Labor Relations Course Outline

I.

General Concepts
A. Constitutional Basis
1.
Sec 18, Article II
The State affirms labor as PRIMARY SOCIAL ECONOMIC FORCE. It
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
2.

Secs 4, 8, 11 and 16, Article III

Sec. 4 - No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or the press or the right of the people to
peaceably assemble and petition the government to redress
grievances.
Sec. 8 - The right of the people, including those in the public
and private sectors, to form Unions, Association or Societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Sec 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
Sec. 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies.

3.
Sec 3, Article XIII LABOR
The State shall afford full protection to Labor,
local and overseas,
organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment
and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
1. Self-organization,
2. Collective Bargaining and negotiations and
3. Peaceful concerted activities,
4. Including the right to strike in accordance with law.
B. Definition
Labor relations- refers to interactions between the employer and
employees or their representatives and the mechanism by which the
standards and other terms and conditions of employment are negotiated,
adjusted and enforced.
C. Purpose
D. Parties
II.

Labor Organizations
A. Definition (Art 219[g], Labor Code as amended)
Labor organization means any union or association of employees
which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collecting bargaining or
of dealing with employers concerning the terms and conditions of
employment.
A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector
organized for collective bargaining and for other legitimate purpose,
a workers' association is an organization of workers formed for the
mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose
other than
collective bargaining.

B. Self-organization (Arts 253-257, Labor Code as amended)

1. Scope
Read: Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin vs Bu of Labor
Relations, G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015
Facts:
Samahan, through its president file with DOLE RO. applicartion
for registration of its name. R.O. issued COR. Employer Hanjin
opposed stating that that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant,
rural workers, self-employed, and those without definite employers
may form a workers' association. Dole RD ruled in favor of Hanjin.
On appeal, BLR reversed the ruling of RD. It stated that the law
clearly
afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including those
without definite employers. The CA rendered its decision, holding
that the registration of Samahan as a legitimate workers'
association was contrary to the provisions of Article 243 of the
Labor Code.
Issues:
1. WON the Samahan can form a workers association in Hanjin.
2. WON the word hanjin should be removed from the name of union.
He

Held:
1. the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant,
intermittent and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a union or
a workers' association lies with the workers themselves, and whether
they have definite employers or not.

Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. vs Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 81883, September

23, 1992

2. Covered employees (section 2, Rule II, Book V, Omnibus Rules)

a) Government employees
Read: GSIS vs Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa GSIS, G.R. No. 170132,
December 6, 2006
b) Managerial and supervisory employees
i.
Doctrine of separation of union
ii.
Confidential employee rule/Doctrine of necessary
implication
iii.
Mixed membership
United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union vs Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226, March 25,
1998
Facts:

Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. the union filed a petition for certification election on behalf
of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. However, its petition was denied by the
med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route
managers are managerial employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership

Issues:
(1) whether the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. are managerial employees and
(2) whether Art. 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees from forming, joining or assisting labor
unions, violates Art. III, 8 of the Constitution.
Held:
1.

Earlier in this opinion, reference was made to the distinction between managers per se (top
managers and middle managers) and supervisors (first-line managers). That distinction is evident
in the work of the route managers which sets them apart from supervisors in general. Unlike
supervisors who basically merely direct operating employees in line with set tasks assigned to
them, route managers are responsible for the success of the company's main line of business
through management of their respective sales teams. Such management necessarily involves the
planning, direction, operation and evaluation of their individual teams and areas which the work of
supervisors does not entail.
The route managers cannot thus possibly be classified as mere supervisors because their work
does not only involve, but goes far beyond, the simple direction or supervision of operating
employees to accomplish objectives set by those above them. They are not mere functionaries
with simple oversight functions but business administrators in their own right. An idea of the role of
route managers as managers per se can be gotten from a memo sent by the director of metro
sales operations of respondent company to one of the route managers.

2.

2008

Republic vs. Kawashima Textime Mfg, G.R. No. 160325, July 23,

San Miguel Corp. Supervisors & Exempt Employees Union vs.

Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399, Aug 15, 1997
Sugbuanan Rural Bank vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116194, February 2,
2000
Coca-Cola vs. Ilocos Profl & Techl Employees Union, G.R. No.
193798, September 9, 2015
c) Members of cooperatives
Read: Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs. DOLE, G.R. No. 94045,
September 13, 1991
d) Alien/foreigners
Read: Intl Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Calleja, G.R. No. 84750,
September 28, 1990
e) Probationary employees
Read: NUWHRAIN vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009
3. Non-abridgement
C. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 250)
1. Nature of relationship between union and its members

Read: Heirs of Teodulo M. Cruz vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-23331-32, December
27, 1969
2. Freedom of choice
Read: Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25246,
September 12, 1974
3. Election of officers (Rule XII, Book V, Omnibus Rules)
a) Term of office
b) Qualifications and disqualifications
Read: Flora vs. Oximana, G.R. No. L-19745, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA
212
c) Eligibility to vote
Read: Tancinco vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 78131, January 20, 1988
d) Procedure
e) Dispute
f) Impeachment/expulsion
i.
Grounds
Read: Manalad vs. Trajano, G.R. Nos. 72772-73, June 28, 1989
ii.
Remedy
g) Assessments and check-off
i.
Requisites
Read: Del Pilar Academy vs. Del Pilar Academy Employees Union, G.R.
No. 170112, April 30, 2008
ii.

Attorneys Fees, negotiation fees, et al

Read: Gabriel vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 115949, March 16, 2000
iii.
Liability for failure to deduct
h) Reportorial requirement (Art. 252, Labor Code, as amended)
i.
Prompt submission
Read: Verceles vs. BLR-DOLE, G.R. No. 152322, February 15, 2005
i)

Administration of funds (Rule XIII, Book V, Omnibus Rules)

i.
Audit
ii.
Prescription of action
D. Rights of Labor Organizations (Art. 251)
E. Bargaining Agent (Rules V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, Book V, Omnibus Rules; Arts.
261-272; DOLE Memorandum Order No. 40-I-2015)
1.
Bargaining unit; Bargaining agent
a) Definition
b) Principles in determining bargaining unit
i.
Substantial mutual benefits principle
ii.
Globe principle
iii.
Collective bargaining history principle
iv.
Employment status principle
Read: ISAE vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000

Facts: The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its
faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. Foreignhires receive certain benefits not accorded to local-hires Petitioner union
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires.
Issue: WON foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the
local-hires.
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with
equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law."[29]
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are
(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
(2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions
(Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) similarity of employment status.
The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or
not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees
the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
Case at Bar: It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective
bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these
groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; localhires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions
under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded
certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These benefits, such as housing,
transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are
reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the
former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires
would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective
bargaining rights.

1994

San Miguel vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 100485, September 21,

The existence of a prior collective bargaining history is neither

decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an
appropriate bargaining unit.
Indeed, the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of
interests. The employees sought to be represented by the collective
bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of
employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they
perform.
Case at Bar: Respondent union sought to represent the sales
personnel in the various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is
similarity of employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the
north Luzon area are covered. They have the same duties and

responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and working

conditions. The commonality of interest among The sales personnel in the
north Luzon sales area cannot be gainsaid. In fact, in the certification
election held on November 24, 1990, the employees concerned accepted
respondent union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Clearly, they have
expressed their desire to be one.
Petitioner cannot insist that each of the sales office of Magnolia
should constitute only one bargaining unit. What greatly militates against
this position is the meager number of sales personnel in each of the
Magnolia sales office in northern Luzon. Even the bargaining unit sought to
be represented by respondent union in the entire north Luzon sales area
consists only of approximately fifty-five (55) employees. Surely, it would
not be for the best interest of these employees if they would further be
fractionalized. The adage "there is strength in number" is the very
rationale underlying the formation of a labor union.

2.

Determination of representation status

a) Voluntary recognition
b) Certification of election

Read: Legend International vs. KMI. Independent, G.R. No. 169754,

February 23, 2011
First Issue: WON the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration
should not retroact to the time of its issuance.
LEGEND claims that KMLs petition for certification election filed during the
pendency of the petition for cancellation and its demand to enter into
collective bargaining agreement with LEGEND should be dismissed due to
KMLs lack of legal personality.
An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the
pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration
certificate of the respondent union.The rationale for this is that at
the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the
legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing
the cancellation.
Case at Bar: Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a
certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the
cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for
certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the
legal personality to file the same.There is therefore no basis for LEGENDs
assertion that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should
retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KMLs
activities, including its filing of the petition for certification election and its
demand to collectively bargain
Second Issue: WON the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML
cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification
election.
[T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be
subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. x x x The
Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed
registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its

certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a

union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. It may
be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in
accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
SEC. 5.[51] Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers
association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality
on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal
personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but
may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with these Rules.

Algire vs. de Mesa, G.R. No. 97622, October 19, 1994

Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. BLR, G.R. No. 76185,
March 30, 1988
i.
ii.

Employers right to file a petition for certification

election
Union election v. Certification election

Read: UST Faculty Union vs. Gamilla, G.R. No. 131235, November 16, 199
iii.

Necessity of certification election

Read: Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116779,
August 28, 1998

iv.

Double majority rule

Read: NUWHRAIN vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009

v.

Is a certificate of non-forum shopping required?

Read: SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMMA Corporation, G.R. No. 16714, March 13,
2009

Petitioner SAMMA_LIKHA filed a petition for certification election with the

DOLE. Samma Corporation moved for its dismissal on the ground, among
others, that it failed to attach CNFS.
Held:
the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is inapplicable to a
petition for certification election.

vi.

Contract-bar rule; 60-day freedom period

Read: Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116779,
August 28, 1998

vii.

One year/Certification-year bar rule (final

certification election result); Deadlock bar rule

Read: R. Transport Corp. vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 106830, November 16,
1993

respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines (CLOP), filed with the
Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition for certification election among the
rank and file employees of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss.
Med-Arbiter R. Parungo rendered a decision, which ordered that a certification
election among the regular rank and file workers of petitioner company be
conducted. Another union, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed
a separate petition for certification election.

Likewise untenable is petitioner's contention that the second petition for

certification election should have been filed after one year from the
dismissal of the first petition certification election under Section 3, Rule V,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended.
Said section provides as follows:
When to file In the absence of collective bargaining agreement duly
registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification
election may be held within one year from the date of the issuance of a
final certification election result (Emphasis supplied).
Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of law. The
phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an actual
conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of
votes. In this case, there was no certification election conducted precisely
because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a defective
petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly
included in the collective bargaining unit.

viii.

Quorum

Read: St. James School of Quezon City vs Samahang Manggagawa sa St.

James School of Quezon City,
G.R. No. 151326, November 23, 2005
The Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City
(Samahang Manggagawa) filed a petition for certification election
to determine the collective bargaining representative of the motor
pool, construction and transportation employees of St. James
School of Quezon City. CE was held and 84 out of 149 eligible
voters casted their votes. St. James questions the validity of the
formation of the labor union and the validity of the certification
election. According to St. James, the certification election was
conducted without quorum. St. James alleges that it has 179 rank
and file employees in its Quezon City Campus. When the
certification election was held, none of these qualified rank and file
employees cast their votes because they were all on duty in the
school premises.
Held:
The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the
certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be
used to determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or
84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum
existed in the certification election.

NUWHRAIN vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009
ix.

Bystander rule

Read: Phil Scout Veterans Security vs. Torres, G.R. No. 92357, July 21,
1993
whether or not a single petition for certification election or for recognition
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent can validly or legally be filed by
a labor union in three (3) corporations each of which has a separate and
distinct legal personality instead of filing three (3) separate petitions.

x.

Duty/ies of med-arbiter/election officer

Read: DHL Philippines Corp. vs. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL

Philippines Corp.,
G.R. No. 152094, July 22, 2004
xi.

Remedy in case of fraud, misrepresentation, etc.

Read: Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club vs. Tagaytay Highlands

Employees Union,
G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003
c)
d)
e)
f)

Consent election
Run-off election
Re-election
Election procedure
i.
List of qualified voters

Read: Acoje Workers Union vs. NAMAWU, G.R. No. L-18848, April 23, 1943
Yokohama Tire Phils. Vs. Yokohama Employees Union, G.R. No.
159553, December 10, 2007
i. In lieu of list of employees
Read: Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic vs. Laguesma, G.R. No.
111245, January 31, 1997
ii.
Duty of employees
iii.
Proclamation and certification of the result
iv.
Remedies against certification election orders
3.
Registration and cancellation (Arts. 240-249: Rules III, IV, V, XIV, XV,
Book V, Omnibus Rules)
a) Kinds of labor organizations
b) Registration requirements
c) Disaffiliation
Read: Cirtek Employees Labor Union-FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, G.R. No.
190515, June 6, 2011
Philippine Skylanders, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127374, January 31,
2002
Tropical Hut Employees Union vs. Tropical Hut, G.R. No. L-43495-99,
January 20, 1999
d) Nature of relationship between mother union vis--vis local
union
Read: Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Noriel, G.R. No. L-41995,
December 29, 1977
e) Cancellation of registration
i.
Venue
ii.
Parties
iii.
Grounds
i. Fraud and misrepresentation must be grave
Read: S.S. Ventures International, Inc. vs. S.S. Ventures Labor Union, G.R.
No. 161690, July 23, 2008
iv.
Procedure
f) Voluntary dissolution
g) Equity of incumbent

III.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (Arts. 261-277; Rules XVI, XVII, XVIII,

Omnibus Rules)
A. Duty to bargain collectively
1.
Without CBA
2.
With existing CBA
3.
During suspension of operations/closure of business
Read: Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 54334, January 22, 1986
General Milling Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004
San Pedro Hospital of Digos vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.
104624, October 11, 2006
4.
Duty to bargain of successor employer/absorption (accretion)
doctrine
Read: Sundowner Development Corp. vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 82341,
December 6, 1989
5.

Suspension of negotiations

Read: Rivera vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002
6.

Terms
a) Period

Read: SMC-Union vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 111262, September 19, 1996
b) Retroactivity of CBA
Read: LMG Chemicals Corp vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 127422, April
17, 2001
c) Hold-over principle
Read: MERALCO vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999

7.

d) Representation aspect
e) Other provisions
Contract-bar rule; freedom period
a) Exclusivity of bargaining status

Read: FVC-Labor Union-PTGWO vs. SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO, G.R. No. 176249,

November 27, 2009
8.

Substitutionary doctrine

Read: Benguet Consolidated, Inc., vs. BCI Employees and Workers Union,
G.R. No. L-24711, April 30, 1968
9.
10.

Mandatory provisions
Deadlock

Read: Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees vs.

Laguesma, G.R. No. 118015, Feb 4, 1997
Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs. Brillantes, G.R. No.
123782, September 17, 1997
11.

Automatic incorporation clause

Read: University of the East vs. Pepanio, G.R. No. 193897, January 13,
2013
IV.

12. Automatic renewal clause

Unfair Labor Practice (Arts. 258-260)
A. Concept/Nature
B. Scope
C. Civil and criminal aspects
D. Elements
E. Employer
1.
Interference
Read: Insular Life Assurance Employees Asso. vs. Insular Life, G. R. No. L2529, January 30, 1971
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Confesor, G. R. No.
114974, June 16, 2004
2.

No joining/withdrawal from union (yellow dog contract)

Read: Cathay Pacific Steel vs. CA, G. R. No. 164561, August 30, 2006
Cainta Catholic School vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union,
G.R. No. 15102, May 2, 2006
Purefoods vs. Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods,
G.R. No. 150896, August 28, 2008
3.

Contracting out

Read: Shell Oil Workers Union vs. Shell Oil Company, G.R. No. L-28607,
May 31, 1971
BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU vs. BPI, G.R. No. 174912,
July 24, 2013
4.

Company union

Read: Philippine American Cigar and Cigarette Factory Workers vs.

Philippine American Cigar,
G.R. No.L-18364, February 28, 1963
5.

Discrimination; union security clause; agency fee

Read: Rizal Cement Workers vs. Madrigal, G.R. No. L-19767, April 30,
1964
a) Union security
Read: PICOP vs. Taneca, G.R. No. 160828, August 9, 2010
NUWHRAIN vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 179402, September 30, 2008
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter, G.R. No. 164301,
August 10, 2010
b) Classifications of union security clause
6.
Violation or refusal to comply with CBA; refusal to bargain
collectively
a) Surface bargaining
Read: Standard Chartered vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004
7.
8.

Payment of negotiation or attorneys fees

Violation of CBA

a) Runaway shop
Read: Complex Electronics Employees Asso. vs. Complex Electronics, G.R.
No. 122136, July 19, 1999
F.

Employee
1.
Blue sky bargaining
Read: Standard Chartered vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004

V.

2.
Featherbedding
G. Persons liable for ULP
H. Prescriptive Period
Grievance Machinery & Voluntary Arbitration (Arts. 273-277; Rules XIX,
Omnibus Rules)
A. Procedure
B. Submission to voluntary arbitration/conciliation or mediation
1.
Jurisdiction
Read: Octavio vs. PLDT, G.R. No. 175492, February 27, 2013
Goya Inc. vs Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, January 21,
2013
Honda Cars vs Honda Cars Technical Specialist, G.R. No. 204142,
November 19, 2014
2.

Procedure

Read: Ace Navigation Co. Inc., vs Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309, October
10, 2012
VI.

Strikes and Lockouts (Arts. 278-281; Rule XXII, Omnibus Rules)

A. Strikes
1.
Grounds
2.
Requirements
3.
Forms
4.
Effect of a legal strike vs. illegal strike
Read: Interphil Laboratories Employees Union vs. Interphil Laboratories,
G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001
NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. CA, G.R. Nos.
163942 and 166295, Nov. 11, 2008
Club Filipino vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 168406, July 13, 2009
B. Lockout
1.
Strike vs lockout
2.
Lockout vs. shutdown
3.
Grounds
4.
Requirements
C. Picketing: Innocent Bystander
Read: Santa Rosa Coca Cola Plant Philippines Union vs Coca-Cola Bottlers,
GR Nos. 164302-03, Jan 24, 2007
MSF Tire & Rubber, Inc., vs CA, G.R. No. 128632, August 5, 1999
D. Boycott
1.
Prohibited activities
2.
Prohibited activities and practices
3.
Liability of strikers
a) Legal vs. Illegal Strike

b) Union officers vs union members

Read: Club Filipino vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 168406, July 13, 2009
E. Assumption of Jurisdiction
Read: Univ. of the Immaculate Conception vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. Nos.
178085-86, September 14, 2015
PLDT vs. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas, G.R. No.
161783, July 13, 2005
Capitol Medical Center vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 155690, June 30, 2005
Phimco vs. Brillantes, G.R. No. 120751, March 17, 1991
FEU-NRMF vs FEU-NRMF Employees Association, G.R. No. 168362,
October 12, 2006
F.

Certified Labor Disputes

Read: Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 91025, December 19,
1990
G. Return-to-work order
H. Status quo rule
Read: OWWA vs. Chavez, G.R. No. 169802, June 8, 2007
I.

Payroll reimbursement
Read: Univ. of the Immaculate Conception vs. Sec. of Labor, G.R. Nos.
151379, January 14, 2005
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union vs CA, G.R.No. 140518,
December 16, 2004

VII.

J. Foreign activites
Jurisdiction and Remedies (Arts. 220-239, Labor Code, as amended)
A. Labor Arbiter
1.
Jurisdiction
Read: Porcello vs. Rudolf Lietz, G.R. No. 196539, October 10, 2012
Pacific Consultants vs. Schonfeld, G.R. No. 166920, February 19,
2007
2.

Requirements to perfect appeal to NLRC

Read: Balite vs. SS Ventures International, Inc, G.R. No. 195109, February
4, 2015
SMART Comm vs. Solidum, G.R. Nos. 197763/197836, December 7,
2015
B. NLRC
1.
Jurisdiction
2.
Requirements to perfect appeal to CA
Read: Milan vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 202961, February 4, 2015
Michelin Asia Application Center, Inc. vs Ortiz, G.R. No. 189861,
November 19, 2014
C. Bureau of Labor Relations med arbiters
1.
Jurisdiction (original and appellate)

D. National Conciliation and Mediation Board

1.
Conciliation vs Mediation
2.
Preventive Mediation
E. DOLE regional director
1.
Small money claims
F. DOLE secretary
1.
Visitorial and enforcement powers
2.
Power to suspend effects of termination
3.
Remedies against decisions of Secretary
Read: Sec 37, R.A. No. 10361
G. Voluntary arbitrations
1.
Submission agreement
2.
Rule 43, Rules of Court
Read: Baronda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161006, October 14, 2015
H. Prescription of actions
1.
Money claims
2.
Illegal dismissal
3.
Unfair labor practice
4.
Offenses
Read: Montero vs. Times Transportation, G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015
I.

Rule 65
Read: One Shipping Corp vs. Peafiel, G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015