LabRel Cases Part II.doc

8/18/2019 LabRel Cases Part II.doc

1/65

1

G.R. No. 76273 July 31, 1987

FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDAION, INC., petitioner,vs.

!ON. CRESENCIANO RAJANO "#$ RICARDO C. CASRO, FAR EASERN UNI%ERSIY DR.NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDAION, INC. ALLIANCE OF FILI&INO 'OR(ERS)AF'*, respondents.

&ARAS, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the respondent Director which

affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter in the petition for certification election (!"-#"D--$-%&%-') filed

b* private respondent, thus ordering the holding of a certification election among the rank and file

emplo*ees of the herein petitioner.

The facts of the case are as follows+

The petitioner, ar astern niversit*-Dr. icanor "e*es Memorial oundation, /nc., has a work force of

about 0&% rank and file emplo*ees, ma1orit* of whom are members of private respondent Alliance of

ilipino 2orkers.

On ebruar* 30, 34', private respondent filed a 5etition for !onsent and6or !ertification lection with The

Ministr* of #abor and mplo*ment. The petitioner opposed the petition on the ground that a similar petitioninvolving the same issues and the same parties is pending resolution before the 7upreme !ourt, docketed

as 8.". o. #-94::3.

/n its position paper, private respondent admitted+ that as earl* as Ma* 3%, 34:, private respondent filed a

similar petition for certification election with the Ministr* of #abor and mplo*ment but the petition was

denied b* the MD Arbiter and the 7ecretar* of #abor on appeal, on the ground that the petitioner was a

non-stock, non-profit medical institution, therefore, its emplo*ees ma* not form, 1oin, or organi;e a union

pursuant to Article $99 of the #abor !ode< that private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the

7upreme !ourt (docketed as 8.". o. #-94::3) assailing the constitutionalit* of Article $99 of the #abor

!ode< that pending resolution of the aforesaid petition, or on Ma* 3, 34'%, =atas 5ambansa =ilang :% was

enacted amending Article $99 of the #abor !ode, thus granting even emplo*ees of non-stock, non-profit

institutions the right to form, 1oin and organi;e labor unions of their choice< and that in the e>ercise of such

right, private respondent filed another petition for certification election with the Ministr* of #abor and

mplo*ment (!"-#"D--$-%&%-').

On April 3:, 34', the Med Arbiter issued an Order granting the petition, declaring that a certification

election be conducted to determine the e>clusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file

emplo*ees of the petitioner (p. 9, "ollo).

"espondent Director affirmed said Order on appeal. /n dismissing the appeal, h

Director said that+

... respondent?s (petitioner herein, reliance on the petition with the 7upreme

does the provisions of Article $99 of the #abor !ode vis-a-vis the character o

has been alleged as a non-profit medical foundation, has been rendered m

virtue of the amendator* =5 @:%, which allows emplo*ees of non-profit m

unioni;e.

2hatever doubt there ma* be on the right of the workers in a medical institurest b* =5@:%.

2"O", premises considered, the present appeal is hereb* dismis

and the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated 3: April 34' affirmed. ... (p. 34, "ollo

ence, this petition, raising the issue of whether or not respondent Director gravel* a

in granting the petition for certification election, despite the pendenc* of a simila

7upreme !ourt (8.". o. 94::3) which involves the same parties for the same cause

The 5etition is devoid of merit.

At the time private respondent filed its petition for certification election on ebruar* 30

the #abor !ode was alread* amended b* =atas 5ambansa =ilang :%, to wit+

Art. $99. !overage and emplo*ees? right to self-organi;ation. B All p

commercial, industrial and charitable, medical or educational institutions w

profit or not , shall have the right to self-organi;ations of their own choos

collective bargaining. Ambulant intermittent and itinerant workers, self-em

workers and those without an* definite emplo*ers ma* form labor organi;a

of enhancing and defending their interests and for their mutual aid and prote

supplied).

nder the aforeCuoted provision, there is no doubt that rank and file emplo*ees o

institutions (as herein petitioner) are now permitted to form, organi;e or 1oin labor unio

purposes of collective bargaining. 7ince private respondent had complied with the re

law for calling a certification election (p. 3&, "ollo), it was incumbent upon responden

such certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of petitioner?s em

Manggagawa g 5acific Mills, /nc. vs. oriel, 309 7!"A 3&$).

As held in Quimpo v. Dela Victoria, 9 7!"A 304, in order that the pendenc* of ano

the same parties for the same cause ma* be availed of as a ground to dismiss a c


2/65

2

between the action under consideration and the other action+ (3) /dentit* of parties, or at least such as

representing the same interest in both actions< ($) /dentit* of rights asserted and relief pra*ed for, the relief

being founded on the same facts< and (0) the /dentit* on the two preceding particulars should be such that

an* 1udgment which ma* be rendered on the other action wig, regardless of which part* is successful,

amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.1avvphi1

/n the instant case, an* 1udgment which ma* be rendered in the petition for certiorari pending before the

7upreme !ourt (8. ". o. #-94::3) wig not constitute res judicata in the petition for certification election

under consideration, for while in the former, private respondent Cuestioned the constitutionalit* of Article

$99 of the #abor !ode before its amendment, in the latter, private respondent invokes the same article asalread* amended.

5etitioner, however, has pointed out that respondent Director should not have arrogated upon himself the

power to declare the aforesaid petition for certiorari (8.". o. #-94::3) moot and academic, as the same

is sub-judiceand onl* the 7upreme !ourt can decide the matter. The Director cannot be faulted for he had

to make a decision.

2"O", this petition is D/7M/77D, and the decision appealed from is hereb* A/"MD.

7O O"D"D.

G.R. No. 77231 M"y 31, 1989

SAN JOSE CIY ELECRIC SER%ICE COO&ERAI%E, INC. )SAJELCO*, petitioner,vs.

MINISRY OF LA+OR AND EM&LOYMEN "#$ MAG(AISA-ADLO, respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under "ule & of the "ules of !ourt. 5etitioner 7an ose !it* lectric

7ervice !ooperative, /nc. (7A#!O, for brevit*) seeks the reversal of the Order (pp. 0'-9%, "ollo) of 5ura

errer-!alle1a, Director of =ureau of #abor "elations in =#" !ase o. A-3%-$&4-' which affirmed the

Order of Med-Arbiter Antonio ". !orte; to conduct a certification election among the rank-and-file

emplo*ees of 7A#!O.

The antecedent facts of the instant case are as follows+

On ul* $4, 34', private respondent Manggagawang agkakaisa ng 7A#!O-Association of

Democratic #abor Organi;ation (MA8EA/7A-AD#O) filed a petition (pp. 3-3', Rollo) for direct certification

election with the "egional Office o. 333 of the Department of #abor and mplo*ment in 7an ernando,

5ampanga. The petition alleged that MA8EA/7A-AD#O is a legitimate labor organi;ation dul* registered

with the Ministr* of #abor and mplo*ment< that there are more or less fift*-fou

emplo*ees in 7A#!O< that almost $F of the emplo*ees sought to be represented

filing of the petition< that there has been no valid certification election held in 7A#!

(3$) month period prior to the filing of the petition and that there is no other union in the

/n its answer (pp. 34-$3, Rollo), 7A#!O opposed the petition for direct

contending, inter alia, that the emplo*ees who sought to be represented b* priv

members-consumers of the !ooperative itself and at the same time composed th

which, pursuant to the =*-laws is also the final arbiter of an* dispute arising in the !oo

> > >

&. That some, if not most, of the emplo*ees who sought to be represented b* the pet

consumers, and as such are members of the 8eneral or 7pecial Assembl* which is th

dispute which a member and6or the =oard, or the !ooperative ma* have, and that

alleged supporters, in their capacit* as member-consumers, en1o* two personalities

and6or members of the 8eneral Assembl*, and therefore cannot fairl* and prude

opposing personalities that merge into one 1uridical or natural person, and these spec

or personalities of the supposed supporters cannot Cualif* to be represented b* th

doing in1ustice, in eCuit* and unfair status or advantage to those member-consumer

destin* or status of becoming emplo*ees<

o valid and lawful representation can be obtained b* petitioner in behalf of the swho are also member-consumer, that are bound b* the Article of /ncorporation, =*-law

!ooperative and pertinent Decrees and laws, to support and defend the basic policie

on lectric !ooperatives<

:. There is no possible legal wa* b* which to dismantle the personalities of some of t

petitioner, as emplo*ees, from their status as consumer-members, who are, under t

parcels of the 8eneral or 7pecial Assembl* that finall* decides an* dispute, and no

scale of 1ustice could be invoked to divide a person who, in conscience, is also the

whom a remed* is sought for in allowing this to happen is tantamount to slaughterin

ends<

> > >

On 7eptember &, 34', the Med-Arbiter who was assigned to the case issued an Ord

granting the petition for direct certification election on the basis of the pleadings filed.

while some of the members of petitioner union are members of the cooperative, it ca

the* are also emplo*ees within the contemplation of the #abor !ode and are therefor

the benefits of emplo*ees, including the right to self-organi;ation (pp. $&, Rollo). This

b* 7A#!O to the =ureau of #abor "elations.


3/65

3

/n its appeal, (pp. $:-0, Rollo) 7A#!O reiterated its position that+

. . . upon the principle that in electric cooperative B as in the case of respondent, there is a merger

of the

consumer-members that composed of the assembl* and that of the rank-and-file members of the

petitioners-into one person or 1uridical status thus rendering the proposed collective bargaining agent

ineffective and6or uncalled for B considering that a grievance machiner* for emplo*ees and6or member-

consumers of the cooperative-has been provided for b* the =*-laws as a built-in over-all arbiter involving

disputes affecting said cooperative<

"espondent Director of the =ureau of #abor "elations dismissed the appeal and sustained the ruling of the Med-Arbiter in an order dated anuar* &, 34':.

On ebruar* 34, 34':, 7A#!O filed the instant petition for certiorari pra*ing that the order of

respondent Director be set aside and another one rendered den*ing the holding or conduct of a

certification election among the rank and file emplo*ees of 7A#!O.

/n a letter dated une $%, 34':, Att*. "icardo 7oto, r., counsel for private respondent union, manifested

that a direct certification election was conducted in 7A#!O, there being no restraining order from this

!ourt en1oining the holding thereof #ikewise, Att*. 7oto was of the opinion that in view of the direct

certification election conducted, the petition brought before this !ourt b* 7A#!O has become moot and

academic (p. 9', Rollo). Attached to his letter is a cop* of the minutes of the certification election held on

April 30, 34': showing that of fort* three (90) emplo*ees who voted, thirt* (0%) voted for respondent union

and thirteen (30) voted for Gno union.G

/n the resolution of this court (irst Division) dated 7eptember $4, 34':, respondents were reCuired to

comment on the petition. The 7olicitor 8eneral filed its comment dated October 0%, 34': wherein it took a

stand contrar* to that of respondent Director. To support its stand, the 7olicitor 8eneral argued firstl*, that

the union members who seek to be represented b* the union are the ver* members of the cooperative,

thereb* resulting in a fusion of two personalities. Thus, it will be inconsistent for the union members to

bargain with themselves. 7econdl*, he said that article $90 of the #abor !ode< reCuires that before one

can form, 1oin or assist a labor union, he must first be emplo*ed and to be an emplo*ee one must be under

hire and must have no involvement in the ownership of the firm. A labor union is formed for purposes of

collective bargaining. The dut* to bargain e>ists onl* between emplo*er and emplo*ees and not between

an emplo*er and his co-owners. Thirdl*, he also said that under the ational lectrification Decree (5.D.

o. $4, August , 34:0) members of an electric cooperative such as petitioner, besides contributing

financiall* to its establishments and maintenance, participate in its management. /n the latter aspect, the*

possess the powers and prerogatives of managerial emplo*ees who are not eligible to 1oin, assist or forman* labor organi;ation (pp. 9- of !omment< pp 90-9&, Rollo).

On ovember $&, 34':, 2e reCuired Att*. 7oto, r. to comment on the comment of the 7olicitor 8eneral

(p. 9:,Rollo). owever, the notices sent to him were returned and stamped Gmoved to an unknown

address.G =ut respondent Director of the =ureau of #abor "elations filed a comment on the aforesaid

comment of the 7olicitor 8eneral reiterating his stand that members of private respon

the general provision of Article $99 of the !ode on who are Cualified to form, 1oin or as

of unions as the* are neither managerial emplo*ees nor persons belonging to subv

Thus, on Ma* $&, 34'', we gave due course to the petition (p. :4, Rollo).

The onl* issue presented for resolution in this petition is whether or not the emplo*

electric cooperative can organi;e themselves for purposes of collective bargaining.

This !ourt had the occasion to rule on this issue in the consolidated cases o

!ooperative "abor #nion vs. Romeo $oung% et al. , 8.". o. $0', Bulacan II- lectvs. &on. liseo '. (enaflor% et al.% 8.". o. :%''% and 'lba) lectric !ooperativ

*rajano et. al.% 8.". o. :9&% (ovember 4, 34''), citing the case of !ooperative R

!it)% Inc. vs. (ura ,errer-!alleja, 8.". o. ::4&3, 7eptember $,34'', where it was h

A cooperative, therefore, is b* its nature different from an ordinar* business concern

persons, partnerships or corporations. /ts owners and6or members are the ones who

business while the others are its emplo*ees. As above stated, irrespective of the nam

b* its members the* are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the affair of th

share capital earn limited interests, The* en1o* special privileges as B e>emption f

sales ta>es, preferential right to suppl* their products to 7tate agencies and e

minimum wage laws.

An emplo*ee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereright to collective bargaining for certainl* an owner cannot bargain with himself or h

opinion of August 39, 34'3 of the 7olicitor 8eneral, he corectl* opined that emplo*

who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or 1oin lab

purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative.

owever, in so far as it involves cooperatives with emplo*ees who are not members o

certainl* such emplo*ees are entitled to e>ercise the rights of all workers to orga

bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the !onstitution and e>isting la

/n this petition, 7an ose !it* lectric 7ervice !ooperative, /nc. (7A#!O) claims th

also members of the cooperative. /t cited 7ection 3:(3') of its =*-laws which declares

The =oard shall also create positions for subordinate emplo*ees and fi>

remunerations. nl) member-consumers or members of their immediate famil) shall

cooperative (mphasis supplied).

The above-cited provision, however, mentions two t*pes of emplo*ees, namel*+ the m

and the members of their immediate families. As regards emplo*ees of 7A#!O

consumers, the rule is settled that the* are not Cualified to form, 1oin or assist labo


4/65

4

purposes of collective bargaining. The reason for withholding from emplo*ees of a cooperative who are

members-co-owners the right to collective bargaining is clear+ an owner cannot bargain with himself.

owever, emplo*ees who are not members-consumers ma* form, 1oin or assist labor organi;ations for

purposes of collective bargaining notwithstanding the fact that emplo*ees of 7A#!O who are not

members-consumers were emplo*ed O#H because the* are members of the immediate famil* of

members-consumers. The fact remains that the* are not themselves members-consumers, and as such,

the* are entitled to e>ercise the rights of all workers to organi;ation, collective bargaining, negotiations and

others as are enshrined in 7ection ', Article /// and 7ection 0, Article I/// of the 34': !onstitution, #abor

!ode of the 5hilippines and other related laws (!ooperative "ural =ank of Davao !it*, /nc., supra, p. 3%).

A!!O"D/8#H, the petition is 8"ATD. The assailed Order of respondent 5ura errer-!alle1a, Director

of the =ureau of #abo r "elations is hereb* MOD//D to the effect that onl* the rank-and-file emplo*ees of

petitioner who are not its members-consumers are entitled to self-organi;ation, collective bargaining, and

negotiations, while other emplo*ees who are members-consumers thereof cannot en1o* such right. The

direct certification election conducted on April 30, 34': is hereb* set aside. The "egional Office /// of the

Department of #abor and mplo*ment in 7an ernando, 5ampanga is hereb* directed+ (a) to determine

the number of rank and file emplo*ees of 7A#!O who are not themselves members-consumers< (b) to

resolve whether or not there is compliance with the reCuirements set forth in Article $&: of the #abor !ode<

and (c) in the affirmative, to immediatel* conduct a direct certification election among the rank and file

emplo*ees of 7A#!O who are not members-consumers.

7O O"D"D.

G.R. No. 792. D/0 29, 1989.

+ENGUE ELECRIC COO&ERAI%E, INC., petitioner,vs.

!ON. &URA FERRER-CALLEJA, D/4o o5 4 +u"u o5 L"o Rl"4o#, "#$ +ENECOEM&LOYEES LA+OR UNION, respondents.

CORES, J.:

On une $3, 34'& =eneco 2orker?s #abor nion-Association of Democratic #abor Organi;ations

(hereinafter referred to as =2#- AD#O) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and e>clusive

bargaining representative of all the rank and file emplo*ees of =enguet lectric !ooperative, /nc.

(hereinafter referred to as =!O) at Alapang, #a Trinidad, =enguet alleging, inter alia, that =!O

has in its emplo* two hundred and fourteen ($39) rank and file emplo*ees< that one hundred and ninet*-eight (34') or 4$.&F of these emplo*ees have supported the filing of the petition< that no certification

election has been conducted for the last 3$ months< that there is no e>isting collective bargaining

representative of the rank and file emplo*ees sought to represented b* =2#- AD#O< and, that there is no

collective bargaining agreement in the cooperative.

An opposition to the petition was filed b* the =eneco mplo*ees #abor nion (here

=#) contending that it was certified as the sole and e>clusive bargaining represe

workers pursuant to an order issued b* the med-arbiter on October $%,34'%< that pend

ational #abor "elations !ommission are two cases it filed against =!O

deadlock and unfair labor practice< and, that the pendenc* of these cases bars

Cuestion.

=!O, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is

cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron-cons

=aguio and =enguet 5rovince< and, that the emplo*ees sought to be represented b* =eligible to form, 1oin or assist labor organi;ations of their own choosing because the

1oint owners of the cooperative.

On 7eptember $, 34'& the med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the pe

election. owever, the med-arbiter limited the election among the rank and file em

who are non-members thereof and without an* involvement in the actual ownership

=ased on the evidence during the hearing the med-arbiter found that there a

emplo*ees who are not members and without an* involvement in the actual ownershi

The dispositive portion of the med-arbiter?s order is as follows+

2"O", premises considered, a certification election shou

ordered to be conducted at the premises of =enguet, lectric !

Alapang, #a Trinidad, =enguet within twent* ($%) da*s from receipt

rank and file emplo*ees (non-members6consumers and without an

actual ownership of the cooperative) with the following choices+

3. =!O 2O"E"7 #A=O" /O-AD#O

$. =!O M5#OH7 #A=O" /O

0. O /O

The pa*roll for the month of une 34'& shall be the basis in dete

voters who ma* participate in the certification election to be conduct

7O O"D"D. J"ollo, pp. $$-$0.K

=# and =!O appealed from this order but the same was dismissed for lac

$&,34'. 2hereupon =!O filed with this !ourt a petition for certiorari with p

in1unction and 6or restraining order, docketed as 8.". o. :9$%4, which the 7upreme

lack of merit in a minute resolution dated April $', 34'.


5/65

5

The ordered certification election was held on October 3, 34'. 5rior to the conduct thereof =!O?s

counsel verball* manifested that Gthe cooperative is protesting that emplo*ees who are members-

consumers are being allowed to vote when . . . the* are not eligible to be members of an* labor union for

purposes of collective bargaining< much less, to vote in this certification election.G J"ollo, p. $'K. 5etitioner

submitted a certification showing that onl* four (9) emplo*ees are not members of =!O and insisted

that onl* these emplo*ees are eligible to vote in the certification election. !anvass of the votes showed

that =# garnered fort*-nine (94) of the eight*-three ('0) GvalidG votes cast.

Thereafter =!O formali;ed its verbal manifestation b* filing a 5rotest. inding, among others, that the

issue as to whether or not member-consumers who are emplo*ees of =!O could form, assist or 1oin alabor union has been answered in the affirmative b* the 7upreme !ourt in 8.". o. :9$%4, the med-

arbiter dismissed the protest on ebruar* 3:, 34':. On une $0, 34':, =ureau of #abor "elations (=#")

director 5ura errer-!alle1a affirmed the med-arbiter?s order and certified =# as the sole and e>clusive

bargaining agent of all the rank and file emplo*ees of =!O.

Alleging that the =#" director committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e>cess of

1urisdiction =!O filed the instant petition for certiorari. /n his !omment the 7olicitor 8eneral agreed

with =!O?s stance and pra*ed that the petition be given due course. /n view of this respondent

director herself was reCuired b* the !ourt to file a !omment. On April 34, 34'4 the !ourt gave due course

to the petition and reCuired the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion in

certif*ing respondent =# as the sole and e>clusive bargaining representtative of the rank and file

emplo*ees of =!O.

nder Article $& of the #abor !ode J5res. Decree 99$K to have a valid certification election, Gat least a

ma1orit* of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the ma1orit* of

the valid votes cast shall be certified as the e>clusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit.G 5etitioner

=!O asserts that the certification election held on October 3, 34' was null and void since members-

emplo*ees of petitioner cooperative who are not eligible to form and 1oin a labor union for purposes of

collective bargaining were allowed to vote therein.

"espondent director and private respondent =# on the other hand submit that members of a

cooperative who are also rank and file emplo*ees are eligible to form, assist or 1oin a labor union

J!omment of "espondent Director, p. 9< "ollo, p. 3$&< !omment of =#, pp. 4-3%< "ollo pp. 44-3%%K.

The !ourt finds the present petition meritorious.

The issue of whether or not emplo*ees of a cooperative are Cualified to form or 1oin a labor organi;ation

for purposes of collective bargaining has alread* been resolved and clarified in the case of !ooperative

Rural Ban+ of Davao !it)% Inc. vs. ,errer !alleja% et al. J8.". o. ::4&, 7eptember $,34''K and reiterated

in the cases of Batangas-lectric !ooperative "abor #nion v. $oung% et al. J8.". os. $0', :%''% and

:9&% ovember 4, 34''K and an /ose !it) lectric ervice !ooperative% Inc. v. 0

mplo)ment% et al. J8.". o. ::$03, Ma* 03, 34'4K wherein the !ourt had stated that

bargaining is not available to an emplo*ee of a cooperative who at the same time i

owner thereof. 2ith respect, however, to emplo*ees who are neither members n

cooperative the* are entitled to e>ercise the rights to self-organi;ation, collec

negotiation as mandated b* the 34': !onstitution and applicable statutes.

"espondent director argues that to den* the members of petitioner cooperative the ri

1oin a labor union of their own choice for purposes of collective bargaining would

violation of their right to self-organi;ation. 7he points out that+

Albeit a person assumes a dual capacit* as rank and file emplo*ee

certain cooperative does not militate, as in the instant case, agains

the right to self-organi;ation and to collective bargaining guarantee

and #abor !ode because, while so doing, he6she is acting in his6h

and file emplo*ee thereof. /t ma* be added that while the emplo*ee

members of petitioner cooperative, their status emplo*ment as ran

hired for fi>ed compensation had not changed. The* still do not actu

management of the cooperative as said function is entrusted to th

and to the elected or appointed officers thereof. The* are not ves

and prerogatives to la* down and e>ecute managerial policie

suspend, la*-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline emplo*ees<

recommend such managerial functions J!omment of "espondent D

3$&.K

5rivate respondent =# concurs with the above contention of respondent direct

claims that since membership in petitioner cooperative is onl* nominal, the rank and

are members thereof should not be deprived of their right to self-organi;ation.

The above contentions are untenable. !ontrar* to respondents? claim, the fact

emplo*ees of petitioner do not participate in the actual management of the cooper

them eligible to form, assist or 1oin a labor organi;ation for the purpose of collec

petitioner. The !ourt?s ruling in the Davao !it* case that members of cooperative can

for purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that as members of the

co-owners thereof. As such, the* cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining fo

cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.G J!ooperative "ural =ank of Davao

!alle1a, et al., supraK. /t is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and notmanagement thereof, which disCualifies a member from 1oining an* labor org

cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual

cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or 1oin a labor organi;ation

collective bargaining.


6/65

6

"espondent union further claims that if nominal ownership in a cooperative is Genough to take awa* the

constitutional protections afforded to labor, then there would be no hindrance for emplo*ers to grant, on a

scheme of generous profit sharing, stock bonuses to their emplo*ees and thereafter claim that since their

emplo*ees are not stockholders Jof the corporationK, albeit in a minimal and involuntar* manner, the* are

now also co-owners and thus disCualified to form unions.G To allow this, =# argues, would be Gto allow

the floodgates of destruction to be opened upon the rights of labor which the !onstitution endeavors to

protect and which welfare it promises to promote.G J!omment of =#, p. 3%< "ollo, p. 3%%K.

The above contention of respondent union is based on the erroneous presumption that membership in a

cooperative is the same as ownership of stocks in ordinar* corporations. 2hile cooperatives ma* e>ercisesome of the rights and privileges given to ordinar* corporations provided under e>isting laws, such

cooperatives en1o* other privileges not granted to the latter J7ee 7ections 9, &, , and ', 5res. Decree o.

3:&< !ooperative "ural =ank of Davao !it* v. errer-!alle1a, supraK. 7imilarl*, members of cooperatives

have rights and obligations different from those of stockholders of ordinar* corporations. /t was precisel*

because of the special nature of cooperatives, that the !ourt held in the Davao !it* case that members-

emplo*ees thereof cannot form or 1oin a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. The !ourt held

that+

A cooperative ... is b* its nature different from an ordinar* business concern being run

either b* persons, partnerships, or corporations. /ts owners and6or members are the

ones who run and operate the business while the others are its emplo*ees. As above

stated, irrespective of the number of shares owned b* each member the* are entitled to

cast one vote each in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. Their share capital

earn limited interest. The* en1o* special privileges as-e>emption from income ta> andsales ta>es, preferential right to suppl* their products to 7tate agencies and even

e>emption from the minimum wage laws.

An emplo*ee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof

cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainl* an owner cannot bargain

with himself or his co-owners.

/t is important to note that, in her order dated 7eptember $, 34'&, med-arbiter lnora L. =alleras made a

specific finding that there are onl* thirt*-seven (0:) emplo*ees of petitioner who are not members of the

cooperative and who are, therefore, the onl* emplo*ees of petitioner cooperative eligible to form or 1oin a

labor union for purposes of collective bargaining JAnne> GAG of the 5etition, p. 3$< "ollo, p. $$K. owever,

the minutes of the certification election JAnne> G!G of the 5etition+ "ollo, p. $'K show that a total of eight*-

three ('0) emplo*ees were allowed to vote and of these, fort*-nine (94) voted for respondent union. Thus,even if 2e agree with respondent union?s contention that the thirt* seven (0:) emplo*ees who were

originall* non-members of the cooperative can still vote in the certification election since the* were onl*

Gforced and compelled to 1oin the cooperative on pain of disciplinar* action,G the certification election held

on October 3, 34' is still null and void since even those who were alread* members of the cooperative at

the time of the issuance of the med-arbiter?s order, and therefore cannot claim that the

the union were allowed to vote in the election.

Article $& of the #abor !ode provides, among others, that+

To have a valid, election, at least a ma1orit* of all eligible voters in

cast their votes. The labor union receiving the ma1orit* of the valid

certified as the e>clusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit .

/n this case it cannot be determined whether or not respondent union was dul* elevoters of the bargaining unit since even emplo*ees who are ineligible to 1oin a lab

cooperative because of their membership therein were allowed to vote in the

!onsidering the foregoing, the !ourt finds that respondent director committed grave a

certif*ing respondent union as the sole and e>clusive bargaining representative

emplo*ees of petitioner cooperative.

2"O", the petition is hereb* 8"ATD and the assailed resolution of re

A##D. The certification election conducted on October 3, 34', is 7T A7/D

o. 3 of 7an ernando, #a nion is hereb* directed to immediatel* conduct new c

proceedings among the rank and file emplo*ees of the petitioner who are not member

7O O"D"D.

G.R. No. 87 S40 28, 199

INERNAIONAL CA!OLIC IMMIGRAION COMvs

!ON. &URA CALLEJA IN !ER CA&ACIY AS DIRECOR OF !E +UREAU OF LAND RADE UNIONS OF !E &!ILI&&INES AND ALLIED SER%ICES )U&AS* 'F

G.R. No. 89331 S40 28, 199

(A&ISANAN NG MANGGAGA'A A AC SA IRRI-ORGANIED LA+OR ASSINDUSRIES AND AGRICvs

SECREARY OF LA+OR AND EM&LOYMEN AND INERNAIONAL RICE RESINC.,respondents.

MELENCIO-!ERRERA,J.:


7/65

7

!onsolidated on 33 December 34'4, these two cases involve the validit* of the claim of immunit* b* the

/nternational !atholic Migration !ommission (/!M!) and the /nternational "ice "esearch /nstitute, /nc.

(/""/) from the application of 5hilippine labor laws.

/. ,acts and Issues

A. 8.". o. '&:&% B the International !atholic 0igration !ommission I!0!2 !ase.

As an aftermath of the Lietnam 2ar, the plight of Lietnamese refugees fleeing from 7outh Lietnam?s

communist rule confronted the international communit*.

/n response to this crisis, on $0 ebruar* 34'3, an Agreement was forged between the 5hilippine

8overnment and the nited ations igh !ommissioner for "efugees whereb* an operating center for

processing /ndo-!hinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in

=ataan (Anne> GAG, Rollo, pp. $$-0$).

/!M! was one of those accredited b* the 5hilippine 8overnment to operate the refugee processing center

in Morong, =ataan. /t was incorporated in ew Hork, 7A, at the reCuest of the ol* 7ee, as a non-profit

agenc* involved in international humanitarian and voluntar* work. /t is dul* registered with the nited

ations conomic and 7ocial !ouncil (!O7O!) and en1o*s !onsultative 7tatus, !ategor* //. As an

international organi;ation rendering voluntar* and humanitarian services in the 5hilippines, its activities

are parallel to those of the /nternational !ommittee for Migration (/!M) and the /nternational !ommittee of

the "ed !ross (/!"!) JDO# "ecords of =#" !ase o. A-$-$-':, I!0! v. !alleja, Lol. 3K.

On 39 ul* 34', Trade nions of the 5hilippines and Allied 7ervices (T5A7) filed with the then Ministr*

of #abor and mplo*ment a 5etition for !ertification lection among the rank and file members emplo*ed

b* /!M! The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organi;ation registered

with the nited ations and, hence, en1o*s diplomatic immunit*.

On & ebruar* 34':, Med-Arbiter Anastacio #. =actin sustained /!M! and dismissed the petition for lack

of 1urisdiction.

On appeal b* T5A7, Director 5ura !alle1a of the =ureau of #abor "elations (=#"), reversed the Med-

Arbiter?s Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. At that time, /!M!?s

reCuest for recognition as a speciali;ed agenc* was still pending with the Department of oreign Affairs

(DO"A).

7ubseCuentl*, however, on 3& ul* 34'', the 5hilippine 8overnment, through the DO"A, granted

/!M! the status of a speciali;ed agenc* with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities, as

evidenced b* a Memorandum of Agreement between the 8overnment and /!M! (Anne> GG,

5etition, Rollo, pp. 93-90), infra.

/!M! then sought the immediate dismissal of the T5A7 5etition for !ertification

immunit* e>pressl* granted but the same was denied b* respondent =#" Director wh

immediate conduct of a pre-election conference. /!M!?s two Motions for "econsid

despite an opinion rendered b* DO"A on 3: October 34'' that said =#" Ord

diplomatic immunit*.

Thus, on $9 ovember 34'', /!M! filed the present 5etition for ! ertiorari with 5

assailing the =#" Order.

On $' ovember 34'', the !ourt issued a Temporar* "estraining Order en1oinincertification election.

On 3% anuar* 34'4, the DO"A, through its #egal Adviser, retired ustice o

!ourt of Appeals, filed a Motion for /ntervention alleging that, as the highest e>ecutive

competence and authorit* to act on matters involving diplomatic immunit* and privileg

the conduct of 5hilippine diplomatic and consular relations with foreign go

organi;ations, it has a legal interest in the outcome of this case.

Over the opposition of the 7olicitor 8eneral, the !ourt allowed DO"A intervention

On 3$ ul* 34'4, the 7econd Division gave due course to the /!M! 5etition and reCu

memoranda b* the parties, which has been complied with.

As initiall* stated, the issue is whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and

e>tends to immunit* from the application of 5hilippine labor laws.

/!M! sustains the affirmative of the proposition citing (3) its Memorandum of

5hilippine 8overnment giving it the status of a speciali;ed agenc*, ( infra)< ($) the

5rivileges and /mmunities of 7peciali;ed Agencies, adopted b* the 8ener

ovember 349: and concurred in b* the 5hilippine 7enate through "esolution o.

(the 5hilippine /nstrument of "atification was signed b* the 5resident on 0% August

with the on $% March 34&%) infra< and (0) Article //, 7ection $ of the 34': !onstitu

that the 5hilippines adopts the generall* accepted principles of international law as

land.

/ntervenor DO"A upholds /!M!?7 claim of diplomatic immunit* and seeks a

DO"A determination that the =#" Order for a certification election among the

violative of the diplomatic immunit* of said organi;ation.

"espondent =#" Director, on the other hand, with whom the 7olicitor 8eneral agree

and 5hilippine labor laws to 1ustif* its assailed Order, particularl*, Article //, 7ectio


8/65

8

7ection ' of the 34': !onstitution, infra< and Articles $90 and $9 of the #abor !ode, as amended, i bid . /n

addition, she contends that a certification election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of a non-

adversar*, fact-finding character. /t is not a suit against /!M! its propert*, funds or assets, but is the sole

concern of the workers themselves.

=. 8.". o. '4003 B *he International Rice Research Institute 3IRRI4 !ase2.

=efore a Decision could be rendered in the /!M! !ase, the Third Division, on 33 December 34'4,

resolved to consolidate 8.". o. '4003 pending before it with 8.". o. '&:&%, the lower-numbered case

pending with the 7econd Division, upon manifestation b* the 7olicitor 8eneral that both cases involvesimilar issues.

The facts disclose that on 4 December 34&4, the 5hilippine 8overnment and the ord and "ockefeller

oundations signed a Memorandum of nderstanding establishing the /nternational "ice "esearch

/nstitute (/""/) at #os =aos, #aguna. /t was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, ta>-free, non-

profit, non-stock organi;ation designed to carr* out the principal ob1ective of conducting Gbasic research on

the rice plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution and utili;ation with a view to

attaining nutritive and economic advantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other ma1or rice-growing

areas through improvement in Cualit* and Cuantit* of rice.G

/nitiall*, /""/ was organi;ed and registered with the 7ecurities and >change !ommission as a private

corporation sub1ect to all laws and regulations. owever, b* virtue of 5res. Decree o. 3$%, promulgated

on 34 April 34:4, /""/ was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international

organi;ation.

The Organi;ed #abor Association in #ine /ndustries and Agriculture (O#A#/A), is a legitimate labor

organi;ation with an e>isting local union, the Eapisanan ng Manggagawa at TA! sa /""/ (Eapisanan, for

short) in respondent /""/.

On $% April 34':, the Eapisanan filed a 5etition for Direct !ertification lection with "egion /L, "egional

Office of the Department of #abor and mplo*ment (DO#).

/""/ opposed the petition invoking 5res. Decree o. 3$% conferring upon it the status of an international

organi;ation and granting it immunit* from all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings under

5hilippine laws.

On : ul* 34':, Med-Arbiter #eonardo M. 8arcia, upheld the opposition on the basis of 5res. Decree o.

3$% and dismissed the 5etition for Direct !ertification.

On appeal, the =#" Director, who is the public respondent in the /!M! !ase, set aside the Med-Arbiter?s

Order and authori;ed the calling of a certification election among the rank-and-file emplo*ees of /""/. 7aid

Director relied on Article $90 of the #abor !ode, as amended, infra and Article I///, 7

!onstitution, 1and held that Gthe immunities and privileges granted to /""/ do not inc

coverage of our #abor #aws.G "econsideration sought b* /""/ was denied.

On appeal, the 7ecretar* of #abor, in a "esolution of & ul* 34'4, set aside the =

dismissed the 5etition for !ertification lection, and held that the grant of speciali;ed

5hilippine 8overnment to the /""/ bars DO# from assuming and e>ercising 1urisdi

"esolution reads in part as follows+

5residential Decree o. 3$% which grants to the /""/ the sprivileges and immunities of an international organi;ation is clear an

in categorical terms that+

Art. 0 B The /nstitute shall en1o* immunit* from an* penal, civ

proceedings, e>cept insofar as immunit* has been e>pressl* waiv

8eneral of the /nstitution or his authori;ed representative.

Leril*, unless and until the /nstitute e>pressl* waives its imm

subpoena, orders, decisions or proceedings ordered b* an* co

or 5uasi-judicial agenc* are enforceable as against the /nstitute. /n

was no such waiver made b* the Director-8eneral of the /nstitute.

at the ver* first opportunit* alread* vehementl* Cuestioned the

Department b* filing an e>-parte motion to dismiss the case.

ence, the present 5etition for ! ertiorari filed b* Eapisanan alleging grave abu

respondent 7ecretar* of #abor in upholding /""/?s diplomatic immunit*.

The Third Division, to which the case was originall* assigned, reCuired the respondent

petition. /n a Manifestation filed on 9 August 344%, the 7ecretar* of #abor decla

adopting as his own6 the decision of the =#" Director in the /!M! !ase as well as

7olicitor 8eneral sustaining said Director. The last pleading was filed b* /""/ on 39 Au

/nstead of a !omment, the 7olicitor 8eneral filed a Manifestation and Motion pra*ing

from filing a comment Git appearing that in the earlier case of International !atholic 0

v. &on. (ura !alleja, 8.". o. '&:&%. the Office of the 7olicitor 8eneral had su

Director !alle1a on the ver* same issue now before it, which position has been supers

7ecretar* of #abor in 8.". o. '4003,G the present case. The !ourt acceded to thpra*er.

The !ourt is now asked to rule upon whether or not the 7ecretar* of #abor comm

discretion in dismissing the 5etition for !ertification lection filed b* Eapisanan.


9/65

9

Eapisanan contends that Article 0 of 5res. Decree o. 3$% granting /""/ the status, privileges,

prerogatives and immunities of an international organi;ation, invoked b* the 7ecretar* of #abor, is

unconstitutional in so far as it deprives the ilipino workers of their fundamental and constitutional right to

form trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining as enshrined in the 34': !onstitution.

A procedural issue is also raised. Eapisanan faults respondent 7ecretar* of #abor for entertaining /""/?7

appeal from the Order of the Director of the =ureau of #abor "elations directing the holding of a

certification election. Eapisanan contends that pursuant to 7ections :, ', 4 and 3% of "ule L 2 of the

Omnibus "ules /mplementing the #abor !ode, the Order of the =#" Director had become final and

unappeable and that, therefore, the 7ecretar* of #abor had no more 1urisdiction over the said appeal.

On the other hand, in entertaining the appeal, the 7ecretar* of #abor relied on 7ection $& of "ep. Act. o.

:3&, which took effect on $3 March 34'4, providing for the direct filing of appeal from the Med-Arbiter to

the Office of the 7ecretar* of #abor and mplo*ment instead of to the Director of the =ureau of #abor

"elations in cases involving certification election orders.

///

,indings in Both !ases.

There can be no Cuestion that diplomatic immunit* has, in fact, been granted /!M! and /""/.

Article // of the Memorandum of Agreement between the 5hilippine 8overnment and /!M! provides that/!M! shall have a status Gsimilar to that of a speciali;ed agenc*.G Article ///, 7ections 9 and & of the

!onvention on the 5rivileges and /mmunities of 7peciali;ed Agencies, adopted b* the 8eneral

Assembl* on $3 ovember 349: and concurred in b* the 5hilippine 7enate through "esolution o. 34 on

3: Ma* 3494, e>plicitl* provides+

Art. ///, 7ection 9. The speciali;ed agencies, their propert* and assets, wherever located

and b* whomsoever held, shall enjo) immunit) from ever) form of legal process e>cept

insofar as in an* particular case the* have e>pressl* waived their immunit*. /t is,

however, understood that no waiver of immunit* shall e>tend to an* measure of

e>ecution.

7ec. &. B The premises of the speciali;ed agencies shall be inviolable. The propert*

and assets of the speciali;ed agencies, wherever located and b* whomsoever held shall

be immune from search, reCuisition, confiscation, e>propriation and an* other form of

interference, whether b* e>ecutive, administrative, 1udicial or legislative action.

(mphasis supplied).

/""/ is similarl* situated, 5res. Decree o. 3$%, Article 0, is e>plicit in its grant of immunit*, thus+

Art. 0. Immunit) from "egal (rocess. B The /nstitute shall en1o*

penal, civil and administrative proceedings, e>cept insofar as tha

e>pressl* waived b* the Director-8eneral of the /nstitute

representatives.

Thus it is that the DO"A, through its #egal Adviser, sustained /!M!?7 invocation

a Memorandum, dated 3: October 34'', it e>pressed the view that Gthe Order of

=ureau of #abor "elations dated $3 7eptember 34'' for the conduct of !ertification

violates the diplomatic immunit* of the organi;ation.G 7imilarl*, in respect of /""/, the

through The Acting 7ecretar* of oreign Affairs, ose D. /ngles, in a letter, dated 37ecretar* of #abor, maintained that G/""/ en1o*s immunit* from the 1urisdiction of DO

instance.G

The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognition b* the >ecutive =ranch

that /!M! and /""/ en1o* immunities accorded to international organi;ations, whic

been held to be a political Cuestion conclusive upon the !ourts in order not to em

department of 8overnment.

/t is a recogni;ed principle of international law and under our s*s

powers that diplomatic immunit* is essentiall* a political Cuestio

refuse to look be*ond a determination b* the e>ecutive branch of

where the plea of diplomatic immunit* is recogni;ed and affirm

branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the dut* of

the claim of immunit* upon appropriate suggestion b* the princip

government . . . or other officer acting under his direction. ence,

settled principle that courts ma* not so e>ercise their 1urisdiction . .

e>ecutive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it

that in such cases the 1udicial department of (this) government follo

political branch and will not embarrass the latter b* assum

1urisdiction. 3

A brief look into the na ture of international organi;ations and speciali;ed agencies

Ginternational organi;ationG is generall* used to describe an organi;ation set up b*

two or more states. : nder contemporar* international law, such organi;ations are degree of international legal personalit* such that the* are capable of e>ercising s

and powers. 6 The* are organi;ed mainl* as a means for conducting general inte

which the member states have an interest. 7 The nited ations, for instance

organi;ation dedicated to the propagation of world peace.

G7peciali;ed agenciesG are international organi;ations having functions in particu

appears in Articles &: 8 and 0 9 of the !harter of the nited ations+


10/65

10

The !harter, while it invests the nited ations with the general task of promoting

progress and international cooperation in economic, social, health, cultural, educational

and related matters, contemplates that these tasks will be mainl* fulfilled not b* organs

of the nited ations itself but b* autonomous international organi;ations established b*

inter-governmental agreements outside the nited ations. There are now man* such

international agencies having functions in man* different fields, e.g. in posts,

telecommunications, railwa*s, canals, rivers, sea transport, civil aviation, meteorolog*,

atomic energ*, finance, trade, education and culture, health and refugees. 7ome are

virtuall* world-wide in their membership, some are regional or otherwise limited in their

membership. The !harter provides that those agencies which have Gwide international

responsibilitiesG are to be brought into relationship with the nited ations b*

agreements entered into between them and the conomic and 7ocial !ouncil, are then

to be known as Gspeciali;ed agencies.G 1

The rapid growth of international organi;ations under contemporar* international law has paved the wa*

for the development of the concept of international immunities.

/t is now usual for the constitutions of international organi;ations to contain provisions

conferring certain immunities on the organi;ations themselves, representatives of their

member states and persons acting on behalf of the organi;ations. A series of

conventions, agreements and protocols defining the immunities of various international

organi;ations in relation to their members generall* are now widel* in force< . . . 11

There are basicall* three propositions underl*ing the grant of international immunities to internationalorgani;ations. These principles, contained in the /#O Memorandum are stated thus+ 3) international

institutions should have a status which protects them against control or interference b* an* one

government in the performance of functions for the effective discharge of which the* are responsible to

democraticall* constituted international bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented< $) no

countr* should derive an* national financial advantage b* lev*ing fiscal charges on common international

funds< and 0) the international organi;ation should, as a collectivit* of 7tates members, be accorded the

facilities for the conduct of its official business customaril* e>tended to each other b* its individual member

7tates. 12 The theor* behind all three propositions is said to be essentiall* institutional in character. G/t is

not concerned with the status, dignit* or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional

independence necessar* to free international institutions from national control and to enable them to

discharge their responsibilities impartiall* on behalf of all their members. 13 The raison d7etre for theseimmunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions b* the agencies concerned.

The grant of immunit* from local 1urisdiction to /!M! and /""/ is clearl* necessitated b* their international

character and respective purposes. The ob1ective is to avoid the danger of partialit* and interference b*

the host countr* in their internal workings. The e>ercise of 1urisdiction b* the Department of #abor in these

instances would defeat the ver* purpose of immunit*, which is to shield the affairs of international

organi;ations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control b* the host

countr* to the pre1udice of member 7tates of the organi;ation, and to ensu

performance of their functions.

/!M!?s and /""/?s immunit* from local 1urisdiction b* no means deprives labor of its ba

guaranteed b* Article //, 7ection 3', 1: Article ///, 7ection ', 1 and Article I///, 7ect34': !onstitution< and implemented b* Articles $90 and $9 of the #abor !ode, 16

Director and b* Eapisanan.

or, /!M! emplo*ees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be s

the !onvention on the 5rivileges and /mmunities of the 7peciali;ed Agenations 17 provides that Geach speciali;ed agenc* shall make provision for apsettlement of+ (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private cha

speciali;ed agenc* is a part*.G Moreover, pursuant to Article /L of the Memorandum of

/!M! the the 5hilippine 8overnment, whenever there is an* abuse of privilege b* /!

is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. Thus+

Art. /L. !ooperation with 8overnment 'uthorities. B 3. The !ommi

at all times with the appropriate authorities of the 8overnment to en

of 5hilippine laws, rules and regulations, facilitate the proper adm

and prevent the occurrences of an* abuse of the privileges and im

officials and alien emplo*ees in Article /// of this Agreement to the !o

$. /n the event that the 8overnment determines that there has be

privileges and immunities granted under this Agreement, consul

between the 8overnment and the !ommission to determine whet

has occurred and, if so, the 8overnment shall withdraw the privile

granted the !ommission and its officials.

either are the emplo*ees of /""/ without remed* in case of dispute with managem

had been organi;ed a forum for better management-emplo*ee relationship as eviden

of the !ouncil of /""/ mplo*ees and Management (!/M) wherein Gboth managem

were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial coope

and its emplo*ees.G The e>istence of this nion factuall* and tellingl* belies the a

Decree o. 3$%, which grants to /""/ the status, privileges and immunities

organi;ation, deprives its emplo*ees of the right to self-organi;ation.

The immunit* granted being Gfrom ever* form of legal process e>cept in so far as inthe* have e>pressl* waived their immunit*,G it is inaccurate to state that a certificatio

the scope of that immunit* for the reason that it is not a suit against /!M!. A certific

be viewed as an independent or isolated process. /t could tugger off a series of eve

bargaining process together with related incidents and6or concerted activities, w

involve /!M! in the Glegal process,G which includes Gan* penal, civil and administrativ


11/65

11

eventualit* of !ourt litigation is neither remote and from which international organi;ations are precisel*

shielded to safeguard them from the disruption of their functions. !lauses on 1urisdictional immunit* are

said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of international Organi;ations. GThe immunit* covers the

organi;ation concerned, its propert* and its assets. /t is eCuall* applicable to proceedings in

personam and proceedings in rem.G 18

2e take note of a Manifestation, dated $' 7eptember 34'4, in the /!M! !ase (p. 33, Rollo), wherein

T5A7 calls attention to the case entitled 6International !atholic 0igration !ommission v. 9"R!% et als .,

(8.". o. :$$$$, 0% anuar* 34'4, 34 7!"A %), and claims that, having taken cogni;ance of that

dispute (on the issue of pa*ment of salar* for the une>pired portion of a si>-month probationar*emplo*ment), the !ourt is now estopped from passing upon the Cuestion of DO# 1urisdiction petition over

/!M!.

2e find no merit to said submission. ot onl* did the facts of said controvers* occur between 34'0-34'&,

or before the grant to /!M! on 3& ul* 34'' of the status of a speciali;ed agenc* with corresponding

immunities, but also because /!M! in that case did not invoke its immunit* and, therefore, ma* be

deemed to have waived it, assuming that during that period (34'0-34'&) it was tacitl* recogni;ed as

en1o*ing such immunit*.

Anent the procedural issue raised in the /""/ !ase, suffice it to state that the Decision of the =#" Director,

dated 3& ebruar* 34'4, had not become final because of a Motion for "econsideration filed b* /""/ 7aid

Motion was acted upon onl* on 0% March 34'4 when "ep. Act o. :3&, which provides for direct appeals

from the Orders of the Med-Arbiter to the 7ecretar* of #abor in certification election cases either from the

order or the results of the election itself, was alread* in effect, specificall* since $3 March 34'4. ence, nograve abuse of discretion ma* be imputed to respondent 7ecretar* of #abor in his assumption of appellate

1urisdiction, contrar* to Eapisanan?s allegations. The pertinent portion of that law provides+

Art. $&4. B An* part* to an election ma* appeal the order or results of the election as

determined b* the Med-Arbiter directl) to the 7ecretar* of #abor and mplo*ment on the

ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established b* the 7ecretar* of

#abor and mplo*ment for the conduct of the election have been violated. 7uch appeal

shall be decided within 3& calendar da*s (mphasis supplied).

n passant , the !ourt is gratified to note that the heretofore antagonistic positions assumed b* two

departments of the e>ecutive branch of government have been rectified and the resultant embarrassment

to the 5hilippine 8overnment in the e*es of the international communit* now, hopefull*, effaced.

2"O", in 8.". o. '&:&% (the /!M! !ase), the 5etition is 8"ATD, the Order of the =ureau of

#abor "elations for certification election is 7T A7/D, and the Temporar* "estraining Order earlier

issued is made 5"MAT.

/n 8.". o. '4003 (the /""/ !ase), the 5etition is Dismissed, no grave abuse of dis

committed b* the 7ecretar* of #abor and mplo*ment in dismissing the 5etition for !e

o pronouncement as to costs.

7O O"D"D.

G.R. No. 8291: Ju# 2, 1988

(A&AIRAN SA MEA AND CANNING DI%ISION )U&AS Lo/"l C"4 Nvs.

!E !ONORA+LE +LR DIRECOR &URA FERRER CALLEJA, MEA AND CUNI%ERSAL RO+INA COR&ORAION "#$ MEA AND CANNING DI%ISION NE''OR(ERS UNIED LA+OR ORGANIAION, respondents.

GRI;O-Apire on ovember 3&, 34':.


12/65

12

2ithin the freedom period of % da*s prior to the e>piration of its !=A, T5A7 filed an amended notice of

strike on 7eptember $', 34': as a means of pressuring the compan* to e>tend, renew, or negotiate a new

!=A with it.

On October ', 34':, the 2 #O, composed mostl* of workers belonging to the /8#7/A / E"/7TO

sect, registered as a labor union.

On October 3$, 34':, the T5A7 staged a strike. "O=/A obtained an in1unction against the strike,

resulting in an agreement to return to work and for the parties to negotiate a new !=A.

The ne>t da*, October 30, 34':, 2 #O, claiming that it has Gthe ma1orit* of the dail* wage rank and

file emplo*ees numbering 343,G filed a petition for a certification election at the =ureau of #abor "elations

(Anne> A).

T5A7 moved to dismiss the petition for being defective in form and that the members of the 2 #O

were mostl* members of the /glesia ni Eristo sect which three (0) *ears previous refused to affiliate with

an* labor union. /t also accused the compan* of using the 2 #O to defeat T5A7? bargaining rights

(Anne> =).

On ovember 3:, 34':, the Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a certification election within $% da*s

(Anne> !).

T5A7 appealed to the =ureau of #abor "elations =#". /n the meantime, it was able to negotiate a new 0-*ear !=A with "O=/A, which was signed on December 0, 34': and to e>pire on ovember 3&, 344%.

On anuar* $:, 34'', respondent =#" Director !alle1a dismissed the appeal (Anne> D).

T5A7? motion for reconsideration (Anne> ) was denied on March 3:, 34'' (Anne> ). On April 0%,

34'', it filed this petition alleging that the public respondent acted in e>cess of her 1urisdiction and with

grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter?s order for a certification election.

After deliberating on the petition and the documents anne>ed thereto, 2e find no merit in the 5etition. The

public respondent did not err in dismissing the petitioner?s appeal in =#" !ase o. A-3$-0'4-':. This

!ourt?s decision inVictoriano vs. li:alde Rope ;or+ers7 #nion% &4 7!"A &9, upholding the right of

members of the /8#7/A / E"/7TO sect not to 1oin a labor union for being contrar* to their religious

beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union. The public respondent

correctl* observed that the Grecognition of the tenets of the sect ... should not infringe on the basic right of

self-organi;ation granted b* the constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation.G

The fact that T5A7 was able to negotiate a new !=A with "O=/A within the %-da* freedom period of

the e>isting !=A, does not foreclose the right of the rival union, 2 #O, to challenge T5A7? claim to

ma1orit* status, b* filing a timel* petition for certification election on October 30, 34':

!=A e>pired on ovember 3&, 34': and before it signed a new !=A with the compa

34':. As pointed out b* Med-Arbiter Abdullah, a Gcertification election is the best forum

ma1orit* status of the contending unions wherein the workers themselves can

bargaining representative thru secret ballot.G 7ince it has not been shown that this

unfairness, this !ourt will not thwart the holding of a certification election (Associated

vs. oriel, '' 7!"A 4).

2"O", the petition for certiorari is denied, with costs against the petitioner.

7O O"D"D.

G.R. No. 9192 M"y 2, 1991

MANILA ELECRIC Cvs.!E !ON. SECREARY OF LA+OR AND EM&LOYMEN, SAFF AND EC!NASSOCIAION OF MERALCO, "#$ FIRS LINE ASSOCIAION OF MERALEM&LOYEES,respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This petition seeks to review the "esolution of respondent 7ecretar* of #abor and mp

Drilon dated ovember 0, 34'4 which affirmed an Order of Med-Arbiter "enato 5. !"-O-D-M-3-:%), directing the holding of a certification election among certain emManila lectric !ompan* (hereafter GM"A#!OG) as well as the Order dated andenied the Motion for "econsideration of M"A#!O.

The facts are as follows+

On ovember $$, 34'', the 7taff and Technical mplo*ees Association of M"A#!O5!2G) a labor organi;ation of staff and technical emplo*ees of M"A#!O, filed a peelection, seeking to represent regular emplo*ees of M"A#!O who are+ (a) non-mwith 5a* 8rades L// and above< (b) non-managerial emplo*ees in the 5atrol Divisio7ervices 7ection, 7ecretaries who are automaticall* removed from the bargaining uniwithin the rank and file unit who are automaticall* disCualified from becoming uniorgani;ation within the same bargaining unit.

Among others, the petition alleged that Gwhile there e>ists a dul*-organi;ed uniemplo*ees in 5a* 8rade /-L/, which is the M"A#!O mplo*ees and 2orker?s which holds a valid !=A for the rank and file emplo*ees, 3 there is no other labor7TAM-5!2 claiming to represent the M"A#!O emplo*ees.

The petition was premised on the e>clusion6disCualification of certain M"A#!O em Art. /, 7ecs. $ and 0 of the e>isting M2A !=A as follows+

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt1


13/65

13

A"T/!# /

7!O5

> > > > > > > > >

7ec. $. >cluded from the appropriate bargaining unit and therefore outside the scope of this Agreementare+

(a) mplo*ees in 5atrol Division<

(b) mplo*ees in Treasur* 7ecurit* 7ervices 7ection<

(c) Managerial mplo*ees< and

(d) 7ecretaries.

An* member of the nion who ma* now or hereafter be assigned or transferred to 5atrol Divisionor Treasur* 7ecurit* 7ervices 7ection, or becomes Managerial mplo*ee or a 7ecretar*, shall beconsidered automaticall* removed from the bargaining unit and e>cluded from the coverage of this agreement. e shall thereb* likewise be deemed automaticall* to have ceased to be member of the union, and shall desist from further engaging in union activit* of an* kind.

7ec. 0. "egular rank-and-file emplo*ees in the organi;ation elements herein below listed shall be

covered within the bargaining unit, but shall be automaticall* disCualified from becoming unionmembers+

3. Office of the !orporate 7ecretar*

$. !orporate 7taff 7ervices Department

0. Managerial 5a*roll Office

9. #egal 7ervice Department

&. #abor "elations Division

. 5ersonnel Administration Division

:. Manpower 5lanning N "esearch Division

'. !omputer 7ervices Department

4. inancial 5lanning N !ontrol Department

3%. Treasur* Department, e>cept !ash 7ection

33. 8eneral Accounting 7ection

> > > > > > > > >

(p. 34, Rollo)

M"A#!O moved for the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds+

/

The emplo*ees sought to be represented b* petitioner are either 3) mprohibited b* law from forming or 1oining supervisor* union< $) securit* serare prohibited from 1oining or assisting the rank-and-file union< 0) secretariesto the petitioner?s representation and whom petitioner can not represent< emplo*ees represented b* the certified or dul* recogni;ed bargaining reprerank-and-file bargaining unit in the compan*, the Meralco mplo*ees (M2A), in accordance with the e>isting !ollective =argaining Agreement wi

//

The petition for certification election will disturb the administration of th=argaining Agreement in violation of Art. $0$ of the #abor !ode.

///

The petition itself shows that it is not supported b* the written consent of at ($%F) of the alleged $,&%% emplo*ees sought to be represented. ("esolutio$$0-$$9, Rollo)

=efore Med-Arbiter ". 5arungo, M"A#!O contended that emplo*ees from 5a* 8rare classified as managerial emplo*ees who, under the law, are prohibited fromassisting a labor organi;ation of the rank and file. As regards those in the 5atrol D7ecurit* 7ervice 7ection, M"A#!O maintains that since these emplo*ees are tasecurit* to the compan*, the* are not eligible to 1oin the rank and file bargaining unit, p"ule L, =ook L of the then /mplementing "ules and "egulations of the #abor !ode (3follows+

7ec. $. ;ho ma) file petition. B The emplo*er or an* legitimate labor orgapetition.


14/65

14

The petition, when filed b* a legitimate labor organi;ation, shall contain, among others+

> > > > > > > > >

(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the emplo*er unit unless circumstancesotherwise reCuire, and provided% further + that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank and fileemplo*ees shall not include securit* guards (As amended b* 7ec. , /mplementing "ules of O333)

> > > > > > > > >

(p. 333, #abor !ode, 34'' d.)

As regards those rank and f ile emplo*ees enumerated in 7ec. 0, Art. /, M"A#!O contends that sincethe* are alread* beneficiaries of the M2A-!=A, the* ma* not be treated as a separate and distinctappropriate bargaining unit.

M"A#!O raised the same argument with respect to emplo*ees sought to be represented b* 7TAM-5!2, claiming that these were alread* covered b* the M2A-!=A.

On March 3&, 34'4, the Med-Arbiter ruled that having been e>cluded from the e>isting !ollective=argaining Agreement for rank and file emplo*ees, these emplo*ees have the right to form a union of their own, e>cept those emplo*ees performing managerial functions. 2ith respect to those emplo*ees who hadresented their alleged involuntar* membership in the e>isting !=A, the Med-Arbiter stated that the holdingof a certification election would allow them to full* translate their sentiment on the matter, and thus directedthe holding of a certification election. The dispositive portion of the "esolution provides as follows+

2"O", premises considered, a certification election is hereb* ordered conducted amongthe regular rank-and-file emplo*ees of M"A#!O to wit+

3. on-managerial emplo*ees with 5a* 8rades L// and above<

$. on-managerial emplo*ees of 5atrol Division, Treasur* 7ecurit* 7ervices 7ection and7ecretaries< and

0. mplo*ees prohibited from activel* participating as members of the union.

within $% da*s from receipt hereof, sub1ect to the usual pre-election conference with the followingchoices+

3. 7taff and Technical, mplo*ees Association of M"A#!O (7TAM-5!2)<

$. o nion.

7O O"D"D. (p. $$$, Rollo)

On April 9, 34'4, M"A#!O appealed, contending that Guntil such time that a 1udicithe effect that the* are not managerial emplo*ee, 7TAM-5!2 cannot represent e8rades L// and above, additionall* reiterating the same reasons the* had advancrespondent 7TAM-5!2.

On April :, 34'4, M2A filed an appeal-in-intervention, submitting as follows+

A. The Order of the Med-Arbiter is null and void for being in violation of Art

!ode<

=. The Order of the Med-Arbiter violates Article $0$ of the #abor !ode< and

!. The Order is invalid because the bargaining unit it delineated is not abargaining unit.

On Ma* 9, 34'4, 7TAM-5!2 opposed the appeal-in-intervention.

2ith the enactment of "A :3& and the rules and regulations implementing the sarenounced its representation of the emplo*ees in 5atrol Division, Treasur* 7ecurit* 7rank-and-file emplo*ees in 5a* 8rades /-L/.

On 7eptember 30, 34'4, the irst #ine Association of Meralco

7upervisor* mplo*ees. (hereafter #AM7) filed a similar petition (!"-OD-M-4represent those emplo*ees with 5a* 8rades L// to I/L, since Gthere is no other sM"A#!O.G (p. $,Rollo). The petition was consolidated with that of 7TAM-5!2.

On ovember 0, 34'4, the 7ecretar* of #abor affirmed with modification, the assaile Arbiter, disposing as follows+

2"O", premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereb* affifar as the emplo*ees covered b* 7ection 0, Article / of the e>ist !=A iconcerned. 7aid emplo*ees shall remain in the unit of the rank-and-file alreae>ercise their right to self organi;ation as above enunciated.

urther, the irst #ine Association of Meralco 7upervisor* mplo*ees (#Aamong the choices in the certification election.

#et, therefore, the pertinent records of the case be immediatel* forwarded tofor the conduct of the certification election.

7O O"D"D. (p. :, Rollo)


15/65

15

M"A#!O?s motion for reconsideration was denied on anuar* 3, 344%.

On ebruar* 4, 344%, M"A#!O filed this petition, premised on the following ground+

"75ODT 7!"TA"H A!TD 2/T 8"AL A=7 O D/7!"T/O AD6O" /I!77 O "/7D/!T/O AMOT/8 TO #A!E O "/7D/!T/O / "#/8 TAT+

/. AOT" "AE-AD-/# =A"8A//8 /T !A = 7TA=#/7D /D5DT,D/7T/!T AD 75A"AT "OM T I/7T/8 "AE-AD-/# =A"8A//8 /T.

//. T M5#OH7 "OM 5AH 8"AD7 L// AD A=OL A" "AE-AD-/#M5#OH7.

///. T 7!"/TH 8A"D7 O" 5"7O# MAH = #M5D TO8T" 2/T T"AE-AD-/# /O AD6O" T 75"L/7O"H /O. (p. ', Rollo)

On ebruar* $, 344%, 2e issued a temporar* restraining order (T"O) against the implementation of thedisputed resolution.

/n its petition, M"A#!O has relented and recogni;ed respondents 7TAM-5!2 and #AM7? desiredrepresentation of supervisor) emplo)ees from 8rades L// up. owever, it believes that all that the7ecretar* of #abor has to do is to establish a demarcation line between supervisor* and managerial rank,and not to classif* outright the group of emplo*ees represented b* 7TAM-5!2 and #AM7 as rankand file emplo*ees.

/n Cuestioning the 7ecretar* of #abor?s directive allowing securit* guards (Treasur*65atrol 7ervices7ection) to be represented b* respondents, M"A#!O contends that this contravenes the provisions of the recentl* passed "A :3& and its implementing rules (specificall* par. $, 7ec. 3, "ule //, =ook L) whichdisCualifies supervisor* emplo*ees and securit* guards from membership in a labor organi;ation of therank and file (p. 33, Rollo).

The 7ecretar* of #abor?s "esolution was obviousl* premised on the provisions of Art. $3$, then par. (k), of the 34'' #abor !ode defining GmanagerialG and Grank and fileG emplo*ees, the law then in force when thecomplaint was filed. At the time, onl* two groups of emplo*ees were recogni;ed, the managerial and rankand file. This e>plains the absence of evidence on 1ob descriptions on who would be classified managerialemplo*ees. /t is perhaps also for this reason wh* the 7ecretar* of #abor limited his classification of theMeralco emplo*ees belonging to 5a* 8rades L// and up, to onl* two groups, the managerial and rank andfile.

owever, pursuant to the Department of #abor?s goal of strenghthening the constitutional right of workersto self-organi;ation, "A :3& was subseCuentl* passed which reorgani;ed the emplo*ee-ranks b*including a third group, or the supervisor* emplo*ees, and la*ing down the distinction between supervisor*emplo*ees and those of managerial ranks in Art. $3$, renumbered par. JmK, depending on whether theemplo*ee concerned has the power to la* down and e>ecute management policies, in the case of managerial emplo*ees, or merel* to recommend them, in case of supervisor* emplo*ees.

/n this petition, M"A#!O has admitted that the emplo*ees belonging to 5a* 8rasupervisor* (p. 3%, Rollo). The records also show that 7TAM-5!2 had G renouncedthe emplo*ees in 5atrol Division, Treasur* 7ecurit* 7ervice 7ection and ran+ and fi8rades I-VI G (p. , Rollo)< while #AM7, on the other hand, had limited its represebelonging to 5a* 8rades L//-I/L,generall) accepted as supervisor) emplo)ees, as fol

/t must be emphasi;ed that private respondent irst #ine Association of mplo*ees seeks to represent onl* the 7upervisor* mplo*ees with 5a* 8ra

7upervisor* mplo*ees with 5a* 8rades L// to I/L are not managerial em

petition itself of petitioner Manila lectric !ompan* on page 4, paragraph 0 as follows, to wit+

There was no need for petitioner to prove that these emplo*ees areadverted to above, the private respondents admit that these are notthe supervisor* emplo*ees, whom the* seek to represent. 2hat neeis the rank where supervisor* ends and managerial begins.

and irst #ine Association of Meralco 7upervisor* mplo*ees herein states to I/L are not managerial emplo*ees. /n fact, although emplo*ees with 5a*"ank of Department Managers, these emplo*ees onl* en1o*s ( sic ) the "anrecommendator* powers are sub1ect to evaluation, review and final actioheads and other higher e>ecutives of the compan*. (#AM7? Memorandum

=ased on the foregoing, it is clear that the emplo*ees from 5a* 8rades L// and up ha

and accepted as supervisor*. On the other hand, those emplo*ees who havedisCualified have been directed b* the 7ecretar* of #abor to remain in the e>isting lathe rank and file, (the condition in the !=A deemed as not having been written into threstrictive of an emplo*ee?s e>ercise of the right to self-organi;ation). 2e shall disce>cluded emplo*ees (or those covered b* 7ec. $, Art. /, M2A-!=A later.

Anent the instant petition therefore, 7TAM-5!2, and #AM7 would therefore reemplo*ees onl*. /n this regard, the authorit* given b* the 7ecretar* of #abor for the labor organi;ations for the rank and file will have to be disregarded since 2e herebelections onl* for supervisor* emplo*ees from 5a* 8rade L// and up, with 7TAM-5!choices.

As to the alleged failure of the 7ecretar* of #abor to establish a demarcation segregating the supervisor* from the managerial emplo*ees, the reCuired paranecessar* since the law itself, Art. $3$-m, (as amended b* 7ec. 9 of "A :3&) has a

corresponding guidelines+

Art. $3$. Definitions. . . .

(m) GManagerial emplo*eeG is one who is vested with powers or prerogatie>ecute management policies and6or to hire, transfer, suspend, la*-off, reca


16/65

16

or discipline emplo*ees. 7upervisor* emplo*ees are those who, in the interest of the emplo*er,effectivel* recommend such managerial actions if the e>ercise of such authorit* is not merel*routinar* or clerical in nature but reCuires the use of independent 1udgment. All emplo*ees notfalling within an* of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file emplo*ees for purposes of to =ook.

/n his resolution, the 7ecretar* of #abor further elaborated+

. . . *hus% the determinative factor in classif)ing an emplo)ee as managerial% supervisor) or ran+-and-file is the nature of the wor+ of the emplo)ee concerned .

/n 9ational ;aterwor+s and ewerage 'uthorit) vs. 9ational ;aterwor+s and ewerage 'uthorit) !onsolidated #nions (33 7!"A :) the 7upreme !ourt had the occasion to come outwith an enlightening dissertation of the nature of the work of a managerial emplo*ees as follows+

. . . that the emplo*ee?s primar* dut* consists of the management of the establishmentor of a customaril* recogni;ed department or subdivision thereof, that he customaril*and regularl* directs the work of other emplo*ees therein, that he has the authorit* tohire or discharge other emplo*ees or that his suggestions and recommendations as tothe hiring and discharging and or to the advancement and promotion or an* other change of status of other emplo*ees are given particular weight, that he customaril* andregularl* e>ercises discretionar* powers . . . (& !7, pp. -'. (p. $$, Rollo)

2e shall now discuss the rights of the securit* guards to self-organi;e. M"A#!O hasCuestioned the legalit* of allowing them to 1oin either the rank and file or the supervisor* union,

claiming that this is a violation of par. $, 7ec. 3, "ule //, =ook L of the /mplementing "ules of "A:3&, which states as follows+

7ec 3. 2ho ma* 1oin unions. . . .

> > > > > > > > >

7upervisor* emplo*ees and securit) guards shall not be eligible for membership in alabor organi;ation of the rank-and-file emplo*ees but ma* 1oin, assist or form separatelabor organi;ations of their own< . . .

> > > > > > > > >

(emphasis ours)

5aragraph $, 7ec. 3, "ule //, =ook L, is similar to 7ec. $ (c), "ule L, also of =ook L of theimplementing rules of "A :3&+

"ule "5"7TAT/O !A77 /T"A#-/O !O#/!T7

7ec. 3. . . .

7ec. $. ;ho ma) file.BAn* legitimate labor organi;ation or reCuested to bargain collectivel*, ma* file the petition.

The petition, when filed b* a legitimate labor-organi;ation shall conta

(a) . . .

(b) . . .

(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the emcircumstances otherwise reCuire< and provided further , that the apunit of the rank-and-file emplo*ees shall not include supervisosecurit) guards<

> > > > > > > > >

(emphasis ours)

=oth rules, barring securit* guards from 1oining a rank and file organi;ation, appear tover from the old rules which implemented then 'rt. =>? of the #abor !ode, and which

Art. $9&. Ineligibilit) of securit) personnel to join an) labor organi:ation .Bother personnel emplo*ed for the protection and securit* of the person, proof the emplo*er shall not be eligible for membership in an* labor organi;ation

On December $9, 34', 5res. !ora;on !. ACuino issued .O. o. 333 which eliminprovision on the disCualification of securit* guards. 2hat was retained was thmanagerial emplo*ees, renumbered as Art. $9& (previousl* Art. $9), as follows+

Art. $9&. Ineligibilit) of managerial emplo)ees to joint an) labor organemplo*ees are not eligible to 1oin, assist or form an* labor organi;ation.

2ith the elimination, securit* guards were thus free to 1oin a rank and file organi;ation

On March $, 34'4, the present !ongress passed "A :3&. $ 7ection 3' thereof amenas follows+

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91902_1991.html#rnt2


17/65

17

Art. $9&. /neligibilit* of managerial emplo)ees to 1oin an* labor organi;ation< right of supervisor*emplo*ees.BManagerial emplo*ees are not eligible to 1oin, assist or form an* labor organi;ation. upervisor) emplo)ees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organi;ationof the rank-and-file emplo*ees but ma* 1oin, assist, or form separate labor organi;ations of their own. (emphasis ours)

As will be noted, the second sentence of Art. $9& embodies an amendment disCualif*ing supervisor) emplo)eesfrom membership in a labor organi;ation of the rank-and-file emplo*ees. /t does not includesecurit) guards in the disCualification.

The implementing rules of "A :3&, therefore, insofar as the* disCualif* securit* guards from 1oining arank and file organi;ation are null and void, for being not germane to the ob1ect and purposes of O 333and "A :3& upon which such rules purportedl* derive statutor* moorings. /n hell (hilippines% Inc. vs.!entral Ban+ , 8.". o. &30&0, une $:, 34'', 3$ 7!"A $', 2e stated+

The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carr*into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be e>tended to amending or e>panding the statutor* reCuirements or to embrace matters not covered b* the statute. "ulesthat subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. ( citing niversit* of 7to. Tomas vs. =oard of Ta> Appeals, 40 5hil. 0:).

2hile therefore under the old rules, securit* guards were barred from 1oining a labor organi;ation of therank and file, under "A :3&, the* ma* now freel* 1oin a labor organi;ation of the rank and file or that of the supervisor* union, depending on their rank. =* accommodating supervisor* emplo*ees, the 7ecretar*of #abor must likewise appl* the provisions of "A :3& to securit* guards b* favorabl* allowing them freeaccess to a labor organi;ation, whether rank and file or supervisor*, in recognition of their constitutional

right to self-organi;ation.

2e are aware however of possible conseCuences in the implementation of the law in allowing securit*personnel to 1oin labor unions within the compan* the* serve. The law is apt to produce divided lo*alties inthe faithful performance of their duties. conomic reasons would present the emplo*ees concerned withthe temptation to subordinate their duties to the allegiance the* owe the union of which the* are members,aware as the* are that it is usuall* union action that obtains for them increased pecuniar* benefits.

Thus, in the event of a strike declared b* their union, securit* personnel ma* neglect or outrightl* abandontheir duties, such as protection of propert* of their emplo*er and the persons of its officials and emplo*ees,the control of access to the emplo*er?s premises, and the maintenance of order in the event of emergencies and untoward incidents.

/t is hoped that the corresponding amendator* and6or suppletor* laws be passed b* !ongress to avoidpossible conflict of interest in securit* personnel.1@wphi1

A!!O"D/8#H, the petition is hereb* D/7M/77D. 2e A/"M with modification the "esolution of the7ecretar* of #abor dated ovember 0, 34'4 upholding an emplo*ee?s right to self-organi;ation. Acertification election is hereb* ordered conducted among supervisor* emplo*ees of M"A#!O, belongingto 5a* 8rades L// and above, using as guideliness an emplo*ee?s power to either recommend or e>ecute

management policies, pursuant to Art. $3$ (m), of the #abor !ode, as amended b* 7ecrespondents 7TAM-5!2 and #AM7 as choices.

mplo*ees of the 5atrol Division, Treasur* 7ecurit* 7ervices 7ection and 7ecretaeither the labor organi;ation of the rank and file or that of the supervisor* unionemplo*ee rank. DisCualified emplo*ees covered b* 7ec. 0, Art. / of the M2A-!=A, se>isting labor organi;ation of the rank and file, pursuant to the 7ecretar* of #abor?s dire

=* the parties? own agreement, the* find the bargaining unit, which inenumerated in 7ection 0, Article / of their !=A, appropriate for purposes of cThe composition of the bargaining unit should be left to the agreement of thethere are legal infirmities in such agreement, this Office will not substitute itsthe parties. !onsistent with the stor* of collective bargaining in the compan*said group of emplo*ees in the e>isting rank-and-file unit should continuestabilit* in that unit alread* well establish. owever, we cannot approve o7ection 0, Article / of the !=A that the emplo*ees covered are aut

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	don-sumiog
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

LabRel Cases Part II.doc

Documents