Mark Joseph Anthony D. Laus Prof.

Leonora Divina
Labor Relation and Management

Lolita Lopez et.,al v. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc. (QCSC)

G.R. No. 164032, January 19, 2009

Facts :

The Kasapiang Manggatgawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (Union) filed a compliant for
Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against QCSC. On July 1997, the union wrote to the management
for the release of the members salaries and for the implementation of wage increase mandated
by CBA. When the letter was unanswered, the union filed a notice of strike. QCSC placed
some of its employees under lay-off status due to redundancy and likewise filed a petition for
cancellation of registration against union.

QCSC contended that the union was not a legitimate labor union as it had a pending
complaint for cancellation of certificate of registration, that there was no valid CBA and staged
an illegal strike.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) decides finding QCSC guilty of ULP. In turn, the union filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. The
QCSC filed a Supplement to its appeal. The NLRC in its decision, granted the appeal and
reversed the LA decision.

Issue:

Whether the simultaneous filing of the matter to reduce the appeal bond and posting of
the reduced amount of bond within the reglementary period for appeal constitute substantial
compliance with Article 223 of the Labor Code.

Ruling:

It should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process,
it is merely a statue of privilege and may be exercise only if in manner and in accordance with
the provisions of law. The party when seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the
requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

In case a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be

perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond raised by a reputable bonding company
and admitted by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment applied for.

Appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the
following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the
memorandum of appeal ; and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond. Thus, the posting
of the bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards
from the decision of the labor arbiter
 Juanito Garcia and Alberto Dumago v. Philippine Airlines (PAL)
G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009

Facts:

Philippine Airlines filed a case against its employees herein petitioners for allegedly
caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers
raided the PAL Technical Centers Toolroom Section.

After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioner for transgressing companys Code of
Discipline prompting them to file a Complaint for illegal dismissal which the Labor Arbiter (LA)
in its decision ruled on their favor ordering PAL to immediately comply with the reinstatement
aspect of the decision. Prior to the judgment, SEC placed PAL under Interim Rehabilitation
Receiver who subsequently replaced by Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver. On appeal, NLRC
reversed said decision and dismissed petitioners complaint for lack of merit.

Subsequently, LA issued a Writ of Execution respecting the reinstatement aspect of his

decision. Respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Injunction with the NLRC. The NLRC
affirmed the validity of the Writ and the Notice issued by LA but suspended and referred the
action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action.

On appeal, the appellate court partially granted the petition and effectively reinstated the
NLRC resolution insofar as it suspended the proceedings. By manifestation, respondent
informed the Court that SEC issued an Order granting its request to exit from rehabilitation
proceedings.

Issue:

Whether petitioner may collect their wages during the period between the LAs Order of
reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning that of the LA, now that PAL
has exited from rehabilitation proceedings.

Ruling:

A dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive
wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there is a
restraining order, it is ministerial upon the LA to implement the order of reinstatement and it is
mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.

The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even if the order of reinstatement of the
LA is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the
wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.
It settles the view that the LAs order of reinstatement is immediately executory and the
employer has to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing
prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the payroll, and that filing to exercise the options
in the alternative, employer must pay the employees salaries.
 When reinstatement pending appeal aims to avert the continuing threat or danger to the
survival or even the life of the dismissed employee and his family, it does not contemplate the
period when the employer-corporation itself is similarly in a judicially monitored state of being
resuscitated in order to survive.
 General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phls., Inc.
(General Santos City)
G.R. No.

Facts:

In 1990, the Company experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian
economic crisis. To curve the negative effect, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early
Retirement Program (ERP). Meanwhile, there was a memorandum issued mandating to put on
hold all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions. Because
several availed of the ERP, vacancies were created. This prompted the Union to negotiate with
the Labor Management Committee (LMC) for filing up of the vacancies. No resolution was
reached on the matter. Faced with the freeze hiring, the company engaged the services of JLBP
Services Corporation that provides manpower services.

Union filed in 2002 with the Natl Conciliation and Mediation Board (MCMB) a Notice
of Strike on the ground of ULP for contracting-out services regularly performed by union
members. Parties failed to file an amicable settlement. The Company filed a Petition for
Assumption of Jurisdiction with DOLE. On 2003, the NLRC ruled that the Company is not
guilty of ULP. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision and found that contract out jobs was a
valid exercise of management prerogative to meet exigent circumstances. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to ULP.

Ruling:

Unfair Labor Practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The
prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a
CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practice.

Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair
labor practices. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support
its allegations of unfair labor practice, which burden it failed to discharge.

Wherefore, petition is denied.

Samahan ng mga Mangagawa sa SAMMA-LAKAS sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng
Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) v. SAMMA Corporation
G.R. No. 167141, March 13, 2009

Facts :

Petitioner, SAMMA-LIKHA, filed a petition for certification election in DOLE.

Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition. In an Order of Med-Arbiter, the petition
was dismissed on the ground of (i) lack of legal personality; (ii) prohibited mixture of rank-and-
file and supervisory employees; and (iii) failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping.

Petitioner moved for a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, respondent filed a

petition for cancellation of petitioner registration. The Secretary of Labor, treating petitioners
MR as an appeal, rendered a decision reversing the order of the med-arbiter.

Meanwhile, the DOLE revoked the charter certificate of petitioners local chapter.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the CA which reversed the decision of Secretary
of Labor. Hence, this petition was filed by petitioner.

Issue:

Whether petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election.

Ruling:

Respondent, as employer, had been the one opposing the holding of a certification
election among its rank-and-file employees. This should not be the case. We have already
declared that, in certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material
interest to assail the certification election.

The petition is granted. The record of the case is remanded to the office of origin for
determination of the status of petitioners legal personality.
 Jackbilt Industries, Inc. v. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU
G.R. Nos. 171618-19, March 13, 2009

Facts:

Due to economic crisis on construction industry, petitioner decided to temporarily stop its
business of producing concrete hollow blocks compelling most of its employees to go on leave
for six months. Respondent protested the temporary shutdown and later on went on strike.

Petitioner filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of TRO in NLRC
which NLRC issued. Reports of both the implementing officers and Labor Arbiter revealed that
respondent violated the TRO. Respondent wrote letters to respondent participated in strike to
explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike.
Failure of respondent to comply despite the extensions granted, petitioner dismissed the
concerned employees.

Hence, respondent filed a complaint for illegal lockout, runaway shop and damages. In
its decision, LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. However, because the petition did
not declare the strike illegal before terminating some employees, the company is found guilty of
illegal dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision of LA and held that petitioner should be held
liable for monetary awards granted to respondent. Petitioner appeal before the CA. The CA
dismissed the petition but modified the NLRC decision and held that the temporary shutdown
was moved by anti-union sentiments. Petitioner was guilty therefore of unfair labor practice.

Issue:

Whether the filing of a petition with the LA to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine
qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of strike.

Ruling:

The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal. Therefore,
pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the March 9, 1998 strike was ipso facto
illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary.

Consequently, we uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondent. Article 264 of the
Labor Code further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have
committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. Petitioner clearly had the legal right to
terminate respondent.

The petitioner is granted.

1.If theres a any chance that a filing of bond can be
avoided I will work for it. As an Hr my priority is my
concern people to make them right as they violate
some regulation of the company.

2.I will do my job to make clarification on the

decision of labor arbiter by filing appeal of bond to
end this matter.
11.Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. v. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-
NationalUnion of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries
G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009
Facts :
The respondent union is a certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employeesof
the Hyatt Regency Manila (HRM), a hotel owned by petitioner (Company). In 2001,
the companysuffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown aggravated
by the 9/11 incidentin the USA. The company decided to cost-cut by implementing among others
reducing work weeks insome hotel departments.In August 2001, the union filed a notice of strike
due to a bargaining deadlock before the NatlConcil iation Mediation Board (N CMB ). In
the course of the proceedings , the union acc epted the e c o n o m i c
proposal. Hence, a new CBA was signed. Subsequently, the
c o m p a n y d e c i d e d t o implement a downs izing sc heme which the union
opposed. Des pite the oppos ition, a lis t of the

position declared redundant and to be contracted out was given to the union. A notice of
terminationwas also committed by the company to the DOLE. Thereafter, the company engaged
the services of independent job contractors.The union filed a notice of s trike . A
conciliation proce eding was agai n conducted but to no a v a i l . T h e u n i o n
went on strike. The Secretary certified the labor dispute to the
N L R C f o r compulsory arbitration. The NLRC orders the suspension of the conciliation proce
edings. However,the LA alread y issu ed decision declaring the strike legal. On
appeal b y the co mpan y, the N LRC rever s ed the LA decision and declared the
s trike to be illegal. On petition, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC and
declared the strike legal. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the CAs decision declaring the strike legal is accordance with law and establishedfacts.
Ruling:
A valid and legal strike mus t be bas ed on strikeable grounds , becaus e if it is
bas ed on anon-s trikea ble groun d, it is generall y dee med an illegal
s trike . Corol laril y, a s trike grounde d onU LP is illegal if no acts constitu ting
U LP actuall y exis t. As an exception, even if no such acts are committed by the
employer, if the employees believe in good faith that ULP actually exists, then thestrike held
pursuant to such belief may be legal. As a general rule, therefore, where a union believesthat an
emplo yer co mmitted U LP and the surrounding circumstances warranted such
belief in goodfaith, the resulting strike ma y be considered legal although,
subs equentl y, such allegations of unfair labor practices were found to be
groundless.Here, the union went on strike in the honest belief that petitioner was committing
ULP after the latter decided to downsize its workforce contrary to the staffing/manning standards
adopted by both parties under a CBA. Indeed, those circumstances showed
prima facie
that the hotel committed ULP.Thus, even if technically there was no legal ground to stage a strike
based on ULP, since the attendantcircumstances support the belief in good faith that petitioners
retrenchment scheme was structured toweaken the bargaining power of the union, the strike, by
exception, may be considered legal

Teodorico Miranda, Jr. v. Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI)

G.R. No. 174316, June 23, 2009
Facts :
Petitioner was employed by respondent as Checker I and a member of the company
union.On April 1992, petitioner was then the VP of the union and appointed to the
position of Shop Stewardwhich is a union position under the payroll of the company. The
CBA between the union andcompany provided for the appointment of a Shop Steward
from among the union members uponrecommendation of the union president. The Shop
Steward is a field representative of both thecompany and the union and acts as an
independent arbiter of all complaints brought to his attention.On December 1993, the
union president wrote a letter to the petitioner regarding his recall as aShop Steward
due to loss of trust and confidence. After investigation, the company recommends
therecall of the petitioner as Shop Steward and reversion to his former position as
Checker I in accordancewith CBA. Petitioner filed a complaint with the DOLE. In an
order, the Med Arbiter ordered thereinstatement of petitioner as Shop Steward. The
order of Med-Arbiter was affirmed by the Secretaryof Labor.Petitioner again filed a
complaint with Med-Arbiter involving money claims in the form of allowances, etc., The
complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a series of complaints
with NLRC one of which is for ULP which later amended to illegal demotion. The
LAdismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. While the cases filed were
pending, a secondcomplaint for ULP was filed, the LA dismissed the same for lis
pendencia. On third complaint, the

same is dismissed for res judicata. Petitioner appealed the decision to NLRC which
NLRC remandedthe case.Upon remand, the LA ruled that the demotion was for cause
but was effected withoutobservance of procedural due process and ordered the
respondent to pay petitioner indemnity.Confusion followed, petitioner filed a motion to
be reinstated to the position of Shop Steward whichwas resolved in his favor.
Respondent filed a Petition for Prohibition, Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Permanent
Injunction claiming that petitioner should be reinstated to his previous position of
Checker I. The NLRC issued a TRO. Petitioner filed a petition before the CA. The CA
took note of thereinstatement of the petitioner to the position of Checker I. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner should be reinstated to the position of Shop Steward.
Ruling:
Since the Shop Steward is a union position, the controversy surrounding his recall from
his position as Shop Steward becomes a dispute within the union. As Internal Union
Dispute or intra-union conflict refers to a conflict within or inside a labor union. It
includes all disputes or grievancesarising from any violation of or disagreement over
any provision of the constitution and by-laws of aunion, including any violation of the
rights and conditions of union membership provided for in theCode.The Med Arbiter, as
affirmed by the Secretary of Labor, ruled that there was neither cause nor due process
in the recall of the petitioner from the position of union Shop Steward. He found that
theclaim of loss of trust and confidence due to the petitioners alleged absenteeism was
not substantiatedand that the recall was not approved by the Board of Directors of the
union, as required by the APCWUConstituion and By-Laws.The Petion is dismissed for
being moot and academic

National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries Manila

Pavilion HotelChapter v. Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009
Facts:
A certification election was conducted on June 2006 among the rank-and-file employees
of Holiday Inn. Petitioner and another union (HIMPHLU) refer the case back to Med
Arbiter to decidewhich among those votes be opened and tallied. 22 votes were
segregated because; (1) eleven werecast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of
their dismissal is still pending before CA, (2) sixwere cast by those already occupying
supervisory positions; and (3) five were cast by probationaryemployees, and pursuant to
the CBA, such employees cannot vote.The Med Arbiter ruled to open the votes cast by
dismissed and by those holding supervisoryemployees. The union appealed to SOLE,
arguing that the vote of probationary employees shouldlikewise be opened and tallied.
The SOLE affirmed the decision of Med Arbiter. On appeal, CAaffirmed the ruling of
SOLE. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification election
should beallowed to vote.
Ruling:
The court ruled in affirmative. The inclusion of Gatbontons vote was proper not because
itwas not questioned but because probationary employees have the right to vote in a
certificationelection. The votes of the six other probationary employees should thus also
have been counted. AsAirtime Specialists, Inc. v. FErrer-Colleja, 180 SCRA 749, holds:
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit,
whether probationary or permanent are entitledto vote.Petition is granted. The decision
of CA is annulled and set aside.

A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation Cooperative

G.R. No. 166879, August 14, 2009
Facts:
On May 1997, petitioner and respondent entered into a CBA effective until December
1999.The CBA included No-Strke, No-Lock-out clause. On several dates, which were
legal holidays and peak season, some of the members of the union refused to rendered
overtime work. Petitioner treatedthe refusal as a concerted action which is a violation of
the No-Strike, No-Lock-out Clause. Thus, itmeted the workers 30-day suspension and
filed an illegal strike against them. The attemptedsettlement having been futile, the
union filed a Notice of Strike. Despite the conciliation no amicablesettlement of the
dispute was arrived, the union went on strike. The company filed a motion to re-openthe
case which was granted by LA. In its decision, LA declared that the strike is illegal. On
appeal,the NLRC dismissed it in per curiam decision.In the interim, into the second
strike, petitioner filed a complaint before LA for illegal strikeon the ground of alleged
force and violence. In its decision, LA declare the second strike illegal. Onappeal, the
NLRC affirmed in toto the LAs decision. On appeal to CA, the CA reversed and set
asidethe NLRC ruling. Hence, the present position.
Issue:
Whether the strike staged by respondent is illegal due to the alleged commission of
illegal actsand violation of the No-Strike, No-Lockout clause of the CBA.
Ruling:

While the strike is the most preeminent weapon of workers to force management to
agree toan equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, it exerts some
disquieting effects not onlythe relationship between labor and management, but also on
the general peace and progress of societyand economic well-being of the State. If such
weapon has to be used at all, it must be used sparinglyand within the bounds of law in
the interest of industrial peace and public welfare.The petition is granted.