Naguiat/Clark Field Taxi vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997

Panganiban, J:

FACTS:

CFTI under the management of Sergio Naguiat, a co-owner of the corporation operated a taxi business within the Clark Airfield. Due to the phase out of the US Military bases in the Philippines, taxi operation ceased and reasoned great financial losses and lost business opportunity. Private respondents claimed that CFTI and Sergio F. Naguiat be joined as indispensable party whose liability is joint and several.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Naguiat Enterprise is solidarily liable for the obligation of CFTI to its terminated taxi drivers.

RULING:

The labor arbiter found that individual respondents were regular employees of CFTI who received wages on a boundary or commission basis. Labor-only contracting exist where 1) the person workers to an employer does not have substantial capital investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery and work premises among others; and 2) the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of employer. There was no substantial basis to hold that Naguiat Enterprise is an indirect employer of individual respondents much less labor only contractor.

UST Faculty union vs. Bitonio, BLR/Mariño

GRN 131235 November 16, 1999

Panganiban, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent Mariño et al are duly elected officer of UST faculty. The union has a 5-year CBA with its employer and is set to expire on May 31,1998. On September 21, 1996, Sec Gen of the union posted a general assembly announcement to be held on October 5, 1996. Various UST club presidents requested a general faculty assembly thus union and non-union faculty members convened. New set of officers were elected, violative of the CBL and that GA was held with the attendance of non-union members. Current union officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office as new set of offices were already elected. CBA was likewise ratified by an overwhelming majority. Mad-Arbiter declared the election conducted was violative of the union’s CBL. BLR Director Bitonio upheld the decision with a ruling that the CBL which constituted the covenant between the union and its members, could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty members, since it had not been authorized by the union.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the officers “elected” during the general assembly.

RULING:

Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution and labor Code. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to become one but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union’s CBL. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with the new status and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations.

v Union election – hold pursuant to the union’s CBL, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members.

v Certification election – is the process of determining, thorough secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining the purpose to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and by which particular labor organization.

Jardin vs. NLRC

GRN 119268 February 23, 2000

Quisumbing, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners were drivers of Goodman Taxi and were collected an average of P400 as boundary plus 30 pesos for car wash fee. The drivers heard that Goodman management would raise the car wash fee and the latter planned to form a union. Upon learning of their plan, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicab for few days. Petitioners filed illegal dismissal and illegal collection wash fee. LA dismissed the complaint NLRC reversed the decision ratiocinating that as employees, their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process. 2^nd motion, decision again reversed.

ISSUE:
whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.

RULING:

Complainants are taxi drivers on boundary system but in determining if employer-employee relationship exists, the four-fold test is applied: power of selection of employees; payment of wages; power of dismissal; and power to control the employees. Petitioners are undoubtedly employees of the respondent because taxi drivers perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer. Thus an employee illegally dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed at the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time his actual reinstatement.

- Prior to March 21, 1989, employees illegally dismissed are entitled to backwages up to 3 years without deduction or qualification.

- After RA 6715, granted full backwages of allowances & other benefits…

FULL BACKWAGES – without deducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissed.

Kiokloy vs. NLRC

GRN L 54334 January 22, 1986

Cuevas, J

Facts:

Union was certified by the BLR as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees. On December 1978, the union furnished the Company 2 copies of its proposed CBA. Company did not reply and its attempt to bring the company to the bargaining table, led to deaf ears. The union filed a notice of strike with BLR on ground of unresolved economic issues. Conciliation proceedings then followed during the 30 day statutory cooling-off period. No conciliation was reached and prompted by Company’s frequent request for postponement, NLRC rendered decision a declaring company guilty of ULP and the draft proposed of CBA having found to be reasonable, was declared collective agreement which should govern the relationship of parties.

Issue:

Whether or not company committed unfair labor practice.

Ruling:

Collective bargaining which is defined as a negotiation towards collective agreement, is designed to established the relationship of labor and management, and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.

The company is guilty of ULP since it has been established that

1.) Respondent was a duly certified bargaining agent;

2.) It made a definite request to bargain;

3.) The Company made no counter proposal which conclusively indicate lack of sincere desire to negotiate.

Even during the compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, company’s approach and attitude stalling the negotiation by a series of postponement, non appearance at a hearing conducted and undue delay in submitting in its financial statement, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the union.

As laid down in the Herald Delivery case, “ULP is committed when it is shown that the respondent employer, after having proposed by union, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply.”

Employee Representation Meralco vs. Quisumbing

GRN 127 598 January 27, 1999

Ynares-Santiago, J

Facts:

The court directed the parties to execute of CBA incorporating the terms among which are the following modifications:

Wages; P 1,900 for 1995-96

Retroactibility: December 28, 1996- December 27, 1999

Dissatified, some members of the union filed a motion for intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner warns that if the wage increase of P 2, 200 per month as ordered is allowed, it would pass the cost covering such increase to the consumer through an increase rate of electricity. On the retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the parties reckon the period as when retraction shall commence.

Issue:

Whether or not retroacting of arbitral awards shall commence at such time as granted by Secretary.

Ruling:

In St. Luki’s Medical vs. Torres, a deadlock developed during CBA negotiations between management unions. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration of the previous CBA. The Court rationale thus: In the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactive of the affectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary pursuant to Art. 263 (9) of the Labor Code, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof.

In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the affectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other hand the law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement but by intervention of the government. In the absence of the CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.

Whereof, the arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to November 3, 1997: and the award of wage is increased from 1900 to P 2,000.00.

Liberty Flour Mills Emp vs. Liberty Flour

GRN- 58768 December 29, 1989

CRUZ: J

Facts:

On February 6, 1974, respondent Philippines Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Liberty Flour entered into a 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a daily wage increase of P2 for 1974 P1 for 1975 and P1 for 1976. The parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good standing for the duration of CBA” as a condition for continued employment of workers: PLAC 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 4 1975 this time by petitioners who apparently were wearing away from PLAC. Evarists and Biascon, after organizing a union filed for a certification election among rank- and file employees. PLAC them impelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the responded company, who compelled on May 20, 1975. The claims for E- COLa was dismissed as it was already absorbed by the wage increase. The termination case in relation to back wages was also dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not E-cola was absorbed in the wage increased and won dismissal of Evaristo and Biascon was illegal.

Ruling:

The company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before the obligation was imposed by the government (P.D 525). What the petitioner claim there is being made to waive the additional allowances but the truth is they are not entitled to because they are already enjoying the stipulated increase.

As with the case of illegal dismissed the CBA concurred on 1974 was certifiable and in fact certified in April 11, 1975 while the two were dismissed on May 20, 1975. Evidence show that after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the federation of Democratic Labor Unions. No other union contested the exclusive representation of the PLAC. Consequently there was no more legal impediment that stood on the way of its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between Respondent Corporation and Respondent Corporation and respondent union once it was dully entered into a signed by the parties a collective bargaining agreement becomes effective as between the parties regardless of won the same has been certified by BLR.

Yokohama Tire vs. Yokohama EU

GRN 163532 March 10,2010

Carpio, J.:

FACTS:

Yokohama Employees Union is the labor organization of the rank-and file employees of petition. YEU was registered as legitimate labor union on 10 Sept 1999. Respondent filed before Regional Office a petition for certification election. Petitioner filed a petition for revocation of YEU’s registration when YEU fraudulently included the signature of Pineda in the organizational documents; Pineda was not aware of any election of union officers; YEU fraudulently obtained employees signature; etc.

ISSUE:

Whether or not YEU committed fraud or misrepresentation sufficing the revocation of its registration.

RULING:

CA found that YEU did not commit grave fraud or misrepresentation. The BLR correctly ruled that the evidence to prove the participation of YEU in the failure to delete Pineda’s signature from the organizational document was wanting. YTPI has the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations. As held previously, “the charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny… charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.”

William Uy Construction vs. Trinidad

GRN 183250 March 10, 2010

Abad, J.;

FACTS:

Trinidad had been working as a driver which identified him as a project employee Company terminated him from work after it shut down operations because of lack of projects. He learned later that although it opened up a project in Batangas, it did not hire him. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits. Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint while CA reversed the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner company’s repeated rehiring of respondent over several years as project employee entitled him to the status of a regular employee.

RULING:

Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to security and benefits of regularization. But this standard will not be fair, if applied to the construction industry because it cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project.

Manila

Bar Exam Questions
Labor Law
2010

PART I
I
TRUE OR FALSE. Explain your answer briefly.
1. Deeds of release, waivers and quitclaims are always valid
and binding. (2%)
2. The relations between employer and employee are purely
contractual in nature. (2%)
3. As a general rule, direct hiring of Overseas Filipino Workers
(OFWs) is not allowed. (2%)
II
A. Distinguish the terms “conciliation,” “mediation” and
“arbitration.” (3%)
B. Differentiate “surface bargaining” from “blue-sky
bargaining.” (2%)
III
A, single, has been an active member of the Social Security
System for the past 20 months. She became pregnant out of
wedlock and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that
she would have to deliver the baby through caesarean section
because of some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits?
If yes, how many days can she go on maternity leave? If not, why
is she not entitled? (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 3 of 13
IV
A, a worker at ABC Company, was on leave with pay on
March 31, 2010. He reported for work on April 1 and 2, Maundy
Thursday and Good Friday, respectively, both regular holidays. Is
A entitled to holiday pay for the two successive holidays? Explain.
(3%)
V
Company XYZ has two recognized labor unions, one for its
rank-and-file employees (RFLU), and one for supervisory
employees (SELU). Of late, the company instituted a restructuring
program by virtue of which A, a rank-and-file employee and
officer of RFLU, was promoted to a supervisory position along
with four (4) other colleagues, also active union members and/or
officers. Labor Union KMJ, a rival labor union seeking
recognition as the rank-and-file bargaining agent, filed a petition
for the cancellation of the registration of RFLU on the ground that
A and her colleagues have remained to be members of RFLU. Is
the petition meritorious? Explain. (3%)
VI
A is a member of the labor union duly recognized as the sole
bargaining representative of his company. Due to a bargaining
deadlock, 245 members of the 500-strong union voted on March
13, 2010 to stage a strike. A notice of strike was submitted to the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board on March 16, 2010.
Seven days later or on March 23, 2010, the workers staged a strike
in the course of which A had to leave and go to the hospital where
his wife had just delivered a baby. The union members later
intimidated and barred other employees from entering the work
premises, thus paralyzing the business operations of the company.
A was dismissed from employment as a consequence of the
strike.
Labor and Social Legislation Page 4 of 13
A. Was the strike legal? Explain. (3%)
B. Was A’s dismissal valid? Why or why not? (3%)
VII
A was an able seaman contracted by ABC Recruitment
Agency for its foreign principal, Seaworthy Shipping Company
(SSC). His employment contract provided that he would serve on
board the Almieda II for eight (8) months with a monthly salary of
US$450. In connection with his employment, he signed an
undertaking to observe the drug and alcohol policy which bans
possession or use of all alcoholic beverages, prohibited substances
and un-prescribed drugs on board the ship. The undertaking
provided that: (1) disciplinary action including dismissal would
be taken against anyone in possession of the prohibited substances
or who is impaired by the use of any of these substances, and (2)
to enforce the policy, random test sampling would be done on all
those on board the ship.
On his third month of service while the Almieda II was
docked at a foreign port, a random drug test was conducted on all
members of the crew and A tested positive for marijuana. He was
given a copy of the drug test result. In compliance with the
company’s directive, he submitted his written explanation which
the company did not find satisfactory. A month later, he was
repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, A filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint against the
agency and the principal for illegal dismissal with a claim for
salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.
A. Was A’s dismissal valid? Explain. (3%)
B. Is his claim for salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract tenable? Explain. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 5 of 13
VIII
ABC company and U labor union have been negotiating for a
new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but failed to agree
on certain economic provisions of the existing agreement. In the
meantime, the existing CBA expired. The company thereafter
refused to pay the employees their midyear bonus, saying that the
CBA which provided for the grant of midyear bonus to all
company employees had already expired. Are the employees
entitled to be paid their midyear bonus? Explain your answer.
(3%)
IX
A was working as a medical representative of RX
pharmaceutical company when he met and fell in love with B, a
marketing strategist for Delta Drug Company, a competitor of RX.
On several occasions, the management of RX called A’s attention
to the stipulation in his employment contract that requires him to
disclose any relationship by consanguinity or affinity with coemployees
or employees of competing companies in light of a
possible conflict of interest. A seeks your advice on the validity of
the company policy. What would be your advice? (3%)
X
A, an employee of XYZ Cooperative, owns 500 shares in the
cooperative. He has been asked to join the XYZ Cooperative
Employees Association. He seeks your advice on whether he can
join the association. What advice will you give him? (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 6 of 13
XI
Because of continuing financial constraints, XYZ, Inc. gave
its employees the option to voluntarily resign from the company.
A was one of those who availed of the option. On October 5,
2007, he was paid separation benefits equivalent to seven (7)
months pay for his six (6) years and seven (7) months of service
with the company and he executed a waiver and quitclaim.
A week later, A filed against XYZ, Inc. a complaint for
illegal dismissal. While he admitted that he was not forced to sign
the quitclaim, he contended that he agreed to tender his voluntary
resignation on the belief that XYZ, Inc. was closing down its
business. XYZ, Inc., however, continued its business under a
different company name, he claimed.
Rule on whether the quitclaim executed by A is valid or not.
Explain. (3%)
XII
On December 12, 2008, A signed a contract to be part of the
crew of ABC Cruises, Inc. through its Philippine manning agency
XYZ. Under the standard employment contract of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), his employment
was to commence upon his actual departure from the port in the
point of hire, Manila, from where he would take a flight to the
USA to join the cruise ship “MS Carnegie.” However, more than
three months after A secured his exit clearance from the POEA for
his supposed departure on January 15, 2009, XYZ still had not
deployed him for no valid reason.
Is A entitled to relief? Explain. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 7 of 13
XIII
A is employed by XYZ Company where XYZ Employees
Union (XYZ-EU) is the recognized exclusive bargaining agent.
Although A is a member of rival union XYR-MU, he receives the
benefits under the CBA that XYZ-EU had negotiated with the
company.
XYZ-EU assessed A a fee equivalent to the dues and other
fees paid by its members but A insists that he has no obligation to
pay said dues and fees because he is not a member of XYZ–EU
and he has not issued an authorization to allow the collection.
Explain whether his claim is meritorious. (3%)
- END OF PART I –
Labor and Social Legislation Page 8 of 13
PART II
XIV
After working from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Thursday as one of
5,000 employees in a beer factory, A hurried home to catch the
early evening news and have dinner with his family. At around 10
p.m. of the same day, the plant manager called and ordered A to
fill in for C who missed the second shift.
A. May A validly refuse the plant manager’s directive? Explain.
(2%)
B. Assuming that A was made to work from 11 p.m. on
Thursday until 2 a.m. on Friday, may the company argue
that, since he was two hours late in coming to work on
Thursday morning, he should only be paid for work rendered
from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m.? Explain? (3%)
XV
Samahang Manggagawa ng Terracota, a union of
supervisory employees at Terracota Inc., recently admitted a
member of the company’s managerial staff, A, into the union
ranks.
A. Should A be a member of the supervisory union? Explain.
(2%)
B. Assuming that A is ineligible to join the union, should the
registration of Samahang Manggagawa ng Terracota be
cancelled? Explain. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 9 of 13
XVI
On the first day of collective bargaining negotiations between
rank-and-file Union A and B Bus Company, the former proposed a
P45/day increase. The company insisted that ground rules for
negotiations should first be established, to which the union agreed.
After agreeing on ground rules on the second day, the union
representatives reiterated their proposal for a wage increase. When
company representatives suggested a discussion of political
provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement as stipulated in
the ground rules, union members went on mass leave the next day
to participate in a whole-day prayer rally in front of the company
building.
A. The company filed a petition for assumption of jurisdiction
with the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Union
opposed the petition, arguing that it did not intend to stage a
strike. Should the petition be granted? Explain. (2%)
B. The Union contended that assuming that the mass leave will
be considered as a strike, the same was valid because of the
refusal of the company to discuss the economic provisions of
the CBA. Rule on the contention. (2%)
C. Union member AA, a pastor who headed the prayer rally,
was served a notice of termination by management after it
filed the petition for assumption of jurisdiction. May the
company validly terminate AA? Explain. (2%)
XVII
A was hired to work in a sugar plantation performing such
tasks as weeding, cutting and loading canes, planting cane points,
fertilizing and cleaning the drainage. Because his daily presence in
the field was not required, A also worked as a houseboy at the
house of the plantation owner. For the next planting season, the
owner decided not to hire A as a plantation worker but as a
houseboy instead. Furious, A filed a case for illegal dismissal
against the plantation owner. Decide with reason. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 10 of 13
XVIII
Flight attendant A, five feet and six inches tall, weighing 170
pounds ended up weighing 220 pounds in two years. Pursuant to
the long standing Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of the
employer airline that set a 147-pound limit for A’s height,
management sent A a notice to “shape up or ship out” within 60
days. At the end of the 60-day period, A reduced her weight to
205 pounds. The company finally served her a Notice of
Administration Charge for violation of company standards on
weight requirements. Should A be dismissed? Explain. (3%)
XIX
Several employees and members of Union A were terminated
by Western Phone Co. on the ground of redundancy. After
complying with the necessary requirements, the Union staged a
strike and picketed the premises of the company. The management
then filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment to
assume jurisdiction over the dispute. Without the benefit of a
hearing, the Secretary issued an Order to assume jurisdiction and
for the parties to revert to the status quo ante litem.
A. Was the order to assume jurisdiction legal? Explain. (2%)
B. Under the same set of facts the Secretary instead issued an
Order directing all striking workers to return to work within
24 hours, except those who were terminated due to
redundancy. Was the Order legal? Explain. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 11 of 13
XX
A, a driver for a bus company, sued his employer for nonpayment
of commutable service incentive leave credits upon his
resignation after five years of employment. The bus company
argued that A was not entitled to service incentive leave since he
was considered a field personnel and was paid on commission
basis and that, in any event, his claim had prescribed. If you were
the Labor Arbiter, how would you rule? Explain. (6%)
XXI
A was approached for possible overseas deployment to Dubai
by X, an interviewer of job applicants for Alpha Personnel
Services, Inc., an overseas recruitment agency. X required A to
submit certain documents (passport, NBI clearance, medical
certificate) and to pay P25,000 as processing fee. Upon payment
of the said amount to the agency cashier, A was advised to wait for
his visa. After five months, A visited the office of Alpha
Personnel Services, Inc. during which X told him that he could no
longer be deployed for employment abroad. A was informed by
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that
while Alpha Personnel Services, Inc. was a licensed agency, X
was not registered as its employee, contrary to POEA Rules and
Regulations. Under POEA Rules and Regulations, the obligation
to register personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of a
recruitment agency.
A. May X be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment?
Explain. (2%)
B. May the officers having control, management or direction of
Alpha Personnel Services, Inc. be held criminally liable for
illegal recruitment? Explain. (3%)
Labor and Social Legislation Page 12 of 13
XXII
A was recruited to work abroad by Speedy Recruitment
Agency as a technician for a Saudi Arabian construction firm, with
a monthly salary of $650.00. When she got to the construction
site, the employer compelled her to sign another contract that
referred her to another employer for a salary of $350.00. She
worked for the second employer and was paid $350.00 until her
two-year contract expired. Upon her return to the Philippines, she
filed a case against the agency and the two employers. May the
agency validly raise the defense that it was not privy to the transfer
of A to the second employer? Explain. (3%)
XXIII
A worked as a roomboy in La Mallorca Hotel. He sued for
underpayment of wages before the NLRC, alleging that he was
paid below the minimum wage. The employer denied any
underpayment, arguing that based on long standing, unwritten
policy, the Hotel provided food and lodging to its housekeeping
employees, the costs of which were partly shouldered by it and the
balance was charged to the employees. The employees’
corresponding share in the costs was thus deducted from their
wages. The employer concluded that such valid deduction
naturally resulted in the payment of wages below the prescribed
minimum. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you rule?
Explain. (3%)
XXIV
Rank-and-file workers from Peacock Feathers, a company
with 120 employees, registered their independent labor
organization with the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Regional Office. Management countered with a petition
to cancel the union’s registration on the ground that the minutes of
ratification of the union constitution and by-laws submitted to the
DOLE were fraudulent. Specifically, management presented
affidavits of ten (10) out of forty (40) individuals named in the list
Labor and Social Legislation Page 13 of 13
of union members who participated in the ratification, alleging that
they were not present at the supposed January 1, 2010 meeting
held for the purpose. The union argued that the stated date of the
meeting should have read “January 11, 2010,” instead of “January
1, 2010,” and that, at any rate, the other thirty (30) union members
were enough to register a union. Decide with reason. (3%)
XXV
Company C, a toy manufacturer, decided to ban the use of
cell phones in the factory premises. In the pertinent Memorandum,
management explained that too much texting and phone-calling by
employees disrupted company operations. Two employeesmembers
of Union X were terminated from employment due to
violation of the memorandum-policy. The union countered with a
prohibitory injunction case (with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order) filed with the Regional Trial Court,
challenging the validity and constitutionality of the cell phone ban.
The company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case
should be referred to the grievance machinery pursuant to an
existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with Union X, and
eventually to Voluntary Arbitration. Is the company correct?
Explain. (3%)
- NOTHING FOLLOWS -

No song for today as things in law school are starting to get major, major complications at the advent of the forthcoming 2011 Bar Exams in the Philippines, as the pioneer in a Multiple-Choice type of exam. It was announced over a month ago that at least 60% of the questions in the bar exam of 2011 will be multiple choice questions or MCQs.

It was said over and over again that the burden of formulating MCQs would be on the examiners. I got the chance of formulating my own MCQs in Labor Law exam. My target was 12 questions for Labor law, but was only able to make 7. I admit there are flaws in my formulation and I want to share it with you so that you can post your comments later on.

Please bear with me because the following are the questions I personally formulated (or copied/developed from some Supreme Court Decisions). Below is an example of the Multiple Choice Questions with answers (as indicated by the quoted Article or Jurisprudence after the selection) for Labor Law:


1. In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall:
a) be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.
b) be jointly and severally liable with the job contractor for the payment of wages only.
c) be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees (Art 106)
d) be considered the employer of the contractual employee for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code

2. In order to divest the Regional Director or his representatives of jurisdiction, the following elements must be present:
(a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters;
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
(d) that the employer shall raise such objections during the hearing of the case or at any time after receipt of the notice of inspection results (see EX-BATAAN VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., vs THE SECRETARY OF LABOR)

3. The preferential right of workers and employees under Article 110 of the Labor  Code may be invoked against the company:
a) upon the institution of insolvency or judicial liquidation proceeding (See Article 110 or Rubberworld vs NLRC, 4-14-1999)
b) only upon the institution of rehabilitation proceedings
c) upon the satisfaction of claims of creditors from the corporation assets corporation
d) upon the payment of tax deficiency of the corporation

4. Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be
a) entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek
b) entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day (Art 83. See San Juan de Dios Hospital vs NLRC, 11-28-1997)
c) entitled to as much rest as other workers
d) entitles the privileges of equal working hours with other workers

5. For a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 263 of the Labor Code, which procedurally requires the following except:
(a) a notice of strike be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice
(b) a strike vote be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose
(c) a notice be given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike
(d) an actual strike has to be launched (Art 263, See Phimco vs Phimco Labor Association, 8-10-2010)

6. The 13th-month pay mandated by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 851 represents an additional income based on wage but not part of the wage.  It includes or is equivalent to:
a) cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 525
b) one-twelfth (1/12) of the total basic salary earned by an employee within a calendar year
c) overtime pay, earnings, and other remuneration
d) cash equivalent of unused vacation and sick leave credits, night differential and holiday pay

7) The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees are traditionally identified as management prerogatives. However, management prerogatives are subject to limitations such as the following except:
a) those found in law
b) those established in a collective bargaining agreement
c) those intended by free will of the management (See University of Sto. Tomas vs. NLRC, 190 SCRA 758)
d) those validly accepted as general principles of fair play and justice


If you have comments, don't forget to write them down. I hope I could improve on that.

Samahan vs. Sec. of Labor and Filsystems , Inc
GRN.: 128067 June 5,1998
Puno J.:

Facts:
Samahan (union petitioner) , a registered union filed a petition for certification election. Private responded questioned the status of petitioner as LLO on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to BLR. Samahan averred that as an independent and duly registered union, it has all the rights and privileges to act as a representative of its members for the purpose of collecting bargaining with employers. Med-arbiter dismissed the petition. Meanwhile FWU was allowed to conduct certification election, and eventually negotiated a CBA Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss.

Issue:
Whether or not legal personality of the union (Samahan) having been established could be subject to collateral attack.

Ruling:

Petitioner is an independently registered labor union thus its right to file petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. Its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file petition as an independent union.

Petitioner seasonably appealed, thus it stopped the holding of any certification election. Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was entered by FWU and private respondent. There should be no obstacle to the right of the employees of petitioner for a certification election at the proper time, that is within 60 days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified CBA… not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of the representation case… (ALU-TUCP vs Trajano)

GRN 131235 NOVEMBER 16, 1999

UST FACULTY UNION VS BITONIO / BLR

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent Marinio et al were duly elected officers of UST faculty. The union has a 5-year CBA with its employer and is set to expire on May 31, 1998. On October 5, 1996 various UST club presidents requested a general faculty assembly thus union and non-union faculty members convened. New set of officers were elected, violative of the CBL and that the GA was held with non-union members present. Union officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office, and CBA was ratified by an overwhelming majority. Med-Arbiter declared the election violative of the CBL while BLR director Bitonio upheld the decision with a ruling that the CBL which constituted the covenant between the union and its members could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty members, since it ha not been authorized by the union.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the officers elected during the “general assembly”.

RULING:

Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union’s CBL. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and he concomitant obligations that go with the new status and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations.

GRN 80587 FEBRUARY 8, 1989

WENPHIL CORPORATION VS NLRC

GANCAYCO, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent Mallare had an altercation with a co-employee. The following day, the Operations Manager served them memorandum of suspension and in the afternoon of that same day, Mallare was dismissed from work. Labor Arbiter dismissed Mallare’s petition for unfair labor practice for lack of merit. NLRC reversed the decision and ordered the reinstatement of Mallare with full backwages of one year without qualification and deduction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an employee dismissed for just cause but without due process be reinstated to work.

RULING:

The basic requirement of due proves is that which hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The dismissal of an employee must be for a just cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement thus it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing Mallare from employment. Petitioner must indemnify the dismissed employee which depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.

Where the private respondent appears to be of violent temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his supervisors as they tried to pacify him, he should not be rewarded with re-employment and backwages. The dismissal of the respondent should be maintained.

GRN 117040 JANUARY 27, 2000

SERRANO VS NLRC / ISETANN

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

Serrano was a regular employee of Isetann Department Store as the head of Security Checker. In 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, Isetann phased out its entire security section and engaged the services of an independent security agency. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal among others. Labor arbiter ruled in his favor as Isetann failed to establish that it had retrenched its security section to prevent or minimize losses to its business; that private respondent failed to accord due process to petitioner; that private respondent failed to use reasonable standards in selecting employees whose employment would be terminated. NLRC reversed the decision and ordered petitioner to be given separation pay.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the hiring of an independent security agency by the private respondent to replace its current security section a valid ground for the dismissal of the employees classed under the latter.

RULING:

An employer’s good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees to promote economy and efficiency. Absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer.

If termination of employment is not for any of the cause provided by law, it is illegal and the employee should be reinstated and paid backwages. To contend that even if the termination is for a just cause, the employee concerned should be reinstated and paid backwages would be to amend Art 279 by adding another ground for considering dismissal illegal.

If it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the causes mentioned in Art 282, the in accordance with that article, he should not be reinstated but must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for a just cause because the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination without legal effect.

GRN 158693 NOVEMBER 17, 2004

AGABON VS NLRC / RIVIERA HOME

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners were employed by Riviera Home as gypsum board and cornice installers from January 1992 to February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and was decided in their favor by the Labor Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the NLRC contending just cause for the dismissal because of petitioner’s abandonment of work. NLRC ruled there was just cause and petitioners were not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The CA in turn ruled that the dismissal was not illegal because they have abandoned their work but ordered the payment of money claims.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the right to be heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. For a valid finding or abandonment, two factors are considered: failure to report for work without a valid reason; and, a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has no more intention to work.

Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.

Art 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the justifiable or authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal but the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss now, pay later” which we sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The violation of employees’ rights warrants the payment of nominal damages.

GRN 151378

JAKA FOOD PROCESSING VS PACOT

GARCIE, J.:

FACTS:

Respondents were hired by JAKA until their termination on August 29, 1997 because the Corporation was “in dire financial straits”. It was not disputed that they were terminated without complying with the requirement under Art. 283 of the Labor Code regarding the service of notice upon the employees and DOLE at least one month before the intended date of termination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not full backwages and separation pay be awarded to respondents when employers effected termination without complying with the twin notice rule.

RULING:

The dismissal of the respondents was for an authorized cause under Article 283. A dismissal for authorized cause does not necessarily imply delinquency or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal process is initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative, i.e. when the employer opts to install labor-saving devices, when he decides to cease business operations or when… he undertakes to implement a retrenchment program.

Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: 1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal was initiate by an act imputable to the employee; 2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause but the employer fails to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative. Thus, dismissal was upheld but ordered JAKA to pay each of the respondents the amount of PhP 50,000.00 representing nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due process.

Here is the continuation of my case digests:

MERALCO VS QUISUMBING
GRN 127598 JANUARY 27, 1999
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:.

FACTS:
The court directed the parties to execute a CBA incorporating the terms among which are the following modifications among others: Wages: PhP 1,900 for 1995-1996; Retroactivity: December 28, 1996-Dec. 1999, etc. Dissatisfied, some members of the union filed a motion for intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner warns that is the wage increase of Php2,000.00 per month as ordered is allowed, it would pass the cost covering such increase to the consumers through an increase rate of electricity. On the retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the parties reckon the period as when retroaction shall commence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not retroactivity of arbitral awards shall commence at such time as granted by Secretary.

RULING:
In St. Luke’s Medical vs Torres, a deadlock developed during CBA negotiations between management unions. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration of the previous CBS. The Court ratiocinated thus: In the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactive of the effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary pursuant to article 263(g) of the Labor Code, public respondent is deemed vested with the plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof.
In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other hand, the law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by intervention of the government. In the absence of a CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.
Wherefore, the arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997; and the award of wage is increased from Php1,900 to Php2,000.


KIOKLOY VS NLRC
GRN 54334 JANUARY 22, 1986
CUEVAS, J:.
FACTS:
Union was certified by the BLR as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees. On December 1978, the union furnished the company 2 copies of its proposed CBA. Company did not reply and in its attempt to bring the company to the bargaining table, the union file a “notice of strike” with BLR on ground of unresolved economic issues. Conciliation proceedings then followed during the 30-day statutory cooling-off period. No conciliation was reached and prompted by company’s frequent request for postponement, NLRC rendered decision declaring company guilty of ULP and the draft proposal of CBA having found to be reasonable, was declared collective agreement which should govern the relationship of parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not company committed ULP.

RULING:
Collective bargaining which is defined as a negotiation toward collective agreement, is designed to stabilize the relationship of labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
The company is guilty of ULP since it has been established that:
1. Respondent union was duly certified bargaining agent;
2. It made a definite request to bargain;
3. The company made no counter proposal which conclusively indicate lack of a sincere desire to negotiate.
Even during the compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, company approach and attitude stalling the negotiation by a series of postponements, non appearance at a hearing conducted and undue delay in submitting its financial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the Union.
As laid down in Herald delivery case, “ULP is committed when it is shown that the respondent employer, after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by union, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply…”

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR & FILSYSTEMS
GRN: 128067 JUNE 5, 1998
PNO, J.:
FACTS:
Samahan, a registered union filed a petition for certification election. Private respondent questioned the status of petitioners as LLO on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to BLR. Samahan averred that as an independent and duly registered union, it has all the rights and privileges to act as a representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining with employers. Med-arbiter dismissed the petition. Meanwhile, FWU was allowed to conduct certification election, and eventually negotiated a CBA. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss appeal of Samahan as it has become moot and academic. Secretary dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not pending appeal has been rendered moot and academic by a subsequently enacted CBA and WON legal personality of Samahan having been established the same could not be subject to collateral attack.

RULING:
Petitioner is an independently registered labor union thus its rights to file petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. Its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file petition as an independent union.
On second question, petitioner seasonably appealed, thus it stopped the holding of any certification election. Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was entered by FWU and private respondent… “there should be no obstacle to the right of the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is within 60 days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified CBA… not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of the representation case…”


GRN 119268 FEBRUARY 23, 2000
JARDIN VS NLRC
QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners were drivers of Goodman Taxi and were collected average of PhP400 as boundary plus 30pesos for car wash. They do not agree with the car wash fee and planned to form a union. Upon learning of their plan, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicab for few days. Petitioners filed illegal dismissal and illegal collection of wash fee. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint while NLRC reversed the decision ratiocinating that as employees, their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.

RULING:
Complainants ate taxi drivers on boundary system but in determining if employer-employee relationship exists, the four-fold test is applied: power of selection; payment of wages; power of dismissal, and; power to control the employees. Petitioners are undoubtedly employees of the respondent because taxi drivers perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Thus an employee illegally dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances an to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Just click on the link to see the entire case.
Reference websites:
Chanrobles.com
sc.gov.ph
lawphil.net

Happy reading.

Hello my dear friends. It seems that this is a very busy month for most of the bloggers I know. I have notice some of my added bloggers have been saying that they are unable to blog for quite sometime or that some are saying "I'll be back after a while" or "My internet connection is like crazy" or "please bear with me" and something like that.

I am in that kind of situation myself. We just ended our 5months in law school which comprised one semester. We're about to enroll again for the second semester but before all that is done, my classmates and I have been busy trying to finish "case digests" for our subjects. That was the time I stopped blogging about music but instead, encoded my case digest. I usually write down on a record book my case digests so that I can practice or improve my hand writing, which is really crucial when we take our Bar exams. I write it down on a notebook, consolidate them according to subject then encode them on .doc files. It was quite a task, luckily I am done with everything. It was a success after all my absence in the blog-world.

So for this entry, I am sharing with you what I have done so far. For those law-enthusiasts out there or everyone who might be prompted to ask what the heck is a case digest, I am sharing my work with you. Please take note that each digest is a synthesis of Supreme Court decisions and each of them may contain various topics or issues but since my subject for this digest is the Labor Law, I only included the issue/s related to the Labor Code of the Philippines. Please let me know if your think there should have been a better way of presenting the case and post it on my comment box.

Here are a few:

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL VS NLRC
GRN 130866 SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 295 SCRA 494
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Aricayos file a complaint for illegal dismissal to the Labor Arbiter. There being no employer-employee relationship, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Aricayos appealed to NLRC contending errors of the labor arbiter.

ISSUES:
Whether r not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over NLRC appeals?

RULING:
First established in 1972, decisions of NLRC were declared to the appealable to the Secretary of Labor and ultimately to the President. But under the present state of law, there is no provision for appeals from NLRC decisions. The court held that there is an underlying power of the Courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that is part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications.
Subsequently, under RA 7902, effective March 1995, the mode for judicial review over NLRC decisions is that of a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The same confuses by declaring that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate jurisdiction of SC, including the NLRC decisions.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to SC are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. The case was remanded to CA.

====================================
MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION VS NLRC
GRN 108556 NOVEMBER 19, 1996

FACTS:
The union filed with the NLRC arbitration branch a complaint on wage distortion. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the Union while the NRLC Commissioner Zapanta reversed the same. The Union contends that the Mandarin Hotel filed its appeal three days beyond the reglamentary period.
ISSUES:
Whether or not NLRC acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of Mandarin’s appeal from Labor Arbiter.
RULING:
The Court ruled that the Commission acted correctly in accepting and acting on Mandarin’s appeal. The employee who was authorized to receive payment was not around so the respondent was allowed to pay docketing fee on the next business day which was February 4, 1991. In view of the considerations and in the interest of justice was quite served when Mandarin’s appeal was given due course despite delayed payment of fees. . . the reglamentary period confers a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal…

==================================
KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA VS SARMIENTO
GRN 47853 NOVEMBER 16, 1984
CUEVAS, J:.
FACTS:
Petitioner demanded for a better working condition and the reinstatement of 9 dismissed workers. Upon refusal of the company, case elevated to the Labor Arbiter for conciliation. The case was certified to the defunct Court of Industrial Relation which issued a return to work order and enjoined the company from laying off as well as hiring new employees without authority from Court. However, the company dismissed and hired employees without authority. The union, through its secretary, entered into a compromise agreement with the company waiving all claims and counterclaims of whatever nature arising out of or in connection with the present case. September 20, 1976, NLRC served a write of Execution to enforce an order directing the reinstatement and back wages. Respondent claimed that subject case has already been dismissed by virtue of the Court’s agreement. CFI issued an order retraining the Sheriff from implementing the writ of execution. Individual complainants filed a motion however denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner members have the necessary legal personality to bring suit against respondents.

RULING:
Although petitioner-members are not the original parties, they should not be deprived of their right to question the order of the CFI approving the compromise agreement since they are the ones who will stand to suffer and will greatly be prejudiced by the dismissal of the case. It is the individual members who would adversely affected in the event of the dismissal of the case after and extended litigation. The courts may set aside technicalities, all in the interest of substantial justice.
Generally, a judgment on a compromise agreement puts an end to litigation and is immediately executor. However, the rules require a special authority before an attorney can compromise the litigation of their clients. The authority to compromise cannot lightly be presumed and be duly established by evidence. Undoubtedly, the compromise agreement was executed to the prejudice of the complainants who never consented thereto, hence it is null and void. Money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of settlement or compromise effected by a union or a counsel without the specific individual consent of each laborer concerned. The beneficiaries are the individual complainants themselves. The union to which they belong can only assist them but not decide for them.
The fact that petitioners ceased to be connected with the company and the reinstatement may no longer be possible is no obstacle to the grant of the money claims to the petitioners considering that the money claim had already been adjudicated by final judgment.

================================
LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES VS LIBERTY FLOUR
GRN 58768 December 29, 1989
CRUZ, J:.

FACTS:
On February 6, 1974, Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Liberty Flour (Company) entered into a 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a daily wage increase of PhP2 for 1974. PhP1 for 1975 and PhP1 for 1976. The parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good standing for the duration of the CBA…” as a condition for continued employment of workers. PLAC complained against the company for non-payment of E-COLA under PD 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 5, 1975, this time by petitioners who apparently were veering away from PLAC. Evaristo and Biascan, after organizing a union, filed for a certification election among rank-and-file employees, PLAC then expelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the respondent company, who complied on May 20, 1975. The claim for E-COLA was dismissed as it was already absorbed by the wage increases. The termination case in relation to back wages was also dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not E-COLA was absorbed in the wage increase and WON dismissal of Evaristo and Biascan was illegal.

RULING:
The Company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before the obligation was imposed by Government. What petitioner claim they are being waived is the additional allowance but the truth is they are not entitled to because they are already enjoying the stipulated increases.
As with the case of illegal dismissal, the CBA concluded in 1974 was certifiable and in fact certified in April 1975. Evidence show that after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the Federation of Democratic Labor Unions, no other union contested the exclusive representation of the PLAC. Consequently, there was no more legal impediment that stood on the way of its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the CBA entered into by and between company and union. Once it was duly entered into and signed by the parties, a CBA becomes effective as between the parties whether or not the same has been certified by BLR.

Just click on the link to see the entire case.
Reference websites:
Chanrobles.com
sc.gov.ph
lawphil.net

Happy reading.