John Dominic T.

Buhangin
Labor Law Review II
Professor Natividad Roma

Cases on BLR – DOLE

Case Parties BLR-related Facts and Doctrine
Issues
1. SM Foods v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, The issues in the Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist
SMC INCORPORATED, present case, relating or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons
Supervisory & Petitioner to the inclusion of who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
Exempt Union employees in policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are
SAN MIGUEL supervisor levels 3 and cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be
CORPORATION 4 and the exempt considered a confidential employee - that is, the
SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT employees in the confidential relationship must exist between the employee
UNION, proposed bargaining and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
Respondent unit, thereby allowing prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The
their participation in exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the
the certification normal course of their duties, become aware of
election. management policies relating to labor relations is a
principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential employee rule.

Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-

and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate
category and disqualification to join any labor organization
is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees,
because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter
might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident
conflict of interests and the union can also become
company-denominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the union membership. Having access to
confidential information, confidential employees may also
 become the source of undue advantage. Said employees
may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective
bargaining agreement.
2. UST Faculty UST FACULTY UNION Petitioners-appellees A union election is held pursuant to the union's
Union v. (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA, [herein Private constitution and bylaws, and the right to vote in itis
Bitonio CORAZON QUI, NORMA Respondents] Marino, enjoyed only by union
CALAGUAS, IRMA et. al. (appellees) are Members. A union election should be distinguished from a
POTENCIANO, LUZ DE duly elected officers of certification election, which is the process of determining,
GUZMAN, REMEDIOS the UST Faculty Union through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining
GARCIA, RENE ARNEJO, (USTFU). The union has agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit,
EDITHA OCAMPO, CESAR a subsisting five-year for purposes of collective bargaining. Specifically, the
REYES, CELSO NIERRA, Collective Bargaining purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether
GLICERIA BALDRES, MA. Agreement with its or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented
LOURDES MEDINA, employer, the by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by
HIDELITA GABO, MAFEL University of Santo which particular labor organization. In both elections, there
YSRAEL, LAURA ABARA, Tomas (UST). The CBA are procedures to be followed. Thus, the October 4, 1996
NATIVIDAD SANTOS, was registered with election cannot properly be called a union election,
FERDINAND LIMOS, the Industrial Relations because the procedure laid down in the USTFU's CBL for
CARMELITA ESPINA, Division, DOLE-NCR, on the election of officers was not followed. It could not have
ZENAIDA FAMORCA, PHILIP 20 February 1995. It is been a certification election either, because representation
AGUINALDO, BENEDICTA set to expire on 31 was not the issue, and the proper procedure for such
ALAVA and LEONCIO May 1998. election was not followed. The participation of non-union
CASAL, Petitioners members in the election aggravated its irregularity

Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R.

BITONIO JR. of the Bureau
of Labor Relations, Med-
Arbiter TOMAS F.
FALCONITIN of The National
Capital Region, Department
of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), EDUARDO J. MARIO
JR., MA. MELVYN ALAMIS,
NORMA COLLANTES,
 URBANO ALABAGIA,
RONALDO ASUNCION,
ZENAIDA BURGOS,
ANTHONY CURA, FULVIO
M. GUERRERO, MYRNA
HILARIO, TERESITA MEER,
FERNANDO PEDROSA,
NILDA REDOBLADO, RENE
SISON, EVELYN TIROL and
ROSIE
ALCANTARA, Respondents
3. Eagle Ridge EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & Petitioner Eagle Ridge Indeed, where the company seeks the cancellation of a
Golf & Country COUNTRY CLUB, Petitioner is a corporation unions registration during the pendency of a petition for
Club v. Eagle engaged in the certification election, the same grounds invoked to cancel
Ridge COURT OF APPEALS and business of should not be used to bar the certification election. A
Employees EAGLE RIDGE maintaining golf certification election is the most expeditious and fairest
Union EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU), courses. It had, at the mode of ascertaining the will of a collective bargaining unit
Respondents end of CY 2005, as to its choice of its exclusive representative. It is the
around 112 rank-and- fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
file employees. The organization can truly represent the working force. It is a
instant case is an off- fundamental postulate that the will of the majority, if given
shot of the desire of a expression in an honest election with freedom on the part
number of these of the voters to make their choice, is controlling.
employees to organize
themselves as a
legitimate labor union
and their employers’
opposition to their
aspiration.
4. National NATIONAL UNION OF BANK Respondent Philippine It is well settled that [l]abor unions may disaffiliate from
Union of Bank EMPLOYEES National Bank (PNB) their mother federations to form a local or independent
Employees (NUBE), PETITIONER used to be a union only during the 60-day freedom period immediately
(NUBE) v. government-owned preceding the expiration of the CBA. [Tanduay Distillery
Philnabank and controlled banking Labor Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.]
Emp. PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES institution established However, such disaffiliation must be effected by a majority
Association ASSOCIATION (PEMA) AND under Public Act 2612, of the members in the bargaining unit. (Volkschel Labor
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL as amended by Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations).
BANK, RESPONDENTS Executive Order No. 80 Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to the case at bar, it
dated December 3, is difficult to believe that a justified disaffiliation took
1986 (otherwise place. While the record apparently shows that attempts at
known as The 1986 disaffiliation occurred sometime in June of 2003 x x x the
Revised Charter of the latest result of a certification election dated 17 October
Philippine National 2003 mooted such disaffiliation.
Bank). Its rank-and-file
employees, being Further, even if for the sake of argument an attempt at
government disaffiliation occurred, the record is bereft of substantial
personnel, were evidence to support a finding of effective disaffiliation.
represented for There might have been a mass withdrawal of the union
collective negotiation members from the NUBE-PNB Chapter. The record shows,
by the Philnabank however, that only 289 out of 3,742 members shifted their
Employees Association allegiance from the mother union. Hence, they constituted
(PEMA), a public sector a small minority for which reason they could not have
union. successfully severed the local union’s affiliation with NUBE.

In 1996, the Securities Thus, since only a minority of the members wanted
and Exchange disaffiliation as shown by the certification election, it can
Commission approved be inferred that the majority of the members wanted the
PNB’s new Articles of union to remain an affiliate of the NUBE. [Villar, et al. v.
Incorporation and By- Inciong, et al.]. There being no justified disaffiliation that
laws and its changed took place, the bargaining agent’s right under the provision
status as a private of the CBA on Check-Off is unaffected and still remained
corporation. PEMA with the old NUBE-PNB Chapter. x x x
affiliated with
petitioner National As a necessary consequence to our finding that no valid
Union of Bank disaffiliation took place, the right of NUBE to represent its
Employees (NUBE), local chapter at the PNB, less those employees who are no
which is a labor longer members of the latter, is beyond reproach.
federation composed
 of unions in the
banking industry,
adopting the name
NUBE-PNB Employees
Chapter (NUBE-PEC).

5. Air Phil. Corp. AIR PHILIPPINES The case initially For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to
v. BLR CORPORATION, centered on the union establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible
Petitioners registration of employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a)
respondent Air and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was
BUREAU OF LABOR Philippines Flight misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
RELATIONS and Attendants Association with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
AIR PHILIPPINES FLIGHT (APFLAA), which was laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification,
ATTENDANTS Promulgated: issued a Certificate of or in connection with the election of officers, minutes of
ASSOCIATION, Registration No. NCR- the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to
Respondents UR-3-2067-99 by the submit these documents together with the list of the newly
Department of Labor elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to
and Employment the BLR.
(DOLE). APFLAA filed
on 17 March 1999 a
petition for
certification election as
the collective
bargaining
representative of the
flight attendants of
APC. After the Med-
Arbiter rendered a
ruling ordering the
holding of a
certification election,
such election was held
on 5 August 1999, with
majority of the votes
 cast in favor of
APFLAA.
6. Heritage Hotel THE HERITAGE HOTEL On October 11, 1995, Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the
Manila v. SOLE MANILA, ACTING THROUGH respondent National certification election is the sole concern of the
ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA Union of Workers in workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as
HOTEL Hotel Restaurant and the certification election is concerned. Thus, the petitioner
CORPORATION, Petitioner Allied Industries- lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for
Heritage Hotel Manila the certification election, and should stand aside as a mere
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND Supervisors Chapter bystander who could not oppose the petition, or even
EMPLOYMENT; MED- (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders relative to the conduct of
ARBITER TOMAS F. filed a petition for the certification election.
FALCONITIN; AND certification
NATIONAL UNION OF election,3seeking to Under the long established rule, too, the filing of the
WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, represent all the petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC’s
RESTAURANT AND ALLIED supervisory employees registration should not bar the conduct of the certification
INDUSTRIES–HERITAGE of Heritage Hotel election. In that respect, only a final order for the
HOTEL MANILA Manila cancellation of the registration would have prevented
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER NUWHRAIN-HHMSC from continuing to enjoy all the rights
(NUWHRAIN- conferred on it as a legitimate labor union, including the
HHMSC), Respondents right to the petition for the certification election. This rule
is now enshrined in Article 238-A of the Labor Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9481, which reads:

Article 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of

Registration. – A petition for cancellation of union
registration shall not suspend the proceedings for
certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a
petition for certification election.

7. De Ocampo DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL On September 26, The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to
Memorial SCHOOLS, INC., Petitioner 2003, Union have grounds for cancelation of their Union Registration.
Schools v. Registration No. NCR- BMDOMSI Union was able to testify to the court that there
Bigkis UR-9-3858-2002 was were no misrepresentation, mixed membership and
BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA issued in favor of Bigkis inappropriate bargaining unit in their union. The CA ruled
DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL Manggagawa sa De the according to Article 247 of the Labor Code provides:
SCHOOL, INC., Respondent Ocampo Memorial Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration.
Medical Center - The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
LAKAS (BMDOMMC).6 union registration:

Later, on December 5, 1.) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in

2003, Bigkis connection with the adoption or ratification of the
Manggagawa sa De constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the
Ocampo Memorial minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took
School, Inc. part in the ratification;
(BMDOMSI) was issued
a Union 2.)Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
Registration/Certificate connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
of Creation of Local election of officers, and the list of voters;
Chapter No. NCR-12-
CC-002-2003 and 3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
declared a legitimate
labor organization. The petitioner was not able to establish to the court the
violation alleged to the respondents, wherefore CA
Whether or not De decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the petition
Ocampo Bigkis denied for lack of merit.
Manggagawa ng De
Ocampo Memorial
School, Inc. Union
Registration should be
revoked