Assignment for next meeting (Jan.

30):

Read Art. 240-257, pp. 1140-1147 (textbook)

Read do 40 implementing book five of the labor code, with all its amendments

FILROC 2

(FACTS, ISSUE, LAW, RULING, OPINION, CHRONOLOGY)

Deadline: Jan. 29

1. Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association vs. Asian Institute of Management, G.R. No.
197089/207971, August 31, 2022

2. United Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226, March 25, 1998

3. Holy Child Catholic School v. Sto Tomas, G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013

4. The Heritage Hotel v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 172132

5. Alexander Reyes v. Hon. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433

G.R. No. 207971

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, Petitioner,

vs.
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent

FACTS
Respondent filed a Petition for certification election seeking to represent a bargaining
unit in AIM consisting of forty (40) faculty members. Petitioner opposed the petition,
claiming that respondent's members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but
rather, managerial employees. Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner. Secretary of
DOLE reversed the Med-Arbiter’s decision in favor of the Respondent AIM. Petitioner
filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, questioning the DOLE Secretary's Decision
and Resolution and was granted hereby reversed and set aside. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the certificate of registration of the AFA should be cancelled?
LAW APPLICABLE
Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
Yes. petitioner was correct in filing a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate
of registration. Absolute violation of Labor Code.
OPINION OF THE STUDENT
In this case, the violation of misrepresenting of its members as managerial employees is
a clear violation of the labor code. Under the labor code, it specifically provides for the
prohibiting of managerial employees to join any labor organization. This case was not
able to determine the issue on whether or not the members are managerial employees
which will render the certification invalid. In lieu of the finding that the employees are
not managerial employees, the decision of the court may be affected
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE
On May 16, 2007, respondent filed a petition for certification election. On July 11, 2007,
petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration. On
August 30, 2007, the Med-Arbiter in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007 issued an
Order denying the petition for certification election on the ground that AIM' s faculty
members are managerial employees. Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), reversed foe same via a February 20, 2009 Decision 11 and May
4, 2009 Resolution.In another order, DOLE-NCR RD granted the petition of AIM for the
cancellation of the certificate of registration of AFA and ordered the delisting from the
roster of legitimate labor organizations. AFA appealed before the Bureau of Labor
Relations who reversed the same and ordered retention of AFA in the roster. CA ruled.
Hence, the petition to the SC. In the ruling of the SC, SC cited the case of Holy Child
Catholic School v Hon. Sto Tomas.

EN BANC
G.R. No. 122226. March 25, 1998

UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU), Petitioner, v. HON.

BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC.
Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. It appears that on March 20, 1995 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
under the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. are
managerial employees
LAW APPLICABLE:
Article 245 of the Labor Code
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The court ruled that the employees concerned are managerial employees within the
purview of Art. 212
OPINION OF THE STUDENT:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
It appears that on March 20, 1995 the union filed a petition for certification election on
behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Petitioner brought
this suit challenging the validity of the order dated August 31, 1995, as reiterated in the
order dated September 22, 1995, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Court
now finds that the job evaluation made by the Secretary of Labor is indeed supported
by substantial evidence. 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.

G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013

HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, AND PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS –
HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION
(HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS), Respondents.
FACTS:
On May 31, 2002, a petition for certification election was filed by private respondent
HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS alleging that: PIGLAS is a legitimate labor organization duly
registered with the DOLE. Petitioner raised that the members of the union are a mixture
of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees and not being in accordance
with the labor code. Med arbiter ruled in favor of denying the petition for certification.
SOLE reversed the decision and CA dismissed the petition for Certiorari. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the
labor organization’s membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees.
LAW APPLICABLE:
R.A. No. 6715
Article 245 of the Labor Code
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Decision of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment set aside the
August 10, 2002 Decision of the Med-Arbiter denying private respondent’s petition for
certification election in which the court affirmed.
OPINION OF THE STUDENT:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
On May 31, 2002, a petition for certification election was filed by private respondent
Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and
Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS).
In its Comment and Position Paper, petitioner raised that the members of the union are
a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees as three (3) are vice-
principals, one (1) is a department head/supervisor, and eleven (11) are coordinators.
It is likewise a mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
The med arbiter denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the
bargaining unit is inappropriate. Private respondent appealed to the SOLE and the latter
reversed the ruling of the med arbiter and ordered two certification elections, one
among teaching personnel and another for non- teaching personnel.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA with prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
The CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the vice-principals, coordinators and
department heads are not managerial nor supervisory employees. Anent the alleged
mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel, the CA agreed with petitioner that the
nature of the formers work does not coincide with that of the latter.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this
petition before the SC.

G.R. No. 172132 July 23, 2014

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND
PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; MED-ARBITER TOMAS F.
FALCONITIN; and NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL,
RESTAURANT and ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAINHHMSC), Respondents.
FACTS:
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent all the
supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel Manila. The petitioner filed its opposition, but
the opposition was deemed denied. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC moved for the conduct of the
pre-election conference. On October 21, 2002, the DOLE Secretary declared that the
mixture or co-mingling of employees in a union was not a ground for dismissing a
petition for the certification election. Dissatisfied, the petitioner commenced in the CA.
The CA dismissed the petition. The certification election proceeded as scheduled, and
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC obtained the majority vote of the bargaining unit. The petitioner
filed a protest (with motion to defer the certification of the election results and the
winner), insisting on the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC. Med-Arbiter Tomas F.
Falconitin issued a ruling that the petition for the cancellation of union registration was
not a bar to the holding of the certification election, and certified the Union as the sole-
bargaining unit. DOLE Secretary affirmed Med-Arbiter ruling. CA dismissed. Hence, the
petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON the Employer (Heritage Hotel Manila) were able to prove the existence of mixed
membership of either confidential or managerial employees. Membership of either
confidential or managerial employees.
LAW APPLICABLE:
Article 245 of the Labor Code
Article 234 (c) and 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor code
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
No. The employer failed to prove the existence of mixed membership of confidential
and managerial employees on the ground that if failed to submit job descriptions of the
concerned employees.
OPINION OF THE STUDENT:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
On October 11, 1995, respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and
Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) filed a
petition for certification election, seeking to represent all the supervisory employees.
The petitioner filed its opposition, but the opposition was deemed denied on February
14, 1996 when Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando issued his order for the conduct of
the certification election. On January 29, 2000, NUWHRAIN-HHMSC moved for the
conduct of the pre-election conference. On May 12, 2000, the petitioner filed a petition
for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC's registration as a labor union for failing to
submit its annual financial reports and an updated list of members. It filed another
motion on June 1, 2000 to seek either the dismissal or the suspension of the
proceedings on the basis of its pending petition for the cancellation of union
registration.
In denying the motion on October 21, 2002, the DOLE Secretary declared that the
mixture or co-mingling of employees in a union was not a ground for dismissing a
petition for the certification election. More than four years after Dunlop Slazenger, the
Court clarified in Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Inc vs Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PTGWO that while Article 245 prohibits supervisory employees from
joining a rank-and-file union, it does not provide what the effect is if a rank-and-file
union takes in supervisory employees as members, or vice versa. The ruling in SPI
Technologies has been echoed in Tagaytay Highlands, for which reason it is with
Tagaytay Highlands, not SPI Technologies, that the petitioner must joust.

G.R. No. 84433 June 2, 1992

ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and 138 others,
petitioners,
vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations,
Med. Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, et al.,
respondent.
FACTS:
The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano)
sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one
(141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to
be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. That denial is
assailed as having been done with grave abuse of discretion in the special civil action of
certiorari at bar, commenced by the INK members adversely affected thereby.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employees who are not part of any union may validly exercise their
right to vote in a certification election.
LAW APPLICABLE:
Labor Code of the Philippines
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes. Employees who are not part of any union may validly exercise their right to vote in
a certification election.
OPINION OF THE STUDENT:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
There was a certification election authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20,
1987. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
The INK employees promptly made known their protest to the exclusion of their votes.
They filed f a petition to cancel the election alleging that it "was not fair" and the result
thereof did "not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees." TUEU-
OLALIA opposed the petition. The Med-Arbiter saw no merit in the INK employee’s
petition.
The petitioners brought the matter up on appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Assistant Labor Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, then Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau
of Labor Relations, denied the appeal. It is this Decision of July 22, 1988 that the
petitioners would have this Court annul and set aside in the present special civil action
of certiorari. The Solicitor General having expressed concurrence with the position taken
by the petitioners, public respondent NLRC was consequently required to file, and did
thereafter file, its own comment on the petition.