1. LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED V.
 The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude
KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML-
INDEPENDENT)
2. URTMSEU vs. REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
3. Warren Manufacturing Workers Union v. BLR,
4. UST FACULTY UNION et al v. BITONIO
petition for certification election
 The legitimacy of the legal personality of a labor organization may not be subject to a
collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the
purpose of assailing it.
 In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the union officers that should
best represent them in the forthcoming collective bargaining negotiations should be
achieved through the democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the
true will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined. The workers
must be allowed to freely express their choice once and for all in a determination
where anything is open to their sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and
misrepresentation is minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay
and/or maneuvering.
 From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct process and has
nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Neither does it
shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to
immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers
from exercising their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative
after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period
 that the agreement prematurely signed by the union and the company during the
freedom period does not affect the petition for certification election filed by another
union
 A union election is held pursuant to the union’s constitution and bylaws, and the right
to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A union election should be
distinguished from a certification election, which is the process of determining,
through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining. Specifically, the
purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a majority of the
employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case,
by which particular labor organization.
 In a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit
can vote. Therefore, a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate
bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said election. However, the reverse is not always
true; an employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a
member of the union cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise authorized
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|

5. Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet v. Laguesma
6. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v.
Secretary
7. SAMMA-LIKHA v. SAMMA Corporation
(Is a certificate of non-forum shopping required? )
by the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily, union affairs and elections cannot
be decided in a non-union activity.
 When there is issue as to who shall represent the employees through presence of
more than 1 Union, then it is best to have Certification Election
 In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote.
 A certification election is the process of determining the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining. The significance of an employee’s right to vote in a certification election
cannot thus be overemphasized. The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary
employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right of
workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence.
 The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints, counter-
claims, crossclaims, petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their
respective positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant,
petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a
“petition,” is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding
character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of misconduct
requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an inquisitorial nature. The Board’s functions
are not judicial in nature, but are merely of an investigative character. The object of the
proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs nor asserted
deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of proper bargaining units and
the ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees in respect of the selection
of a bargaining representative. The determination of the proceedings does not entail
the entry of remedial orders to redress rights, but culminates solely in an official
designation of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees’ expressed choice
of bargaining agent.
 The requirement of certificate of non-forum shopping is inapplicable in petitions for
certification election as such proceedings are non-adversarial and fact-finding in
character.
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|
8. Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet v. Laguesma
(Contract bar rule; 60 day freedom period)
9. REN TRANSPORT CORP. vs. NLRC
10. R. Transport Corp. v. Laguesma
One-year/Certification-year bar rule
11. St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang
Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City
QUORUM
12. NUWHRAIN vs. Secretary of Labor
Double majority rule
13. PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND
INVESTIGATION AGENCY (PSVSIA) vs. Torres
Bystander Rule
 The filing of a petition for certification election during the 60-day freedom period gives
rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been
entered into within that period. A petition for certification election is not necessary
where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the bargaining process.
 Under Article 263 in relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is during the freedom
period — or the last 60 days before the expiration of the CBA — when another union
may challenge the majority status of the bargaining agent through the filing of a
petition for a certification election. If there is no such petition filed during the freedom
period, then the employer "shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed."
 The rule provides that no certification election may be held within one year from the
date of issuance of a final certification election result. The phrase “final certification
election result” means that there was an actual conduct of election i.e., ballots were
cast and there was a counting of votes.
 The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an actual conduct
of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of votes.
Basis of quorum
GR: All employees
EXP: When the Constitution and by-laws provides otherwise
 “It is well-settled that under the so-called ‘double majority rule’, for their to be a valid
certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted, and the winning
union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast”.
 “The true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as
basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine which union won
the elections”.
 Except where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively, it has
nothing to do with a certification election which is the sole concern of the workers. Its
role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano,6 as that of a mere by-stander. It has
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|

14. DHL Philippines Corp. vs. Buklod ng Manggagawa
ng DHL Philippines Corp.
Duties of med-arbiter/election officer
15. Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club
Incorporated vs. Tagaytay Highlands Employees
Union-PGTWO
Remedy in case of fraud, misrep, etc.
16. Acoje Workers Union v. NAMAWU
Election Procedure- List of qualified voters
no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal
the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a
certification election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company
union.
 employer has nothing to do with a certification election which is the sole concern of
the workers. Its role in certification election has been described as that of a mere by-
stander
 The election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is limited to
situations in which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not
been perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election
proceedings.
 When a protest has been perfected, only the med-arbiter can proclaim and certify the
winner. Clearly, this rule is based on the election officer’s function, which is merely to
conduct and supervise certification elections.
 It is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and decide representation cases.
Consequently, the decision whether to certify the results of an election or to set them
aside due to incidents occurring during the campaign is within the med- arbiter’s
discretion.
 Relating to this case: When the MED-ARBITER admitted and gave due course to
respondent BUKLOD’s petitioner for nullification of the election proceedings, the
ELECTION OFFICER should have deferred issuing the certification of the results thereof.
 After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation. The inclusion in a union of disqualified EEs is not among the grounds for
cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement, or
fraud. Either way, the proper procedure to assail a labor organization’s juridical
personality is not to intervene in a petition for certification election but to file a
petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration.
 A company payroll may be used as a basis for determining who are qualified to vote in
a certification election especially in a “consent election”, where such matters are
agreed upon by the parties.
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|
17. Yokohama Tire Phils. Vs. Yokohama Employees
Union
election procedure -List of qualified voters
18. SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC
(SAMAHAN) vs. Laguesma
Election procedure; list of qualified voters; in lieu of
list of employment
READ Article 240-249, Book V Omnibus Rules
19. CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION
OF FREE WORKERS, VS. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Registration and Cancellation; Disaffiliation
 An employee who has been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of the
dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order
for the conduct of a certification election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless
his/her dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of
the certification election
 Whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union represents the majority of
the rank and file employees, in the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a
certification election is the most democratic method of determining the employees’
choice of their bargaining representative. Insistence on the application of the Omnibus
Implementing Rules could defeat this policy. Worse, it could facilitate fraud by
employers who can easily suppress the payroll to prevent certification elections from
being held.
 The issue of disaffiliation is an infra-union dispute which must be resolved in a different
forum in an action at the instance of either or both the FFW and the Union or a rival
labor organization, not the employer.
 An infra-union dispute refers to any conflict between; and among union members,
including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of
membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union's
constitution and by- laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the
union.
 A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure and
maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-
members. A local union does not one its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the
will of its members. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its
own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act
independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency where the
former acts in representation of the latter.
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|
20. Philippine Skylanders, Inc., Mariles Romulo, and  The pendency of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the
Francisco Dakila vs. NLRC local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation

Disaffiliation

21. TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES' UNION-CGW  In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing
vs TROPICAL HUT disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever its relationship with its parent

DISAFFILIATION

22. ELISCO-ELIROL LABOR UNION (NAFLU) V NORIEL
Nature of relationship between mother union vis-à-vis
local union
 Petitioner Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, consisting of employees and members of
the local union was the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the "mother union"
in participation in the execution of the bargaining agreement with respondent
company acted merely as agent of the local union, which remained the basic unit of the
association existing principally and freely to serve the common interest of all its
members, including the freedom to disaffiliated when the circumstances so warranted
as in the present case.

23. S.S. Ventures International v. S.S. Ventures Labor  To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible
Union employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation,
false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the
supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-
laws, among other documents.

READ ARTICLE 261-265
24. SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWFLU) v.  An employer (ER) who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its
Universal Robina Corporation (URC) bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP). In determining whether an ER
has not bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the ER at the time of
CBA negotiations must be taken into account.

25. KIOK LOY VS NLRC  Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective
agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code,

LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|

CBA
26. GENERAL MILLING CORP V. CA
Duty to Bargain Collectively
27. SAN PEDRO HOSPITAL OF DIGOS, INC., petitioner,
vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Duty to bargain collectively; during suspension of
operations closure of business
designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a
climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
 Collective bargaining is a mutual obligation of both parties. As it is so important in
labor relations, the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice (“ULP”) for an
employer to refuse “to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement” with respect to labor conditions/standards.
 While the law does not compel the parties to reach an agreement, it does contemplate
that both parties will approach the negotiation with an open mind and make a
reasonable effort to reach an agreement.
 The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to
govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The rule
necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is
guilty of bad faith. However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by
purposely delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is
warranted.
 In such cases, the court consistently held that it would be proper that the draft CBA
proposed would be adopted. Being in bad faith by continuously resorting to delay
tactics and violating its duty to bargain collectively, the Company lost its statutory
right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed
by the union
 Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s
proposals, is a violation of an employer to its duty to bargain collectively, making it
liable for unfair labor practice.
 Temporary suspension of operations is recognized as a valid exercise of management
prerogative provided it is not carried out in order to circumvent the provisions of the
Labor Code or to defeat the rights of the employees under the Code. The determination
to case or suspend operations is a prerogative of management that the State usually
does not interfere with, as no business can be required to continue operating at a loss
simply to maintain the workers in employment. Such an act would be tantamount to a
taking of property without due process of law, which the employer has a right to
resist. But where it is shown that the closure is motivated not by a desire to prevent
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|

28. Sundowner Development Corp. v. Drilon
Duty to bargain of successor employer/absorption
(accretion) doctrine
29. Rivera v. Espiritu
Collective Bargaining Agreement ; Suspension of
Negotiations
further losses, but to discourage the workers from organizing themselves into a union for
more effective negotiation with management, the State is bound to intervene.
 If a legitimate, valid and legal suspension of operations does not terminate but merely
suspends the employee-employer relationship, with more reason will an invalid and
illegal suspension of operations, as in this case, not affect the employment
relationship.

 Labor contracts, employment contracts, cba’s unless expressly assumed, are not
enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise. It is in personam, hence it is binding
only between the parties. It does not create any real right bound to third parties. This
conclusion draws its force from the right of an employer to select his employees and
to decide when to engage them as protected under our Constitution, and the same
can only be restricted by law through the exercise of the police power.
 As a general rule, there is no law requiring a bona fide purchaser of assets of an on-
going concern to absorb in its employ the employees of the latter.
 However, although the purchaser of the assets or enterprise is not legally bound to
absorb in its employ the employers of the seller of such assets or enterprise, the
parties are liable to the employees if the transaction between the parties is colored or
clothed with bad faith.
 The assailed PAL-PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation faced by the
employer, with the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial
peace at PAL, but preventing the latter’s closure. We find no conflict between said
agreement and Art. 253-A of the Labor Code. Art. 253-A has a 2-fold purpose. One is to
promote industrial stability and predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to
promote industrial peace at PAL during its rehabilitation, said agreement satisfies the
first purpose of Art. 253-A. The other is to assign specific timetables wherein
negotiations become a matter of right and requirement. Nothing in Art. 253-A,
prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and
agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same.
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|
  In the instant case, it was PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent of PAL’s ground
employees, that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It was also PALEA that
voluntarily opted for the 10-year suspension of the CBA. Either case was the union’s
exercise of its right to collective bargaining. The right to free collective bargaining,
after all, includes the right to suspend it.

30. SMC-UNION v. CONFESOR  Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. All other provisions of
CBA; Terms the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years
after its execution. “All other provisions” simply refers to the rest of the CBA,
economic as well as non- economic provisions, except representation.

31. LMG Chemicals Corp. v. Secretary of Labor  In the absence of the specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the
effectivity of the arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article
Retroactivity of CBA 263(g) of the Labor Code, Secretary of Labor is deemed vested with plenary powers to
determine the effectivity thereof.

32. MERALCO v. Quisumbing  The hold-over principle is the rule that although a CBA has expired, it continues to have
legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has been entered into.
CBA; Hold Over Principle

33. FVC-Labor Union-PTGWO v. SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO
Exclusivity of Bargaining Status
 While the parties may agree to extend the CBA’s original five-year term together with
all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not
carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive collective bargaining status. By express
provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go
beyond five years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace
parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of
more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining
unions exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged
within 60 days prior to the expiration of the CBA’s first five years.

34. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. BCI Employees and
Workers’ Union,
CONTRACT BAR RULE; FREEDOM PERIOD;
SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE
 The Doctrine of Substitution occurs when there occurs a shift in employees’ union
allegiance after the execution of a bargaining contract with their employer. Even
during the effectivity of the CBA executed between the ER and EEs thru their agent,
the EEs can change said agent, BUT the contract continued to bind them up to its
expiration date. They may bargain however for the shortening of said expiration date.

LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|


35. Capital Medical Center Alliance of Concerned
Employees vs Laguesma
DEADLOCK
36. Caltex Refinery Employees Association v.
Brillantes
DEADLOCK
37. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs. PEPANIO
Automatic Incorporation Clause
 the "substitutionary" doctrine cannot be invoked to support the contention that a
newly certified collective bargaining agent automatically assumes all the personal
undertakings.
 Divine Word University of Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment:
A "deadlock" is . . . the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage; . . . . There
is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action
of equal and opposed forces . . . . The word is synonymous with the word impasse,
which . . "presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite noble
intentions, does not conclude in agreement between the parties."
 It should be understood that bargaining is not equivalent to an adversarial litigation
where rights and obligations are delineated and remedies applied. It is simply a
process of finding a reasonable solution to a conflict and harmonizing opposite
positions into a fair and reasonable compromise. When parties agree to submit
unresolved issues to the secretary of labor for his resolution, they should not expect
their positions to be adopted in toto. It is understood that they defer to his wisdom
and objectivity in insuring industrial peace. And unless they can clearly demonstrate
bias, arbitrariness, capriciousness or personal hostility on the part of such public
officer, the Court will not interfere or substitute the said officer’s judgment with its
own.
 In this case, it is possible that this Court, or some its members at least, may even agree
with the wisdom of petitioner’s claims. But unless grave abuse of discretion is cogently
shown, this Court will refrain from using its extraordinary power of certiorari to strike
down decisions and orders of quasi-judicial officers specially tasked by law to settle
administrative questions and disputes. This is particularly true in the resolution of
controversies in collective bargaining agreements where the question is rarely one of
legal right or wrong—nay, of black and white—but one of wisdom, cogency and
compromise as to what is possible, fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
 As the Court held in Escorpizo v. University of Baguio (1999), a school CBA must be read in
conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty
qualifications. Such regulations form part of a valid CBA without need for the parties to
make express reference to it. While the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions, as they may see fit, the right to contract is still
subject to the limitation that the agreement must not be contrary to law or public policy.
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|
LABOR2: ATTY. NOLASCO | Memorize this shiz! :| :| :|