Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v.

CA, Tamondong is a supervisory

Facts: employee.
1. CAPASCO hired Tamondong as a. Supervisory employees are
Assistant to the Personnel Manager those who effectively
of its Cainta plant and was later recommend such managerial
promoted to actions, if the exercise of such
Personnel/Administrative Officer, authority is not merely
and later to that of Personnel routinary or clerical in nature
Superintendent. but requires the use of
a. The supervisory personnel of independent judgment.
CAPASCO later formed a union b. Hence, the Labor Code
known as CUSE. provisions regarding
b. Tamondong joined and was later disqualification of a managerial
elected as an officer. employee from joining,
2. CAPASCO sent a memo to him assisting or forming any labor
requiring him to discontinue his organization does not apply to
activities in the union. s Tamondong. 
a. However, Tamondong did not
listen and was later terminated. DOCTRINE: Tamondong being a
3. CAPASCO contended that supervisory employee of CAPASCO,
a. Tamondong is considered as a he cannot be prohibited from joining
managerial employee and or participating in the union
b. being such, he is not eligible to activities of CUSE. 
participate in union activities of
CUSE. De La Salle University Medical
c. Thus, Tamondong was validly Center v. Laguesma,
dismissed because the nature of FACTS:
his position and functions as 1. SUPERVISORS’ UNION was
Personnel Superintendent issued a charter certificate by
prevented him to join a labor NATIONAL FEDERATION which
union due to conflict of interest. also represents the RANK -
ISSUE: WoN Tamondong is a AND - FILE EMPLOYEES’
managerial employee and therefore UNION of EMPLOYER.
not eligible to participate in union 2. EMPLOYER opposed the
activities? petition for certification
election saying that there is
RRULING: co - mingling.
1. The SC ruled that he is not a 3. The Med - Arbiter and the
managerial employee. SOLE found for the union.
a. Tamondong was not at liberty Hence, this petition.
to lay down and execute major ISSUE: whether the SUPERVISORS’
business and operational UNION may validly affiliate with the
policies for and in behalf of NATIONAL FEDERATION also
CAPASCO. affiliated with THE RANK - AND - FILE
b. He does not have the power to EMPLOYEES’ UNION.
hire, transfer, terminate, or RULING: The Court held in the
discipline erring employees of affirmative.
the company.

1
 1. There is conflict in interest in 3. Pepsi filed a petition to cancel
a national federation the charter affiliation because
affiliating with the the member of the union were
supervisors’ union and the managers and supervisors'
rank - and - file employees’ union cannot affiliate with a
union of the same company federation whose members
when the following requisites include the rank and file union
concur: of the same company.
a. The rank - and - file 4. Med-Arbiter issued an order to
employees are directly conduct the Certification
under the authority of Election.
supervisory employees; 5. Included in the list of
AND,  supervisory employees were
b. The national federation confidential employees such
is actively involved in as the Credit & Collection
union activities in the Manager and the Accounting
company  Manager.
2. Here, EMPLOYER has not 6. Company filed an appeal with
presented any evidence the Secretary of Labor but the
showing that the rank - and - call of certificate election is
file employees composing the sustained. Petition for
other union are directly under certiorari was filed before the
the authority of the SC.
supervisory employees.  Issue: W/N confidential
employees can join the labor
DOCTRINE: The fact that the two union of the rank and file? NO.
groups of workers are employed by Ruling:
the same company and the fact that 1. Under the doctrine of
they are affiliated with a common necessary implication,
national federation are not sufficient confidential employees are
to justify the conclusion that their ineligible to join, assist or
organizations are actually just one. form any labor organization as
Their immediate professional provided in the Labor Code.
relationship must be established.  2. If these [confidential]
employees would belong to or
Pepsi Cola Products v. Secretary of be affiliated with a Union, the
Labor latter might not be assured of
FACTS: their loyalty to the Union in
1. Union A filed a petition for view of evident conflict of
certification election with the interests.
Med - Arbiter seeking to be a. Collective bargaining in
the exclusive bargaining such a situation can
agent of supervisors of Pepsi - become one - sided.
Cola Philippines, Inc. b. If confidential
2. Union A was affiliated with a employees could
federation together with 2 unionize in order to
rank-and-file unions. bargain for advantages
for themselves, then

2
 they could be governed themselves, then they could be
by their own motives governed by their own motives
rather than the interest rather than the interest of the
of the employers. employers. They may become the
c. They may become the source of undue advantage. Said
source of undue employees may act as spy or spies
advantage. of either party to a collective
d. Said employees may bargaining agreement. 
act as spy or spies of
either party to a San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors
collective bargaining and Exempt Union
agreement. FACTS:
3. However, the mere fact that 1. Pursuant to the Court's
an employee is designated decision in SMCS & EU v.
manager does not necessarily Laguesma , DOLE - NCR
make him one. conducted pre - election
a. What is essential is the conferences where
nature of the discrepancies as to the list of
employee's function eligible voters arose.
and not the 2. On the date of certification
nomenclature or title election, 76 ballots were
given to the job which segregated.
determines whether the 3. SMF challenged the eligibility
employee has rank and to vote of some employees on
file or managerial the grounds that
status, or whether he is a. some are confidential
a supervisory employees,
employee. b. some are employees
b. Designation should be engaged in live chicken
reconciled with the operations and/or work
actual job description of in a different plant
subject employees. inconsistent with the
c. They are not ruling in SMCS & EU v.
managerial employees Laguesma , which is
if they do not have final limited to dressed
determination of the chicken processing in
company policies Poultry plants in
because they have to Cabuyao, San
report to their Fernando, and Otis.
respective superior.  Issues:
WON the expansion of the
DOCTRINE: bargaining unit to include employees
Confidential employees are excluded that don’t belong to the same line of
from joining labor organization under work and are based in a different
the doctrine of necessary location
implication. If confidential WON the position of payroll master
employees could unionize in order to should be regarded as a confidential
bargain for advantages for

3
position and as such be excluded 2. The union filed for a
from the unit certification election with the
Ruling: DOLE.
1. Court ruled that certain 3. San Miguel Corporation
factors, such as specific line of (corporation) opposed on the
work, working conditions, grounds that:
location of work, mode of a. the union included
compensation, and other confidential employees,
relevant conditions do not ineligible to form or join
affect or impede their a union; and
commonality of interest. b. the 3 plants should not
2. As to the exclusion, Court be considered a single
ruled that the position of bargaining unit.
Payroll Master does not 4. The DOLE held that these
involve dealing with employees are confidential
confidential labor relations employees who, like
information in the course of managerial employees, are
the performance of his ineligible to form or join a
functions, thus, it is not a union. The DOLE also ordered
confidential position that a separate certification
warrants exclusion.  election for each plants. 
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE:  1) WN the supervisory employees
Confidential employees are defined are considered employees ineligible
as those who from joining a union. NO
(1) assist or act in a confidential 2) WN the three plants constitute an
capacity, in regard (2) to persons ap propriate single bargaining unit.
who formulate, determine, and YES 
effectuate management policies in
the field of labor relations. HELD:
The two criteria are cumulative, and 1. Under the confidential
both must be met if an employee is employee rule, confidential
to be considered a confidential employees, like managerial
employee.  employees, who have access
to confidential matters on
San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and labor relations are ineligible to
Exempt Union v. Laguesma, form, assist or join a labor
FACTS: union due to the conflict of
1. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors interest presented by their
and Exempt Employees Union nature of their functions.
represent the supervisory and a. For this prohibition to
exempt employees of the San apply, these employees
Miguel Corporation Magnolia must have access to
Poultry Division in 3 different confidential labor
plants: Cabuyao, San relations information.
Fernando, and Otis. b. In this case, the
employees only have
access to matters on

4
 technical and internal resources should be made
operations. part of the bargaining unit and
c. Therefore, they are not hence be removed from the
prohibited in joining or list of exclusions.
forming a union.  3. The Secretary of Labor and CA
2. The requirement to form a ruled against the union by
single bargaining unit is the saying that bank cashiers,
mutuality of interest. radio and telegraph operators,
a. Geographic location and personnel from human
may be waived in favor resources are confidential
of the community of employees and hence should
interest. remain as part of those who
b. In this case, the shall be ineligible to join,
employees are workers form, and assist any labor
of SMC Magnolia organizations.
Products Packaging Issue: WoN CA erred in saying
Division, who work that the union is bereft of any
under the same terms basis for revising the scope of
and conditions. exclusions?
c. Therefore, they can RULING:
form a single 1. The Supreme Court ruled that
bargaining unit.  the CA was correct in saying
that the bank cashiers, radio
DOCTRINE: Confidential Employee and telegraph operators and
Rule – Confidential employees, by personnel from HR are
the very nature of t heir functions, confidential employees.
assist and act in a confidential 2. The Union failed to support its
capacity to, or have access to claim that they are not
confidential matters of , persons confidential employees.
who exercised managerial functions 3. Furthermore, the union did
in the field of labor relations are not even bother to provide for
ineligible to form, assist or join a the nature of the duties of the
labor union. said employees and that they
have mutuality of interest
Standard Chartered Bank Employees with rank and file employees.
Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard 4. Therefore, the bank cashiers,
Chartered Bank, radio and telegraph operators
FACTS: and HR staff should be
1. A bargaining deadlock excluded from the bargaining
occurred between the union unit. 
and Standard Chartered bank
as regards who shall be DOCTRINE :
excluded from the bargaining ON BANK CASHIERS:
unit of the company. 1. National Association of Trade
2. The Union claims that the Unions (NATU) Republic
bank cashiers, radio and Planters Bank Supervisors
telegraph operators, and Chapter v. Torres declared
personnel from the human that they are confidential

5
 employees having control, Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng
custody and/or access to Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia
confidential matters, Brewery,
a. the branch's cash FACTS:
position, statements of 1. Asia Brewery entered into a
financial condition, CBA with Bisig at Lakas ng
vault combination, cash mga Manggagawa sa Asia -
codes for telegraphic Independent (BLMA -
transfers, demand Independent) effective for 5
drafts and other years (1997 - 2002).
negotiable instruments, 2. In 2000, they entered into a
pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 renegotiated CBA wherein
of the Central Bank several classes of employees
Manual regarding joint were excluded from the
custody, and bargaining unit.
b. therefore disqualified 3. ABI then stopped deducting
from joining or assisting union dues from 81
a union; or joining, employees, believing that
assisting or forming any their membership with BLMA -
other labor Independent violated the CBA.
organization.  4. After failing to amicably
settle, BLMA - Independent
ON RADIO AND TELEGRAPH lodged a complaint with the
OPERATORS: National Conciliation and
In Golden Farms v. Ferrer - Calleja, Mediation Board arguing that
radio and telegraph operators who, some of the confidential and
having access to confidential executive secretaries and
informati on, may become the purchasing and quality control
source of undue advantage. Said staff are rank-and-file
employee(s) may act as spy or spies employees.
of either party to a collective 5. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled
bargaining agreement.  in favor of BLMA -
ON HUMAN RESOURCE STAFF: Independent.
in Philips Industrial Development, 6. On appeal the CA reversed
Inc. v. National Labor Relations the decision.
Commission, the Court designated 7. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng
personnel staff, in which human Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery
resources staff may be qualified, as then won the election as the
confidential employees because by bargaining representative in
the very nature of their functions, 2002.
they assist and act in a confidential 8. It filed an omnibus motion for
capacity to, or have access to MR and intervention with the
confidential matters of, persons who CA. Both MRs of BLMA -
exercise managerial functions in the Independent and TPMA were
field of labor relations. denied. 
ISSUE: WoN the subject employees
were rightfully excluded from the
bargaining unit. 

6
Ruling: be assured of their loyalty in view of
1. Jurisprudence provides that evident conflict of interests and the
confidential employees are Union can also become company
thus excluded from the rank -
and - file bargaining unit. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE,
2. In this case, the Supreme FACTS:
Court held that a perusal of 1. The rank and file union and
the job descriptions of the the supervisory union filed
secretaries/clerks reveals that separate petitions for
their assigned duties and certification election insisting
responsibilities involve routine that they are legitimate
activities of recording and because ALU and APSOTEU
monitoring, and other paper have issued them certificates
works for their respective of charter respectively.
departments while secretarial 2. However, Coastal Subic Bay
tasks such as receiving opposed alleging that the said
telephone calls and filing of unions are not legitimate
office correspondence appear labor organizations. 
to have been commonly 3. The Med - Arbiter ruled that
imposed as additional duties. ALU and APO STEU are one
3. ABI failed to indicate who and the same federation
among these numerous having a common set of
secretaries/clerks have access officers thus the two unions
to confidential data relating to were in fact affiliated with
management policies. only one federation.
4. Therefore, the rationale for 4. DOLE Secretary reversed as
the exclusion of executive both unions have separate
secretaries or division legal personalities.
secretaries would have little 5. Coastal Bay contends further
or no significance. that APOSTEU is not properly
5. Furthermore, no evidence to registered as it secured
prove that the daily-paid registration from DOLE
checkers who form part of the Regional Director (not BLR)
company’s Quality Control thus the supervisory union
Staff were exposed to cannot attain the status of a
sensitive, vital and legitimate labor organization. 
confidential information.  ISSUE: 1) Is APOSTEU properly
registered?
DOCTRINE:  (2) Is there commingling between
Confidential employees are thus ALU and APOSTEU?
excluded from the rank - and - file (1) YES (2) YES there is
bargaining unit. Defined as those commingling 
who (1) assist or act in a confidential RULING:
capacity, (2) to persons who 1. APOSTEU did not improperly
formulate, determine, and effectuate secure registration from DOLE
management policies in the field of Regional Director as DO 40 -
labor relations. If allowed to affiliate 03 provides that “applications
with the Union, the latter might not for registration of labor

7
 organizations shall be filed the federation is the agent and the
either with the Regional Office local union is the principal.
or with the BLR”.
2. Being legitimate, they have Heritage Hotel v. Secretary
the authority to issue a local FACTS:
charter certificate to the 1. Respondent Union filed a
supervisory union. petition for certification
3. As to the issue of election in 1995, seeking to
commingling between ALU represent the supervisory
and APOSTEU, both employees of Petitioner
federations have a common company.
set of officers and actively 2. Petitioner company filed its
participate in each other’s opposition, but it was denied
affairs giving rise to possible as an order for the conduct of
conflict of interest. the certification election was
4. As long as they are affiliated issued by the Med - Arbiter.
with each other, the unions do 3. Petitioner company filed for
not meet the criteria to attain the cancellation of
the status of legitimate labor Respondent Union’s
organizations and cannot registration, for failure to
separately petition for submit financial reports and
certification election.  an updated list of members.
4. Petitioner company also
DOCTRINE: Does the federation moved to dismiss/suspend the
always actively participate in an certification proceedings
enterprise level? NO. The prohibition pending the petition for
applies to supervisor’s union cancellation of registration. 
applying for membership in a 5. DOLE still scheduled the
national federation the members of certification elections, which
which include local unions of rank prompted petitioner company
and file employees. to file a special civil action for
For said prohibition to apply, it is not certiorari in the CA, which
enough that the supervisory union dismissed the same for failure
and rank and file union are affiliated to exhaust a dministrative
with a single federation. The remedies.
supervisors must have direct 6. The certification election was
authority over the rank and file held, and petitioner brought
employees.  the issue up to the DOLE once
more, where Med - Arbiter
A chartered local union acquires Falconitin ruled that the
legal personality once issued a petition for cancellation for
charter certificate by a duly union registration shall not
registered national union or bar the holding of the
federation. A local union does not certification election, and
owe its existence to the federation it consequently dismissed the
is affiliated with as this only gives petition for cancellation.
rise to a contract of agency whereby 7. Unsatisfied, petitioner
company appealed to the

8
 DOLE Secretary, which denied labor organization of staff and
the same; and to the CA, via technical employees of ME
petition for certiorari, which RALCO, filed a petition for
also dismissed the same.  certification election, seeking
ISSUE: WON mixed membership is to represent regular
allowed in this case employees of MERALCO who
WON there was failure to comply are:
with reportorial requirements in the a. non - managerial
SC employees with Pay
RULING: Grades VII and above;
1. In the Tagaytay Highlands b. non - managerial
case, where mixed employees in the Patrol
membership has no bearing Division, Treasury
on the legitimacy of a Security Services
registered labor organization, Section, Secretaries
a. unless it was due to who are automatically
misrepresentation, false removed from the
statement, or fraud, bargaining unit; and
either in the ratification c. employees within the
or adoption of the rank and file unit who
constitution & by laws, are automatically
or in the election of disqualified from
union officers. becoming union
2. The SC also ruled that members of any
reportorial requirements will organization within the
no longer work to cancel the same bargaining unit.
certificate of registration of a 2. MERALCO moved for the
union, but will only give rise to dismissal of the petition on
administrative sanctions on the following grounds:
union officers or members.  a. The employees sought
DOCTRINE: Mixed membership has to be represented by
no bearing on the legitimacy of a petitioner are either
registered labor org, unless it was i. managerial who are
due to misrepresentation, false prohibited by law from
statement, or fraud.  forming or joining
It is the actual functions of an supervisory union;
employee, and not his job title, ii. security services
which determines whether or not he personnel who are
occupies a managerial, confidential, prohibited from joining
supervisory, or rank & file position. or assisting the rank -
and - file union;
Manila Electric Company v. iii. secretaries who do not
Secretary of Labor and Employment consent to the
FACTS: petitioner's
1. On November 22, 1988, the representation and
Staff and Technical Employees whom petitioner
Association of MERALCO cannot represent; and
(hereafter "STEAM - PCWF") a

9
 iv. rank - and - file supervisory unio n at
employees MERALCO."
represented by the 6. The Secretary of Labor
certified or duly affirmed with modification,
recognized bargaining the assailed order of the Med -
representative of the Arbiter.
only rank - and - file ISSUE: whether another
bargaining unit in the bargaining unit can be
company, the Meralco established independently from
Employees Workers the existing rank and file
Association (MEWA), in bargaining unit? YES.
accordance with the Ruling:
existing Collective 1. Pursuant to the Department of
Bargaining Agreement Labor's goal of strengthening
with the latter. the constitutional right of
3. The Med - Arbiter ruled that workers to self - organization,
having been excluded from RA 6715 was subsequently
the existing Collective passed which reorganized the
Bargaining Agreement for employee - ranks by including
rank and file employees, a third group, or the
these employees have the supervisory employees, and
right to form a union of their laying down the distinction
own, except those employees between supervisory
performing managerial employees and those of
functions. managerial ranks in Art. 212,
4. MERALCO appealed, renumbered par. [m],
contending that "until such depending on whether the
time that a judicial finding is employee concerned has the
made to the effect that they power to lay down and
are not managerial employee, execute management policies,
STEAMPCWF cannot represent in the case of managerial
employees from Pay Grades employees, or merely to
VII and above. recommend them, in case of
5. With the enactment of RA supervisory employees.
6715 and the rules and 2. The second issue in this case
regulations implementing the is whether security guards are
same, STEAM - PCWF prohibited from joining labor
renounced its representation unions? NO.
of the employees in Patrol 3. The implementing rules of RA
Division, Treasury Security 6715, insofar as they
Services Section and rank - disqualify security guards
and - file employees in Pay from joining a rank and file
Grades I - VI. FLAMES filed a organization are null and void,
similar petition seeking to for being not germane to the
represent those employees object and purposes of EO 111
with Pay Grades VII to XIV, and RA 6715 upon which such
since "there is no other rules purportedly derive
statutory moorings 

10
DOCTRINE:  rank and file employees of
Pursuant to the Department of BENECO.
Labor's goal of strengthening a. That no certification
the constitutional right of election has been
workers to self - organization, conducted for the last
RA 6715 was subsequently 12 months;
passed which reorganized the b. that there is no existing
employee - ranks by including a collective bargaining
third group, or the supervisory representative of the
employees, and laying down the rank and file employees
distinction between supervisory sought to be
emplo yees and those of represented by BWLU -
managerial ranks in Art. 212, ADLO; and,
renumbered par. [m], depending c. that there is no
on whether the employee concerned collective bargaining
has the power to lay down and agreement in the
execute management policies , cooperative.
in the case of managerial 2. BELU opposed, contending it
employees , or merely to was certified as SEBR by an
recommend them , in case of order of med - arbiter in 1980.
supervi sory employees .  a. That pending resolution
by the National Labor
Pres. Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O Relations Commission
No. 111 which eliminated the above are two cases it filed
- cited provision on the against BENECO
disqualification of security guards. involving bargaining
What was retained was the deadlock and unfair
disqualification of managerial labor practice; and,
employees. With the elimination, b. that the pendency of
security guards were thus free these cases bars any
to join a rank and file representation
organization. Further, the present question. BENECO filed
Congress passed RA 6715 Section 18 MTD.
thereof amended Art. 245. The 3. Med - arbiter gave due course
second sentence of Art. 245 to certification election
embodies an amendment and limited the election
disqualifying supervisory among the rank and file
employees from membership in a employees of petitioner who
labor organization of the rank - and - are non - members thereof
file employees.  and without any involvement
in the actual ownership of the
Benguet Electric Cooperative v. cooperative.
Ferrer-Calleja, 4. Only 37 were not members
FACTS: and without actual ownership.
1. BWLU - ALDO filed a petition 5. BELU and BENECO appealed
for direct certification as sole from order. Certification
and exclusive bargaining election was still held and
representative(SEBR) of all BENECO filed protest.

11
 6. Med - arbiter dismissed cooperative, all members
protest, DLR Calleja affirmed thereof cannot form, assist or
BELU as SEBA. join a labor organization for
ISSUE: W/N director GAD in affirming the purpose of collective
BELU as SEBR. YES, bargaining. 
Ruling:
1. Issue of whether or not DOCTRINE: Court had stated that
employees of a cooperative the right to collective bargaining is
are qualified to form or join a not available to an employee of a
labor organization for cooperative who at the same time is
purposes of collective a member and co - owner thereof.
bargaining had already been With respect, however, to employees
resolved wherein the Court who are neither members nor co -
had stated that the right to owners of the cooperative they are
collective bargaining is not entitled to exercise the rights to self
available to an employee of a - organization, collective bargaining
cooperative who at the same and negotiation as mandated by the
time is a member and co - 1987 Constitution and applicable
owner thereof. statutes.
2. With respect, however, to
employees who are neither Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning
members nor co - owners of Division v. Ferrer-Calleja,
the cooperative they are FACTS.
entitled to exercise the rights 1. Kapatiran sa Meat and
to self - organization, Canning Division (Tupas Local
collective bargaining and Chapter 1027 and hereinafter
negotiation as mandated by referred to as Tupas for
the 1987 Constitution and brevity) was the sole and
applicable statutes. exclusive bargaining
3. The fact that the members - representative of the rank -
employees of petitioner do not and - file employees of the
participate in the actual Meat and Canning Division of
management of the Universal Robina, In c. (Robina
cooperative does not make for brevity) from 1984 - 1987.
them eligible to form, assist or 2. Tupas’s 3 year collective CBA
join a labor organization for with Robina was about to
the purpose of collective expire on November 15,
bargaining with petitioner. 1987. 
4. It is the fact of ownership of 3. During the freedom period,
the cooperative, and not Tupas filed for an amended
involvement in the notice of strike in order to
management thereof, which pressure Robina for the
disqualifies a member from renegotiation of the CBA.
joining any labor organization 4. Subsequently, the Meat
within the cooperative. and Canning Division New
5. Thus, irrespective of the Employees and Workers
degree of their participation in United Labor Union (New
the actual management of the ULO for brevity), which

12
 was primarily composed of Ruling:
Iglesia ni Kristo members, 1 st Issue: We find no merit in the
was registered.  petition. The ruling in Victoriano v.
5. Robina was able to obtain an Elizalde upholding the INC’s right to
injunction with respect to the no join a labor union for being
strik e resulting in the parties contrary to their religious belief
agreeing to go back to work does not bar the members of
and renegotiate the CBA. that sect to form their own
6. The following day, the New union . As public respondent
ULO filed for a petition for correctly observed “the recognition
certification election with the of the tenets of the sect… should not
BLR claiming it has a 191 rank in fringe on the basic right of self -
- and - file members. organization granted by the
7. Tupas opposed the petition constitution to workers, regardless of
arguing that religious affiliation.” 
a. the New ULO were
mostly members of 2nd Issue: The fact that Tupas was
the Iglesia ni Kristo able to renegotiate the CBA within
who previously the freedom period does not bar the
refused to affiliate New ULO to challenge it s majority
with any labor union status by filing a timely petition for
and certification election before the
b. accused Robina of expiration of the old CBA and before
using the New ULO to the signing of the new CBA. The
defeat Tupas’s certification election is the best
bargaining rights. forum to determine the majority
8. The Med - Arbiter granted the status of the unions and allow the
petition for certification el workers through secret ballot to
ection and this was affirmed freely choose their bargaining
by the BLR.  representative. Since the petition
9. Pending appeal with the BLR, was not tainted with unfairness, the
Tupas was able to renegotiate Court will not thwart the holding of
a new 3 year CBA with Robina the certification election. 
signed on December 3, 1987
and to expire on November DOCTRINE : The recognition of the
15, 1990.  tenets of a religious sector should
not infringe on the basic right of self
ISSUES: - organization granted by the
whether the recognition of the constitution to workers, regardless of
Iglesia ni Kristo’s tenet religious affiliation. 
prohibiting its members to join
labor unions bars them to form The certification election is the best
their own union. – NO.  forum to determine the majority
whether the renegotiation of a CBA status of the unions and allow the
by the exclusive bargaining agent workers through secret ballot to
forecloses the right of another union freely choose their bargaining
to challenge its majority status - NO representative
provided it was filed on time. 

13
Acosta v. CA Facts:
FACTS: 1. There are two agencies with
1. Petitioners were teachers its corresponding unions
from different public schools involved in this SC Decision.
in Metro Manila. 2. It is a consolidated case of the
2. On various dates in unions of ICMC and IRRI (both
September and October 1990, international
they did not report for work organizations/special agencies
and instead, participated in recognized by PH) filed
mass actions by public school separate petitions for
teachers at the Liwasang certificate election.
Bonifacio for the purpose of 3. ICMC is a international special
petitioning the government agency for Indo - Chinese
for redress of their grievances refugees from the Vietnam
. War and it was granted
3. They contended that their diplomatic agency by the DFA
participation in the mass through a Memorandum of
actions was an exercise of Agreement.
their constitutional rights to 4. IRRI’s immunity flowed from a
peaceably assemble and legislation granting privileges
petition the government for and immunities of an
redress of grievances. international organization. The
ISSUE: whether the petitioners were said two agencies contend
wrongly penalized for exercising that the unions cannot file
their constitutional rights. Ruling: petitions for certification
1. The Supreme Court cited the election because ICMC and
case MPSTA v. Laguio in IRRI are international
stating that these mass organizations which have
actions are considered diplomatic immunities.
“strike.” ISSUE: whether or not the conduct of
2. In Bangalisan vs. Court of Certification Election violates the
Appeals , the Court held that diplomatic immunity granted to
the right to strike is denied to the international or special agencies
government employees in the Philippines?
because suspension of public Ruling:
services will derail services to 1. The SC ruled in ICMC and
the public.  IRRI’s favor. There are laws
which provide that the said
DOCTRINE:  international organizations
The ability to strike is not essential enjoy diplomatic immunities
to the right of association. In the from legal processes in the
absence of statute, public PH.
employees do not have the right to 2. The grant of immunity from
engage in concerted work stoppages local jurisdiction to ICMC and
for any purpose.  IRRI is clearly necessitated by
their international character
International Catholic Migration and respective purposes.
Commission v. Ferrer-Calleja,

14
 3. The objective is to avoid the "from every form of legal process
danger of partiality and except in so far as in any particular
interference by the host case they have expressly waived
country in their internal their immunity.” This is to avoid to
workings. shield the affairs of international
4. The exercise of jurisdiction by organizations, in accordance with
the DOLE in these instances international practice.
would defeat the very purpose
of immunity, which is to shield Republic Planters Bank v. Laguesma,
the affairs of international FACTS:
organizations, in accordance 1. Petitioner filed for a petition
with international practice, for certification election to be
from political pressure or the exclusive bargaining
control by the host country to agent of all regular employees
the prejudice of member outside the bargaining unit of
States of the organization, private respondent.
and to ensure the 2. The proposed bargaining unit
unhampered performance of is composed of clerks,
their functions. messengers, janitors,
5. However, their immunity from plumbers, telex operators,
local jurisdiction does not mailing and printing
deprive labor of its basic personnel, drivers, mechanics
rights, as guaranteed by the and computer personnel.
Constitution. 3. However, there was already
6. A UN Convention requires an existing exclusive
such international bargaining agent, RPBEU, and
organizations to make an existing CBA between
provision for appropriate RPBEU and respondent bank
modes of settlement of which excluded the members
disputes arising out of of the proposed bargaining
contracts or other disputes of unit of the petitioner.
private character to which the 4. Respondent bank then
specialized agency is a party. opposed the petition for
7. Moreover, pursuant to the certification election.
MoA between ICMC and the 5. Eventually, it was ruled that
PH Government, whenever the petition for certification
there is any abuse of privilege election should be dismissed
by ICMC, the Government is because there was no
free to withdraw the privileges employer - employee
and immunities accorded.  relationship between the
members of the proposed
DOCTRINE: International Agencies bargaining unit and the
granted of diplomatic immunity respondent bank.
cannot be filed with Petition of ISSUE: WoN the petitioner may be
Certification Election or any legal allowed to file the petition for
bargaining process as it is covered certification election. NO.
with the privilege of immunity  Ruling:

15
1. The SC based its decision on DOCTRINE: If the union members
two factors. are not employees, no right to
2. First, the position of exclusive organize for purposes of bargaining,
bargaining agent may only be nor to be certified as bargaining
challenged through a petition agent can be recognized. 
for certification election within
the freedom period, or 60
days prior to the expiry of the
existing CBA.
a. In this case, the petition
was filed in January,
while the existing CBA
was in effect until June
of the same year.
b. It is clear that the 60 -
day freedom period had
not yet begun to run.
c. Thus, the petition was
premature.
3. Second, was the fact that
there was no employer -
employee relationship
between the petitioner’s
members and the private
respondent. 
4. The question of whether
employer - employee
relationship exist is a
primordial consideration
before extending labor
benefits under the workmens
compensation, social security,
medicare, termination pay
and labor relations law.
Failure to establish this
juridical relationship between
the union members and the
employer affects the legality
of the union itself. 
5. Since the members of the
proposed bargaining unit were
not considered employees of
private respondent, no right to
organize for purposes of
bargaining, nor to be certified
as bargaining agent can be
recognized. 

16