FVC LABOR UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION

(FVCLU-PTGWO) VS.SAMA-SAMANG NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA

FVC-SOLIDARITY OF INDEPENDENT AND GENERAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO)
Facts:
On December 22, 1997, the petitioner signed a five-year collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) with the company.The five-year CBA period was from February 1,
1998 to January 30, 2003.At the end of the 3rd year of the five-year term and pursuant
to the CBA, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company entered into the renegotiation of the CBA
and modified, among other provisions, the CBA's duration
Article XXV, Section 2 of the renegotiated CBA provides that "this re-negotiation
agreement shall take effect beginning February 1, 2001 and until May 31, 2003" thus
extending the original five-year period of the CBA by four (4) months.
On January 21, 2003, nine (9) days before the January 30, 2003 expiration of the
originally-agreed five-year CBA term (and four months and nine days away from the
expiration of the amended CBA period), the respondent Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang
Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations
(SANAMA-SIGLO) filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a
petition for certification election for the same rank-and-file unit covered by the
FVCLU-PTGWO CBA
FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the certification
election petition was filed outside the freedom period or outside of the sixty (60) days
before the expiration of the CBA on May 31, 2003.
Issues:
The legal question before us centers on the effect of the amended or extended term of
the CBA on the exclusive representation status of the collective bargaining agent and
the right of another union to ask for certification as exclusive bargaining agent.
The question arises because the law allows a challenge to the exclusive representation
status of a collective bargaining agent through the filing of a certification election petition
only within 60 days from the expiration of the five-year CBA.
The root of the controversy can be traced to a misunderstanding of the interaction
between a union's exclusive bargaining representation status in a CBA and the term or
effective period of the CBA.
Held:
While the parties may agree to extend the CBA's original five-year term together with all
other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry
with it a change in the union's exclusive collective bargaining status.By express provision
of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five
years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to
agree upon.

In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either
as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining union's exclusive bargaining
status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to
the expiration of the CBA's first five years.
As we said in San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO, et al. v. Confesor, San
Miguel Corp., Magnolia Corp. and San Miguel Foods, Inc., where we cited the
Memorandum of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated February 24, 1994In the
event however, that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract
with a term of three (3) years or one which does not coincide with the said five-year term
and said agreement is ratified by majority of the members in the bargaining unit, the
subject contract is valid and legal and therefore, binds the contracting parties.The same
will however not adversely affect the right of another union to challenge the majority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent within sixty (60) days before the lapse of the
original five (5) year term of the CBA.
As discussed above, this negotiated extension of the CBA term has no legal effect on
the FVCLU-PTGWO's exclusive bargaining representation status which remained
effective only for five years ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003.Thus,
sixty days prior to this date, or starting December 2, 2002, SANAMA-SIGLO could
properly file a petition for certification election.Its petition, filed on January 21, 2003 or
nine (9) days before the expiration of the CBA and of FVCLU-PTGWO's exclusive
bargaining status, was seasonably filed.

SMCEU vs Hon. Ma. Nieves Confessor

Facts:
On June 28, 1990, petitioner-union San Miguel Corporation Employees Union - PTGWO
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with private respondent San
Miguel Corporation (SMC) to take effect upon the expiration of the previous CBA or on
June 30, 1989.
In keeping with their vision and long term strategy for business expansion, SMC
management informed its employees in a letter dated August 13, 1991that the company
which was composed of four operating divisions namely: (1) Beer, (2) Packaging, (3)
Feeds and Livestocks, (4) Magnolia and Agri-business would undergo a restructuring.
Effective October 1, 1991, Magnolia and Feeds and Livestock Division were spun-off
and became two separate and distinct corporations: Magnolia Corporation (Magnolia)
and San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI). Notwithstanding the spin-offs, the CBA remained in
force and effect.
After June 30, 1992, the CBA was renegotiated in accordance with the terms of the CBA
and Article 253-A of the Labor Code. Negotiations started sometime in July, 1992 with
the two parties submitting their respective proposals and counterproposals.
During the negotiations, the petitioner-union insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC
should still include the employees of the spun-off corporations: Magnolia and SMFI; and

that the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective only for the remaining period of
two years or until June 30, 1994.
SMC, on the other hand, contended that the members/employees who had moved to
Magnolia and SMFI, automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit at the SMC.
Furthermore, the CBA should be effective for three years in accordance with Art. 253-A
of the Labor Code

Issues
1) Whether or not the duration of the renegotiated terms of the CBA is to be effective for
three years or for only two years; and
2) Whether or not the bargaining unit of SMC includes also the employees of Magnolia
and SMFI.
Held:
Petitioner-union contends that the duration for the non-representation provisions of the
CBA should be coterminous with the term of the bargaining agency which in effect shall
be for the remaining two years of the current CBA, citing a previous decision of the
Secretary of Labor on December 14, 1992 in the matter of the labor dispute at Philippine
Refining Company.
Article 253-A is a new provision. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 6715 (the Herrera-Veloso Law) which took effect on March 21, 1989. This new
provision states that the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three years, before
the amendment of the law as far as the representation aspect is concerned. All other
provisions of the CBA shall be negotiated not later than three (3) years after its
execution. 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."All other provisions" simply refers to the rest of
the CBA, economic as well as non-economic provisions, except representation.
As the Secretary of Labor herself observed in the instant case, the law is clear and
definite on the duration of the CBA insofar as the representation aspect is concerned,
but is quite ambiguous with the terms of the other provisions of the CBA. It is a cardinal
principle of statutory construction that the Court must ascertain the legislative intent for
the purpose of giving effect to any statute. The history of the times and state of the
things existing when the act was framed or adopted must be followed and the conditions
of the things at the time of the enactment of the law should be considered to determine
the legislative intent.
Obviously, the framers of the law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability by
having both management and labor work harmoniously together without any
disturbance. Thus, no outside union can enter the establishment within five (5) years and
challenge the status of the incumbent union as the exclusive bargaining agent. Likewise,
the terms and conditions of employment (economic and non-economic) can not be
questioned by the employers or employees during the period of effectivity of the CBA.

The CBA is a contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and
conditions of the agreement. Notably, the framers of the law did not give a fixed term as
to the effectivity of the terms and conditions of employment. It can be gleaned from their
discussions that it was left to the parties to fix the period.
In the instant case, it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the
non-representation provisions of the CBA. Taking it from the history of their CBAs, SMC
intended to have the terms of the CBA effective for three (3) years reckoned from the
expiration of the old or previous CBA which was on June 30, 1989.