DIOKNO v CACDAC

GR NO 168475
JULY 4, 2007
FLAMES is the legit supervisory union of MERALCO. The FLAMES executive board created the
COMELEC for its union elections. Petitioners Diokno, et al filed a petition before the COMELEC
seeking the disqualification (dq) of respondents Daya, et al alleging that Daya, et al allowed
themselves to be assisted by non-union members and committed acts of disloyalty against
FLAMES. That they colluded with MESALA and MEMABA during their campaign and exerted
undue influence on the members of FLAMES. The COMELEC dqed Daya, et al to run in the
FLAMES elections. According to COMELEC, they violated Art IV Sec 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES
consti and by-laws. Daya, et al went to appeal the decision to the Med-Arbiter. Med-Arbiter in
favour of Daya, et al - the provision in the consti relied upon by COMELEC refers to the
dismissal/expulsion of a member of FLAMES and not to dq of candidates in elections.
COMELEC cannot dq a candidate on the same grounds for expulsion of members. BLR affirmed Med-Arbiters decision. CA - upheld MA and BLR.
Diokno, et al argues that the BLR has no jurisdiction to take the case because it is an intra-union
dispute, that Daya, et al failed to exhaust administrative remedies within FLAMES and went
directly to BLR.
ISSUE: Whether BLR has jurisdiction over the case involving intra-union dispute.
RULING: Yes. Art 226 (now 232) of the LC provides that The Bureau of Labor Relations and the
Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original
and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties,
on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising
from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective
bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary
arbitration. Intra-union disputes are those conflicts between and among union members or
those conflicts within or inside a labor union.
The case at bar involves an intra-union dispute. The petition filed by Daya, et al before the BLR
was properly within its cognizance, it being an intra-union dispute. The lower courts correctly
applied the exception to the rule of exhaustion of admin remedies - there was a violation of due
process. Daya, et al were prejudiced by the dq order of COMELEC. They sought MR but
COMELEC did not act on it. COMELEC also refused to receive their written protest, hence they
were deprived of due process. It becomes incumbent upon them to seek BLRs aid.

EMPLOYEES UNION v BAYER

GR NO 162943
DECEMBER 6, 2010
Petitioner EUBP is the the exclusive bargaining agent of the RnF EEs of Bayer and has an
existing CBA with the latter.. EUBP rejected the 9.9% wage increase proposal. They went on a
strike. Respondent Remegios and others who are members of EUBP, however, accepted Bayers
proposal. Subsequently, the group of Remegios broke away from EUBP and formed another
group, the REUBP. Bayer responded by deciding not to deal with the two groups and placed the
collected union dues into a trust account. FRIST ULP CASE: EUBP filed ULP against Bayer and
Remegios before NLRC - dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the failure of remittance if
union dues was due to intra-union dispute. EUBP did not appeal. SECOND ULP CASE: against
Bayer and Remegion before the NLRC for gross violation of CBA and Bayers duty to bargain.
During the pendency, Bayer agreed to sign a new CBA with REUBP (Remegios gruoup). LA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the case involves intra-union dispute, NLRC has no
jurisdiction. NLRC- dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; intra-union dispute. CA - upheld LAs and
NLRCs decision. CAs ratio: At first glance of the case at bar, it involves purely an (sic) interunion and intra-union conflicts or disputes between EUBP-FFW and REUBP which issue should
have been resolved by the Bureau of Labor Relations under Article 226 of the Labor Code.
However, since no less than petitioners who admitted that respondents committed gross
violations of the CBA, then the BLR is divested of jurisdiction over the case and the issue should
have been referred to the Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitrator and not to the Labor
Arbiter as what petitioners did in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Was the dismissal of the ULP case proper?
RULING: Partly. As for respondent Remegio, the dismissal of the case was proper. It is clear
from the foregoing that the issues raised by petitioners do not fall under any of the
aforementioned circumstances constituting an intra-union dispute (see Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI
of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003). More importantly, the petitioners do not seek a
determination of whether it is the Facundo group (EUBP) or the Remigio group (REUBP) which
is the true set of union officers. Instead, the issue raised pertained only to the validity of the acts
of management in light of the fact that it still has an existing CBA with EUBP.
As for Bayer, the dismissal was erroneous. An employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had previously contracted with,
and decide to bargain anew with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for doing so
and without first following the proper procedure. When an employer proceeds to negotiate with
a splinter union despite the existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive
bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and terminates
the entire CBA.

Bayer cannot claim good faith to justify their acts. They knew that Facundos group represented
the duly-elected officers of EUBP. Moreover, they were cognizant of the fact that even the DOLE
Secretary himself had recognized the legitimacy of EUBPs mandate by rendering an arbitral
award ordering the signing of the 1997-2001 CBA between Bayer and EUBP. Bayer was likewise
well-aware of the pendency of the intra-union dispute case, yet they still proceeded to turn over
the collected union dues to REUBP and to effusively deal with Remigio. The totality of
respondents conduct, therefore, reeks with anti-EUBP animus.