1. T&H Shopfitters/Gin Queen Corp. Et Al.

Vs T&H Respondents claimed that the work weeks of those decision is labor related na.) In support of their 2. Benjamin Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers’
Shopfitters/Gin Queen Workers Union - employees in the SBFZ plant were drastically reduced position, petitioners stress that T&H Shopfitters and Union
CONSTANTINO to only three (3) days in a month. Gin Queen are corporations separate and distinct "The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
In its defense, Gin Queen, claiming that it is a from each other. Consequently, T&H Shopfitters and force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
DOCTRINE: NONE THAT RELATES TO MERC. MOSTLY A corporation separate and distinct from T&H Stinnes Huang, an officer of T&H Shopfitters, cannot promote their welfare."
LABOR CASE. Shopfitters, stressed that respondents were all be held liable for ULP for the reason that there is no
FACTS: T&H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen employees. Gin Queen claimed that due to the employer-employee relationship between the former Facts:
Corporation workers union filed their Complaint for decrease in orders from its customers, they had to and respondents. Further, Gin Queen avers that its Petitioner Victoriano is a member of the Iglesia ni
ULP by way of union busting, and Illegal Lockout, with resort to cost cutting measures to avoid anticipated decision to implement an enforced rotation of work Cristo and was an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory
moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, financial losses. Thus, it assigned work on a rotational assignments for respondents was a management and was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers'
against T&H Shopfitters and Gin Queen, before the basis. It was of the impression that the employees, prerogative permitted by law, justified by the Union. Membership with the Union was mandatory as
Labor Arbiter. Respondents treated T&H Shopfitters who opposed its economic measures, were merely decrease in the orders it received from its customers. provided for under a collective bargaining agreement:
and Gin Queen as a single entity and their sole motivated by spite in filing the complaint for ULP It explains that its failure to present concrete proof of "Membership in the Union shall be required as a
employer. In their desire to improve their working against it. In addition, Gin Queen explained that its its decreasing orders was due to the impossibility of condition of employment for all permanent
conditions, respondents and other employees of transfer from Castillejos, Zambales to Cabangan, proving a negative assertion. It also asserts that the employees workers covered by this Agreement."
petitioners held their first formal meeting to discuss Zambales was a result of the expiration of its lease transfer from Castillejos to Cabangan was made in Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No.
the formation of a union. The following day 17 agreement with Myra D. Lumibao (Myra), its lessor. good faith and solely because of the expiration of its 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No.
employees were barred from entering petitioners’ Since the Cabangan site was bare and still required lease contract in Castillejos. The court disagrees and 3350, the employer was not precluded "from making
factory premises located in Castillejos, Zambales, and construction, Gin Queen offered work, to employees affirms the NLRC ruling on this issue. an agreement with a labor organization to require as
ordered to transfer to T&H Shopfitters’ warehouse at who opted to stay, on rotation as well. The questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1) a condition of employment membership therein, if
Subic Bay Freeport Zone purportedly because of its LA ruled against the union. The decision was appealed sponsoring a field trip to Zambales for its employees, such labor organization is the representative of the
expansion. Afterwards, the said 17 employees were to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the LA and to the exclusion of union members, before the employees." On June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act
repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due to the also ruled against the MR. scheduled certification election; 2) the active No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to
unavailability of work. “Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, based on their campaign by the sales officer of petitioners against — paragraph (4) subsection (a) of section 4 of
DOLE eventually issued a certificate of registration in Articles of Incorporation, T & H Corporation and Gin the union prevailing as a bargaining agent during the Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such
favor of the THGQ Union. Respondents contended Queen Corporation are engaged in the same line of field trip; 3) escorting its employees after the field trip agreement shall not cover members of any religious
that the affected employees were not given regular business. It should also be noted that respondents did to the polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in
work assignments, while subcontractors were not controvert the allegations to the effect that Myra subcontractors performing respondents’ functions; 5) any such labor organization".
continuously hired to perform their functions. With D. Lumibao, the supposed lessor of respondent assigning union members to the Cabangan site to
the assistance of the National Conciliation and corporations, is the wife of respondent Stennis work as grass cutters; and 6) the enforcement of work Being a member of the INC, a religion that prohibits
Mediation Board, the parties came to an agreement. Huang, and that Gin Queen Corporation has been on a rotational basis for union members, all reek of affiliation with labor organizations, the Petitioner
Petitioners agreed to give priority to regular renamed ‘MDL’, but still carries on the same business interference on the part of petitioners. wrote a letter informing the Union of his resignation.
employees in the distribution of work assignments. in the same premises using the same machines and Indubitably, the various acts of petitioners, taken Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the
Respondents averred, however, that petitioners never facilities. These circumstances, together with the together, reasonably support an inference that, Company asking the latter to separate Appellee from
complied with its commitment but instead hired supposed assignment of respondent Stennis Huang’s indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict the service in view of the fact that he was resigning
contractual workers. interest in Gin Queen Corporation to a third party are respondents’ free exercise of their right to self- from the Union as a member.
When a certification election was finally scheduled, badges of fraud that justify the piercing of the veil of organization. The Court is of the considered view that
the president of Gin Queen through a memorandum corporate fiction. x x x petitioners’ undisputed actions prior and immediately The CFI ruled in favor of Petitioner and enjoined the
announced that it was relocating its office and Thus, based on the foregoing, respondents T & H before the scheduled certification election, while company from dismissing him.
workers in Cabangan, Zambales. The area in Shopfitters Corporation, Gin Queen Corporation (now seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in the affairs of
Cabangan was a talahiban and the union officers and known as ‘MDL’) and Stennis Huang, as well as the its employees in selecting their exclusive bargaining In its appeal, the Union claimed that R.A. no. 3350
members were made to work as grass cutters presidents of the respondent corporations as of representative. was unconstitutional on the ground that 1) prohibits
according to the respondents. When the workers did November 2003 and the date of execution of this More importantly, petitioners' bare denial of some of all the members of a given religious sect from joining
not report for work, the officers were made to explain decision may be held liable for unfair labor practice the complained acts and unacceptable explanations, a any labor union if such sect prohibits affiliations of
and the other employees were meted out with and the corresponding award of moral and exemplary mere afterhought at best, cannot prevail over their members thereto; and, consequently, deprives
suspension. A day before the election, the petitioners damages.” respondents' detailed narration of the events that said members of their constitutional right to form or
sponsored a field trip where the union officers and CA affirmed the NLRC decision. (THE DECISIONS MAY transpired. At this juncture, it bears to emphasize that join lawful associations or organizations guaranteed
members were not included. Allegedly, a sales officer BE READ FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE) in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is by the Bill of Rights, and thus becomes obnoxious [to
campaigned against the union. Due to the heavy substantial evidence,18 or that amount of relevant the] Constitution; 2) Impairs the obligation of
pressure exerted by petitioners, the votes for "no ISSUE: W/N ULP acts were committed by petitioners evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as contracts; 3) discriminates in favor of certain religious
union" prevailed. Respondents averred that the against respondents in the case at bench adequate to support a conclusion, even if other sects and affords no protection to labor unions; 4)
following week after the certification elections were minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine violates the constitutional provision that no religious
held, petitioners retrenched THG-GQ Union officers HELD: YES. (BASICALLY THE SC AFFIRMS THE NLRC otherwise. test shall be required for the exercise of a civil right;
and members assigned at the Zambales plant. RULING ON THE PIERCING PART. The rest of the 5) violates the equal protection clause; and 6) the act
violates the constitutional provision regarding the for acts allegedly inimical to the interests of the DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO
promotion of social justice. FACTS: union. The charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose RAMOS, BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO
Petitioner Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa from her emotional remark to a waitress who ACOSTA, RECITACION BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN,
Issue: sa M. Greenfield (MSMG) is a local union. Private happened to be a union steward, "Wala akong tiwala ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA LLAGAS, petitioners,
Whether or not R.A. No. 3350 violates the respondent M. Greenfield is the employer of sa Union ninyo." The remark was made in the course vs. THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister
Constitutional mandate to protect the rights of petitioner's members. Members of petitioner of a heated discussion regarding Beloncio's efforts to of the Ministry of Labor, AMIGO MANUFACTURING
workers and to promote their welfare conducted a strike, which was marred by violence. make a lazy and recalcitrant waiter adopt a better INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF
notwithstanding the fact that it allows some workers, Private respondent attempted to quell the same by attitude towards his work. The union demanded the FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), respondents.
by virtue of their religious beliefs, to opt out of Union hiring persons for that purpose. Thereafter, dismissal from employment of Beloncio on the basis Facts:
security agreements. petitioners were placed under preventive suspension; of the union security clause of their collective Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees
only some of them were eventually allowed to return bargaining agreement and the Hotel acceded by Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization
Held: NO. R.A. No. 3350 is constitutional on all counts. to work. placing Beloncio on forced leave. the Labor Arbiter which, was the existing bargaining agent of the
It must be pointed out that the free exercise of held that the union was guilty of unfair labor practice employees in private respondent Amigo
religious profession or belief is superior to contract Petitioners thus filed a verified complaint with the when it demanded the separation of Beloncio and the Manufacturing, Inc. (Company).
rights. In case of conflict, the latter must, therefore, Arbitration Branch of the DOLE, charging private employer was ordered to reinstate her. The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
yield to the former. respondent of ULP, in the form of union-busting, had a CBA governing their labor relations, which
illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, interference in ISSUES: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP by reason agreement was then about to expire on February 28,
The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, union activities, discrimination, threats, intimidation, of the arbitrary use of the union security clause in the 1977. Within the last 60 days of the CBA, upon
worldly, and temporal, not spiritual or religious or coercion, violence, and oppression. Private CBA? written authority of at least 30% of the employees in
holy and eternal. It was intended to serve the secular respondent's defense was that the strike was illegal the company, including the petitioners, the
purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the for it was marred by violence. HELD: Yes. The Hotel would not have compelled Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for
free exercise of religion, by averting that certain Beloncio to go on forced leave were it not for the certification election with MOLE. The petition was
persons be refused work, or be dismissed from work, union's insistence and demand to the extent that opposed by the PAFLU with whom the Amigo
or be dispossessed of their right to work and of being ISSUE: WON the strike should be declared illegal on because of the failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio Employees Union was at that time affiliated. The
impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, by account of violence committed during the strike. as requested, the union filed a notice of strike with same employees who had signed the petition filed by
reason of union security agreements. the Ministry of Labor and Employment on the issue of FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from
HELD: No, where both parties are responsible for the unfair labor practice. Although the CBA contained a PAFLU.
More so now in the [1987 and past in constitutions] violence committed during the strike, the strike union security clause or closed-shop agreement, it is, Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the
[...] where it is mandated that "the State shall afford cannot be declared illegal since the strike cannot be however, stressed that such are also governed by law authorized representative of the Amigo Employees
protection to labor, promote full employment and attributed to the striking employees only. This is an and by principles of justice, fair play, and legality. Union, filed a petition for certification election in the
equality in employment, ensure equal work exception to the general rule that the strike shall be Union security clauses cannot be used by union Company. The Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and declared illegal where it is marred by violence on the officials against an employer, much less their own intervened and moved for the dismissal of the
regulate the relation between workers and part of the employees. members, except with a high sense of responsibility, petition for certification election filed by Villar, on the
employers. In the case at bar, the allegation of violence fairness, prudence, and judiciousness. ground, among others that Villar had no legal
committed in the course of the strike, it must be personality to sign the petition since she was not an
We believe that in enacting Republic Act No. 3350, remembered that the Labor Arbiter and the A union member may not be expelled from her union, officer of the union nor is there factual or legal basis
Congress acted consistently with the spirit of the Commission found that "the parties are agreed that and consequently from her job, for personal or for her claim that she was the authorized
constitutional provision. It acted merely to relieve the there were violent incidents . . . resulting to injuries to impetuous reasons or for causes foreign to the representative of the local union.
exercise of religion, by certain persons, of a burden both sides, the union and management. The evidence closed-shop agreement and in a manner Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition filed by Villar,
that is imposed by union security agreements. It was on record show that the violence cannot be attributed characterized by arbitrariness and whimsicality. which dismissal is still pending appeal before BLR.
Congress itself that imposed that burden when it to the striking employees alone for the company itself Beloncio was merely trying her best to make a hotel Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special
enacted the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act 875), employed hired men to pacify the strikers. With bus boy do his work promptly and courteously so as meeting of its general membership. A Resolution was
and, certainly, Congress, if it so deems advisable, violence committed on both sides, the management to serve hotel customers in the coffee shop thereby unanimously approved which called for the
could take away the same burden. It is certain that and the employees, such violence cannot be a ground expeditiously and cheerfully. Union membership does investigation by the PAFLU national president, of all of
not every conscience can be accommodated by all the for declaring the strike as illegal. not entitle waiters, janitors, and other workers to be the petitioners and one Felipe Manlapao, for
laws of the land; but when general laws conflict with sloppy in their work, inattentive to customers, and continuously maligning the union spreading false
scrupples of conscience, exemptions ought to be 6. MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC disrespectful to supervisors. The Union should have propaganda that the union officers were merely
granted unless some "compelling state interest" and MELBA C. BELONCIO G.R. No. 76989, 1987 Sep disciplined its erring and troublesome members appointees of the management; and for causing
intervenes. In the instant case, We see no such 29 instead of causing so much hardship to a member divisiveness in the union. PAFLU formed a Trial
compelling state interest to withhold exemption. GUTIERREZ, JR., J. who was only doing her work for the best interests of Committee to investigate the local union's charges
the employer, all its employees, and the general against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty.
4. MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA FACTS: Private respondent, Melba C. Beloncio, public whom they serve. PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA which
SA M GREENFIELD VS RAMOS assistant head waitress at the hotel's coffee shop, was also reincorporated the same provisions of the
326 SCRA428 [2000] expelled from the Manila Mandarin Employees Union 7. G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983 existing CBA, including the union security clause.
PAFLU President rendered a decision finding the and equity, as well as the dictates of law and justice, Both the employer and the union members are bound did not constitute an unfair labor practice. I'ts refusal
petitioners guilty of the charges. PAFLU demanded therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the by such agreement. There can be no discrimination to all complainants to work and requirement that the
the Company to terminate the employment of the labor union of such corrective and remedial committed by petitioner thereby as the situation of latter stay out of the premises in the meantime
petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the CBA. measures, in keeping with its laws and regulations, for the union employees are different and distinct from (perhaps while the strike was still going on at the
Acting on PAFLU's demand, the Company informed its preservation and continued existence; lest by its the non-union employees. Indeed, discrimination per factory) was borne out of the Company's justified
PAFLU that it will first secure the necessary clearances folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall. se is not unlawful. There can be no discrimination apprehension and fear that sabotage might be
to terminate petitioners. PAFLU requested the where the employees concerned are not similarly committed in the warehouse where the products
Company to put petitioners under preventive 8. WISE AND CO., INC., petitioner, vs. situated. machinery and spare parts were stored, as has been
suspension pending the application for said WISE & CO., INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU AND the case in Binangonan. It has never been shown that
clearances to terminate the petitioners. The Company HONORABLE BIENVENIDO G. LAGUESMA, in his DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED reversed the the act of the Company was intended to induce the
filed the request for clearance to terminate the capacity as voluntary Arbitrator, respondents. decision of voluntary arbitrator. complainants to renounce their union-membership or
petitioners before DOLE which was granted. DOLE as a deterrent for non-members to affiliate therewith,
Secretary Inciong denied the appeal, hence, this By:Wea Matriz 9. Rizal Cement Workers vs. Madrigal GR. No. L- nor as a retaliatory measure for activities in the union
petition for review. 19767, April 30, 1964 or in furtherance of the cause of the union.
Issue: W/N DOLE Secretary erred in affirming the FACTS: The management issued a memorandum
grant of clearance of termination of petitioners. NO circular introducing a profit sharing scheme for its Facts: 10. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs BPI Employees
Ruling: managers and supervisors the initial distribution. The Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI
It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not respondent union wrote petitioner asking for The 21 union members of Rizal Cement Workers’ Unibank
open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of participation in this scheme but it was denied by Union filed a complaint against the respondent Rizal Labor Law – Labor Standards – Security of Tenure vs
association ordained by the Constitution. But the petitioner on the ground that it had to adhere strictly Cement Co. Inc, for Unfair labor practice on the Unionism
Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a to the CBA. Petitioner distributed the profit sharing ground of discrimination.
valid form of union security, and such provision in a benefit not only to managers and supervisors but also De Leon, the warehouseman, of Bodega Tanque In 2000, Far East Bank (FEB) was absorbed by the
CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of to all other rank and file employees not covered by (complainants’ workplace) was informed by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Now BPI has an
association guaranteed by the Constitution. the CBA. This caused the respondent union to file a manager of Binangonan that a previous strike in the existing Union Shop Clause agreement with the BPI
In the case at bench, the Company and the Amigo notice of strike alleging that petitioner was guilty of Respondent’s branch, hence, to take precautionary Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of
Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a ULP because the union members were discriminated measures in protecting the properties of the company Unions in BPI Unibank (BPI Union) whereby it is a pre-
union security clause which is a reiteration of the old against in the grant of the profit sharing benefits. stored at the Bodega Tanque because of the strikers condition that new employees must join the union
CBA. The quoted stipulation for closed-shop is clear Management refused to proceed with the CBA caused damage to the factory in Binangonan and before they can be regularized otherwise they will not
and unequivocal. Petitioners’ theory that their negotiations unless the last notice of strike was first sabotage might occur. He was advised by the have a continued employment. By reason of the
expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is resolved. The union agreed to postpone discussions manager to request the members of the Union to stay failure of the FEB employees to join the union, BPI
untenable. PAFLU had the authority to investigate on the profit sharing demand until a new CBA was meanwhile outside the premises of the Bodega Union recommended to BPI their dismissal. BPI
petitioners on the charges filed by their co-employees concluded. After a series of conciliation conferences, Tanque and prohibited the 21 union members to refused. The issue went to voluntary arbitration
in the local union and after finding them guilty as the parties agreed to settle the dispute through enter the gate. Only those non members of said where BPI won but the Court of Appeals reversed the
charged, to expel them from the roll of membership voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator issued Union are allowed to enter and work. The Union, Voluntary Arbitrator. BPI appealed to the Supreme
of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under an award ordering petitioner to likewise extend the through their Vice President, wrote a letter to the Court.
the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union benefits of the 1987 profit sharing scheme to the respondent alleging the latter’s discrimination acts.
was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of members of respondent union. Hence, this petition. The respondent replied that a sabotage might be ISSUE: Whether or not the Union Shop agreement
the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old occur because of the previous strike held by their violated the constitutional right of security of tenure
CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security ISSUE: Whether the grant by management of profit Union. After the complaining workers were not of the FEB employees absorbed by BPI.
clause. sharing benefits to its non-union member employees allowed to work, respondent hired substitutes in
Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a is discriminatory against its workers who are union order that the work in Bodega Tanque, may not be HELD: No. As a general rule, the State protects the
labor union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes members. paralyzed. The Union picket line in front of where the workers right to security of tenure. An employee’s
bound by the laws and regulations of the parent Offices of the respondent companies located. services can only be terminated upon just and
organization. It is undisputable that oppositors were HELD: NO. Under the CBA between the parties, there authorized causes. In this case, the presence of a
members of the Amigo Employees Union at the time is a clause where the employees are classified into Issue: Union Shop Clause in the CBA between BPI and BPI
that said union affiliated with PAFLU; hence, those who are members of the union and those who Union must be respected. Failure of an employee to
oppositors are bound by the laws and regulations of are not. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing WON there was an Unfair Labor Practice on the join the union pursuant to the clause is an authorized
PAFLU. benefits to the employees outside the “bargaining part of the Management on the ground of cause for BPI not to continue employing the
Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for unit” falls under the ambit of its managerial Discrimination? employee concerned – and BPI must respect that
that matter, is the right of self-preservation. When prerogative. It appears to have been done in good provision of the CBA. In the hierarchy of labor rights,
members of a labor union seek the disintegration and faith and without ulterior motive. In the case of the Held: unionism is favored over security of tenure. A
destruction of the very union to which they belong; union members, they derive their benefits from the contrary interpretation of the Union Shop Clause
they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members terms and conditions of the CBA contract which The court was resorted to as a defensive weapon would dilute its efficacy and put the certified union
of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence constitute the law between the contracting parties. or dictated by economic necessity and, consequently, that is supposedly being protected thereby at the
mercy of management. Nevertheless, the FEB
employees are still entitled to the twin notice rule –
this is to afford them ample opportunity to whether
or not join the union.