CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 23, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
DOLE Phil., V. PAWIS The original CBA, entered into prior to the spin-off,
G.R. No. 146650, January 13, 2003
The petitioner and the respondent executed a
CBA for the period starting February 1996 to February
2001. Under the bonuses and allowances section of
the said CBA, a P10 meal allowance shall be given to
employees who render at least 2 hrs of overtime work
and free meals shall be given after 3 hours of actual
overtime work. Pursuant to this provision, some
departments granted free meals after exactly 3 hours
of work. However, other departments granted free
meals only after more than 3 hours of overtime work.
The respondent filed a complaint against Dole, saying
that free meals should be granted after exactly 3 hrs
of overtime work, not after more than 3 hrs. The
parties agreed to settle the dispute to voluntary
arbitration.
VA: Ruled in favor of respondent, directing the
petitioner to grant free meals after exactly 3 hrs of
overtime work. CA affirmed. SC denied the petition of
Dole.
Whether or not (1) free meals should be granted
after exactly 3 hrs of work; and (2) whether the
petitioner has the right to determine when to grant free
meals and its conditions. (1) Yes. The same meal
allowance provision is found in their previous CBAs,
the 1985-1988 CBA and the 1990-1995 CBA.
However, it was amended in the 1993-1995 CBA, by
changing the phrase “after 3 hrs of overtime work” to
“after more than 3 hrs of overtime work”. In the 1996-
2001 CBA, the parties had to negotiate the deletion of
the said phrase in order to revert to the old provision.
Clearly, both parties had intended that free meals
should be given after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work.
The disputed provision is clear and not vague hence
the literal meaning shall prevail. No amount of legal
semantics can convince the Court that “after more
than” means the same as “after”. (2) No. The exercise
of management prerogative is not unlimited. It is
subject to the limitations provided by law. In this case,
there was a CBA, and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.
COLLEGIO V. ASSOC., 340 SCRA 587 –
SUPRA (Surface Bargaining)
SMC UNION V. CONFESSOR [SMC,
Magnolia and SMFI]
G.R. No. 111262, September 19, 1996
San Miguel Corp (SMC) formerly had 4 business
divisions: beer, packaging, feeds and livestock,
SAN MIGUEL Corp., V. LAGUESMA [NL
Magnolia and agri-business. The 3rd and 4th divisions
were separated in Oct 1992, and became two
separate and distinct corporations: Magnolia Corp and G.R. No. 111262, September 19, 1996
San Miguel Foods Inc (SMFI), herein respondents.
“THERE IS NO DELIGHT IN OWNING ANYTHING UNSHARED.”
IBM_PRELOAD F:\BUTOY\LAW_SCHOOL\LABOR\CASE_DIGEST/August23,2010.doc
became effective July 1989 (effective until June 1994).
This was renegotiated starting July 1992 - the
bargaining unit was the petitioner-union - until July
1994. During the negotiations, the labor union insisted
that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include the
employees of Magnolia and SMFI, and that the
renegotiated terms of the CBA be effective only for the
remaining period of the existing CBA (for 2 years).
SMC, on the other hand, contended that the
employees who moved to Magnolia and SMFI
automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit
at the SMC, and that the CBA should be effective for 3
years in accordance to Art. 253-A of the Labor Code.
Unable to agree on these issues, a deadlock was
declared. A notice of strike was filed against SMC.
SMC requested the NCMB to conduct a preventive
mediation but no settlement was arrived at despite
several meetings. Subsequently, the Sec of Labor
assumed jurisdiction and issued the assailed order
directing the renegotiated terms of the CBA to be
effective for the period of 3 years from June 1992; and
that the said CBA should cover only the employees of
SMC and not of Magnolia and SMFI.
Whether or not the (1) duration of the renegotiated
terms of the CBA is to be effective for 3 years from
June 1992; and whether (2) the bargaining unit of the
SMC includes also the employees of Magnolia and
SMFI. (1) Yes. ART. 253-A, The “representation
aspect” refers to the identity and majority status of the
union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the appropriate
bargaining unit concerned (Term of 5 YEARS). “All
other provisions” simply refers to the rest of the CBA,
economic as well as non- economic provisions, except
representation (Renegotiated not later than 3
YEARS). [Check reasoning of Senator Herrera why
the two terms were not sync together] (2) No. In
determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test of
grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. The
employees sought to be represented by the collective
bargaining agent must have substantial mutual
interests in terms of employment and working
conditions as evinced by the type of work they
performed. The different companies may have
different volumes of work and different working
conditions. For such reason, the employees of the
different companies see the need to group themselves
together and organize themselves into distinctive and
different groups. It would then be best to have
separate bargaining units for the different
companies where the employees can bargain
separately according to their needs and according
to their own working conditions.
Magnolia]
PAGE 1 of 3
 CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 23, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
Respondent filed with the DOLE a petition for CE the National Federation of Labor (NFL) and petitioner.
among all regular sales personnel of Magnolia Dairy And third, the employees represented by PFL had
Products in the North Luzon sales area. Petitioner at allegedly been disqualified by the Court.
first opposed contending that its bargaining history in
its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to have a Respondent PFL opposed. It countered that the
separate bargaining unit for each sales office. monthly paid office and technical employees should
Nevertheless, SMC agreed to consider all the sales be allowed to form a separate bargaining unit because
offices in northern Luzon as one bargaining unit they were expressly excluded from coverage in the
through their substitute lawyer’s decision. Collecting Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between
petitioner and NFL. In its reply, petitioner argued that
MA: Certified respondent union as the sole the monthly paid office and technical employees
bargaining agent for all the personnel; On appeal, should have joined the existing collective bargaining
Seceretary of Labor denied. SC affirmed the previous unit.
order.
MA: Granted the petition and ordered that a
Whether or not (1) respondent union represents certification election be conducted. Appeal and MR of
an appropriate bargaining unit, and (2) whether petitioner both were denied.
petitioner is bound by its substitute lawyer's act of
agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the north Whether or not petitioner's monthly paid rank-and
Luzon sales area as one bargaining unit. (1) Yes. file employees can constitute a bargaining unit
There are only around 55 employees in the entire separate from the existing bargaining unit of its daily
North Luzon sales area. It would not be for the best paid rank-and-file employees. Yes. The employees
interest of these employees if they would further be enjoy the constitutional right to self-organization and
fractionalized. Indeed, the test of grouping is mutuality collective bargaining. In the case, the monthly paid
or commonality of interests. RATIO: The adage "there rank-and-file employees of petitioner primarily perform
is strength in number" is the very rationale underlying administrative or clerical work. In contradistinction, the
the formation of a labor union. [SMC V. LAGUESMA, petitioner's daily paid rank-and-file employees mainly
G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997 – supra] (2) Yes. work in the cultivation of bananas in the fields. It is
Insofar as the alleged "mistake" of the substitute crystal clear the monthly paid rank-and-file
lawyer is concerned, we find that this mistake was the employees have very little in common with its
direct result of the negligence of petitioner's lawyers. daily paid rank-and-file employees in terms of
Indeed, prudence dictates that, in such case, the duties and obligations, working conditions, salary
lawyers allegedly actively involved in SMC's labor rates, and skills. This dissimilarity of interests
case should have adequately and sufficiently briefed warrants the formation of a separate and distinct
the substitute lawyer with respect to the matters bargaining unit for the monthly paid rank-and-file
involved in the case and the specific limits of his employees of the petitioner.
authority. Unfortunately, this was not done in this
case. The negligence of its lawyers binds petitioner. PHIL LAND (PLASLU) V. CIR
[VILLA RHECAR BUS v. DELA CRUZ xxx...As a
G.R. No. L-14656, November 29, 1960
general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his
counsel. Only when the application of the general rule
There were 2 unions sought to be the sole
would result in serious injustice should an exception
bargaining representative of San Carlos Milling Co.,
thereto be called for.]
herein petitioner, Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union
(PLASLU) and respondent Allied Workers' Association
GOLDEN FARMS INC., V. SECRETARY of the Philippines (AWA). After the certification
G.R. No. 102130 July 26, 1994 election, PLASLU in an urgent motion, protested on
the ground of the ineligibility of some voters (242
Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., is a corporation votes cast by stevedores and piece workers) in favor
engaged in the production and marketing of bananas of AWA; but the motion was opposed by AWA on the
for export. On February 27, 1992, private respondent ground that as a protest of the election it was filed
Progressive Federation of Labor (PFL) filed a petition late. Nevertheless, AWA won in the election. MR of
before the Med-Arbiter praying for the holding of a PLASLU was denied.
certification election among the monthly paid office
and technical rank-and-file employees of petitioner Whether or not temporary or casual employees
Golden Farms. Petitioner moved to dismiss the are permitted to vote in a CE. No. The 242 stevedores
petition on three (3) grounds. First, respondent PFL and piece workers, whose votes have been
failed to show that it was organized as a chapter challenged, were employed on casual or day to day
within petitioner's establishment. Second, there was basis and have no reasonable basis for continued or
already an existing collective bargaining agreement renewed employment for any appreciable substantial
between the rank-and-file employees represented by time — not to mention the nature of work they perform
“THERE IS NO DELIGHT IN OWNING ANYTHING UNSHARED.”
IBM_PRELOAD F:\BUTOY\LAW_SCHOOL\LABOR\CASE_DIGEST/August23,2010.doc PAGE 2 of 3
 CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 23, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
— they cannot be considered to have such
mutuality of interest as to justify their inclusion in
a bargaining unit composed of permanent or
regular employees. [Labor Union vs. Cebu
Stevedoring Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-10321,
February 28, 1958] The basic test of a bargaining
unit's acceptability is whether it will best assure to all
employees is whether it will be assure to all
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining
rights. The final results of the certification election
show that the petitioner PLASLU garnered a majority
of the votes cast by eligible voters. Consequently, said
petitioner should be certified as the sole collective
bargaining representative of the employees of the San
Carlos Milling Co.

UST V. BITONIO, 318 SCRA 185 – SUPRA

(Rights of Members)

“THERE IS NO DELIGHT IN OWNING ANYTHING UNSHARED.”

IBM_PRELOAD F:\BUTOY\LAW_SCHOOL\LABOR\CASE_DIGEST/August23,2010.doc PAGE 3 of 3