercontractualnorstatutory,butquasi
contractual,derivingfromtheestablishedprinciplethatnonunionemployeesmaynotunjustlyenrichthemselvesby
benefitingfromemploymentconditionsnegotiatedbythebargainingagent.268
34

[NOTE:SeefurtherdiscussiononagencyfeeunderthetopicofRighttoSelfOrganizationabove]
2.6.FILINGOFCHARGESORGIVINGOFTESTIMONY.
an
Ch
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
an
Ch
a
Underparagraph[f]ofArticle248oftheLaborCode,itisanunfairlaborpracticeforanemployertodismiss,
dischargeorotherwiseprejudiceordiscriminateagainstanemployeeforhavinggivenorbeingabouttogivetestimony
undertheLaborCode.269Itmustbeunderscoredthatthisistheonlyunfairlaborpracticethatneednotberelatedto
theexercisebytheemployeesoftheirrighttoselforganizationandcollectivebargaining.270
InPhilippineAmericanCigarandCigaretteFactoryWorkersIndependentUnionv.PhilippineAmericanCigar
and Cigarette Manufacturing Co., [G.R. No. L18364, February 28, 1963]. the employer dismissed the brother of an
employeewhofiledacaseagainstit.TheSupremeCourtruledthatsuchactoftheemployerconstitutesunfairlabor
practice.AlthoughSection4[a]5ofRepublicActNo.875(nowArticle248[f]oftheLaborCode)wouldseemtorefer
only to the dismissal of the one who filed charges against the company as constituting an unfair labor practice, the
legislativeintentistoassureabsolutefreedomoftheemployeestoestablishlabororganizationsandunionsaswellasto
profferchargesforviolationoflaborlaws.Ifthedismissalofanemployeeduetothefilingbyhimofsaidchargeswould
beandisanunduerestraintuponsaidfreedom,thedismissalofhisbrotherowingtothenonwithdrawalofthecharges
oftheformerwouldbeandconstituteasmuch,infactagreaterandmoreeffective,restraintuponthesamefreedom.
Whatisprohibitedtobedonedirectlyshallnotbeallowedtobeaccomplishedindirectly.
InItogonSuyocMines,Inc.v.Baldo,[G.R.No.L17739,December24,1964],itwasdeclaredthatanunfair
labor practice was committed by the employer when it dismissed the worker who had testified in the hearing of a
certificationelectioncasedespiteitspriorrequestfortheemployeenottotestifyinthesaidproceedingaccompanied
withapromiseofbeingreinstatedifhefollowedsaidrequest.271
ia
a.Three(3)actsofCBArelatedULPs.
Article248enunciatesthree(3)CBArelatedunfairlaborpractices,towit:
1. ToviolatethedutytobargaincollectivelyasprescribedintheLaborCode.272
2. Topaynegotiationorattorneysfeestotheunionoritsofficersoragentsaspartofthesettlementofany
issueincollectivebargainingoranyotherdispute.273
3. Toviolateacollectivebargainingagreement.274
Gu
ia
n
Gu
el
[NOTE:Seefurtherdiscussionondutytobargaincollectively
underthetopicofRighttoSelfOrganizationabove]
el
it
os
ia
it
o
b.Dutytobargaindevolvesonbothparties.
Thedutytobargaincollectivelydevolvesuponboththeemployerandthelabororganization.275Asdescribed
inthelaw,thedutytobargaincollectivelymeanstheperformanceofamutualobligationtomeetandconvenepromptly
andexpeditiouslyingoodfaithforthepurposeofnegotiatinganagreementwithrespecttowages,hoursofworkandall
othertermsandconditionsofemployment,includingproposalsforadjustinganygrievancesorquestionsarisingunder
suchagreementandexecutingacontractincorporatingsuchagreementsifrequestedbyeitherparty;butsuchduty
doesnotcompelanypartytomakeanyconcession.276
2.8.PAYMENTOFNEGOTIATIONFEESORATTORNEYSFEES.
.J
Pr
to
os
of
Article 248 [h] of the Labor Code considers as an unfair labor practice the act of the employer in paying
negotiationfeesorattorneysfeestotheunionoritsofficersoragentsaspartofthesettlementofanyissueincollective
bargainingoranyotherdispute.Article222[b]oftheLaborCoderequiresthatsuchattorneysfees,negotiationfeesor
similarchargesshouldbepaidfromtheunionfunds.277
2.9.VIOLATIONOFTHECBA.
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Article248[i]oftheLaborCodeshouldbereadinrelationtoArticle261thereof.UnderArticle261,violations
ofaCBA,exceptthosewhicharegrossincharacter,shallnolongerbetreatedasanunfairlaborpracticeandshallbe
resolvedasgrievancesundertheCBA.GrossviolationsofCBAshallmeanflagrantand/ormaliciousrefusaltocomply
withtheeconomicprovisionsofsuchagreement.278
Examples:
TheactoftheemployerinrefusingtoimplementthenegotiatedwageincreasestipulatedintheCBA,which
increaseisintendedtobedistinctandseparatefromanyotherbenefitsorprivilegesthatmaybeforthcomingtothe
employees,isanunfairlaborpractice.279
Refusalforaconsiderablenumberofyearstogivesalaryadjustmentsaccordingtotheimprovedsalaryscales
intheCBAisanunfairlaborpractice.280
See also Section 13[d], Rule XII, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code.
Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006; See also Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 151309, Oct. 15, 2008.
See also National Fastener Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. L-15834, Jan. 20, 1961, 1 SCRA 17; H. G. Henares & Sons v. National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-17535, Dec. 28, 1961, 3 SCRA 765.
272 Article 248 [g], Labor Code.
273 Article 248 [h], Labor Code.
274 Article 248 [i], Labor Code.
275 See Articles 248 [g] and 249 [c], respectively, of the Labor Code.
276 Article 252, Labor Code; Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-16419, May 30, 1963, 8 SCRA 67.
277 Pacific Banking Corporation v. Clave, G.R. No. 56965, March 7, 1984. 128 SCRA 112; Galvadores v. Trajano, G.R. No. 70067, Sept. 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 138; Amalgamated Laborers Association v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23467, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1266.
278 See Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines [FASAP] v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 178083, July 22, 2008.
279 Philippine Apparel Workers Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-50320, July 31, 1981; Alhambra Industries, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-25984, Oct. 30, 1970, 35 SCRA 550.
280 Benguet Consolidated v. BCI Employees and Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25471, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1293.
269
270
271
an
na
Gu
to
2.7.VIOLATIONOFTHECBAORREFUSALTOCOMPLYTHEREWITH.
se
li
Jo
35

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
282
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
281
Alba Patio de Makati, v. Alba Patio de Makati Employees Association, G.R. No. L-37922, March 16, 1984.
As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981.
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
Theactoftheemployertopermitnonunionmemberstoparticipateintheservicecharges,contrarytothe
stipulationintheCBA,isanunfairlaborpractice.281
=============================
(2) ULP of Labor Organizations
===========================
1.UNFAIRLABORPRACTICESOFLABORORGANIZATIONS.
Article249.UnfairLaborPracticesofLaborOrganizations.Itshallbeunfairlaborpractice
foralabororganization,itsofficers,agentsorrepresentatives:
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization.
However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with
respecttotheacquisitionorretentionofmembership;
(b)To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee,
includingdiscriminationagainstanemployeewithrespecttowhommembershipin
suchorganizationhasbeendeniedortoterminateanemployeeonanygroundother
than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of
membershipismadeavailabletoothermembers;
(c) Toviolatetheduty,orrefusetobargaincollectivelywiththeemployer,provideditis
therepresentativeoftheemployees;
(d)Tocauseorattempttocauseanemployertopayordeliveroragreetopayordeliver
anymoneyorotherthingsofvalue,inthenatureofanexaction,forserviceswhich
arenotperformedornotto beperformed, includingthe demandfor feeforunion
negotiations;
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from employers as part of the
settlementofanyissueincollectivebargainingoranyotherdispute;or
(f) Toviolateacollectivebargainingagreement.
Theprovisionsoftheprecedingparagraphnotwithstanding,onlytheofficers,membersof
governingboards,representativesoragentsormembersoflaborassociationsororganizationswho
have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally
liable.282
1.RESTRAINTANDCOERCIONOFEMPLOYEESINTHEEXERCISEOFTHEIRRIGHTTOSELFORGANIZATION.
UnderArticle249[a],itisunfairlaborpracticeforalabororganization,itsofficers,agentsorrepresentativesto
restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganization.Thisprovisionissubstantiallysimilarto
Article248[a]oftheLaborCodeinvolvingtheunfairlaborpracticesofemployersexceptthattheterminterfereisnot
included therein. The significance in the omission of said term is the grant of unrestricted license to the labor
organization,itsofficers,agentsorrepresentativestointerferewiththeexercisebytheemployeesoftheirrighttoself
organization. Such interference is not unlawful since without it, the labor organization cannot be expected to
organize and recruit members. It becomes unlawful within the context of paragraph [a] of Article 249 only when it
amountstorestraintorcoercionwhichisexpresslyprohibitedthereunder.
Underthesameprovision,alabororganizationisgrantedtherighttoprescribeitsownruleswithrespectto
theacquisitionorretentionofmembership.Theserulesarenormallyfoundintheconstitutionandbylawsofthelabor
organization. Pursuant to this right, the labor organization can prescribe the proper qualifications for membership
thereinaswellastherulesandregulationstobefollowedbyitsmembersinordertoretaintheirmembershipingood
standingtherein.
Therules,tobevalid,mustbereasonableandwithintheboundsofthelaw.Thus,thelabororganizationinM.
D.Transitv.deGuzman,[G.R.No.L18810,April23,1963,7SCRA726],wasdeclaredtohavecommittedanunfair
laborpracticewhenitexpelledamemberjustbecausehefiledchargesagainsttheunionofficers.
2.DISCRIMINATION.
UnderArticle249[b],itisconsideredanunfairlaborpracticeforalabororganization,itsofficers,agentsor
representativestocauseorattempttocauseanemployertodiscriminateagainstanemployee,includingdiscrimination
against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied, or to terminate an
36

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
li
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises, G.R. No. L-38258, Nov. 19, 1982, 118 SCRA 425.
NLRB v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc., 345 US 117 97 L Ed 864, 73 S Ct 560.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., 212 NLRB 968, 1974 CCH NLRB 26867, 87 BNA LRRM 1101.
286 NLRB v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc., 345 US 117, 97 l Ed 864, 73 S Ct 560; American Newspaper Publishers Association v. NLRB, 345 US 100, 97 L Ed 852, 73 S Ct 552, 31 ALR2d 497.
287 American Newspaper Publishers Association v. NLRB, 345 US 100, 97 L Ed 852, 73 S Ct 552, 31 ALR2d 497.
288 Musicians Union v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 69 Cal 2d 695, 73 Cal Rptr 201, 447 P2d 313; NLRB v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc., 345 US 117, 97 L Ed 864, 73 S Ct 560.
283
284
285
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of
membershipismadeavailabletoothermembers.
ThisgroundisthecounterpartoftheunfairlaborpracticeofemployersunderArticle248[e]whichconsistsin
the act of discriminating against an employee in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. If the act of discrimination
committedbytheemployerwasinstigatedbytheunion,boththeemployerandtheunionmaybedeclaredguiltyof
unfairlaborpractice.
3.DUTYOFUNIONTOBARGAINCOLLECTIVELY.
UnderArticle249[c],itisanunfairlaborpracticeforadulycertifiedsoleandexclusivebargainingunion,its
officers, agents or representatives to refuse or violate the duty to bargain collectively with the employer. This is the
counterpartprovisionofArticle248[g]respectingtheviolationbytheemployerofitsdutytobargaincollectively.
Theobviouspurposeofthelawistoensurethattheunionwillnegotiatewithmanagementingoodfaithand
forthepurposeofconcludingamutuallybeneficialagreementregardingthetermsandconditionsoftheiremployment
relationship.
Forinstance,itisunfairlaborpracticeforalabororganizationtodemandthattheemployershouldnegotiatea
CBAwithitatatimewhenithasyettobecertifiedasthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentoftheemployeessincethe
certificationelectioncaseisstillpending.Thisactviolatestheemployersrighttocollectivelybargainonlywiththesole
andexclusiverepresentativeofthemajorityofitsworkers.283
4.FEATHERBEDDING.
a.AntifeatherbeddingprovisionofArticle249[d].
UnderArticle249[d],itisanunfairlaborpracticeforalabororganization,itsofficers,agentsorrepresentatives
tocauseorattempttocauseanemployertopayordeliveroragreetopayordeliveranymoneyorotherthingsofvalue,
inthenatureofanexaction,forserviceswhicharenotperformedornottobeperformed,includingthedemandforfee
forunionnegotiations.
Thispracticeoftheunioniscommonlyknownasfeatherbeddingasitundulyandunnecessarilymaintainsor
increasesthenumberofemployeesusedortheamountoftimeconsumedtoworkonaspecificjob.Thisisdonebythe
employees to unduly secure their jobs in the face of technological advances or as required by minimum health and
safety standards, among other justifications. These featherbedding practices have been found to be wasteful and
withoutlegitimatejustifications.
b.Paymentsforstandbyservices.
Aunioncommitsanunfairlaborpracticeunderthisprovisionbycausingorattemptingtocauseanemployerto
payoragreetopayforstandbyservices.Paymentsforstandingby,orforthesubstantialequivalentofstandingby,
arenotpaymentsforservicesperformedwithinthemeaningofthelaw.Whenanemployerreceivedabonafideoffer
of competent performance of relevant services, it remains for the employer, through free and fair negotiation, to
determinewhethersuchoffershouldbeacceptedandwhatcompensationshouldbepaidfortheworkdone.284
Aunionsdemandforacontractcallingforpaymentsforthepresenceofoneofitsmembersatajobsitewhen
nounionistsworkwasbeingdonetherein,andwhentheemployerindicatedthatithadnoneedforsuchlabor,coupled
withastriketomaketheemployerrespondtosuchdemand,isanexactionwithinthemeaningofthislaw,andthe
demandisconsiderednotabonafideofferofcompetentperformanceofrelevantservices.285
c.Paymentsformadework.
Where work is actually done by an employee with the employers consent, the unions demand that the
employeebecompensatedfortimespentindoingtheworkdoesnotviolatethelaw.286Thelawleavestocollective
bargainingthedeterminationofwhat,ifany,work,includingbonafidemadework,shallbeincludedascompensable
servicesandwhatrateofcompensationshallbepaidforit.287
Amusiciansunionhasbeenheldnottohaveviolatedtheantifeatherbeddingprovisionbyrefusingtopermita
unionbandtoperformattheopeninggameofthebaseballseason,refusingtopermitaunionorganisttoplayatthe
homegames,andpicketingthebaseballstadium,inordertoforcetheownerofthebaseballteamtohireaunionband
toplayatallweekendhomegames;orbyrefusingtoconsenttoappearancesoftravellingbandsinatheaterunlessthe
theater manager also employs a local orchestra in connection with certain programs where the local orchestra is to
performactualandnottokenservices,eventhoughthetheatermanagerdoesnotneedorwanttoemploythelocal
orchestra.288
d.Paymentsforworkalreadycompensated.
Theantifeatherbedding provisionhasbeenheldnot tobar a unionfromdemandingpayment for work for
whichtheemployerhasalreadypaidanotherperson.Hence,aunionhasbeenheldnotguiltyofanunfairlaborpractice
37

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
Gu
ia
it
o
Gu
ia
n
to
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
Relevant Provisions: Articles 263 and 264, Labor Code
1.FORMSOFCONCERTEDACTIVITIES.
Therearethree(3)formsofconcertedactivities,namely:
1. Strike;
2. Lockout;
3. Picketing.
2.STRIKE.
Strikemeansanytemporarystoppageofworkbytheconcertedactionoftheemployeesasaresultofan
290
industrialorlabordispute.
Thetermstrikeencompassesnotonlyconcertedworkstoppagesbutalsothefollowing:
1. Slowdowns;291
2.Massleaves;
3. Sitdowns;
4. Attemptstodamage,destroyorsabotageplantequipmentandfacilitiesandsimilaractivities;292
5. Overtimeboycott;293
6. Thesportingbytheworkersofcloselycroppedhairorcleanlyshavenheadsaftertheirunionfiledanotice
ofstrikeasaresultofaCBAdeadlockisaformofillegalstrike.294
3.LOCKOUT.
Lockoutmeansthetemporaryrefusalofanemployertofurnishworkasaresultofanindustrialorlabor
dispute.295
Rabouin v. NLRB [CA2] 195 F2d 906.
Article 212 (o), Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, Republic Act No. 6715; Section 1 [uu], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; No. 01, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 1
[24], Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; G & S Transport Corp. v. Infante, G.R. No. 160303, Sept. 13, 2007.
291 Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, [G.R. Nos. 167401 and 167407, July 5, 2010].
292 Section 2, P. D. No. 823, as amended by P. D. No. 849; Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 140992, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 319. Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of Unions in the Phils. For
Empowerment and Reforms v. CA, G.R. No. 158158, Jan. 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 642.
293 Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 142824, Dec. 19, 2001.
294 National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries [NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF] Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. The Honorable CA, [G.R. Nos. 163942 and 166295, November 11, 2008].
289
290
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
indemandingpaymenttoitofanamountequaltothewagespaidbytheemployertoanonunionemployeeforworkto
whichtheunionsmemberswereentitled.Iftheworkisactuallydonebyemployees,therecanbenoconflictwiththe
antifeatherbeddingprovision,regardlessofwhetherornotthepersonsreceivingpaymentaretheoneswhoperformed
thework.289
5.DEMANDORACCEPTANCEOFNEGOTIATIONFEESORATTORNEYSFEES.
UnderArticle249[e],itisanunfairlaborpracticeforalabororganization,itsofficers,agentsorrepresentatives
toaskfororacceptnegotiationfeesorattorneysfeesfromemployersaspartofthesettlementofanyissueincollective
bargainingoranyotherdispute.
This is the counterpart provision of Article 248 [h] regarding the payment, on the part of the employer, of
negotiationfeesorattorneysfeestotheunionoritsofficersoragentsaspartofthesettlementofanyissueincollective
bargainingoranyotherdispute.Thereasonforthispolicyofthelawistopreventundueinfluencebytheemployeron
theindependenceoftheunioninitsdecisionoveranyissuesitmayhavewiththeformer.Moreover,itispossiblethat
thematteroffixingtheamountofnegotiationfeesorattorneysfeesalonewouldpresentaproblemmuchcomplicated
thanthemoresubstantiveissuesinvolvingthetermsandconditionsandwelfareoftheworkers.
6.VIOLATIONOFTHECBA.
UnderArticle 249 [f], itisconsideredanunfair laborpractice fora labororganization, its officers, agentsor
representativestoviolateaCBA.
ThisisthecounterpartprovisionofArticle248[i]regardingtheemployersactofviolatingaCBA.Butitmustbe
notedthatunderArticle261oftheLaborCode,violationoftheCBAisgenerallyconsideredmerelyagrievableissue.It
becomes anunfair laborpractice only ifthe violation isgross incharacter which means thatthere isflagrantand/or
malicious refusal to comply with the economic (as distinguished from noneconomic) stipulations in the CBA. This
principleappliesnotonlytotheemployerbuttothelabororganizationaswell.
=================================
a. Forms of Concerted Activities
=================================
38

Ch
a
Itconsistsofthefollowing:
1. Shutdowns;
2. Massretrenchmentanddismissalsinitiatedbytheemployer.296
3. Theemployersactofexcludingemployeeswhoareunionmembers.297
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Article 212 (p), Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, Republic Act No. 6715; Section 1 [gg], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; No. 01, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 1
[14], Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union [RBAEU] v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 100342-44, Oct. 29, 1999.
Section 3, P. D. No. 823, as amended by P.D. No. 849.
297 Complex Electronics Employees Association [CEEA], etc., v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121315, July 19, 1999; Sta. Mesa Shipways & Engineering Co. v. CIR, 48 O. G. 3353.
298 Section 1 [19], Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 15, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations; No. 01, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91980, June 27, 1995.
299 Section 6, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; No. 05, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 3, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation
Cases.
300 Article 263[c], Labor Code; Section 6, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; No. 05, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 3, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation
and Preventive Mediation Cases
301 Section 3, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases.
302 United Restaurors Employees & Labor Union-PAFLU v. Torres, [G.R. No. L-24993, December 18, 1968, 26 SCRA 435].
295
296
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
4.PICKETING.
Picketingistheactofworkersinpeacefullymarchingtoandfrobeforeanestablishmentinvolvedinalabor
disputegenerallyaccompaniedbythecarryinganddisplayofsigns,placardsandbannersintendedtoinformthepublic
aboutthedispute.298
==================================
b. Who may declare a strike or lockout?
==================================
1.WHOMAYDECLAREASTRIKEORLOCKOUT?
a.Inestablishmentswithcertifiedbargainingagent.
Anycertifiedordulyrecognizedbargainingagentmaydeclareastrikeincaseofbargainingdeadlockorunfair
299
laborpractice.Theemployermaydeclarealockoutbasedonthesamegrounds.
b.Inestablishmentswithnocertifiedbargainingagent.
In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining agent, any legitimate labor organization in the
establishmentmaydeclareastrikebutonlyonthegroundofunfairlaborpractice.300
Thegroundofbargainingdeadlockcannotbeinvokedinsupportofastrikeinanunorganizedestablishment
where there is no certified or duly recognized bargaining representative for the simple reason that no CBA can be
negotiated absent such certified or duly recognized bargaining agent. In this situation, the existence of a bargaining
deadlockisanimpossibility.301
c.Minorityunioncannotstageastrike.
Astrikeconductedbyaminorityunionispatentlyillegalbecausenolabordisputewhichwilljustifytheconduct
ofastrikemayexistbetweentheemployerandaminorityunion.Topermittheunionspicketingactivitieswouldbeto
flauntatthewillofthemajority.302
==================================
c. Requisites for a valid strike
d. Requisites for a valid lockout
==================================
1.REQUISITESFORAVALIDSTRIKEORLOCKOUT.
Therequisitesforavalidstrikearelikewiseapplicabletoalockout.Thediscussionbelowontherequisitesare
applicabletobothstrikeandlockout.
a.Proceduralbutmandatoryrequisites.
InaccordancewithArticle263andpertinentprevailingjurisprudence,astrikeorlockout,inordertobevalid
andlegal,mustconformtothefollowingproceduralrequisites:
FirstrequisiteItmustbebasedonavalidandfactualground;
SecondrequisiteAnoticeofstrike/lockoutmustbefiledwiththeNCMBDOLE;
Thirdrequisite Anotice mustbe served to theNCMBDOLE at least twentyfour(24)hourspriortothe
taking of the strike/lockout vote by secret balloting, informing said office of the decision to conduct a
strike/lockoutvote,andthedate,place,andtimethereof;
39

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010; Piero v. NLRC, G.R. No. 149610, Aug. 20, 2004.
See also Section 5, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003], and as further amended by Department Order No. 40-A-03 [March 12, 2003]; Section 1, Rule V, NCMB Manual of Procedures for
Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 011, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout.
305 San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G. R. No. 99266, March 2, 1999.
306 Article 261, Labor Code; See also Section 5, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003], and as further amended by Department Order No. 40-A-03 [March 12, 2003]; No. 012, Primer on Strike,
Picketing and Lockout; Section 3, Rule V, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 7, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
307 Article 263 [b], Labor Code; Section 5, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, Ibid.; No. 012, Primer, Ibid.; Section 3, Rule V, NCMB Manual, Ibid.; No. 5, Guidelines, Ibid..
308 No. 012, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 3, Rule V, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 5, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
309 Under Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act.
310 Section 1 [18], Rule III, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases.
311 Section 1 [17], Rule III, Ibid..
303
304
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
FourthrequisiteAstrike/lockoutvotemustbetakenwhereamajorityofthemembersoftheunion,incase
ofastrike,orthemembersoftheBoardofDirectorsofthecorporationorassociationorofthepartnersina
partnership,incaseofalockout,obtainedbysecretballotinameetingcalledforthepurpose,mustapprove
it;
FifthrequisiteAstrike/lockoutvotereportshouldbesubmittedtotheNCMBDOLEatleastseven(7)days
beforetheintendeddateofthestrike/lockout;
SixthrequisiteExceptincasesofunionbusting,thecoolingoffperiodof15days,inthecaseofunfairlabor
practices,or30days,inthecaseofcollectivebargainingdeadlock,shouldbefullyobserved;and
Seventh requisite The 7day waiting period or strike/lockout ban reckoned after the submission of a
strike/lockoutvotereporttotheNCMBDOLEshouldalsobefullyobservedinallcases.
Alltheforegoingrequisites,althoughproceduralinnature,aremandatoryandfailureofaunionoremployerto
complytherewithwouldrenderastrikeorlockoutillegal.303
2.FIRSTREQUISITE:EXISTENCEOFVALIDANDFACTUALGROUND/S.
a.Validgrounds.
Thelawrecognizesonlytwo(2)groundsinsupportofavalidstrike/lockoutinaccordancewithArticle263[c]of
theLaborCode,viz.:
1.Collectivebargainingdeadlock(EconomicStrike);and/or
2.Unfairlaborpractice(PoliticalStrike).304
Astrikeorlockoutnotbasedonanyofthesetwogroundsisillegal.305
b.Someprinciplesonthefirstrequisite.
1. ViolationofCBA,exceptwhengross,isnotanunfairlaborpractice,hence,maynotbecitedasgroundfora
validstrikeorlockout.OrdinaryviolationofaCBAisnolongertreatedasanunfairlaborpracticebutasa
meregrievancewhichshouldbeprocessedthroughthegrievancemachineryandvoluntaryarbitration.It
becomesanunfairlaborpracticeonlywhenitisgrossinnaturewhichmeansthatthereisflagrantand/or
maliciousrefusaltocomplywiththeeconomicprovisionsthereofbyeithertheemployerortheunion.306
2. Interunionorintrauniondispute,notavalidground.307
3. Violationoflaborstandards,notavalidground.308
4. Wagedistortion,notavalidground.309
3.SECONDREQUISITE:FILINGOFANOTICEOFSTRIKEORNOTICEOFLOCKOUTWITHNCMBDOLE.
Article 264 [a] of the Labor Code provides that no labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or
lockoutwithoutfirsthavingfiledanoticeofstrikeornoticeoflockoutrequiredunderArticle263[c]oftheLaborCode.
Article263[d]oftheLaborCoderequiresthatthenoticeofstrikeornoticeoflockoutmustbeinaccordance
withtheimplementingrulesandregulationspromulgatedbytheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment.Thesaidrulesand
regulationsareextensivelycitedanddiscussedintheappropriatenotesandcommentsbelow.
a.Noticeofstrike.
AnoticeofstrikereferstothenotificationfiledbyadulyregisteredlaborunionwiththeNationalConciliation
andMediationBoard(NCMB)oftheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment(DOLE)informingthelatterofitsintentionto
goonstrikebecauseoftheallegedcommissionbytheemployerofunfairlaborpracticesorbecauseofadeadlockinthe
collectivebargainingnegotiations.310
b.Noticeoflockout.
AnoticeoflockoutreferstothenotificationfiledbyanemployerwiththeNCMBDOLEinformingthelatterof
itsintentiontotemporarilyceaseitsoperationbecauseoftheallegedcommissionbyadulyregisteredlaborunionof
unfairlaborpracticesorbecauseofadeadlockinthecollectivebargainingnegotiations.311
c.Wheretofilethenoticeofstrike/lockout.
A notice of strike or lockout or a request for preventive mediation is required to be filed with the regional
branchoftheNCMBhavingjurisdictionovertheworkplaceoftheunionmembers.Incaseofmultipleworkplaces,the
followingrulesmustbeobserved:
(a) Wheretwoormoreregionalbrancheshavejurisdictionoverthevariousworkplaces,thebranchthatfirst
receivesthenoticeshallacquirejurisdictionoverthedisputetotheexclusionoftheothers.
40

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 4, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 06, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout.
See Section 1 [ww], Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
No. 07, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout.
315 See Section 10, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003]; Section 1, Rule VII, No. 06[2], Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 1 [30], Rule III and Section 1, Rule VII, NCMB Manual
of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 2[b], Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
316 Article 263 [f], Labor Code.
317 Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (BMC-SUPER) v. CA, G.R. No. 158158, Jan. 17, 2005; Stamford Marketing Corporation v. Josephine Julian, G.R. No. 145496, Feb. 24, 2004.
318 Article 263[f], Labor Code; Section 5, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003], and as further amended by Department Order No. 40-A-03 [March 12, 2003]; No. 2[c], Guidelines Governing
Labor Relations; No. 06, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 2, Rule VII, NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases.
319 Article 263[c], Labor Code; Section 7, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Article 1, Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 [February 17, 2003]; No. 06, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 5, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures
for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 3, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
312
313
314
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
(b) Bywrittenagreementofbothparties,thevenueofthedisputemaybewaived.312
4.THIRDREQUISITE:SERVICEOFA24HOURPRIORNOTICETOTHENCMBDOLETOINFORMITOFTHECONDUCTOF
ASTRIKE/LOCKOUTVOTEBYSECRETBALLOTING.
Inthe2005caseofCapitolMedicalCenter,Inc.v.NLRC,[G.R.No.147080,April26,2005],itwasimposedas
additionalrequisitethata24hournoticemustbeservedtotheNCMBDOLEpriortothetakingofthestrike/lockout
votebysecretballoting,informingitoftheunionsdecisiontoconductastrikevoteortheemployersdecisiontostagea
lockoutvote,aswellasthedate,place,andtimethereof.
5.FOURTHREQUISITE:CONDUCTOFASTRIKE/LOCKOUTVOTE.
a.Majorityapprovaloftheconductofastrike.
Article264[a]oftheLaborCodeexpresslyimposestherequirementthatnolabororganizationshalldeclarea
strike without the necessary strike vote first having been obtained and reported to the Department of Labor and
Employment.
Article263[f]oftheLaborCoderequiresthatadecisiontodeclareastrikemustbeapprovedbyamajorityof
thetotalunionmembershipinthebargainingunitconcerned,obtainedbysecretballotinmeetingsorreferendacalled
forthatpurpose.Thisprocessiscalledstrikevoteballoting.313
Thepurposeofastrikevoteistoensurethatthedecisiontostrikebroadlyrestswiththemajorityoftheunion
membersingeneralandnotwithamereminority.Atthesametime,itismeanttodiscouragewildcatstrikes,union
bossismandevencorruption.314
b.Majorityapprovaloflockout.
Article 264 [a] of the Labor Code expressly requires that no employer shall declare a lockout without the
necessarylockoutvotefirsthavingbeenobtainedandreportedtotheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.
Article263[f]oftheLaborCoderequiresthatadecisiontodeclarealockoutmustbeapprovedbyamajorityof
theboardofdirectorsofthecorporationorassociationorofthepartnersinapartnership,obtainedbysecretballotina
meetingcalledforthatpurpose.315
c.Durationofthevalidityofthemajorityapprovalofastrike/lockout.
Themajoritydecisiontostageastrikeorlockoutisvalidforthedurationofthedisputebasedonsubstantially
thesamegroundsconsideredwhenthestrikeorlockoutvotewastaken.316
6.FIFTHREQUISITE:SUBMISSIONOFTHESTRIKE/LOCKOUTVOTEREPORTTOTHENCMBDOLE.
a.Purposeforrequiringastrike/lockoutvotereport.
Theevidentintentionofthelawinmandatorilyrequiringthesubmissionofthestrike/lockoutvotereportisto
reasonably regulate the right to strike or lockout which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
embodiedinthelaw.Verily,meresubstantialcompliancewithamandatoryprovisionwillnotsuffice.Strictadherenceto
themandateofthelawisrequired.317
b.Whentosubmitthestrike/lockoutvotereport.
Astrike/lockoutvoteshouldbereportedtotheRegionalBranchoftheNCMB,atleastseven(7)daysbefore
theactualstagingoftheintendedstrike/lockout,subjecttotheobservanceofthecoolingoffperiodsprovidedunderthe
law.318
7.SIXTHREQUISITE:OBSERVANCEOFTHECOOLINGOFFPERIODS.
a.Generalrule.
The coolingoff periods provided under the law before the intended date of the actual mounting of the
strike/lockoutareasfollows:
1. Incaseofbargainingdeadlock,thecoolingoffperiodisthirty(30)days;
2. Incaseofunfairlaborpractice,thecoolingoffperiodisfifteen(15)days.319
b.Exceptionincaseofunionbusting.
Incaseofanunfairlaborpracticeinvolvingthedismissalfromemploymentofunionofficersdulyelectedin
accordance with theunionconstitution andbylaws whichmay constitute unionbusting, wherethe existenceofthe
41

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Article 263[c], Labor Code; Section 7, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Article 1, Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 [February 17, 2003]; No. 06, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; Section 5, Rule IV, NCMB Manual of Procedures
for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases; No. 3, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
Sukothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. CA, [G.R. No. 150437, July 17, 2006].
Article 263 [c], Labor Code.
323 See old provision of Section 3, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Article 1, Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997 [21 June 1997].
324 No. 010, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v. Ovejera, G.R. No. L-59743, May 31, 1982; See also Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010.
325 National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v. Ovejera, [G.R. No. L-59743, May 31, 1982].
326 Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 140992, March 25, 2004.
327 Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 88710-13, Dec. 19, 1990; Liberal Labor Union v. Phil. Can Co., G.R. No. L-4834, March 28, 1952, 91 Phil. 72; Philippine Airlines v. Philippine Airlines Employees Association, G.R. No. L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958.
328 No. 06, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout issued by the NCMB; National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v. Ovejera, [G.R. No. L-59743, May 31, 1982].
329 Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association [PILTEA], [G.R. No. 160058, June 22, 2007].
330 National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries [NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF] Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. The Honorable CA, [G.R. Nos. 163942 and 166295, November 11, 2008].
331 CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 114521, November 27, 1998] and Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 123491, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA 410].
332 Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., [G.R. No. 140992, March 25, 2004].
Pr
o
320
321
322
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
unionisthreatened,the15daycoolingoffperioddoesnotapplyandtheunionmaytakeactionimmediatelyafterthe
strikevoteisconductedandtheresultsthereofdulysubmittedtotheregionalbranchoftheNCMB.320
In cases of unionbusting, except for the 15day coolingoff period, all the other requisites must be fully
compliedwith.321
c.Coolingoffperiodwhennoticeofstrikeisfiledinanunorganizedestablishment.
Inunorganizedestablishmentswhereadulycertifiedorrecognizedbargainingagentisabsent,anoticeofstrike
maybefiledbyanylegitimatelabororganizationinbehalfofitsmembersbutonlyonthegroundofunfairlaborpractice
becausetheothergroundofcollectivebargainingdeadlockisnotavailabletoitsincetherecanbenoCBAnegotiationin
anestablishmentwherethereisnocertifiedbargainingagent.Thecoolingoffperiodinthiscaseisfifteen(15)daysfrom
theintendeddateofthestrike.Incase,however,theexistenceofthelabororganizationisthreatenedbecauseofunion
busting, the 15day coolingoff period need not be complied with and the union may take action immediately after
complyingwiththeothermandatoryproceduralrequisites.322
d.Reckoningofthecoolingoffperiods.
Thestartofthecoolingoffperiodsshouldbereckonedfromthetimethenoticeofstrikeorlockoutisfiledwith
theNCMB,acopythereofhavingbeenservedontheotherpartyconcerned.323
e.Purposeofthecoolingoffperiods.
Inrequiringacoolingoffperiod,theavowedintentofthelawistoprovideanopportunityformediationand
conciliationbytheNCMBDOLE.Itisdesignedtoaffordthepartiestheopportunitytoamicablyresolvethedisputewith
theassistanceoftheConciliatorsMediatorsoftheNCMBDOLE.ItthusdirectstheNCMBDOLEtoexertalleffortsat
mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement during the coolingoff period. Should the dispute remain
unsettleduntilthelapseoftherequirednumberofdaysfromthemandatoryfilingofthenotice,thelaborunionmay
strikeortheemployermaycommencealockoutafterhavingcompliedwiththe7dayrequirementforthefilingofthe
strikeorlockoutvote,asthecasemaybe.324
8.SEVENTHREQUISITE:OBSERVANCEOFTHE7DAYWAITINGPERIODORSTRIKE/LOCKOUTBAN.
a.Purposeofthe7daywaitingperiodorstrike/lockoutban.
Theseven(7)daywaitingperiodisintendedtogivetheDepartmentofLaborandEmploymentanopportunity
toverifywhethertheprojectedstrikereallycarriestheimprimaturofthemajorityoftheunionmembers.325
b.Waitingperiodorstrike/lockoutbanandcoolingoffperiod,distinguished.
The 7day waiting period or strike/lockout ban is a distinct and separate requirement from the coolingoff
periodprescribedbylaw.Thelattercannotbesubstitutedfortheformer.326
Thecoolingoffperiod,ontheonehand,iscountedfromthetimeofthefilingofthenoticeofstrikeorlockout
uptotheintendedoractualstagingthereof.Incaseofunfairlaborpractice,thecoolingoffperiodis15days;andincase
ofcollectivebargainingdeadlock,suchperiodis30days.The7daywaitingperiodorstrike/lockoutban,ontheother
hand,isreckonedfromthetimethestrike/lockoutvotereportissubmittedtotheNCMBDOLE.
Consequently, a strike or lockout is illegal for failure to comply with the prescribed mandatory coolingoff
period and the 7day waiting period or strike/lockout ban after the submission of the report on the strike/lockout
vote.327
c.Effectonthe7daywaitingperiodofstrike/lockoutbanifthestrike/lockoutvoteistakenandreported
withinthecoolingoffperiod.
Itmustbestressedthattherequirementsofcoolingoffperiodand7daywaitingperiodorstrike/lockoutban
mustbothbecompliedwith,althoughthelaborunionmaytakeastrikevoteandtheemployermayconductalockout
vote and report the same to the NCMBDOLE within the statutory coolingoff period. In this case, the 7day waiting
period or strike/lockout ban should be counted from the day following the expiration of the coolingoff period. A
contrary viewwouldcertainly defeat and rendernugatorythe salutarypurposesbehind the distinct requirements of
coolingoffperiodandthewaitingperiodorstrike/lockoutban.328
d.Someprinciplesoncoolingoffperiodand7daywaitingperiod.
1. Astrikestagedonthesamedaythenoticeofstrikeisfiled,heldillegal.329
2. AstrikemountedonthesamedaythestrikevotereportissubmittedtotheNCMBDOLE,heldillegal.330
3. Deficiencyofevenone(1)day,heldfatal.331
4. Onedaystrikewithoutcomplyingwiththe7daystrikeban,heldillegal.332
42

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Section 13, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003].
See also De Leon v. National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-7586, Jan. 30, 1957, 100 Phil. 789; The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association - NATU v. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, Jan. 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244.
Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso v. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., G.R. No. L-24224, July 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 801.
336 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions [PAFLU] v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No. L-49580, Jan. 17, 1983, 120 SCRA 1.
337 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees Association, G.R. No. L-29630, July 2, 1981, 105 SCRA 315.
333
334
335
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
=================================
e. Requisites for lawful picketing
=================================
1.REQUISITESFORLAWFULPICKETING.
a.Therequisitesforavalidstrikeorlockoutarenotapplicabletopicketing.
The7requisitesforavalidstrikeorlockoutdiscussedabovedonotapplytopicketing.
b.Requisitesforlawfulpicketing.
Thefollowingaretherequisites:
1.Itshouldbepeacefullycarriedout;
2.Thereshouldbenoactofviolence,coercionorintimidationattendantthereto;
3.Theingressto(entrance)oregressfrom(exit)thecompanypremisesshouldnotbeobstructed;
4.Publicthoroughfaresshouldnotbeimpeded.333
c.Righttopicketisprotectedbytheconstitutionandthelaw.
Unlike a strike which is guaranteed under the Constitutional provision on the right of workers to conduct
peacefulconcertedactivitiesunderSection3,ArticleXIIIthereof,therighttopicketisguaranteedunderthefreedomof
speechandofexpressionandtopeaceablyassembletoairgrievancesintheConstitutionunderSection4,ArticleIII(Bill
ofRights)thereof.334
Therighttopicketislikewiseguaranteedaspartoftherightguaranteedunderthelawtoengageinconcerted
activitiesforpurposesofcollectivebargainingfortheirmutualbenefitandprotection.335
d.Effectofabsenceofemploymentrelationshiponpicketing.
Picketing, if peacefully carried out, cannot be prohibited even in the absence of employeremployee
relationship.336
e.Effectoftheuseoffoullanguageduringtheconductofthepicket.
Intheeventthepicketersemploydiscourteousandimpolitelanguageintheirpicket,suchmaynotresultin,or
giveriseto,libeloractionfordamages.337
f.Whenpicketbecomesastrike.
Indistinguishingbetweenapicketandastrike,thetotalityofthecircumstancesobtaininginacaseshouldbe
takenintoaccount.
SantaRosaCocaColaPlantEmployeesUnionv.CocaColaBottlersPhils.,Inc.,[G.R.Nos.16430203,January
24,2007].
Petitioners contend that what they conducted was a mere picketing and not a strike. In disagreeing to this
contention,theHighCourtemphasizedthatitisnotanissueinthiscasethattherewasalabordisputebetweenthe
parties as petitioners had notified the respondent of their intention to stage a strike, and not merely to
picket.Petitionersinsistencetostageastrikeisevidentinthefactthatanamendednoticeofstrikewasfiledevenas
respondentmovedtodismissthefirstnotice.Thebasicelementsofastrikearepresentinthiscase:106membersof
petitionerUnion,whoserespectiveapplicationsforleaveofabsenceonSeptember21,1999weredisapproved,opted
not to report for work on said date, and gathered in front of the company premises to hold a mass protest action.
Petitionersdeliberatelyabsentedthemselvesandinsteadworeredribbonsandcarriedplacardswithsloganssuchas:
YES KAMI SA STRIKE, PROTESTA KAMI, SAHOD, KARAPATAN NG MANGGAGAWA IPAGLABAN, CBAWAG
BABOYIN, STOP UNION BUSTING. They marched to and fro in front of the companys premises during working
hours. Thus,petitioners engaged in aconcertedactivitywhich already affected thecompanysoperations. Themass
concertedactivityobviouslyconstitutesastrike.Moreover,thebarefactthatpetitionersweregivenaMayorspermitis
notconclusiveevidencethattheiraction/activitydidnotamounttoastrike.TheMayorsdescriptionofwhatactivities
petitionerswereallowedtoconductisinconsequential.Torepeat,whatisdefinitiveofwhethertheactionstagedby
petitionersisastrikeandnotmerelyapicketisthetotalityofthecircumstancessurroundingthesituation.
g.Distinctionbetweenastrikeandpicketing.
Tostrikeistowithholdortostopworkbytheconcertedactionofemployeesasaresultofanindustrialorlabor
dispute. The work stoppage may be accompanied by picketing by the striking employees outside of the company
compound.While a strike focuses on stoppage of work, picketing focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its
43

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
See also Article 263 [i], Labor Code.

Government Insurance System Employees Association, v. CIR, G.R. No. L-18734, Dec. 30, 1961.
Philtread Workers Union [PTWU] v. Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, March 12, 1997, 269 SCRA 293].
341 Article 263[g], Labor Code; Far Eastern University-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation [FEU-NRMF] v. FEU-NRMF Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers [FEU-NRMFEA-AFW], G.R. No. 168362, Oct. 12, 2006.
342 Id.; See new Section 16, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by DOLE Department Order No. 40-G-03, Series of 2010, issued by DOLE Secretary Marianito Roque on March 29, 2010.
338
339
340
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
incidentstoinformthepublicofwhatishappeninginthecompanystruckagainst.Apicketsimplymeanstomarchto
andfromtheemployerspremises,usuallyaccompaniedbythedisplayofplacardsandothersignsmakingknownthe
factsinvolvedinalabordispute.Itisastrikeactivityseparateanddifferentfromtheactualstoppageofwork.
PhimcoIndustries,Inc.v.PhimcoIndustriesLaborAssociation(PILA),[G.R.No.170830,August11,2010].
Whiletherightofemployeestopublicizetheirdisputefallswithintheprotectionoffreedomofexpressionand
therighttopeaceablyassembletoairgrievances,theserightsarebynomeansabsolute.Protectedpicketingdoesnot
extendtoblockingingresstoandegressfromthecompanypremises.Thatthepicketwasmoving,waspeacefulandwas
notattendedbyactualviolencemaynotfreeitfromtaintsofillegalityifthepicketeffectivelyblockedentrytoandexit
fromthecompanypremises.
==================================================
f. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary
of Labor or Certification of the Labor dispute
to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration
g. Nature of Assumption Order or Certification Order
h. Effect of defiance of Assumption or Certification Orders
==================================================
Relevant Provisions: Articles 263 and 264, Labor Code
1.POWERTOASSUMEJURISDICTIONOVERALABORDISPUTEORTOCERTIFYITTOTHENLRCFORCOMPULSORY
ARBITRATION.
a.GroundsforassumptionorcertificationbytheDOLESecretary.
Article263[g]oftheLaborCodeprovidesthatwhenintheopinionoftheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,
thelabordisputecausesorwilllikelytocauseastrikeorlockoutinanindustryindispensabletothenationalinterest,he
isempoweredtodoeitheroftwo(2)things:
1.Hemayassumejurisdictionoverthelabordisputeanddecideithimself;or
2.HemaycertifyittotheNLRCforcompulsoryarbitration,inwhichcase,itwillbetheNLRCwhichshallhear
anddecideit.338
ThispowermaybeexercisedbytheDOLESecretaryevenbeforetheactualstagingofastrikeorlockoutsince
Article 263 [g] does not require the existence of a strike or lockout but only of a labor dispute involving national
interest.339
b.Whatconstitutesanationalinterestcase?
TheLaborCodevestsintheSecretaryofLaborandEmploymentthediscretiontodeterminewhatindustries
areindispensabletothenationalinterest.Accordingly,uponthedeterminationbytheDOLESecretarythatsuchindustry
is indispensable to the national interest, he has authority to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute in the said
industryorcertifyittotheNLRCforcompulsoryarbitration.340
AmatchfactorylikethepetitionerinPhimcoIndustries,Inc.v.Brillantes,[G.R.No.120751,March17,1999,
304SCRA747],thoughofvalue,canscarcelybeconsideredasanindustryindispensabletothenationalinterestasit
cannotbeinthesamecategoryasgenerationordistributionofenergy,orthoseundertakenbybanks,hospitals,and
exportoriented industries. Thus, it was declared that the DOLE Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion in
assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute in this case without any showing that the petitioner was engaged in an
industryindispensabletothenationalinterest.
c.Differentruleonstrikesandlockoutsinhospitals,clinicsandmedicalinstitutions.
Inlinewiththenationalconcernforandthehighestrespectaccordedtotherightofpatientstolifeandhealth,
strikesandlockoutsinhospitals,clinicsandsimilarmedicalinstitutionsshall,toeveryextentpossible,beavoidedandall
seriousefforts,notonlybylaborandmanagementbutgovernmentaswell,beexhaustedtosubstantiallyminimize,if
notprevent,theiradverseeffectsonsuchlifeandhealth,throughtheexercisehoweverlegitimatebylaborofitsrightto
strikeandbymanagementtolockout.341
Inlabordisputesadverselyaffectingthecontinuedoperationofsuchhospitals,clinicsormedicalinstitutions,it
shallbethedutyofthestrikingunionorlockingoutemployertoprovideandmaintainaneffectiveskeletalworkforceof
medical and other health personnel whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted as are
necessarytoinsuretheproperandadequateprotectionofthelifeandhealthofitspatients,mostespeciallyemergency
cases,forthedurationofthestrikeorlockout.342
44

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Ibid..
Section 2, Rule VIII, 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
University of Santo Tomas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 89920, Oct. 18, 1990; Union of Filipro Employees v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91025, Dec. 19, 1990, 192 SCRA 414.
346 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 595, 600.
347 See also Section 3[a], Rule VIII, 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
348 Id..
349 Section 3[b], Rule VIII, 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC; Philippine Federation of Petroleum Workers [PFPW] v. CIR, 37 SCRA 711; International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Associated Labor Union [ALU], G.R. No. 92981-83, Jan. 9, 1992; St.
Scholasticas College v. Torres, G.R. No. 100158, June 29, 1992.
350 2nd Paragraph, Section 3[b], Rule VIII, The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC; Bagong Bayan Corporation Realty Investors and Developers v. Ople, G.R. No. 73334, Dec. 8, 1986.
351 Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Trajano, [G.R. No. 155690, June 30, 2005].
352 Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, [G.R. Nos. 143013-14, December 18, 2000].
353 Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006.
354 St. Scholasticas College v. Torres, G.R. No. 100158, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA 565,570.
355 Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno [UFE-DFA-KMU] v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 158930-31, Aug. 22, 2006; See also International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. the Secretary of Labor, supra; Cirtek Employees Labor Union-FFW
v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515, Nov. 15, 2010.
343
344
Pr
o
345
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
Insuchcases,theDOLESecretarymayimmediatelyassume,withintwentyfour(24)hoursfromknowledgeof
theoccurrenceofsuchastrikeorlockout,jurisdictionoverthesameorcertifyittotheNLRCforcompulsoryarbitration.
For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or
injunctionsasareissuedbytheDOLESecretaryortheNLRC,asthecasemaybe,underpainofimmediatedisciplinary
action,includingdismissalorlossofemploymentstatusorpaymentbythelockingoutemployerofbackwages,damages
andotheraffirmativerelief,evencriminalprosecutionagainsteitherorbothofthem.343
d.Certifiedlabordisputes.
Certified labor disputes are national interest cases certified by the DOLE Secretary to the NLRC for
compulsoryarbitrationunderArticle263[g]oftheLaborCode.344
e.Incertifiedcases,NLRCcannotamendthetermsoftheDOLESecretaryscertificationorder.
TheNLRC,whensittinginacompulsoryarbitrationcasecertifiedtoitbytheDOLESecretary,isnottakingthe
roleofajudicialcourtbutasanadministrativebodychargedwiththedutytoimplementtheorderoftheSecretary.As
the implementing body, its authority does not include the power to amend the Secretarys order.345 Having been
certified to the NLRC, it becomes the proper forum for the full and complete settlement or adjudication of all labor
disputesbetweentheparties,aswellasissuesthatarerelevanttoorincidentsofthecertifiedcase.346
f.EffectsofcertificationoflabordisputestotheNLRC,similartothoseassumeddirectlybytheDOLE
Secretary.
Thefollowingaretheeffectsofbothassumptionorcertificationoflabordisputes:
1. Onintendedorimpendingstrikeorlockout.Uponassumptionorcertification,theintendedorimpending
strikeorlockoutisautomaticallyenjoined,notwithstandingthefilingofanymotionforreconsiderationof
thecertificationordernorthenonresolutionofanysuchmotionwhichmayhavebeendulysubmittedto
theOfficeoftheDOLESecretary.347
2. Onactualstrikeorlockout.Ifaworkstoppagehasalreadytakenplaceatthetimeoftheassumptionor
certification,allstrikingorlockedoutemployeesshallimmediatelyreturntoworkandtheemployershall
immediatelyresumeoperationsandreadmitallworkersunderthesametermsandconditionsprevailing
beforethestrikeorlockout.348
3. Oncasesalreadyfiledormaybefiled.Allcasesbetweenthesameparties,exceptwheretheassumption
orcertificationorderspecifiesotherwise,theissuessubmittedforarbitrationwhicharealreadyfiledormay
befiledandarerelevanttoorareproperincidentsofthecertifiedcase,shallbeconsideredsubsumedor
absorbedbytheassumedorcertifiedcase,andshallbedecidedbytheDOLESecretaryor,incertifiedcases,
bytheappropriateDivisionoftheNLRC.349
4. Onotherpendingcases.Thepartiestoanassumedorcertifiedcase,underpainofcontempt,arerequired
toinformtheircounselsandtheDOLESecretaryorNLRCDivisionconcerned,ofallcasespendingwiththe
LaborArbitersandVoluntaryArbitratorsrelativeorincidenttotheassumedorcertifiedcasebeforeit.350
g.Someprinciplesonassumption/certificationpoweroftheDOLESecretary.
1. Priornoticeandhearingarenotrequiredintheissuanceoftheassumptionorcertificationorder.351
2. ApplicabilityofArticle221toproceedingsbeforetheDOLESecretaryinassumptioncases.Thus,technical
rulesofevidenceprevailingincourtsoflawandequityhavenoroominadministrativeand/orquasijudicial
proceedingssuchasinassumptionorcertificationproceedings.Consequently,theDOLESecretarymaywell
resorttopositionpapertypeofproceeding.352
3. When the DOLE Secretary exercises the powers under Article 263 [g], he is granted great breadth of
discretion in order to find a solution to a labor dispute.353 It necessarily includes and extends to all
questions and controversies that may have arisen from the labor dispute over which he assumed
jurisdiction,includingthosecasesfallingundertheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionofLaborArbiters.354It
alsoincludesmattersincidentaltothelabordispute,i.e.,issuesthatarenecessarilyinvolvedinthedispute
itself,notjusttothoseascribedinthenoticeofstrikeorotherwisesubmittedtohimforresolution.355
4. TheDOLESecretarymayseektheassistanceoflawenforcementagencieslikethePhilippineNationalPolice
toensurecompliancewiththeprovisionthereofaswellaswithsuchordersashemayissuetoenforcethe
same.
45

an
Ch
a
h.Returntoworkorder,partofassumption/certificationorderevenifnotexpresslystatedtherein.
ItisclearfromtheprovisionofArticle263[g]thatthemomenttheDOLESecretaryassumesjurisdictionovera
labor dispute involving national interest or certifies it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, such assumption or
certificationhastheeffectofautomaticallyenjoiningtheintendedorimpendingstrike.Itisthusnotnecessaryforthe
DOLESecretarytoissueanotherorderdirectingthestrikerstoreturntowork.Themereissuanceofanassumptionor
certification order automatically carries with it a returntowork order, even if the directive to return to work is not
expresslystatedtherein.356
Thus, it iserror for strikingworkers tocontinue withtheirstrike alleging absence of a returntoworkorder
since Article 263 [g] is clear that once an assumption/certification order is issued, strikes are enjoined or, if one has
alreadytakenplace,allstrikersshouldimmediatelyreturntowork.357
an
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
ia
Gu
ia
n
Gu
to
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
el
it
os
el
Jo
it
o
se
li
to
Gu
j.Someprinciplesonreturntoworkorder.
1. Returntoworkorderisenforceableirrespectiveofthelegalityofthestrike.360
2. Uponassumptionorcertification,thepartiesshouldreverttothestatusquoantelitemwhichreferstothe
stateofthingsasitwasbeforethelabordisputeorthestateofaffairsexistingatthetimeofthefilingofthe
case.Itisthelastactual,peacefulanduncontestedstatusthatprecededtheactualcontroversy.361
3. Retrenchedorredundantemployeeswhoseterminationbroughtaboutthelabordisputeareincludedin
thereturntoworkorder.362
4. Toimplementthereturntoworkorder,thenormisactualreinstatement.However,payrollreinstatement
inlieuofactualreinstatementmayproperlyberesortedtowhenspecialcircumstancesexistthatrender
actual reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the purposes of the law.
Examples:
a. University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 89920, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 758], where the
teachers ordered to return to work could not be given back their academic assignments since the
returntowork order of the DOLE Secretary was issued in the middle of the first semester of the
academic year. The NLRC, to which the labor dispute was certified, was, therefore, faced with a
situationwherethestrikingteacherswereentitledtoareturntoworkorder,buttheuniversitycould
not immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and detrimental to the students to
change teachers at that point. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the payroll reinstatement
orderoftheNLRCandruledthattheNLRCdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninprovidingforthe
alternativeremedyofpayrollreinstatement.ItobservedthattheNLRCwasonlytryingitsbesttowork
outasatisfactoryadhocsolutiontoafesteringandseriousproblem.
b. University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. v. The Honorable Secretary of Labor, [G.R. No. 151379,
January 14, 2005], where it was pronounced that while payroll reinstatement is not allowed under
Article263[g]asthephraseunderthesametermsandconditionsembodiedthereinmakesitclear
that the norm is actual reinstatement, payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement may,
however,bejustified,asanexceptiontotherule,whenspecialcircumstancesexistthatrenderactual
reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the purposes of the law. The
specialcircumstancesintheinstantcasenodoubtrefertothefinaldecisionofthepanelofarbitrators
astotheconfidentialnatureofthepositionsofthetwelve(12)privaterespondents,therebyrendering
theiractualandphysicalreinstatementimpracticableandmorelikelytoexacerbatethesituation.The
payrollreinstatementinlieuofactualreinstatement,therefore,appearsjustifiedasanexceptiontothe
ruleuntilthevalidityoftheirterminationisfinallyresolved.
5. Nonwaiverofdemandsuponvoluntaryreturntowork.Theactofthestrikersinvoluntarilyreturningto
workdoesnotresultinthewaiveroftheiroriginaldemands.Suchactofreturningtoworkonlymeansthat
theydesistedfromthestrikewhichdesistanceisapersonalactofthestrikersandcannotbeusedagainst
theunionandinterpretedasawaiverbyitofitsoriginaldemandsforwhichthestrikewasadoptedasa
weapon.363
6. Filingofamotionforreconsiderationdoesnotaffecttheenforcementofareturntoworkorder.364
7. Intransigencetoareturntoworkordermustbedulyprovedtoholdanemployeeliabletherefor.365
Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. SCP Employees Union National Federation of Labor Unions, G.R. Nos. 169829-30, April 16, 2008; Calamba Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, Nov. 25, 2008.
Id..
Philippine Refining Company Workers Union vs. Philippine Refining Company, G.R. No. L-1668, March 29, 1948, 80 Phil. 533; Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas v. Gotamco Sawmill, G.R. No. L-1573, March 29, 1948, 80 Phil. 521.
359 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996; Union of Filipino Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 88710-13, Dec. 19, 1990, cited in No. 033, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout; No. 23, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations; Sarmiento
v. Tuico, G.R. Nos. 75271-73, June 27, 1988, 162 SCRA 676.
360 Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 88710-13, Dec. 19, 1990.
361 Overseas Workers Welfare Administration v. Chavez, G.R. No. 169802, June 8, 2007.
362 PLDT v. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas, [G.R. No. 162783, July 14, 2005].
363 Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-10114, Nov. 26, 1957, 102 Phil. 438.
364 (Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 122743 and 127215, Dec. 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 145.
365 Calamba Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008].
356
357
358
an
ia
Ch
na
i.Natureofreturntoworkorder.
Areturntoworkorderisnotoffensivetotheconstitutionalprovisionagainstinvoluntaryservitude.358Itmust
bedischargedasadutyevenagainsttheworkerswill.Theworkermustreturntohisjobtogetherwithhiscoworkersso
thattheoperationofthecompanycanberesumedanditcancontinueservingthepublicandpromotingitsinterest.Itis
executory in characterand shouldbe strictlycomplied withbytheparties evenduringthependency of any petition
questioningitsvalidityinordertomaintainthestatusquowhilethedeterminationisbeingmade.359
46

Ch
a
2.NATUREOFASSUMPTIONORDERORCERTIFICATIONORDER.
an
ia
Ch
na
an
a.Apolicepowermeasure.
ThepowertoissueassumptionorcertificationordersisanextraordinaryauthoritygrantedtothePresidentor
theSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,theexerciseofwhichshouldbestrictlylimitedtonationalinterestcases.367
Itisinthenatureofapolicepowermeasure.Thisisdoneforthepromotionofthecommongoodconsidering
thataprolongedstrikeorlockoutcanbeinimicaltothenationaleconomy.TheDOLESecretaryismandatedtoactto
maintainindustrialpeace.Thus,hisassumingjurisdictionoveralabordisputeorhiscertificationthereoftotheNLRCfor
compulsoryarbitrationisnotintendedtoimpedetheworkersrighttostrikebuttoobtainaspeedysettlementofthe
dispute.368
Having been enacted pursuant to the police power of the State, Article 263 [g] requires that the powers
thereunderbeexercisedonlyinlabordisputesinvolvingindustriesindispensabletothenationalinterest.369Aprolonged
strikeorlockoutcanbeinimicaltothenationaleconomyand,therefore,thesituationisimbuedwithpublicnecessity
andinvolvestherightoftheStateandthepublictoselfprotection.370
Gu
ia
n
el
it
os
el
Gu
ia
it
o
a.EffectofdefianceofassumptionorcertificationordersoftheDOLESecretary.
The defiance by the union, its officers and members of the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction or
certificationorderconstitutesavalidgroundfordismissal.372
Thefollowingarethejustificationsforthedefiantemployeesdismissal:
1. AstrikethatisundertakenaftertheissuancebytheDOLESecretaryofanassumptionorcertificationorder
becomesaprohibitedactivityandthusillegal.Thestrikingunionofficersandmembers,asaresult,are
deemedtohavelosttheiremploymentstatusforhavingknowinglyparticipatedinanillegalstrike.
2. Fromthemomentaworkerdefiesareturntoworkorder,heisdeemedtohaveabandonedhisjob.373
3. Bystagingastrikeaftertheassumptionorcertificationforcompulsoryarbitration,theworkersforfeittheir
righttobereadmittedtowork,having,ineffect,abandonedtheiremployment.374
to
li
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
b.Alldefiantstrikers,regardlessofwhethertheyareofficersorordinarymembers,aredeemeddismissed.
Thisdoctrineisapplicabletoallstrikingemployees,whetheraunionofficeroramember.Thishasbeenthe
consistentrulingoftheSupremeCourtinalonglineofcasesspanningseveraldecades.OncetheSecretaryofLaborand
Employment assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute or certifies it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, such
jurisdictionshouldnotbeinterferedwithbytheapplicationofthecoerciveprocessesofastrikeorlockout.Anydefiance
thereofisavalidgroundforthelossofemploymentstatus.375
Theworkersdefyingareturntoworkorderissuedinconnectionwiththeassumptionorcertificationbythe
SecretaryofLaborandEmploymentmay,infact,besubjectednotonlytoimmediatedisciplinaryactionsuchasdismissal
orlossofemploymentstatusbuttocriminalprosecutionaswell.376Thedefiantstrikerscouldbevalidlyreplaced.377
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
c.Periodofdefianceofthereturntoworkorder,notmaterial;defianceoflessthanone(1)day,sufficientto
effectterminationofdefiantstrikers.
The length of time within which the returntowork order was defied by the strikers is not significant in
determiningtheirliabilityforthelegalconsequencesthereof.Thefollowingcasesareillustrativeofthisrule:
1. UniversityofSanAgustinEmployeesUnionFFWv.TheCA,[G.R.No.169632,March28,2006],theperiod
ofdefiancewasfrom8:45a.m.to5:25p.m.onSeptember19,2003.
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, [G.R. Nos. 167401 and 167407, July 5, 2010].
No. 22, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations.
See Philtread Workers Union [PTWU] v. Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, March 12, 1997, 269 SCRA 293.
369 Philippine School of Business Administration-Manila v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-80648, Aug. 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 402; Sarmiento v. Tuico, G.R. Nos. 75271-73, June 27, 1988, 162 SCRA 676; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 88210, Jan. 23, 1991, 193
SCRA 223.
370 Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 120751, March 17, 1999, 304 SCRA 747, 763.
371 Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union v. CA, G.R. No. 140518, Dec. 16, 2004.
372 Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 167401 and 167407, July 5, 2010.
373 Article 263 [g], Labor Code; Section 5, Rule XXII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, [Feb. 17, 2003], and as further amended by Department Order No. 40-A-03 [March 12, 2003]; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v.
Brillantes, G.R. No. 119360, Oct. 10, 1997, 280 SCRA 515.
374 Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. SCP Employees Union National Federation of Labor Unions, G.R. Nos. 169829-30, April 16, 2008.
375 Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Corp., G.R. No. 154591, March 5, 2007, citing Grand Boulevard Hotel v. GLOWHRAIN, G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003, 406 SCRA 688, 710; Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. CA, G.R. Nos. 143013-14, Dec.
18, 2000, 348 SCRA 565, 582; FFW v. Inciong, G.R. No. 49983, April 20, 1982, 208 SCRA 157, 165.
376 San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union AFW v. San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation, Inc. [Hospital], G.R. No. 143341, May 28, 2004.
377 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 595; Allied Banking Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996, 258 SCRA 724.
366
367
Pr
o
368
an
3.EFFECTOFDEFIANCEOFASSUMPTIONORCERTIFICATIONORDERS.
na
Gu
ia
Ch
na
Gu
b.Grantofassumption/certificationpowerisfortheprotectionoftheState,notoflabornorofemployer.
Consequent to such exercise of police power, it is provided under Article 263 [g] that all workers must
immediatelyreturntoworkandallemployersmustreadmitallofthemunderthesametermsandconditionsprevailing
beforethestrikeorlockout.Thelawusestheprecisephraseofunderthesametermsandconditions,revealingthatit
contemplatesonlyactualreinstatement.Thisisinkeepingwiththerationalethatanyworkstoppageorslowdownin
thatparticularindustrycanbeinimicaltothenationaleconomy.ItisclearthatArticle263[g]wasnotwrittentoprotect
labor from the excesses of management, nor was it written to ease management from expenses, which it normally
incurs during a work stoppage or slowdown.It is an error to view the assumption order of the DOLE Secretary as a
measuretoprotectthestrikingworkersfromanyretaliatoryactionfromtheemployer.Thislawwaswrittenasameans
tobeusedbytheStatetoprotectitselffromanemergencyorcrisis.Itisnotforlabor,norisitformanagement.371.
to
se
li
Jo
8. Theextensionofthereturntoworkorderandtheadmissionofallstrikingworkersbythecompany,cannot
inanywaybeconsideredawaiverthattheunionofficerscanusetonegateliabilityfortheirillegalactions
ofdefyingthefirstreturntoworkorderandforcommissionofillegalactsinthecourseofthestrike.366
47

2.FederationofFreeWorkersv.Inciong,[G.R.No.L49983,April20,1992],theperiodofdefiancewasonly
nine(9)days.
3. Sarmientov.Tuico,[G.R.No.7527173,June27,1988],theperiodofdefiancewasforfive(5)months.
Ch
a
d.Nopracticeofgiving24hourstostrikerswithinwhichtoreturntowork.
InthesamecaseofUniversityofSanAgustin[supra],itwasheldthatthereisnosuchpracticeofgivingthe
strikerstwentyfourhours(24)withinwhichtoreturntowork.Thereisnolaworjurisprudencerecognizingthispractice.
an
Ch
na
Ch
Gu
ia
n

1.PARTICIPATIONINLAWFULSTRIKE.
Pr
to
os
el
it
of
.J
os
el
Gu
ia
it
o
na
Gu
ia
to
na
e.Someprinciplesondefianceoftheassumption/certificationorder.
1. Theassumption/certificationordermaybeservedatanytimeoftheday.378
2. Ifbothpartieshaveactedinparidelictointhattheemployerisguiltyofillegallockoutandtheunionis
culpableforillegalstrike,thedismissalofthestrikingemployeesisunwarrantedandtheirreinstatement
shouldbeorderedasamatterofcourse.379
3. Absent any notice to the union of the assumption/certification order, the strike does not automatically
becomeillegal.380
4. Serviceoftheassumption/certificationorderandreturntoworkorderontheguardondutyinsteadofthe
presidentoftheunionwhowasauthorizedtoreceivethesameisnotvalid.381Butifthestrikersandtheir
counselweredulyservedwiththeassumptionorderandhadactuallyadmittedthisfactintheirpleadings
andduringthemandatoryconferencebeforetheNLRC,theserviceofsaidorderisdeemedvalid.382
5. Therefusaltoacknowledgereceiptofsuchordersandotherprocessesisanapparentattempttofrustrate
theendsofjustice,hence,invalid.Theunioncannotbeallowedtothwarttheefficacyoftheassumption
and returntowork orders issued in the national interest through the simple expediency of refusing to
acknowledgereceiptthereof.383
=================================
i. Illegal Strike
(1) Liability of officers of the unions
(2) Liability of ordinary workers
(3) Waiver of illegality of strike
=================================
se
Jo
Pr
of
li
.J
Thedeclarationoractualconductofastrikedoesnotresultintheseveranceoftheemploymentrelationship
norarenunciationthereof.Theemploymentrelationshipismerelysuspendedduringtheperiodofworkstoppage.384An
employeewhoparticipatesinalawfulstrikeisnotdeemedtohaveabandonedhisemploymentbutismerelyexercising
hisrighttoselforganizationpreciselytoprotecthisrightsasanemployeeand/ortoobtainbetterworkingconditions.385
Suchparticipationshouldnotconstitutesufficientgroundfortheterminationofhisemploymentevenifareplacement
hasalreadybeenhiredbytheemployerduringsuchlawfulstrike.386
2.PARTICIPATIONINILLEGALSTRIKE.
Pr
o
f.
a.Distinctionintheliabilitybetweenunionofficersandordinaryunionmembers.
1.Unionofficers.
Themerefindingordeclarationofillegalityofastrikewillresultintheterminationofallunionofficers.Itisnot
requiredthattheofficersshouldcommitanillegalduringthestrike.387
Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, [G.R. Nos. 122743 and 127215, December 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 145].
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Brillantes, [G.R. No. 119360, October 10, 1997, 280 SCRA 515].
PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation v. NLRC, [G.R. No. 118223, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 231, 237-246].
381 Id.
382 Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Corp., [G.R. No. 154591, March 5, 2007].
383 Navale v. CA, [G.R. No. 109957, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 705].
384 Rex Taxicab Co. v. CIR, 40 O. G. 138, 70 Phil. 621.
385 No. 029, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout.
386 Article 264 [a], Labor Code; No. 030, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout.
387 Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010.
378
379
380
an
ia
Gu
se
li
Jo
an
To cast doubt on the regularity of the aforesaid service of the two orders issued by the DOLE Secretary,
petitionersinthesamecaseofTelefunken[supra]citeSection1,RuleIXoftheNLRCManualonExecutionofJudgment,
towit:
Section1.HoursandDaysWhenWritShallBeServed.Writofexecutionshallbeserved
atanyday,exceptSaturdays,Sundaysandholidays,betweenthehoursofeightinthemorningand
fiveintheafternoon.xxx
TheSupremeCourt,however,declaredthattheabovecitedruleisnotapplicabletothecaseatbarinasmuch
asSections1and4,RuleIIIofthesameNLRCManualprovidethatsuchexecutionshallissueonlyuponajudgmentor
orderthatfinallydisposesofanactionorproceeding.TheassumptionandreturntoworkordersissuedbytheDOLE
SecretaryarenotthekindoforderscontemplatedinthesaidruleoftheNLRCbecausesuchordersdidnotyetfinally
disposeofthelabordispute.
48

an
an
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
Gu
ia
it
o
to
Gu
ia
Ch
na
b.Someprinciplesonillegalityofastrike.
1. Forpurposesofdeterminingwhotheunionofficersareinthematterofascertainingwhotodismiss,the
certificationsastotheunionofficersissuedbytheChiefoftheLaborOrganizationDivisionoftheBureauof
LaborRelations(BLR),beingpublicrecords,enjoythepresumptionofregularityanddeserveweightand
probativevalue.Thus,intheabsenceofaclearandconvincingevidencethattheyareflawed,theyshould
betakenontheirfacevalue.390
2. ThefactthattheemployeesaresignatoriestotheCBAdoesnotsufficientlyestablishtheirstatusasunion
officers during the illegal strike. Neither were their active roles during the bargaining negotiations be
consideredasevidenceoftheirbeingunionofficers.391
3. Only the union officers during the period of illegal strike are liable. 392 if the employees acted as union
officersafterastrike,theymaynotbeheldliableand,therefore,couldnotbeterminatedintheircapacity
assuch.393
4. Shopstewardsareunionofficers.394Hence,theyshouldbeterminateduponthedeclarationoftheillegality
ofthestrike.395
5. Unionofficersmaybedismisseddespitethefactthattheillegalstrikewasstagedonlyfor1day.396
6. Ifthedispositiveportionof thedecision failedto mentionthe names ofunionofficers, resort should be
madetothetextofthedecision.397
7. Wholesaleforfeitureofemploymentstatusisnotallowed.Themerefilingofchargesagainstanemployee
forallegedillegalactsduringastrikedoesnotbyitselfjustifyhisdismissal.Thechargesmustbeprovedin
aninvestigationdulycalledforthatpurpose,wheretheemployeeshouldbegivenanopportunitytodefend
himself.Thisholdstrueeveniftheallegedgroundconstitutesacriminaloffense.398
8. Theemployercannotjustunceremoniouslydismissahundredofitsemployeesintheabsenceofclearand
convincingproofthatthesepeoplewereindeedguiltyoftheactschargedandthen,afterwards,gotocourt
toseekvalidationofthedismissalitwhimsicallyexecuted.Thatcertainlycannotbeallowed.399
Gu
ia
n
el
3.PARTICIPATIONINTHECOMMISSIONOFILLEGALACTSDURINGASTRIKE.
el
it
os
a.Legalityorillegalityofstrike,immaterial.
Asfarasliabilityforcommissionofillegalactsduringthestrike,theissueoflegalityorillegalityofthestrikeis
irrelevant.Aslongastheunionmembercommitsanillegalactinastrike,beitlegalorillegal,hisemploymentcanbe
terminated.400
to
li
se
of
.J
Pr
os
of
.J
b.MeaningofillegalactsunderArticle264[a].
The term illegal actsunder Article 264 [a] may encompass a number of acts that violate existing labor or
criminallaws,suchasthefollowing:
(1) ViolationofArticle264[e]oftheLaborCodewhichprovidesthat[n]opersonengagedinpicketingshall
commitanyactofviolence,coercionorintimidationorobstructthefreeingresstooregressfromthe
employerspremisesforlawfulpurposes,orobstructpublicthoroughfares.
(2) Commissionofcrimesandotherunlawfulactsincarryingoutthestrike.401
(3) Violationofanyorder,prohibition,orinjunctionissuedbytheDOLESecretaryorNLRCinconnectionwith
theassumptionofjurisdictionorcertificationorderunderArticle263[g]oftheLaborCode.402
Thisenumerationisnotexclusiveasjurisprudenceaboundwherethetermillegalactshasbeeninterpreted
andconstruedtocoverotherbreachesofexistinglaws.
f.
Pr
Jo
c.Meresubstantialevidencerequiredtoholdstrikersguiltyofcommissionofillegalacts.
Whileinallcases,itisrequiredthatthestrikermustbeidentified,butproofbeyondreasonabledoubtisnot
required; substantial evidence, available under the attendant circumstances, suffices to justify the imposition of the
Stamford Marketing Corp., v. Julian, G.R. No. 145496, Feb. 24, 2004.
Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, G.R. No. 159460, Nov. 15, 2010.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123491, Nov. 27, 1998, 299 SCRA 410.
391 Id.
392 Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 95, 106.
393 Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v. NLRC, [supra].
394 Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., [G.R. Nos. 164302-03, January 24, 2007].
395 C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, [G.R. No. 155109, September 29, 2010].
396 Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., [G.R. No. 140992, March 25, 2004].
397 Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, [G.R. Nos. 158190-91, October 31, 2006].
398 Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, [G.R. Nos. 122743 and 127215, December 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 145].
399 Times Transportation Co., Inc. v. NLRC, [G.R. Nos. 148500-01, November 29, 2006].
400 Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association [TMPCWA] v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786 &158789, Oct. 19, 2007; See also Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-28607, May 31, 1971, 43 SCRA 224; Chua v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105775, Feb. 8, 1993,
218 SCRA 545.
401 National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. L- 19017, December 27, 1963, 9 SCRA 847.
402 Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association [TMPCWA] v. NLRC, [G.R. Nos. 158786 and 158789, October 19, 2007].
388
389
Pr
o
390
an
se
li
Jo
Ch
a
2.Ordinaryunionmembers.
Themerefindingordeclarationofillegalityofastrikewillnotresultinterminationofordinaryunionmembers.
Foranordinaryunionmembertosuffertermination,itmustbeshownthathehascommittedillegalactsduringthe
strike.388
Thereasonforthisdistinctionisthattheunionofficershavethedutytoguidetheirmemberstorespectthe
law.Ifinsteadofdoingso,theofficersurgedthememberstoviolatethelawanddefythedulyconstitutedauthorities,
theirdismissalfromtheserviceisajustpenaltyorsanctionfortheirunlawfulact.Theirresponsibilityasmainplayersin
anillegalstrikeisgreaterthanthatoftheordinaryunionmembersand,therefore,limitingthepenaltyofdismissalonly
fortheformerforparticipationinanillegalstrikeisinorder.389
49

an
Ch
a
an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
of
to
os
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
b.Employersactofcondonation.
Anemployersactofcondonationorforgivenessoftheeffectsofawrongfulactcommittedbyanemployeeis
aneffectivewaiverofhisrighttodisciplineordismissthelatter.
Condonation may be express or implied. While the inaction of an employer may not be considered as an
impliedactofcondonationifthereisnoclearproofthathehasknowledgeoftheemployeeswrongfulact,however,if
suchinactionoccursafterthediscoveryofsuchwrongfulactsoastogivetheimpressionorinferencethattheemployer
hascondonedthesame,theemployercannolongerinvokesuchwrongfulactasagroundtoterminatetheemployee.
Itshouldbeunderscored,however,thatthecondonationofonewrongfulactdoesnot,inanyway,involvethe
condonationofotherwrongfulactsforwhichtheemployermaystillproceedagainsttheerringemployee.
InterphilLaboratoriesEmployeesUnionFFWv.InterphilLaboratories,Inc.,[G.R.No.142824,December19,
2001],
In this illegal strike case, one of the issues raised is whether the act of the employer in paying substantial
separationpackagetosomeofficersoftheunionduringthependencyoftheillegalstrikecase(whichultimatelywas
declaredillegalbytheSupremeCourt)maybeconsideredasanactofcondonationoftheillegalactscommittedinthe
Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010, citing Asso. of Independent Unions in the Phil. v. NLRC, 364 Phil. 697, 707 [1999].
Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010.
Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, G.R. No. 159460, Nov. 15, 2010; See also C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 155109, Sept. 29, 2010.
406 Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines [AIUP] v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120505, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 219; 364 Phil. 697, 707; G & S Transport Corp. v. Infante, G.R. No. 160303, Sept. 13, 2007.
407 Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association [PILA], G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010.
408 G & S Transport Corp. v. Infante, [G.R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007].
409 C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 155109, Sept. 29, 2010.
410 R.B. Michael Press v. Galit, [G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008].
403
404
405
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
penaltyofdismissalonparticipatingworkersandunionofficers.403Forthispurpose,theindividualidentityoftheunion
memberswhoparticipatedinthecommissionofillegalactsmaybeprovedthruaffidavitsandphotographs.404
Photographs alone, however, will not suffice. In Arellano University Employees and Workers Union v. CA,
[G.R. No. 139940, September 19, 2006], while the university adduced photographs showing the strikers picketing
outside its premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to meet the substantiality of evidence test
applicableindismissalcases.
d.Someprinciplesoncommissionofillegalactsinthecourseofthestrike.
1. Liabilityforillegalactsshouldbedeterminedonanindividualbasis.Inallcases,theerringstrikersmustbe
identified individually although proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Substantial evidence
availableundertheattendantcircumstanceswhichmayjustifytheimpositionofthepenaltyofdismissal
maysuffice.405Simplyreferringtothemasstrikers,orcomplainantsinthiscaseisnotenoughtojustify
theirdismissal.406
2. Onlymemberswhoareidentifiedashavingparticipatedinthecommissionofillegalactsareliable.Those
whodidnotparticipateshouldnotbeblamedtherefor.407
3. Toeffectivelyholdordinaryunionmembersliable,thosewhoparticipatedinthecommissionofillegalacts
must not only be identified but the specific illegal acts they each committed should be described with
particularity.408
Examples:
a. NationalUnionofWorkersintheHotel,RestaurantandAlliedIndustries[NUWHRAINAPLIUF]Dusit
HotelNikkoChapterv.TheHonorableCA,[G.R.Nos.163942and166295,November11,2008],while
theHotelwasabletoprovebeforetheNLRCthatthestrikersblockedtheingresstoandegressfromthe
premises of the Hotel, but it failed to specifically point out the participation of each of the union
membersinthecommissionofillegalactsduringthepicketandthestrike.Forthislapseinjudgmentor
diligence,thesixtyone(61)ordinaryunionmemberswereorderedreinstated.
b.Solidbank Corporation v.Gamier, [G.R. No. 159460, November 15, 2010], the dismissal of the
respondentunionmemberswasdeclaredunjustifiedinviewoftheabsenceofaclearshowingthatthey
committedspecificillegalactsduringthemassactionsandconcertedworkboycott.Petitionershavenot
adducedevidenceonsuchillegalactscommittedbyeachoftheindividualrespondentswhoareunion
members.Instead,petitionerssimplypointtotheiradmittedparticipationinthemassactionswhich
theyknewtobeillegal,beinginviolationoftheSecretarysassumptionorder.
4. Dismissalofthecriminalcasefiledbyreasonoftheillegalactscommittedinthecourseofthestrikedoes
notextinguishliabilityundertheLaborCode.409Nordoessuchdismissalbartheadmissionoftheaffidavits,
documents,andphotospresentedtoestablishtheiridentityandguiltduringthehearingofthepetitionto
declarethestrikeillegal.Thetechnicalgroundsthattheunionmayinterposefordenyingadmissionofthe
photosarealsonotbindingontheNLRC.
4.WAIVEROFILLEGALITYOFSTRIKE.
a.Waiver,meaning.
Awaiverisavoluntaryandintentionalrelinquishmentorabandonmentofaknownlegalrightorprivilege.A
waiver to be valid and effective, must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the
intentionofapartytogiveuparightorbenefitwhichlegallypertainstohim.Hence,themanagementprerogativeto
disciplineemployeesandimposepunishmentisalegalrightwhichcannot,asageneralrule,beimpliedlywaived.410
50

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
.J
li
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
to
os
of
Pr
Insurefco Paper Pulp and Project Workers Union v. Insular Sugar Refining Corp., G.R. Nos. L-7594 and L-7596, Sept. 8, 1954, 95 Phil. 761.
See also Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120482, Jan. 27, 1997, 266 SCRA 713.
Article 254, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982; See Section 14, Rule XXII, Book V thereof, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 where there is reference to Article 263 instead of Article 264.
414 Caltex Refinery Employees Association [PAFLU] v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-15338, 4 SCRA 1196.
411
412
413
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
course of the illegal strike consisting of overtime boycott and work slowdown. The High Tribunal ruled in the
negative:
Finally, the Court cannot agree with the proposition that respondent company, in
extendingsubstantialseparationpackagetosomeofficersofpetitionerunionduringthependency
ofthiscase,ineffect,condonedtheillegalactstheycommitted.
Respondent company correctly postured that at the time these union officers obtained
theirseparationbenefits,theywerestillconsideredemployeesofthecompany.Hence,thecompany
was merely complying with its legal obligations. Respondent company could have withheld these
benefits pending the final resolution of this case. Yet, considering perhaps the financial hardships
experiencedbyitsemployeesandtheeconomicsituationprevailing,respondentcompanychoseto
let its employees avail of their separation benefits. The Court view's the gesture of respondent
companyasanactofgenerosityforwhichitshouldnotbepunished.
i.Compliancewithreturntoworkorderdoesnotmeanwaiverofillegalityofstrike;exception.
Areturntoworkorderdoesnothavetheeffectofrenderingasmootandacademictheissueofthelegalityof
thestrike.411
However, according to TransAsia Shipping Lines, Inc. Unlicensed Crews Employees Union Associated
LaborUnions[TASLIALU]v.CA,[G.R.No.145428,July7,2004],anemployermaybeconsideredtohavewaivedits
righttoproceedagainstthestrikingemployeesforallegedcommissionofillegalactsduringthestrikewhen,duringa
conferencebeforetheChairmanoftheNLRC,itagreedtoreinstatethemandcomplyfullywiththereturntoworkorder
issuedbytheDOLESecretary.412
=================================
j. Injunctions
(1) Requisites for Labor Injunctions
(2) Innocent Bystander Rule
=================================
1.INJUNCTIONINSTRIKEORLOCKOUTCASES.
a.Injunctionprohibited.
Article 254 of the Labor Code explicitly provides that no temporary or permanent injunction or restraining
order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as
otherwiseprovidedinArticles218(referringtotheinjunctionpoweroftheNLRC)and264(referringtotheprohibited
activities during a strike or lockout) of the same Code. Deserving of similar exception is Article 263 [g] (referring to
assumption/certificationpoweroftheDOLESecretaryinnationalinterestcases).413
b.Strikesorlockoutsmaynotbeenjoined;exceptions.
Asageneralrule,strikesandlockoutsthatarevalidlydeclaredenjoytheprotectionofthelawandcannotbe
enjoinedunlessillegalactsarecommittedorthreatenedtobecommittedinthecoursethereof.Thispolicyapplieseven
ifthestrikeappearstobeillegalinnature.Therationaleforthispolicyistheprotectionextendedtotherighttostrike
undertheConstitutionandthelaw.Itisbasicallytreatedasaweaponthatthelawguaranteestoemployeesforthe
advancementoftheirinterestandfortheirprotection.414
Exceptions.
However, in some cases, injunctions issued to enjoin the conduct of the strike itself and not only the
commissionofillegalorprohibitedactsinthecoursethereof,wereheldtobevalid.
SanMiguelCorporationv.NLRC,[G.R.No.119293,June10,2003].
TheSupremeCourtruledthatinjunctionmaybeissuednotonlyagainstthecommissionofillegalactsinthe
courseofthestrikebutagainstthestrikeitself.Inthiscase,thenoticeofstrikefiledbytheunionhasbeenconverted
intoapreventivemediationcase.Havingbeensoconverted,astrikecannolongerbestagedbasedonsaidnotice.Upon
such conversion, the legal effect is that there is no more notice of strike to speak of. When the NCMB ordered the
preventivemediation,theunionhadthereuponlostthenoticeofstrikeithadfiled.However,theNCMBwhicheffected
theconversionhas,underthelaw,nocoercivepowersofinjunction.Consequently,petitionercompanyintheinstant
case sought recourse fromthe NLRC. The NLRC,however,issueda TRO only forthe free ingress to and egressfrom
petitionersplants,butdidnotenjointheconductoftheunlawfulstrikeitself.Itignoredthefatallackofnoticeofstrike
51

an
Ch
na
Ch
na
ia
na
Gu
el
it
Gu
ia
n
Gu
ia
it
o
el
os
END OF DISCUSSION ON
TOPIC G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW
of
.J
to
Pr
o
f.
Pr
Jo
se
of
.J
Pr
os
oooooooooOoOooooooooo
li
See also PAL v. Drilon, G.R. No. 88210, Jan. 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 223.
Mortera v. CIR, G.R. No. L-1340, Oct. 13, 1947, 79 Phil. 345.
Mortera v. CIR, G.R. No. L-1340, Oct. 13, 1947, 79 Phil. 345.
418 PAFLU v. Barot, G.R. No. L-9281, Sept. 28, 1956, 99 Phil. 1008; Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. CIR, G.R. Nos. L-30632-33, April 11, 1972, 44 SCRA 350.
419 PAFLU v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-25878, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 465.
420 Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006; Liwayway Publications, Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25003, Oct. 23, 1981, 195 Phil. 51.
415
416
417
an
ia
Gu
to
se
li
Jo
an
Ch
a
consequenttotheconversionthereofintoapreventivemediationcase.Article264[a]oftheLaborCodeexplicitlystates
thatadeclarationofstrikewithoutfirsthavingfiledtherequirednoticeisaprohibitedactivity,whichmaybeprevented
throughaninjunctioninaccordancewithArticle254ofthesameCode.Clearly,publicrespondentshouldhavegranted
theinjunctiverelieftopreventthegravedamagebroughtaboutbytheunlawfulstrike.415
SanMiguelCorporationv.NLRC,[G.R.No.99266,March2,1999,304SCRA1],
Inthiscase,thesameissueofNLRCsdutytoenjoinanunlawfulstrikewasraised.TheSupremeCourtruled
thattheNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitdeniedthepetitionforinjunctiontorestraintheunionfrom
declaringastrikebasedonnonstrikeablegrounds.
ILawatBuklodngManggagawa[IBM]v.NLRC,[G.R.No.91980,June27,1991,198SCRA586].
ItwasheldherethatitisthelegaldutyandobligationoftheNLRCtoenjoinapartialstrikestagedinviolation
ofthelaw.FailuretopromptlyissueaninjunctionbytheNLRCwaslikewiseheldthereintobeanabuseofdiscretion.
BulletinPublishingv.Sanchez,[G.R.No.74425,October7,1986].
Here,aninjunctionwasallowedagainstthestrikewhichwasstagedtocompeltheemployertoignorethelaw.
Thereasonisthatwhentradeunionismandstrikesareusedinviolationofthelaw,misusethereofcanbethesubjectof
judicialintervention.
2.INJUNCTIONINPICKETING.
a.Picketingmaynotbeenjoined;exceptions.
As a general rule, injunction cannot be issued against the conduct of picketing by the workers. Under our
constitutionalsetup,picketingisconsideredpartofthefreedomofspeechdulyguaranteedbytheConstitution.416
However,exceptedfromthislegalproscriptionarethefollowingsituations:
1.Wherepicketingiscarriedoutthroughtheuseofillegalmeans.417
2.Wherepicketinginvolvestheuseofviolenceandotherillegalacts.418
3.Wherepicketingaffectstherightsofthirdpartiesandinjunctionbecomesnecessarytoprotectsuchrights.419
b.INNOCENTBYSTANDERRULE.
Picketingstrikerscannotpreventemployeesofothercompaniesfromusingthesamepremisesbeingpicketed.
Apicketinglaborunionhasnorighttopreventemployeesofanothercompanywhichisnottheiremployer,fromgetting
in and out of its rented premises, otherwise, it will be held liable for damages for its acts against an innocent
bystander.420
Under the Innocent Bystander Rule, the thirdparty employers or innocent bystanders who have no
employeremployeerelationshipwiththepicketingstrikers,mayapplyforinjunctionwiththeregularcourtstoenjoin
theconductofthepicket.Absentsuchemployeremployeerelationship,theNLRCcannotentertainsuchapplicationfor
injunctionfrominnocentbystanders.
52

Labor Relations Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Labor Relations Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

3. Right to Peaceful Concerted Activities

2. Right to Collective Bargaining

TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Relevant Provisions: Book V, Labor Code

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Article 244, Labor Code.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Section 3, Rule VIII, Ibid..

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Thedetermination of the appropriatebargaining unitbased on the employment statusof the employees is

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Section 2, Rule VII, Book V, Ibid..

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Section 17, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Section 2, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Section 7, Rule IX, Book V, Ibid..

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Article 248 [e], Labor Code.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Relevant Provisions: Articles 250 to 253, Article 248, Labor Code

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

LABOR LAW: G. LABOR RELATIONS LAW

Article 253, Labor Code.