Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > January 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-35120 January 31, 1984 - ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-35120. January 31, 1984.]

ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION (FFW), Respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Feliciano for Petitioner.

Jaime D. Lauron for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAW; REPUBLIC ACT 875, INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF LAWS IMPLEMENTING PROTECTION TO LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. — The right of employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution. It is recognized and implemented through the abovecited Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act as amended. In interpreting the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandates, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT THERETO RESTRICTED BUT MAY NOT BE DENIED; CASE AT BAR. — The right of supervisory employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act carries certain restrictions but the right itself may not be denied or unduly abridged. The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. As stated in Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. Court of Industrial Relations (47 SCRA 112), it would be to attach unorthodoxy to, not to say an emasculation of, the concept of law if managers as such were precluded from organizing. Thus, if Republic Act 875, in its Section 3, recognizes the right of supervisors to form a separate organization of their own, albeit they cannot be members of a labor organization of employees under their supervision, that authority of supervisors to form a separate labor union carries with it the right to bargain collectively with the employer. (Government Service Insurance System v. Government Service Insurance System Supervisors’ Union, 68 SCRA 418).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AFFILIATION OF LOCAL UNION WITH A NATIONAL UNION OR FEDERATION; EFFECT THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — The specific issue before us is whether or not a supervisor’s union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank-and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated. We find without merit the contentions of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that there would be a merging of the two bargaining units; and that the respondent union will lose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation. There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence. Notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members (Elisco-Elirol Labor Union v. Noriel, 80 SCRA 681 and Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Noriel 80 SCRA 681 and Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty cotton Mills Inc., 66 SCRA 512). In the case at bar, the Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with their employer. There could be no employer influence on rank-in-file organizational activities nor there could be any rank and file influence on the supervisory functions of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be proscribed.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


Adamson and Adamson, Inc., filed this petition to set aside orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) can legally represent supervisors of the petitioner corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same company with the same labor federation, the Federation of Free Workers.chanrobles law library : red

The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner about its having organized on the same date that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW) advised the petitioner that the rank and file salesmen had formed their own union.

The CIR dismissed the petition in CIR Case No. 3267-MC entitled "In the Matter of Representation of the Supervisory Employees of Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Petitioner" thus prompting the filing of this petition for review on certiorari.

Subsequently and during the pendency of the present petition, the rank and file employees formed their own union, naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW).

The petitioner made a lone assignment of error, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT UNION TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER’S SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES NOTWITHSTANDING THE AFFILIATION OF THE SAID UNION WITH THE SAME NATIONAL FEDERATION WITH WHICH THE UNIONS OF NON-SUPERVISORS IN THE PETITIONER COMPANY ARE ALSO AFFILIATED.

The petitioner argues that the affiliation of the respondent union of supervisors, the salesmen’s association, and the Adamson and Adamson Independent Worker’s Union of rank and file personnel with the same national federation (FFW) violates Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, as amended), because — (1) it results in the indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; (2) since respondent union and the unions of non-supervisors in the same company are governed by the same constitution and by-laws of the national federation, in practical effect, there is but one union; and (3) it would result in the respondent union’s losing its independence because it becomes the alter ego of the federation.chanrobles law library : red

The petitioner also submits that should affiliation be allowed, this would violate the requirement of separateness of bargaining units under Section 12 of the Act because only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner.

The respondents on the other band argue that the supervisory employees of an employer may validly join an organization of the rank-and-file employees so long as the said rank and file employees are not under their supervision. They submit that Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union (FFW) is not composed of sales supervisors and, therefore, the salesmen of the company are not under the supervision of the supervisory employees forming the union. Respondents also argue that even if the salesmen of the petitioner company are under the supervision of the members of the supervisory union, the prohibition would not apply because the salesmen and the supervisory employees of the company have their separate and distinct labor organizations, and, as a matter of fact, their respective unions sent separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements. They contend that their respective labor organizations, not the FFW, will represent their members in the negotiations as well as in the signing of their respective contracts. Respondents further argue that the Federation of Free Workers has, as its affiliates, supervisory as well as rank-and-file employees, and should both the supervisory and the rank-and-file employees of a certain employer who have separate certificates of registration affiliate with the same federation, the prohibition does not apply as the federation is not the organization of the supervisory employees contemplated in the law.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The issue presented involves the correct interpretation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, the Industrial Peace Act, as amended, which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own.

The right of employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution. It is recognized and implemented through the abovecited Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act as amended.

In interpreting the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandates, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.

In deciding this case, we start with the recognized rule that the right of supervisory employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act carries certain restrictions but the right itself may not be denied or unduly abridged. The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. As stated in Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. Court of Industrial Relations (47 SCRA 112), it would be to attach unorthodoxy to, not to say an emasculation of, the concept of law if managers as such were precluded from organizing. Thus, if Republic Act 875, in its Section 3, recognizes the right of supervisors to form a separate organization of their own, albeit they cannot be members of a labor organization of employees under their supervision, that authority of supervisors to form a separate labor union carries with it the right to bargain collectively with the employer. (Government Service Insurance System v. Government Service Insurance System Supervisors’ Union, 68 SCRA 418).

The specific issue before us is whether or not a supervisor’s union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank-and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated. We find without merit the contentions of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that there would be a merging of the two bargaining units; and that the respondent union will lose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence.

In Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Noriel (80 SCRA 681) and Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc. (66 SCRA 512) we held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


". . . the Court expressly cited and affirmed the basic principle that ‘(T)he locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national union (as PAFLU) was in furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence.’"

In other words, notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members.

We agree with the Court of Industrial Relations when it ruled that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions in the registration of both. Nonetheless, the inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Neither can it be construed that their personalities are so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways, independently of the federation. This is borne by the fact that FFW, like other federations, is a legitimate labor organization separate and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to construe the registration certificates of the aforecited unions, along the line of the Company’s argument, would tie up any affiliates to the shoe string of the federation. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with their employer. There could be no employer influence on rank-in-file organizational activities nor there could be any rank and file influence on the supervisory functions of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be proscribed.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned order and the resolution en banc of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-57219-20 January 4, 1984 - RAMON B. RESURRECCION, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54108 January 17, 1984 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57804 January 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO CARUNCHO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66088 January 25, 1984 - ALEX G. ALMARIO, ET AL. v. MANUEL ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27422 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO SARABIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34127 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MOREDO

  • G.R. No. L-34675 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ZAGANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39504-06 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNSON SO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46293 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MILAGROS CALMA MABANSAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48373 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO DE OCAMPO GONZAGA

  • G.R. Nos. L-48876-78 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. VIDAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55271 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO PASCUAL, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59985 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BENAVIDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60386 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO VILLEGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-64750 January 30, 1984 - SELSO M. MANZANARIS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66161 January 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER P. NILLOS

  • AC-G.R. No. L-25554. November 18, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELMER NILLOS y PALSARIO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984 - CARMEN E. BACARRO v. RUBEN M. PINATACAN

  • A.C. No. 1734 January 31, 1984 - JOSEFINA M. SENSENG v. PATRICIO BALAO GA

  • G.R. No. L-28230 January 31, 1984 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MUNICIPALITY OF ALCALA, PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30057 January 31, 1984 - BRUNO O. APARRI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31657 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. VENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32861 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-33907 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO R. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-35120 January 31, 1984 - ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35818 January 31, 1984 - JOSE P. FELARCA v. BOOKMAN, INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36317-18 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO VILLAREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36750 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL REGATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40517 January 31, 1984 - LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. PASTOR T. QUEBRAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40608 January 31, 1984 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48210 January 31, 1984 - CRISANTO SAN MIGUEL, ET AL. v. J.M. ELBINIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50500 January 31, 1984 - MARIANO SONGCO v. PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50908 January 31, 1984 - MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. JUINIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56113 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME P. VILLEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56170 January 31, 1984 - HILARIO JARAVATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56339 January 31, 1984 - PHILIPPINES DAILY EXPRESS PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57438 January 31, 1984 - FELICIANO FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57767 January 31, 1984 - ALBERTO S. SUNIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58438 January 31, 1984 - EDILBERTO BERNAS, ET AL. v. PELAYO V. NUEVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60258 January 31, 1984 - SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-61236 January 31, 1984 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL. v. CARLITO A. EISMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61716 January 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIALITO BARCENILLA

  • G.R. No. L-62287 January 31, 1984 - FELICIDAD F. GONZAGA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63550-51 January 31, 1984 - RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63701 January 31, 1984 - CORAZON R. PAGDONSALAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65072 January 31, 1984 - APOLINAR R. ROYALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.