THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA

HOTEL CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL,

RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
FACTS:
Respondents filed a petition for certification of pre-election with the DOLE.
The Med-Arbiter approved the pre-election. However, the certification election was
delayed, but pushed through nonetheless. Petitioner filed for cancellation of the
certification due to the failure of respondent to submit its financial statements to
the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter still ruled in favor of respondents.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the regional director of the DOLE. The Regional
director still rendered a decision in favor of respondents, which prompted
petitioners to appeal the decision to the director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The director of the BLR inhibited from the issue, as he was previously the counsel of
respondents.
The Secretary of Labor resolved the issue in the stead of the BLR director. She
ruled in favor of respondents. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision, but was turned down. Petitioner then filed for certiorari, challenging the
jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary. An appeal from the decision of the Regional
Director is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR. Also, petitioner claims
to have been deprived of due process as it was not informed of the inhibition of the
BLR
director.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the ruling of secretary of labor was valid and was petitioner
deprived of due process.
HELD: Petition is without merit.
It is without question that the appeal from the decision of the regional office is
within the jurisdiction of the BLR. Given the circumstances, the BLR director
inhibited himself. Petitioner insists that the case should have gone to the
subordinates of the BLR director. However, this happens in cases where the director
is incapacitated. This does not obtain as the director merely inhibited himself. On
the other hand, the Secretary of DOLE has powers of supervision and control over
the BLR. As such, it may validly step into the shoes of the BLR director and resolve
the issue.

Associated Labor Union vs Borromeo

Facts:
ALU is a duly registered labor organization, among the members thereof are
employees of Superior Gas and equipment company. On January 1, 1965 ALU and
SUGECO entered into a collective bargaining contract effective up to January 1,
1966. . ALU requested that 12 employees not be allowed to report to work, SUGECO
rejected the request due to irreparable injury and that the contract lapsed. SUGECO
stated that the 12 employees should rejoin ALU to resume the negotiations. ALU
wrote to SUGECO of bargaining in bad faith. ALU struck and picketed in the SUGECO
plant in Mandaue. SUGECO filed a case against ALU with CFI Cebu to restrain the
same from picketing in the said plant and offices elsewhere in the Philippines. CFI
Cebu issued a preliminary injunction prayed for by SUGECO. ALU filed charges of
ULP against SUGECO with CIR, ALU filed a motion for reconsideration on the
issuance of the injunction. CFI denied the motion. ALU filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition against Judge Gomez and Borromeo and SUGECO, prayed that CFI of
Cebu has no jurisdiction over the case. SC annulled the preliminary injunction issued
by CFI Cebu and directed to dismiss the case.. Judge Borromeo issued an order
requiring ALU to show cause order why the writ should not be issued. ALU filed a
motion to dismiss assailed the jurisdiction of CFI Cebu to hear the case on the
ground that it has grown out from a labor dispute. The judge denied the motion to
dismiss and to reconsider his order and dissolve the writ of injunction of June 30
1966. ALU commenced the present action for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction to annul the writs dated June 30 and July 22 1966 and to
restrain the lower court from hearing the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the strike held at the Cebu home is valid?
Held:
Yes, Now then there is no dispute regarding the existence of a labor dispute
between ALU and SUGECO-Cebu that SUGECO's Manager Mrs. Lua is the wife of the
owner and manager of Cebu Home, Antonio Lua, and that Cebu home is engaged in
the marketing of SUGECO products. Likewise, it is clear that as a managing member
of conjugal partnership between him and his wife, Mr. Lua of the business of
SUGECO and in the success or failure of her controversy in ALU, considering the
results thereof may affect the condition of the said conjugal partnership. Similarly,
as distributor of SUGECO products, the Cebu home has at least an indirect interest

in the labor dispute between SUGECO and ALU. In other words, respondent herein
have an indirect interest in the said labor dispute, for which the reason, we find that
sec. 9 of RA 875 squarely applies. Wherefore, the orders of respondent Judge dated
June 30 and July 222, 1966 and writs of preliminary injunction issued in accordance
therewith hereby declared null and void ab initio, with costs to the respondents
herein, Cebu Home and Industrial Supply and Antonia Lua.

Bautista vs. Inciong

FACTS
Bautista is a union organizer of Associated Labor Union, the latter pays his
share of SSS contributions.He filed a sick leave of absence. When he reported back
to work at the end of his leave, the VP for Luzon informed him that his services is
being terminated. He filed the case. The Director ruled in his favor but the decision
was reversed on appeal on the ground of No Er-Ee relationship
ISSUE
Whether or Not a Union can be an employer
HELD
Yes. Ratio: The mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does not mean that it
cannot be considered an employer of the persons who work for it.
Cited Brotherhood Labor Unity,Existence of Er-Ee relationship, Rule (Control Test):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

the
the
the
the

selection and engagement of the Ee;

payment of wages;
power of dismissal; and
Er's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods

Case facts: (1) payroll, i.e., Union paid his wages; (2) share in SSS remittances; (3)
union's act of filing a clearance application with the MOL to terminate the
petitioner's services; (4) Union hired him.
Conclusion: there is an Er-Ee relationship b/n ALU and Bautista.
Ruling: Awarded severance pay (3 years backwages + separation pay)

Franklin Baker Company Of The Philippines Vs Trajano

G.R. No. 75039
FACTS:
Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association filed a petition for certification election
among the office and technical employees of the petitioner company with the
Ministry of Labor and Employment Davao.
It alleges that 90 employees in the Davao plant which is distinct from the regular
rank and file employees is excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA.
Petitioner company did not object on the election but manifested that out of 90
employees 74 are managerial employees and 2 are confidential employees.
Med-Arbiter Martinez issued an order granting the petition and certification election
among the office and technical employees of the Davao plant. The petitioner
company appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations for the order to be set aside
and declare the 74 employees as managerial employees.
During the pendency of the appeal, 61 employees involved filed a Motion to
Withdraw the petition for certification election praying for their exclusion from the
bargaining unit because they are managerial employees as they are performing
managerial functions. Petitioner company sought the reconsideration of the
aforequoted resolution but its motion was denied by Director Cresencio B. Trajano
and issued a resolution affirming the order of Med-Arbiter Conchita Martinez.
ISSUE:
1

Whether or not under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules subject
employees are managerial employees

RULING:
No, The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether a person
possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in
Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and
whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the
use of independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the

case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department
heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are
not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
And a managerial employee is defined as one "who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively
recommend such managerial actions."
Furthermore, in line with the ruling of this Court, subject employees are not
managerial employees because as borne by the records, they do not participate in
policy making but are given ready policies to execute and standard practices to
observe, thus having little freedom of action.

BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORP. v. SANCHEZ, 144 SCRA 628

FACTS:
Supervisors and managers in petitioner company formed a union separate from
that of the rank-and-file union, petitioned for certification election, and staged a
strike against the petitioner, prompting the latter to seek a permanent injunction.
ISSUE:
Are supervisors or managers allowed by law to form a union?
HELD:
No. The supervisory employees of petitioner firm may not, under the law, form a
supervisors union, separate and distinct from the existing bargaining unit (BEU),
composed of the rank-and-file employees of the Bulletin Publishing Corporation. It is
evident that most of the private respondents are considered managerial employees.
The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if these managerial
employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The
Union can also become company- dominated with the presence of managerial
employees in Union membership.