Labor Law Case Digests– Atty Balino

11_S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs. S.S. VENTURES LABOR

UNION (SSVLU) and DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC
G.R. No. 161690
Facts • Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA- registered export
firm with principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA- Bataan Export Zone,
Mariveles, Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Respondent S.S.
Ventures Labor Union (Union) is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.
• March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition for certification
election in behalf of the rank-and-file employees
• August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of
registration alleging that the Union deliberately and maliciously included the names
of more or less 82 former employees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of
members who attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification
of its constitution and by-laws; that No organizational meeting and ratification
actually took place; and the Union’s application for registration was not supported
by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures.
• Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored Ventures and resolved to Cancel
the Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Director granted the Union’s appeal
and reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to the CA. The CA dismissed
Ventures’ petition as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for review
Issue WON Whether the registration of the Union must be cancelled.
Held • No. The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,
Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the
Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered
with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with
the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of
registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate
in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be
canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the
union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization.
• To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible
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.

mrnbf
Labor Law Case Digests– Atty Balino

12_Tancinco vs. Director Ferrer-Calleja

No. L-78131
Facts • This is a special civil action for certiorari to review the resolution and decision of
the Bureau of Labor Relations which decreed the inclusion and counting of the 56
segregated votes for the determination of the results of the election of officers of
Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA).
• A pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree on the list of
voters. ANGLO through its National Secretary excluded some 56 employees
consisting of the Manila office employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time
card employees, drivers of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs.
Salazar. MOLE San Fernando Pampanga, protested said ruling but no action was
taken.
• Petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry of Labor Regional Office in San
Fernando, Pampanga claiming that the determination of the qualification of the 56
votes is beyond the competence of ANGLO. Private respondents maintain the
contrary on the premise that definition of union’s membership is solely within their
jurisdiction.
• BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as arbitrary,
whimsical, and wanting in legal basis but set aside the challenged order of July 25,
1986 on the ground that 51 out of 56 challenged voters were not yet union members
at the time of the election. The decision directed among others the proclamation of
Lacanilao’s group as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA to absorb in the
bargaining unit the challenged voters unless proven to be managerial employees.
Issue WON submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of the
union is indispensable to enable said members to vote in the election of union’s officers
Held • No. Submission of the employee’s names with the BLR as qualified members of the
union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election
of union’s officers; Question of eligibility to vote may be determined through the
use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status.
• In the present case, considering that none of the parties insisted on the use of the
payroll period-list as voting list and considering further that the 51 remaining
employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining
the election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May 10, 1986 agreement
is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union.

mrnbf
Labor Law Case Digests– Atty Balino

13_Rodriguez vs Director of BLR

Nos. L-76579-82 and L-80504
Facts • This is a Petition for certiorari filed by Benedicto Rodriguez, the chairman of
the Union COMELEC, to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The case was consolidated because they involve disputes among employees of
the Philippines Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), who are members
of the same union, the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU).
• The disputes concern the validity of the general elections for union officers in
1986, and the increase of union dues adopted and put into effect by the
incumbent officers subsequent to said elections.
• What happened was that the old officers continued to exercise the functions of
their respective offices under the leadership of Manolito Paran and increased
the amount of the union dues from P21.00 to P50.00 a month.
• All together numbering 829 or so, boycotted the referendum and formally
reiterated their protest against the increase of the union dues. Subsequently, the
union officers announced that the referendum has resulted in a ratification of
the increased union dues. PLDT then effected the check-off of the increased
dues for the payroll period from March 1 to March 15, 1987.
• Sumangil appealed to the Director of Labor Relations and the latter reversed the
decision of the Med-arbiter. But the former later reversed herself and affirmed
the decision of the Med-arbiter.
Issues WON 1) the 1986 general elections for union officers is valid, 2) 30%- membership
support is indispensable for acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations
of a complaint for alleged violation of rights and conditions of union members, and 3)
increase in union dues is valid
Held 1. No. Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and
absence of notice of the dates of balloting, thus attended the elections in the
provinces and in Metro Manila. They cannot but render the proceedings void.
2. No. The use of the permissive “may” in the provision at once negates the notion
that the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory. Factor in the acquisition of
jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the
Labor Code. The petition clearly involved an intra-union conflict and jurisdiction
could be assumed by the Labor Relations Director or the Med-Arbiters “at their
own initiative” or “upon request of either or both parties.”
3. No. The resolution is illegal and void because it does not bear the signature of at
least two-thirds of the members of the Legal Council as required by the union’s
constitution and by-laws, and the absence of proper ratification of the resolution by
a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite.

mrnbf
Labor Law Case Digests– Atty Balino

14_ A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION Co (ALATCO,), INC vs BICOL

TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES MUTUAL ASSOCIATION (BITMA)
G.R. No. L-4941
Facts • This is an application for certiorari to review and set aside a portion of the
decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, ordering ALATCO "to continue its
former practice of allowing check-off to petitioning union whose affiliates have
already filed with the management of the respondent company their
corresponding authority to make the necessary deductions from their monthly
earnings."
• The burden of ALATCO’s argument is that the Court of Industrial Relations
acted in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law, in that, it is alleged, "there is
no law in the Philippines which authorizes the Court of Industrial Relations to
compel an employee to practice check-off against his will." ALATCO complains
that the practice imposes an extra burden on the employer.

Issue Whether or not CIR acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

Held Petition is denied.
• Republic Act No. 602 otherwise known as the Minimum Wage Law is a clear
signal that check-off is one of the matters affecting labor-management relations
which the Court of Industrial Relations may include in an award, order or
decision. And since the order in question was to be prospective in its operation,
the court in banc did not err in applying the said Act to the present case.
• Under this Act, check-off may be enforced with the consent of the employer or
by authority in writing by the employees. When the union and the employer
agree, the attitude of the employees is immaterial. When the employees duly
authorize the check-off, as provided by the last clause, the employer's consent is
unnecessary and its recognition of the right is obligatory

mrnbf
Labor Law Case Digests– Atty Balino

15_Vengco vs. Trajano

G.R. No. 74453. May 5, 1989
Facts • This is a PETITION for certiorari to review the orders of the Bureau of Labor
Relations.
• Management of the Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation and the Kapisanan
ng Manggagawa sa Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation (FOI-TAF) entered
into a compromise agreement whereby the company will pay to the union
members the sum of P150,000.00 for their claims arising from the unpaid
emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) and other benefits which were the
subject of their complaint before the Ministry of Labor.
• Respondent Emmanuel Timbungco (Timbungco, for short) who is the union
president received the money which was paid in installments. Thereafter, he
distributed the amount among the union members. Petitioners Ambrocio
Vengco, Ramon Moises, Rafael Wagas and 80 others (Vengco, et al., for short)
who are union members noted that Timbungco was not authorized by the union
workers to get the money; and that ten percent (10% ) of the P150,000.00 had
been deducted to pay for attorney’s fees without their written authorization in
violation of Article 242(o) of the Labor Code. So, they demanded from
Timbungco an accounting of how the P150,000.00 was distributed to the
members. Timbungco did not give in to their demand and alleged he was
authorized respondent
• Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations Cresenciano B. Trajano rendered
decision ordering Timbungco to make a full accounting of the P150,000.00, its
publish recipients, expelled as President of KOITAF
• Timbungco filed an MR. OIC set aside the motion but ordered an audit
examination of the Books of Account of KOITAF.
• Vengco contended that the examination of the books of union is irrelevant
considering that the issue involved in the case does not consist of union funds
but back pay received by the union members from the company. Likewise, they
pointed out that Timbungco did not give the money to the union treasurer and
consequently, the amount was not entered in the records of the union

Issue Whether or not Timbungco is guilty of illegally deducting 10% attorneys’ fees from
petitioners’ backwages.
Held Attorney’s fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an
employee without his written consent except for mandatory activities under the Code.
A mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of settling dispute laid down
by the law. (Carlos P. Galvadores, et al. vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano, Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-70067, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA
138). In the instant case, the amicable settlement entered into by the management and
the union cannot be considered as a mandatory activity under the Code. It is true that
the union filed a claim for emergency cost of living allowance and other benefits before
the Ministry of Labor. But this case never reached its conclusion in view of the parties’
agreement. It is not also shown from the records that Atty. Benjamin Sebastian was
instrumental in forging the said agreement on behalf of the union members.

mrnbf