G.R. No.

96189 July 14, 1992

test.

petitioner,
,
Principle:

and duties as well as in the

be
, mutual interests in Division and the Lo

applied: community or vs.

fment compensation and working co PHILIPPINES,o OF THE
Secondacademicthe formation of a separate bargaining.

In the case at bar, the

UNION,
 ef test of an asserted

collective

Test
LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLA) and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

G.R. No. L, bargaining UNIVERSITY

Test

Principle:

Law Applicable:
In this case, no law was applied since thSLUith the correctness of the examiners
report -22970The , Rosario del Rosario, respondent.
appropriate, must affect a grou192 SCRA 598

g of employees who have substantial several issues but when it reached the Supreme
Court, the only issue left was the correctness of the reported money value which they
could have determined earlier if they resorted to an amicable settlement to meet the
demands of each other. bargaining UNIVERSITY
Test of its own books and in the computation of the money value of the questioned
awards. As a matter of fact, its only objection against the reports themselves was
that they were not correctly based, meaning that instead of the examination and
computation being based on the employees can easily be categorized into two general
classes:

Firstnon-academicjanitors Employment, and THE ALL U.P. WORKERS' based on

the statement made in open court by SURICON's counsel subsequent to the giving of
such testimony. At the very least, therefore, it seems clear that SURICON must be
deemed barred from now saying that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the
demands of PLASLU. The Court ruled that neither the CIR nor its Chief Examiner nor
the latter's assistant committed any error in relation to this particular issue under
consideration.

Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Ferrera-Calleja, 214 SCRA 174

Principle:

one company-one union policy

The suggested bias of the Labor Code in favor of the one company-one union policy,
anchored on the greater mutual benefits which the parties could derive, especially in
the case of employees whose bargaining strength could undeniably be enhanced by
their unity and solidarity but diminished by their disunity, division and dissension, is
not without exceptions.

The usual exception, of course, is where the employer unit has to give way to the
other units like the craft unit, plant unit, or a subdivision thereof; the recognition of
these exceptions takes into accountant the policy to assure employees of the fullest
freedom in exercising their rights. Otherwise stated, the one company-one union
policy must yield to the right of the employees to form unions or associations for
purposes not contrary to law, to self-organization and to enter into collective
bargaining negotiations, among others, which the Constitution guarantees