COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. vs. HON. BLAS F.

OPLE
G.R. No. 73681
JUNE 30, 1988

Facts:
Respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of
unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members;
and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union
members from joining the union. The Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner, assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.
Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union
membership were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three
employees were due to infractions committed by them and that the management reserves the
right to discipline erring employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union, among
others.
The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Unions complaint. It also
ruled that the three dismissed employees were not without fault but nonetheless ordered the
reinstatement of the same. At the same time, respondent Minister directly certified the respondent
Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the
reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first
offenders.
Issue:
Whether or not the minister erred in directly certifying the Union based on the latters self-serving
assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in petitioners company and
in ordering the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees.
Held:
The Court held that the minister failed to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed
enjoyed majority representation. The Court held that by relying only on the Notice of Strike, the
minister had encouraged disrespect of the law. He had also erroneously vested upon himself the
right to choose the collective bargaining representative which ought to have been upon the
employees.
The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of guilt on
their part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage unequal protection
of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the employees.
The court rendered the decision of the minister reversed and set aside, ordering petitioners to
give the three employees their separation pay.