[G.R. No. L-49677. May 4, 1989.

TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
HOUSING CORPORATION and ATTY. VIRGILIO SY, as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of
Labor Relations, respondents.
Facts

National Housing Corporation is a corporation organized in under Executive Order No. 399 of
the Uniform Charter ofGovernment Corporations. Its shares of stock are and have been 100% owned
by the government from its incorporation under Act 459, the former Corporation Law. The government
entities that own its shares of stock are the GSIS, SSS, DBP, the National Investment and Development
Corporation and the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation. On the other hand, Trade Unions of
the Philippines and Allied Services is a legitimate labor organization with a chapter in NHC.

In 1977, TUPAS filed a petition for the conduct of a certification election with DOLE Regional
Office in order to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers in NHC. It was
claimed that its members comprised the majority of the employees of the corporation. The petition was
dismissed by the med-arbiter holding that NHC being a government-owned and/or controlled
corporation its employees/workers are prohibited to form, join or assist any labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to Section 1, Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.

TUPAS appealed to BLR which, in turn, reversed the med-arbiter and ordered a certification
election to be conducted. However, the same was reversed in the MR. Hence, this petition

Issue

May a certification election be conducted among the National Housing Corporation employees?

Law(s) Applicable

The Labor Code and the 1987 Constitution, specifically Paragraph (5), Section 2 , Article IX-B, the
provisions on the Bill of Rights (Article III) and Social Justice and Human Rights (Article XIII)

Case History

• TUPAS filed a petition for the conduct of a certification election.

• Med-Arbiter dismissed petition.
• TUPAS appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations.
• BLR reversed the Med-Arbiter dismissal.
• NHC filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
• BLR, through Respondent Sy, set aside its initial reversal.
• Raising to SC.

Ruling

The workers or employees of NHC undoubtedly have the right to form unions or employees'
organizations. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and granted
to employees in both the governmental and the private sectors. The Bill of Rights provides that "(t)he
right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged." This guarantee is
reiterated in the second paragraph of Section 3, Article XIII, on Social Justice and Human Rights,
which mandates that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. . . ."
Specifically with respect to government employees, the right to unionize is recognized in
Paragraph (5), Section 2, Article IX B which provides that "(t)he right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees.”
The Petition is Granted, the assailed decision Annulled and Set Aside.

Opinion

It would seem, at first glance, that this case is a no-brainer considering the fact that the very
Constitution itself has very salient provisions concerning the matter. Art. IX-B is very much clear on
the matter. This should not have even been raised up to the Supreme Court. In my humble opnion, this
case, as important as it is to those who study the law, seems like a waste of resources for both parties,
especially the losing side.
 [G.R. No. 96189. July 14, 1992.]

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA,

Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment, and THE ALL U.P.
WORKERS' UNION, represented by its President, Rosario del Rosario, respondents.

Facts

The University of the Philippines seeks the nullification of the Order of the Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations holding that professors of UP are rank-and-file employees and that,
consequently, they should be represented by only one labor organization together with the so-called
non-academic employees.

Issue(s)

Are professors, associate professors and assistant professors “high level” or rank-and-file employees?
Should professors and other employees performing academic functions comprise a bargaining unit
distinct from that of non-academic employees?

Law(s) Applicable

The Charter of the University of the Philippines (Act 1870), The Labor Code and Guidelines For The
Exercise Of The Right To Organize Of Government Employees (Executive Order 180)

Case History

• ONAPUP (Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP) filed petition with the Bureau of
Labor Relations
• All UP Workes' Union filed a comment
• UP, through General Counsel, commented that there should be two unions
• Calleja declared that there should be no distinction
• UP filed a Manifestation seeking the exclusion from the organizational unit of those employees
holding supervisory positions among non-academic personnel, and those in teaching staff with
the rank of Assistant Professor or higher
• ONAPUP did not oppose UP's proffered classification
• AUWU opposed UP's view
• Calleja classified teachers as rank-and-file employees
• UP raised issue to SC

Ruling

In light of Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules, as well as the University's
charter and relevant regulations, the professors, associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter
simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as exercising such managerial or highly
confidential functions as would justify their being categorized as "high-level employees" of the
institution.
 The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the rank-and-file non-
academic personnel, and the second, of the rank-and-file academic employees, is the set-up that will
best assure to all the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
The Court modified the assailed decision. It allowed two distinct unions.

Opinion

While most of the time I would agree with the wisdom of the Supreme Court, like their decision
to allow tow distinct unions for academic and non-academic employees, I believe that in this instance,
they are mistaken in declaring academic positions such as professors as rank-and-file employees. Rank-
and-file generally means the employee doesn't occupy a high-level position within the organization.
However, professors, especially full professors, do occupy high-level positions in the University and to
classify them as mere rank-and-file employees would disrespectful to their office, to say the least.
 [G.R. Nos. L-43633-34. September 14, 1990.]
PABLO ARIZALA, SERGIO MARIBAO, LEONARDO JOVEN, and FELINO BULANDUS,
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

Facts

The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under Republic Act 875 or the Industrial
Peace Act became bound by a collective bargaining agreement with the labor organization which
represents the majority of the GSIS employees.
The Industrial Peace Act prohibited supervisors to become or continue to be members of labor
organizations composed of rank-and-file employees and prescribes criminal sanctions for breach of
prohibition.
Demands were made on the petitioners to resign from the GSIS Employees Association, in view
of their supervisory positions. They refused to do so. Consequently, two (2) criminal cases for violation
of the Industrial Peace Act were lodged against them.
Issue

Is the criminal liability of the petitioners for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act deemed to have
been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation?

Law Applicable

The Labor Code, RA 875 and the Guidelines For The Exercise Of The Right To Organize Of
Government Employees (Executive Order 180)

Case History

• Call for resignation of petitioners

• Filing of criminal complaints against petitioners
• Accused-petitioners convicted and sentenced
• Petitioners appeal to CA
• CA affirmed convictions
• Petitioners moved for reconsideration
• CA denied their plea for reconsideration
• Petitioners raise issue to SC

Ruling

The decisive consideration is that at present, supervisors who were already members of a rank-
and-file labor organization at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715, are authorized to "remain
therein." It seems plain, in other words, that the maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-
and-file labor organization even after the enactment of a statute imposing a prohibition on such
membership, is not only not a crime, but is explicitly allowed, under present law
The Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused-appellants.
 Opinion

Initially, one would think, upon first reading of the texts of the case, that the conviction of the
petitioners were warranted. However, as with all good decisions, there are those small loopholes that
seem to be the keystone to the whole case. In the case at bar, the fact that RA 6715 authorized
supervisors who were members of existing labor organizations to “remain therein” entirely changes the
situation and acquits four falsely-convicted persons.