001 Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v.

Marcelo Enterprises and requested them to fill up a form (schedule) indicating therein the date
(OLAZO)
of their availability for work for the purpose of scheduling since some
19 November 1982 | Guerrero, J. | Duty to Bargain Collectively
machine needed a team of workers to operate and the absence of one worker
will be useless to start its operation. Several strikers filled up the required
CASE 1:
PETITIONER: LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN form but the remaining others, led and supported by LAKAS, refused to do
(LAKAS) so on the ground that such constituted "screening" and insisted that they be
RESPONDENTS: MARCELO ENTERPRISES AND MARCELO TIRE admitted back to work without complying with the same. For Marcelo
& RUBBER CORP., MARCELO RUBBER AND LATEX PRODUCTS, Companies’ refusal to forego the requirement, LAKAS filed a complaint on
MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, MARCELO CHECMICAL & behalf of the local unions MUEWA, UNWU and MFWU, for unfair labor
PIGMENT CORP., POLARIS MARKETING CORPORATION and the practice with the Industrial Court. After the trial had commenced, the three
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
local unions prayed for the dismissal of the complaint filed in their behalf
CASE 2: on the grounds that the same was filed without their authority, and UNWU
PETITIONER: MARCELO TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION, and MFWU had disaffiliated from LAKAS. Motions to dismiss or withdraw
MARCELO RUBBER & LATEX PRODUCTS, INC., MARCELO STEEL complaint were denied on the ground that LAKAS filed the same for and in
CORPORATION, POLARIS MARKETING CORPORATION, behalf of the individual employees concerned as a class suit and held that
MARCELO CHEMICAL AND PIGMENT CORP., MARCELO Marcelo was guilty of an unfair labor practice in finding that the scheduling
ENTERPRISES, under which name or style they are also known adopted was in effect a screening of those who were readmitted which
RESPONDENTS: LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN
constituted discrimination. Motions for reconsiderations were denied,
(LAKAS) and the HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS hence, the present recourse. Issue is WoN Marcelo Companies had a duty
to collectively bargain with LAKAS? NO. LAKAS had never been the
SUMMARY: The Marcelo Companies, composed of six independent bargaining representative of any and all of the local unions then existing in
enterprises and each represented by local unions which were all affiliated the respondent Marcelo Companies. An employer is under duty to bargain
with Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), received letters from collectively only when the bargaining agent is representative of the majority
their local unions and also from LAKAS (which claimed that a local union of the employees. The employer has the right to demand of the asserted
was affiliated therewith) requesting for negotiation of new collective bargaining agent proof of its representation of its employees. A labor
bargaining agreements. Confronted with the problem of whom to recognize organization cannot bring any action for and in behalf of a local union which
as the bargaining unit, Marcelo suggested to all to settle the question by is not an affiliate thereof.
filing a petition for certification election before the Court of Industrial
Relations. PSSLU and LAKAS, interpreting the same as refusal to DOCTRINE: An employer is under duty to bargain collectively only when
the bargaining agent is representative of the majority of the employees. The
negotiate, filed notices of strike which were later withdrawn. Eventually,
employer has the right to demand of the asserted bargaining agent proof of
bargaining negotiations were made, subject to LAKAS being able to show its representation of its employees.
proof of authority to represent the employees, but after LAKAS received a
copy of management's draft of the bargaining agreement, LAKAS, without FACTS:
filing the required notice, declared a strike completely paralyzing Marcelo. 1. Marcelo Companies had existing CBAs with their respective local
A month later, after being informed that striking workers and employees unions:
will return to work, Marcelo posted notices for them to return back to work
a. Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation (Marcelo Tire) with the
 Marcelo Camelback Tire and Foam Union (MACATIFU); 10. PSSLU, MUEWA, and LAKAS for MULU, threathened to file Notice
of Strike against Marcelo Companies for unfair labor practice and
b. Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc. (Marcelo Latex) refusal to bargain.
with the Marcelo Free Workers Union (MFWU);
11. In the meantime, MUEWA filed and was certified to be the sole and
c. Marcelo Steel Corporation (Marcelo Steel) with the United exlcusive bargaining representative of its respective company.
Nail Workers Union (UNWU).
12. The notices of strike were withdrawn and LAKAS and Marcelo
2. These unions were then affiliated with Philippine Social Security Companies arranged for several conferences to negotiate the CBA.
Labor Union (PSSLU). Marcelo Companies wrote letters which expressed their conformity to
sit down in conference on the points to be negotiated as soon as
3. The president of MACATIFU, Augusto Carreon, was losing the LAKAS can present evidence of authority to represent the employees
support of several of its members. Said members then joined Marcelo of Marcelo Companies in said conference.
United Employees Workers Association (MUEWA), then headed by
Paulino Lazaro. MUEWA then became the sole and exclusive 13. Less than a week after the fourth CBA conference, LAKAS declared
bargaining representative of all the regular workers of the respondent a strike against all the respondent Marcelo Companies, as a
corporation. consequence of which, 10 strikers were later charged before the MTC,
4 of whom were convicted.
4. Augusto Carreon, president of MACATIFU, was claiming that he was
the president of MUEWA because of the affiliation of his 14. Marcelo Companies obtained writ of preliminary injunction and the
MACATIFU members. (Not resolved, Paulino Lazaro remains following day, a Return to Work Agreement was executed between
president of MUEWA). the Company and the Unions and LAKAS. Marcelo Companies
resumed operations and strikers went back to work.
5. Marcelo Companies received letters from the PSSLU president on
behalf of UNWU, MACATIFU, and MFWU for a negotiation of a 15. After resumption of business, Company, LAKAS and the local unions
new CBAs as the previous CBAs were about to expire. resumed their bargaining negotiations. Negotiations reached its finals
stage and management of Marcelo Latex and Marcelo Steel gave
6. However, management of Marcelo Tire received letter from UNWU LAKAS a copy of the CBA proposals for MFWU and UNWU.
disauthorizing PSSLU from representing his union. (Marcelo Tire not included because MUEWA was the certified union
7. MUEWA requested noegitation of a new CBA with Marcelo Tire. there)
MACATIFU and MFWU, through J.C. Espinas & Associates, also 16. Unexpected, LAKAS declared another strike. Concilation conferences
sent letters requesting negotiations of CBAs. were set but LAKAS and the unions did not appear. LAKAS instead
8. Marcelo Companies then received a letter from LAKAS informing the informed the Company that the striking workers will return to work
former that Marcelo United Labor Union (MULU) was affiliated with under the sae terms and conditions of employment before the strike.
it. 17. Upon their return, the reporting strikers were requested to fill up a
9. Marcelo Companies then asked proof of authority to represent MFWU certain form wherein they were to indicate the date of their availability
and MACATIFU from J.C. Espinas & Associates and informed for work in order that they may be scheduled because some machines
PSSLU, MUEWA, and LAKAS of the fact of the existing conflicting needed a team of workers to operate and the absence of one worker
demands for recognition as the bargaining representative in the will be useless to start their operation. Some workers, supported by
appropriate units involved, suggesting that they settle the conflicts LAKAS, refused and insisted to be admitted to work with complying
through a petition for certification election. with the said requirement.
 18. LAKAS then filed before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a organization but two or more, there is every equitable ground
charge for unfair labor practice against Marcelo Companies. During warranting the holding of a certification election. In this way, the issue
trial, Manifestations and Motions by MUEWA, UNWU, and MFWU as to who is really the true bargaining representative of all the
were filed claiming that they were not affiliated with LAKAS and they employees may be firmly settled by the simple expedient of an
did not authorize LAKAS to file the case on their behalf. election.

19. CIR denied the motions of MUEWA, UNWU and MFWU and found 3. Respecting the issue of representation and the right of the employer to
Marcelo Companies guilty of unfair labor practice for screening and demand reasonable proof of majority representation on the part of the
discriminating against the employees (referring to the schedule form supposed or putative bargaining agent, the commentaries in
they had to fill up). MR of Marcelo Companies and Unions were Rothenberg on Labor Relations, pp. 429-431, are forceful and
denied, hence this appeal. persuasive:

ISSUE/s: a. It is essential to the right of a putative bargaining agent to

1. WoN Marcelo Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice? – NO. represent the employees that it be the delegate of a majority
Marcelo Companies do not have a duty to bargain with LAKAS and of the employees and, conversely, an employer is under duty
the acts done by Marcelo Companies were acts of self-preservation. to bargain collectively only when the bargaining agent is
representative of the majority of the employees. A natural
2. WoN the complaint filed by LAKAS against Marcelo Companies can consequence of these principles is that the employer has the
be sustained in view of the alleged fact that its authority to file and right to demand of the asserted bargaining agent proof of
prosecute the same has been squarely raised in issue at the first its representation of its employees. Having the right to
instance before the respondent court? – NO. A labor organization demonstration of this fact, it is not an 'unfair labor practice'
cannot bring any action for and in behalf of a local union which is not for an employer to refuse to negotiate until the asserted
an affiliate thereof bargaining agent has presented reasonable proof of majority
representation. It is necessary however, that such demand be
RULING: WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing considerations, the petition in made in good faith and not merely as a pretext or device for
L-38258 is dismissed and the petition in L-38260 is granted. The decision of delay or evasion. The employer's right is however to
the Court of Industrial Relations is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and reasonable proof . . .
a new judgment is rendered holding that the respondent Marcelo Companies
are not guilty of unfair labor practice. b. . . . Although an employer has the undoubted right to bargain
with a bargaining agent whose authority has been established,
RATIO: without the requirement that the bargaining agent be officially
Issue 1 certified by the National Labor Relations Board as such, if the
1. The present controversy is a three-sided conflict, although focus has informally presented evidence leaves a real doubt as to the
been greatly placed upon an alleged labor dispute between issue, the employer has a right to demand a certification and
complainant LAKAS and the respondent Marcelo Companies. It to refuse to negotiate until such official certification is
would bear emphasizing, however, that what had been patently presented.
disregarded by the respondent industrial court and the parties alike, is
4. The facts of the case indisputably show that a legitimate representation
the fact that LAKAS had never been the bargaining representative of
issue confronted the respondent Marcelo Companies. In the face of
any and all of the local unions then existing in the respondent Marcelo
these facts and in conformity with the existing jurisprudence, the
Companies.
Court held that there existed no duty to bargain collectively with the
2. PAFLU v. BLR: In a situation like this where the issue of legitimate complainant LAKAS on the part of said companies.
representation in dispute is viewed for not only by one legitimate labor
 5. The acts instigated by complainant LAKAS such as the filing of the LAKAS, that when it filed the charges against the Marcelo
Notice of Strike and the other strikes were calculated, designed and Companies, the officers of the movant unions were not yet then the
intended to compel the respondent Marcelo Companies to recognize officers thereof, nevertheless, the moment MFWU and UNWU
or bargain with it notwithstanding that it was an uncertified union, or separated from and disaffiliated with LAKAS to again exercise its
in the case of respondent Marcelo Tire, to bargain with it despite the rights as independent local unions, registered before as such, they are
fact that the MUEWA of Paulino Lazaro was already certified as the no longer affiliates of LAKAS, as what transpired here. Naturally,
sole bargaining agent in said respondent company. These concerted there would no longer be any reason or occasion for LAKAS to
activities executed and carried into effect at the instigation and continue representing them.
motivation of LAKAS are illegal and violative of the employer's basic
right to bargain collectively only with the representative supported by
the majority of its employees in each of the bargaining units.

6. In the light of the above ruling and taking the facts and circumstances
of the case in relation to the requirement by the respondent companies
in the filling up of schedule form, the Court held and ruled that the
requirement was an act of self-preservation, designed to effect cost-
savings as well as to insure peace and order within their premises.

Issue 2
7. LAKAS cannot bring any action for and in behalf of the employees
who were members of MUEWA because the said local union was
never an affiliate of LAKAS.

8. It was Augusto Carreon and his followers who joined LAKAS, but
Augusto Carreon was not the recognized president of MUEWA and
neither he nor his followers can claim any legitimate representation of
MUEWA. Apparently, it is this split faction of MUEWA, headed by
Augusto Carreon, who is being sought to be represented by LAKAS.

9. However, it cannot do so because the members constituting this split

faction of MUEWA were still members of MUEWA which was on its
own right a duly registered labor union. Hence, any suit to be brought
for and in behalf of them can be made only by MUEWA, and not
LAKAS.

10. It appearing then that Augusto Carreon and his cohorts did not
disaffiliate from MUEWA nor signed any individual affiliation with
LAKAS, LAKAS bears no legal interest in representing MUEWA or
any of its members.

11. The same can be said with respect to the complaining employees
belonging to UNWU and MFWU. Although it is true, as alleged by