G.R. No.

167141

March 13, 2009

G.R. Nos. 171618-19

March 20, 2009

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA), Petitioner, vs. SAMMA CORPORATION, Respondent. Facts:
Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001 in the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). It claimed that: (1) it was a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE; (2) it sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate labor organization representing these rank-and-file employees; (4) respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement and (5) no certification or consent election had been conducted within the employer unit for the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality; (2) petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. In an order dated November 12, 2002, med-arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco ordered the dismissal of the petition. This was affirmed by both the DOLE and the court of appeals. Issue: Whether petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election. Held: Yes. LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under certificate of registration no. 92-1015-032-11638-FED-LC. Subsequently, petitioner as its local chapter was issued its charter certificate no. 2-01.With certificates of registration issued in their favor, they are clothed with legal personality as legitimate labor organizations. Furthermore, the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor organization are the following: (a) petitioner is not listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate labor organizations or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in accordance with the rules. Thus, in certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election.

JACKBILT INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. JACKBILT EMPLOYEES WORKERS UNION-NAFLU-KMU, Respondent. Ponente: CORONA, J Facts: Petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks, compelling most of its employees to go on leave for six months. Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU immediately protested the temporary shutdown. Accordingly, on March 9, 1998, respondent went on strike. Its officers and members picketed petitioners main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the compound. On March 19, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO in the NLRC. It sought to enjoin respondent from obstructing free entry to and exit from its production facility. On April 14, 1998, the NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioners property. The injunction was later on granted by the NLRC. Thereafter, petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike. However, respondent repeatedly ignored petitioners memoranda despite the extensions granted. Thus, on May 30, 1998, petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members and barred them from entering its premises effective June 1, 1998. Aggrieved, respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout, runaway shop and damages, unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and attorneys fees, and refusal to bargain on behalf of its officers and members against petitioner and its corporate officers. In a decision dated October 15, 1999, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. However, because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal before terminating respondents officers and employees, it was found guilty of illegal dismissal. Issue: Whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike Held:

No. Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employers premises. Since respondent was found in the July 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from petitioners compound, respondents officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9, 1998 strike. Article 264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. Petitioner clearly had the legal right to terminate respondents officers and employees. G.R. No. 177283 April 7, 2009

held. Until the result of this election comes out and a declaration by the DOLE of the validly elected officers is made, a void in the Union leadership exists. In the light of these circumstances, the University has no other alternative but to temporarily do the following: 1. Establish a savings account for the Union where all collected union dues and agency fees will be deposited and held in trust; and 2. Discontinue normal relations with any group within the Union including the incumbent set of officers. We are informing you of this decision of the University not only for your guidance but also for the apparent reason that the University does not want itself to be unnecessarily involved in your intra-union dispute. This is the only way that the University can maintain neutrality on this matter of grave concern. Petitioners above-quoted move drew respondent to file a complaint against petitioners for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP complaint), claiming that petitioners unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members. During the pendency of its ULP complaint or on March 7, 2002, respondent filed its First Notice of Strike with the Office of the Secretary of Labor (OSL), charging petitioners for 1) gross violation of the CBA and 2) bargaining in bad faith which was certified for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC (certified case). Thereafter, the complaint for ULP was dismissed. Issue: Whether or not there is ULP committed by the petitioners Held: No. The 19 March 2001 Decision of DOLE-NCR Regional Director should not be construed as an automatic termination of the incumbent officers tenure of office. As duly-elected officers of the DLSUEA, their leadership is not deemed terminated by the expiration of their terms of office, for they shall continue their functions and enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining to their respective positions in a hold-over capacity, until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. It bears noting that at the time petitioners questioned moves were adopted, a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. It thus behooved petitioners to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY and DR. CARMELITA I. QUEBENGCO, Petitioners, vs. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), Respondent. Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J Facts: In 2001, a splinter group of respondent led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the then incumbent officers of respondent had failed to call for a regular election since 1985. The DOLE-NCR held, by Decision of March 19, 2001, that the holdover authority of respondents incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under the control and supervision of its Labor Relations Division and subject to pre-election conferences. The conditions for the conduct of election imposed by the DOLE-NCR notwithstanding, respondent called for a regular election on July 9, 2001, without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference, prompting the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. The Aliazas group thereupon, via letter of August 7, 2001 to Brother Rolando Dizon, FSC, President of petitioner DLSU, requested the University "to please put on escrow all union dues/agency fees and whatever money considerations deducted from salaries of concerned co-academic personnel until such time that an election of union officials has been scheduled and subsequent elections has been held. Responding to the Aliazas groups request, petitioners, citing the abovementioned DOLE and BLR Orders, advised respondent by letter of August 16, 2001 as follows: x x x By virtue of the 19 March 2001 Decision and the 06 July 2001 Order of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the hold-over authority of your incumbent set of officers has been considered extinguished and an election of new union officers, to be conducted and supervised by the DOLE has been directed to be