Labor Law

Review
Compilation of Cases
Camille Lorraine E.
Camenforte
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BELYCA CORPORATION vs. DIR. PURA FERRER CALLEJA
(G.R. No. 77395 Novembe !9" #9$$%
[2]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
Re&'b()* o+ ,-e P-)()&&).es
SUPREME COURT
/0.)(0
SECOND DI1ISION
G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988
BELYCA CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
DIR. PURA ERRER CALLE!A, LABOR RELATION", #ANILA, #INI"TRY O LABOR AND
E#PLOY#ENT$ #ED%ARBITER, RODOLO ". #ILADO, #INI"TRY O LABOR AND
E#PLOY#ENT, REGIONAL OICE NO. 1& AND A""OCIATED LABOR UNION 'ALU%
TUCP(, #INDANAO REGIONAL OICE, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondents.
Soriano and Arana Law Offices for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Francisco D. Alas for respondent Associated Labor Unions-TUCP.

PARA", J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to annul or to
set aside the resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated November !, "#$% and denying
the appeal, and the Bureau&s resolution dated 'anuary "(, "#$) denying petitioner&s motion for
reconsideration.
The dispositive portion of the *uestioned resolution dated November !, "#$% +Rollo, p. !,
reads as follows-
./0R012R0, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the 2rder is affirmed
and the appeal therefrom denied.
Let, therefore, the pertinent records of the case be remanded to the office of
origin for the immediate conduct of the certification election.
The dispositive portion of the resolution dated 'anuary "(, "#$) +Rollo, p. #, reads, as follows-
./0R012R0, the 3otion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Belyca
4orporation +Livestock 5gro67ivision, is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and
the Bureau&s Resolution dated ! November "#$% is affirmed. 5ccordingly, let
the records of this case be immediately forwarded to the 2ffice of origin for the
holding of the certification elections.
No further motion shall hereafter be entertained.
The antecedents of the case are as follows-
2n 'une (, "#$%, private respondent 5ssociated Labor 8nion +5L8,6T849, a legitimate labor
organi:ation duly registered with the 3inistry of Labor and 0mployment under Registration
4ertificate No. )$(6;9, filed with the Regional 2ffice No. "<, 3inistry of Labor and 0mployment
at 4agayan de 2ro 4ity, a petition for direct certification as the sole and e=clusive bargaining
agent of all the rank and file employees>workers of Belyca 4orporation +Livestock and 5gro6
7ivision,, a duly organi:ed, registered and e=isting corporation engaged in the business of
poultry raising, piggery and planting of agricultural crops such as corn, coffee and various
vegetables, employing appro=imately <? rank and file employees>workers, the collective
bargaining unit sought in the petition, or in case of doubt of the union&s majority representation,
[3]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
for the issuance of an order authori:ing the immediate holding of a certification election +Rollo,
p. "$,. 5lthough the case was scheduled for hearing at least three times, no amicable
settlement was reached by the parties. 7uring the scheduled hearing of 'uly (", "#$% they,
however, agreed to submit simultaneously their respective position papers on or before 5ugust
"", "#$% +rollo. p. %,.
9etitioner 5L86T849, private respondent herein, in its petition and position paper alleged,
among others, +", that there is no e=isting collective bargaining agreement between the
respondent employer, petitioner herein, and any other e=isting legitimate labor unions@ +, that
there had neither been a certification election conducted in the proposed bargaining unit within
the last twelve +", months prior to the filing of the petition nor a contending union re*uesting for
certification as the. sole and e=clusive bargaining representative in the proposed bargaining
unit@ +(, that more than a majority of respondent employer&s rank6and6file employees>workers in
the proposed bargaining unit or one hundred thirty6eight +"($, as of the date of the filing of the
petition, have signed membership with the 5L86T849 and have e=pressed their written consent
and authori:ation to the filing of the petition@ +!, that in response to petitioner union&s two letters
to the proprietor> Aeneral 3anager of respondent employer, dated 5pril ", "#$% and 3ay $, "
#$%, re*uesting for direct recognition as the sole and e=clusive bargaining agent of the rank6
and6file workers, respondent employer has locked out ""# of its rank6and6file employees in the
said bargaining unit and had dismissed earlier the local union president, vice6president and
three other active members of the local unions for which an unfair labor practice case was filed
by petitioner union against respondent employer last 'uly , "#$% before the NLR4 in 4agayan
de 2ro 4ity +Rollo, pp. "$@ %(,.!re""an#$%&w'
Respondent employer, on the other hand, alleged in its position paper, among others, +", that
due to the nature of its business, very few of its employees are permanent, the overwhelming
majority of which are seasonal and casual and regular employees@ +, that of the total "($ rank6
and6file employees who authori:ed, signed and supported the filing of the petition +a, "! were
no longer working as of 'une (, "#$% +b, ! resigned after 'une, "#$% +c, % withdrew their
membership from petitioner union +d, ? were retrenched on 'une (, "#$% +e, " were
dismissed due to malicious insubordination and destruction of property and +f, "<< simply
abandoned their work or stopped working@ +(, that the "$ incumbent employees or workers of
the livestock section were merely transferred from the agricultural section as replacement for
those who have either been dismissed, retrenched or resigned@ and +!, that the statutory
re*uirement for holding a certification election has not been complied with by the union +Rollo,
p. %,.
The Labor 5rbiter granted the certification election sought for by petitioner union in his order
dated 5ugust "$, "#$% +Rollo, p. %,.
2n 1ebruary !, "#$), respondent employer Belyca 4orporation, appealed the order of the Labor
5rbiter to the Bureau of Labor Relations in 3anila +Rollo, p. %), which denied the appeal +Rollo,
p. $<, and the motion for reconsideration +Rollo, p. #,. Thus, the instant petition received in this
4ourt by mail on 1ebruary <, "#$) +Rollo, p. (,.
;n the resolution of 3arch !, "#$), the Becond 7ivision of this 4ourt re*uired respondent 8nion
to comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order +,Rollo, p. #?,.
Respondent union filed its comment on 3arch (<, "#$) +Rollo, p. "#<,@ public respondents filed
its comment on 5pril $, "#$) +Rollo, p. "$,.
2n 3ay !, "#$), the 4ourt resolved to give due course to the petition and to re*uire the parties
to submit their respective memoranda within twenty +<, days from notice +Rollo, p. ?,.
The 2ffice of the Bolicitor Aeneral manifested on 'une "", "#$) that it is adopting the comment
for public respondents as its memorandum +Rollo, p. %,@ memorandum for respondent 5L8
was filed on 'une (<, "#$) +Rollo, p. (",@ and memorandum for petitioner, on 'uly (<, "#$)
+Rollo, p. !(?,.
The issues raised in this petition are-
[4]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
;
./0T/0R 2R N2T T/0 9R292B07 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T ;B 5N
599R29R;5T0 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T.
;;
./0T/0R 2R N2T T/0 BT5T8T2RC R0D8;R030NT 21 (<E +N2. <E,
21 T/0 039L2C00B ;N T/0 9R292B07 B5RA5;N;NA 8N;T, 5BF;NA 12R
5 40RT;1;45T;2N 0L04T;2N /57 B00N BTR;4TLC 4239L;07 .;T/.
;n the instant case, respondent 5L8 seeks direct certification as the sole and e=clusive
bargaining agent of all the rank6and6file workers of the livestock and agro division of petitioner
B0LC45 4orporation +Rollo, p. (,, engaged in piggery, poultry raising and the planting of
agricultural crops such as corn, coffee and various vegetables +Rollo, p. %,. But petitioner
contends that the bargaining unit must include all the workers in its integrated business
concerns ranging from piggery, poultry, to supermarts and cinemas so as not to split an
otherwise single bargaining unit into fragmented bargaining units +Rollo, p. !(?,.!re""an#$%&w'
The Labor 4ode does not specifically define what constitutes an appropriate collective
bargaining unit. 5rticle ?% of the 4ode provides-
5rt. ?%. ()clusi*e bar+ainin+ representati*e.GThe labor
organi:ation designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be
e=clusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining. /owever, an individual employee
or group of employee shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer.
5ccording to Rothenberg, a proper bargaining unit maybe said to be a group of employees of a
given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the
collective interests of all the employees, consistent with e*uity to the employer, indicate to be
best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law +Rothenberg in Labor Relations, p. !$,.
This 4ourt has already taken cogni:ance of the crucial issue of determining the proper
constituency of a collective bargaining unit.
5mong the factors considered in 7emocratic Labor 5ssociation v. 4ebu Btevedoring 4o. ;nc.
+"<( 9hil ""<( H"#?$I, are- J+", will of employees +Alove 7octrine,@ +, affinity and unity of
employee&s interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity of
compensation and working conditions@ +(, prior collective bargaining history@ and +!,
employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary employeesJ.
8nder the circumstances of that case, the 4ourt stressed the importance of the fourth factor and
sustained the trial court&s conclusion that two separate bargaining units should be formed in
dealing with respondent company, one consisting of regular and permanent employees and
another consisting of casual laborers or stevedores. 2therwise stated, temporary employees
should be treated separately from permanent employees. But more importantly, this 4ourt laid
down the test of proper grouping, which is community and mutuality of interest.
Thus, in a later case, +5lhambra 4igar and 4igarette 3anufacturing 4o. et al. v. 5lhambra
0mployees& 5ssociation "<) 9hil. $ H"#%<I, where the employment status was not at issue but
the nature of work of the employees concerned@ the 4ourt stressed the importance of the
second factor otherwise known as the substantial6mutual6interest test and found no reason to
disturb the finding of the lower 4ourt that the employees in the administrative, sales and
dispensary departments perform work which has nothing to do with production and
maintenance, unlike those in the raw leaf, cigar, cigarette and packing and engineering and
[5]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
garage departments and therefore community of interest which justifies the format or e=istence
as a separate appropriate collective bargaining unit.
Btill later in PLASLU *. C,- et al. +""< 9hil. "$< H"#%<I, where the employment status of the
employees concerned was again challenged, the 4ourt reiterating the rulings, both in
De.ocratic Labor Association *. Cebu Ste*edorin+ Co. ,nc. supra and Alha.bra Ci+ar and
Ci+arette Co. et al. *. Alha.bra (.plo/ees0 Association +supra, held that among the factors to
be considered are- employment status of the employees to be affected, that is the positions and
categories of work to which they belong, and the unity of employees& interest such as
substantial similarity of work and duties.
;n any event, whether importance is focused on the employment status or the mutuality of
interest of the employees concerned Jthe basic test of an asserted bargaining unit&s
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all
employees the e=ercise of their collective bargaining rights +7emocratic Labor 5ssociation v.
4ebu Btevedoring 4o. ;nc. supra,
/ence, still later following the substantial6mutual interest test, the 4ourt ruled that there is a
substantial difference between the work performed by musicians and that of other persons who
participate in the production of a film which suffice to show that they constitute a proper
bargaining unit. +LKN 9ictures, ;nc. v. 9hilippine 3usicians Auild, " B4R5 "( H"#%"I,.
4oming back to the case at bar, it is beyond *uestion that the employees of the livestock and
agro division of petitioner corporation perform work entirely different from those performed by
employees in the supermarts and cinema. 5mong others, the noted difference are- their working
conditions, hours of work, rates of pay, including the categories of their positions and
employment status. 5s stated by petitioner corporation in its position paper, due to the nature of
the business in which its livestock6agro division is engaged very few of its employees in the
division are permanent, the overwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and not
regular employees +Rollo, p. %,. 7efinitely, they have very little in common with the employees
of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the employees of petitioner in its integrated
business concerns cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituents
enjoying a community or mutuality of interest. 8ndeniably, the rank and file employees of the
livestock6agro division fully constitute a bargaining unit that satisfies both re*uirements of
classification according to employment status and of the substantial similarity of work and duties
which will ultimately assure its members the e=ercise of their collective bargaining rights.
;;
;t is undisputed that petitioner B0LC45 4orporation +Livestock and 5gro 7ivision, employs
more or less two hundred five +<?, rank6and6file employees and workers. ;t has no e=isting
duly certified collective bargaining agreement with any legitimate labor organi:ation. There has
not been any certification election conducted in the proposed bargaining unit within the last
twelve +", months prior to the filing of the petition for direct certification and>or certification
election with the 3inistry of Labor and 0mployment, and there is no contending union
re*uesting for certification as the sole and e=clusive bargaining representative in the proposed
bargaining unit.
The records show that on the filing of the petition for certification and>or certification election on
'une (, "#$%@ "! employees or workers which are more than a majority of the rank6and6file
employees or workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed membership with respondent
5L86T849 and had e=pressed their written consent and authori:ation to the filing of the
petition. Thus, the Labor 5rbiter ordered the certification election on 5ugust "$, "#$% on a
finding that (<E of the statutory re*uirement under 5rt. ?$ of the Labor 4ode has been met.
But, petitioner corporation contends that after 'une (, "#$% four +!, employees resigned@ si= +%,
subse*uently withdrew their membership@ five +?, were retrenched@ twelve +", were dismissed
for illegally and unlawfully barricading the entrance to petitioner&s farm@ and one hundred +"<<,
simply abandoned their work.
[6]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
9etitioner&s claim was however belied by the 3emorandum of its personnel officer to the ""#
employees dated 'uly $, "#$% showing that the employees were on strike, which was
confirmed by the finding of the Bureau of Labor Relations to the effect that they went on strike
on 'uly !, "#$% +Rollo, p. !"#,. 0arlier the local union president, .arrencio 3aputi@ the Kice6
president, Ailbert Redoblado and three other active members of the union 4armen Baguing,
Roberto Romolo and ;luminada Bonio were dismissed and a complaint for unfair labor practice,
illegal dismissal etc. was filed by the 8nion in their behalf on 'uly , "#$% before the NLR4 of
4agayan de 2ro 4ity +Rollo, p. !"?,.!re""an#$%&w' The complaint was amended on 5ugust <,
"#$% for respondent 8nion to represent .arrencio 3aputi and "() others against petitioner
corporation and Bello 4asanova 9resident and Aeneral 3anager for unfair labor practice, illegal
dismissal, illegal lockout, etc. +Rollo, p. !"%,.
8nder 5rt. ?) of the Labor 4ode once the statutory re*uirement is met, the 7irector of Labor
Relations has no choice but to call a certification election +5tlas 1ree .orkers 8nion 51.8
9BBL8 Local v. Noriel, "<! B4R5 ?%? H"#$"I@ Kismico ;ndustrial .orkers 5ssociation +K;.5, v.
Noriel, "(" B4R5 ?%# H"#$!I, ;t becomes in the language of the New Labor 4ode J3andatory
for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the
representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the
e=clusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit.J +1ederacion 2brera de la
;ndustria Taba*uera y 2tros Trabajadores de 1ilipinas v. Noriel, ) B4R5 ! H"#)%I@ Fapisanan
Ng 3ga 3anggagawa v. Noriel, )) B4R5 !"! H"#))I,@ more so when there is no e=isting
collective bargaining agreement. +Bamahang 3anggagawa Ng 9acific 3ills, ;nc. v. Noriel, "(!
B4R5 "? H"#$?I,@ and there has not been a certification election in the company for the past
three years +9L83 1ederation of ;ndustrial and 5grarian .orkers v. Noriel, ""# B4R5 ##
H"#$I, as in the instant case.
;t is significant to note that "! employees out of the <? employees of the Belyca 4orporation
have e=pressed their written consent to the certification election or more than a majority of the
rank and file employees and workers@ much more than the re*uired (<E and over and above
the present re*uirement of <E by 0=ecutive 2rder No. """ issued on 7ecember !, "#$< and
applicable only to unorgani:ed establishments under 5rt. ?), of the Labor 4ode, to which the
B0LC45 4orporation belong +5ss. Trade 8nions +5T8, v. Trajano, A.R. No. )?(", 'une <,
"#$$,., 3ore than that, any doubt cast on the authenticity of signatures to the petition for
holding a certification election cannot be a bar to its being granted +1ilipino 3etals 4orp. v. 2ple
"<) B4R5 "" H"#$"I,. 0ven doubts as to the re*uired (<E being met warrant holding of the
certification election +9L83 1ederation of ;ndustrial and 5grarian .orkers v. Noriel, ""# B4R5
## H"#$I,. ;n fact, once the re*uired percentage re*uirement has been reached, the
employees& withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for
certification election will not affect said petition. 2n the contrary, the presumption arises that the
withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, coercion or for a valuable
consideration +La Buerte 4igar and 4igarette 1actory v. 7irector of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, "( B4R5 %)# H"#$(I,. /ence, the subse*uent disaffiliation of the si= +%, employees
from the union will not be counted against or deducted from the previous number who had
signed up for certification elections Kismico ;ndustrial .orkers 5ssociation +K;.5, v. Noriel "("
B4R5 ?%# H"#$!I,.!re""an#$%&w' Bimilarly, until a decision, final in character, has been issued
declaring the strike illegal and the mass dismissal or retrenchment valid, the strikers cannot be
denied participation in the certification election notwithstanding, the vigorous condemnation of
the strike and the fact that the picketing were attended by violence. 8nder the foregoing
circumstances, it does not necessarily follow that the strikers in *uestion are no longer entitled
to participate in the certification election on the theory that they have automatically lost their
jobs. +Barrera v. 4;R, "<) B4R5 ?#% H"#$"I,. 1or obvious reasons, the duty of the employer to
bargain collectively is nullified if the purpose of the dismissal of the union members is to defeat
the union in the consent re*uirement for certification election. +Bamahang 3anggagawa Ng Kia
3are v. Noriel, #$ B4R5 ?<) H"#$<I,. 5s stressed by this 4ourt, the holding of a certification
election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. +Aeorge and 9eter Lines ;nc. v.
5ssociated Labor 8nions +5L8,, "(! B4R5 $ H"#$%I,.
1inally, as a general rule, a certification election is the sole concern of the workers. The only
e=ception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to 5rt.
?# of the Labor 4ode because the latter was re*uested to bargain collectively. But thereafter
the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. The employer becomes merely a
[7]
Labor Law Review
Compilation of Cases
SY 2013-2014
bystander +Trade 8nion of the 9hil. and 5llied Bervices +T895B, v. Trajano, "< B4R5 %!
H"#$(I,.
There is no showing that the instant case falls under the above mentioned e=ception. /owever,
it will be noted that petitioner corporation from the outset has actively participated and
consistently taken the position of adversary in the petition for direct certification as the sole and
e=clusive bargaining representative and>or certification election filed by respondent 5ssociated
Labor 8nions +5L8,6T849 to the e=tent of filing this petition for certiorari in this 4ourt.
4onsidering that a petition for certification election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of a
non6adversary character to determining the bargaining unit to represent the employees +LKN
9ictures, ;nc. v. 9hilippine 3usicians Auild, supra@ Bulakena Restaurant L 4aterer v. 4ourt of
;ndustrial Relations, !? B4R5 $$ H"#)I@ Aeorge 9eter Lines, ;nc. v. 5ssociated Labor 8nion,
"(! B4R5 $ H"#$%I@ Tanduay 7istillery Labor 8nion v. NLR4, "!# B4R5 !)< H"#$)I,, and its
only purpose is to give the employees true representation in their collective bargaining with an
employer +4onfederation of 4iti:ens Labor 8nions 44L8 v. Noriel, ""% B4R5 %#! H"#$I,,
there appears to be no reason for the employer&s objection to the formation of subject union,
much less for the filing of the petition for a certification election.
9R03;B0B 42NB;70R07, +a, the petition is 7;B3;BB07 for lack of merit +b, resolution of the
Bureau of Labor Relations dated Nov. !, "#$% is 511;R307@ and the temporary restraining
order issued by the 4ourt on 3arch !, "#$) is L;1T07 permanently.
B2 2R70R07.
1elencio-2errera 3Chairperson45 Padilla5 Sar.iento and -e+alado5 66.5 concur.
[8]