ART 253.

COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

- All persons employed (public or private) in commercial, industrial and agricultural
enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions
o Whether operating for profit or not
 Shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for the purposes of CB
- Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and
those without any definite employers may form labor organizations
o For their mutual aid and protection

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE

- Under Industrial Peace Act (RA 875)
EXCEPTION: MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES (under Art 255)
- EXCEPTION: CBA allowing to share in the concessions obtained by the union
RIGHT TO ORGANIZE CANNOT BE BARGAINED AWAY (SPEL Case)
- Its provisions cannot override what is expressly provided by law that only managerial
employees are ineligible to join, assist, or form any labor organization
ART 3. SEC 8. 1987 PH CONSTITUTION
- The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged
NOTE: RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN; NOT EXCLUSIVE TO EMPLOYEES
- Even workers who are not employees of a particular employer may form organization to
protect their interests
o Example: actors and actresses (many are independent individual “talents”)

THE LAWFUL ORGANIZATION ENJOYS PROTECTION UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ART 3
CONSTI)
THIS RIGHT CARRIES WITH IT THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN A GROUP ACTION (in connection to
Art 257)
- PROVIDED it is peaceful, to support the organization’s objective which is not necessarily
CB but, simply, to aid and protect its members
NOTE: DIFFERENT FROM STRIKE  work stoppage  must observe regulations
ART 257. NON-ABRIDGEMENT OF RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
 - It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization
- Such right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the
purpose of CB through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful
concerted activities
o For the same purpose or for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the
provisions of Art 279 — prohibited activities in strike or lockout

ART 254. RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

- Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall
have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers
- All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for the
purpose not contrary to law
ART 255. INELIGIBILITY OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES TO JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION;
RIGHT OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
- Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization
- Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the CBU of the rank-and-
file employees
o BUT may join, assist or form separate CBU and/or legitimate labor organizations
of their own
- The rank-and-file union and the supervisor’s union operating within the same
establishment may join the same federation or national union
ART 256. EFFECT OF INCLUSION AS MEMBERS OF EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING
UNIT
- The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a
ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union
- Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said
union

ART 3. SEC 8. 1987 PH CONSTITUTION (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 self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
 - The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace.
- The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the
right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
DO 43-03 — COVERAGE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION (RULE II)
- Registration of labor organizations
o Where to file
o Requirements
- Provisions common to the registration of labor organizations and workers association
o Attestation requirements
o Payment of registration fee
o Documents
o Action on the application
o Denial of application; return of notice; and appeal
 Procedure
o Effects

DO 40-1-15 — SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT (SEBA) CERTIFICATION

o Where to file
o Requirements
o Action on the request
o Request for certification in unorganized establishment with ONLY 1 legitimate
labor organization; validation proceedings
- Certification election
o Who may file
o Where to file
- Casting of votes

TRANSCRIPT
1. Coverage and rights to self-organization
a. Art 253
2. [Constitutional basis]
a. Art 3 Sec 8 (bill of rights)
i. Limitation: contrary to law
3. Meaning of ambulant workers
a. Ambulant — move around
 b. Workers whose jobs are not confined in one place — mobile workers
4. Meaning of intermittent workers
a. Irregular workers or broken workers(?)
5. Why can ambulant, intermittent, self-employed not form unions?
a. They do not have employers, therefore they cannot have a union, although they
can form an association for mutual aid and protection as mentioned in Art 253
6. [Labor Organization vs Union]
a. Union  CBA
b. Labor Organization  cannot enter into CBA
7. [Legitimate Labor Organization vs Labor Organization

LEGITIMATE LABOR ORG LABOR ORGANIZATION

Registered with the company Not registered with the company
Can become a union Cannot become a union
 By registering with DOLE —
stating its purpose to be a
union
Purpose of the organization must be Must first be LLO to become a union
for CB
8. Who are excluded/exempted from forming, joining or assisting unions?
a. Managerial employees (Art 255)
i. EXCEPTION: CBA allowing to share in the concessions obtained by the
union
b. Confidential employees — assists or acts to a confidential matter
i. “managerial”
c. Employees of international organizations
i. Immunity from PH jurisdiction
d. Employee-members of a cooperative
i. Employers are also members of a coop
e. Foreign workers
f. Religious objectors (ex: INC)
i. Although, they may form and join their own Union
g. Members of AFP, police , and firemen
i. For the reasons of security and safety
h. High Government employees
9. GOCC
i. Original charter — governed by Civil Service Commission (CSC)  does
not have the right to CB; considered as government employee
ii. Without original charter — governed by LC  has the right to CB with
their employers
b. Art 254 — GOCC without original charters
 10. Why are government employees with original charters not permitted to join, form, or
assist union for the purpose of CB
a. It is already stated and prescribed by the laws of the PH
i. There is a law for the terms and conditions of the wages of the
government employees

NOTES
ART 254. RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE (GOVERNMENT)
- Right to organize
- Does not have the right to c
- Temporary employees may organize
- Registration:
o CSC and DOLE
o Filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of DOLE
o May also be filed in the Regional Offices of DOLE BLR

ART 255. INELLIGIBIILITY OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES

- Types of Managerial Employees
o First-line Managers — direct operating employees; does not supervise other
managers
o Middle Managers — direct the activities of other managers
o Top Managers — small group of executives, responsible for the overall
management
- Test of supervisory status
o Whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of the employer
(recommendatory powers)
o Whether such authority is not routinary or clerical
 BUT requires the use of independent judgment

CASES
SAMAHAN NG MANGAGAWA VS HANJIN
FACTS
- Petitioner Union filed an application for registration with DOLE
o Attached were the list of names of the association’s officers and members
o Signatures of the attendees
o Copies of their constitution and By-laws
- DOLE issued the certificate of registration in favor of the petitioner
 - Respondent filed a petition with DOLE praying for the cancellation of registration of the
petitioner on the ground that its members did not fall under any of the types of workers
enumerated under Art 253  only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant… may form a
worker’s association
o 1/3 of the members of the association had definite employers and the continued
existence
RULING (FACTS)
1. DOLE Regional Director — ruled in favor of the respondent
a. As stated in the constitution and by-laws of the union  all of its members are
employees of the respondent
2. BLR — reversed the ruling of the Regional Director
a. Law clearly afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including those
without definite employers
3. BLR II — directed the petitioner to remove the words “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name
— no provision on the use of trade or business name in the naming of worker’s
association
4. CA — registration of the petitioner as legitimate workers’ association was contrary to
the provisions of Art 253 of LC
a. Only 57 of the 120 members were actually working in the respondent
b. Respondent company is not located in rural area
c. No evidence that the members were ambulant, intermittent or itinerant workers
ISSUES
1. Whether CA erred in finding that petitioner cannot form a worker’s association of
employees and instead should have formed union
2. Whether the CA erred in ordering the removal of the word “hanjin” in the name of the
petitioner by reason of the company’s property right
RULING
1. Yes. The right to self-organization includes right to form a union and workers’
associations
a. The workers have the right to choose whether to form or join a union, or
workers’ associations
b. Rule 2 of DO 40-03
i. Section II 3rd Paragraph. All other workers, including ambulant,
intermittent, and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers, and
those without any definite employers may form labor organization for
their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes EXCEPT
collective bargaining
*METROLAB INDUSTRIES VS DOLE
On executive secretaries — confidential employees are excluded from the bargaining unit of
rank-and-file employees
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Deadlock – failure in the CBA resulting in a stalemate
o Employer may implement changes it had proposed to the union during
negotiations without the union’s approval  unilaterally(?)
2. Close shop — a provision included in the collective bargaining agreement to ensure
union security
o Requires employees to join union immediately upon regularization as a condition
for continued employment
FACTS I
- Private Respondent Metro Drug Association-Federation of Free Workers (Union) is a
labor organization representing rank and file employees of the petitioner Metrolab
- The CBA between Metrolab and the Union expired, and lead to negotiations for a new
CBA, which eventually ended in a deadlock
- The Union filed a notice to strike against Metrolab
- The parties failed to settle their dispute in the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB)
- Labor Secretary issued an assumption order stating that the Office (DOLE) assumes
jurisdiction over the labor dispute between the parties
a. Strike or lockout is enjoined
b. The parties were directed to cease and desist from committing acts that will
worsen the situation
c. Moreover, they were required to submit their position papers, as well as
evidence regarding the deadlock issue
- Labor Secretary issued an order resolving the disputed items in the CBA and ordered the
parties to execute a new CBA
- The union filed a motion for reconsideration
- During the pendency of the motion, the petitioner laid off 99 rank-and-file employees
CONTENTION I
1. The respondent Union filed a motion for cease and desist order regarding the mass
layoff — violating the prohibition of committing acts that would aggravate the dispute
[as stated in the assumption order]
2. Petitioner contended that the layoff was temporary and within the exercise of
management prerogative
a. Company would suffer a yearly gross revenue loss of 66 million
RULING I (FACTS)
1. Labor Secretary issued a resolution declaring the layoff illegal
a. —Failure to comply with the injunction against committing act that will
aggravate the dispute
b. Ordered the petitioner to reinstate the employees, as well as payment of
backwages
FACTS II
- Petitioner filed a partial motion for reconsideration alleging that the layoff did not
aggravate the dispute
- Parties entered into a new CBA — without prejudice to the outcome of the issues raised
in the reconsideration
- While the resolution of the motions are pending, the petitioner laid off 73 of its
employees on the ground of redundancy
RULING II (FACTS)
1. Labor Secretary ruled that executive secretaries are excluded from the closed-shop
provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit
CONTENTION II
1. Respondent Union filed a motion for execution
2. Petitioner Metrolab—
a. Secretary of Labor committed GAOD
i. Jurisdiction
ii. Including executive secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of rank-and-
file employees
ISSUES
1. Whether the Secretary of Labor committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring the
temporary layoff illegal
2. [Whether the temporary layoff is illegal]
3. Whether the Secretary of Labor committed a grave abuse of discretion in including
executive secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees
RULING
1. No. The contention of it being within the management prerogative is not absolute, and
can be subjected to limitations imposed by law. In this case the Secretary of Labor has
the jurisdiction to resolve labor disputes involving industries indispensable to national
interest.
 a. Metrolab’s business is of national interest — leading manufacturers and
suppliers of medical and pharmaceutical products to the country
2. [Yes. The parties were still in the process of resolving their CBA wedlock, when the
petitioner laid off employees. Therefore, it resulted to motions which aggravated the
dispute]
3. Yes. As cited in provisions of the CBA—
a. Close Shop includes all qualified employees and excludes
i. Managerial employees
ii. Auditors and executive secretaries of senior executive officers
iii. Employers mentioned in Attachment I
b. —Moreover, executives secretaries are considered as confidential employees
who assist or act in fiduciary manner to managerial employees — privy to
sensitive and highly confidential records
i. Note: confidential employees are not considered as rank-and-file
employees
*STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
On bank cashiers, radio and telegraph operators, and personnel staff, are confidential
employees
FACTS
- The parties — petitioner Union and respondent bank negotiated a new CBA since the
previous CBA expired, although it resulted to a deadlock
- The petitioner filed a Notice of Strike prompting the Labor Secretary to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute
- Labor Secretary issued an order—
a. Parties were directed to execute CBA incorporating the foregoing dispositions
and agreements they reached in the course of negotiations and conciliations
b. Charge of unfair labor practice for bargaining in bad faith are dismissed
c. Charge of unfair labor practice for gross violation of economic provisions of the
CBA is dismissed
- Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which were denied by
the Labor Secretary
- Petitioner sought recourse with the CA, which was eventually dismissed
PETITION
1. Court erred in deciding that there was no basis for revising the scope of exclusions from
the appropriate bargaining unit under the CBA
2. Court erred in deciding that a 1 month or less temporary occupation of a position (acting
capacity) does not merit adjustment in renumeration
PROPOSAL OF THE PETITIONER — only the managers who are vested with the right to hire and
fire employees, confidential employees who has access to labor relations materials, chief and
assistant cashiers, personnel of the telex department, and 1 HR staff
**PREVIOUS CBA — excludes also other confidential secretary not related to labor relations
such as finance; and security guards
ISSUE
1. Whether Bank’s Chief and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department, and
HR staff are confidential employees
RULING
1. Yes. Bank cashiers are confidential employees. In the case of NATU, it was declared that
bank cashiers are confidential employees — having control, custody and/or access to
confidential matters (statements of financial condition, vault combination, etc.)
a. They are disqualified from joining or assisting a union; or joining, assisting, or
forming any other labor organization
2. Yes. Personnel of the Telex Department are confidential employees. In the case of
Golden Farms, radio and telegraph operators — having access to confidential
information may act as spies of either party to CBA
3. Yes. HR staff are confidential employees. In the case of PID, any personnel staff are
confidential employees because they assist and act in a confidential capacity, and have
an access to confidential matters of persons who exercise managerial functions
*HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL VS HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND
EMPLOYEES UNION
On after registration of labor organization it may exercise all rights; teaching and non-teaching
personnel must have a separate bargaining unit
FACTS
- A petition for certification election was filed by the respondent Union alleging that they
are a legitimate labor organization registered in the DOLE
- Petitioner School raised that the members of the Union is a mixture of managerial,
supervisory, rank-and-file employees as 3 vice-principals and 1 department
head/supervisor, and 11 coordinators
o As well as teaching and non-teaching personnel

CONTENTION
1. Petitioner — respondent union lacks a personality to file a petition for certification
election, being an illegitimate labor organization, based in the Art 245 of LC
 2. Respondent — petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that some of the employees
included in the petition for certification election holds the aforementioned positions
a. Furthermore, Section 11 Rule XI of DOLE DO 9 that mixture of employees is not
enumerated in the specific instances in which a petition shall be dismissed
RULING (FACTS)
1. Mediation Arbiter — denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the
unit is inappropriate
a. Proper composition and constituency of the bargaining unit — teaching staff and
non-teaching staff dictates a separation of categories for the purpose of CB (UP
Case)
b. Validity of majority representation claims
2. Secretary of Labor — reversed the decision of Med-Arbiter
a. Differences are not substantial enough to warrant the dismissal of the petition
i. 2 certification election
1. Teaching
2. Non-Teaching
3. CA — dismissed the petition and ruled that that vice principals, coordinators, and
department heads are not managerial nor supervisory employees
ISSUE
1. [Whether CA erred in ruling that vice principals, coordinators, and department heads
are not managerial nor supervisory employees]
2. Whether the petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that labor
organization’s membership consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees
3. Whether improper mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel constitutes absence
of mutuality of interest  failing to qualify as legitimate labor organization — the basic
qualification of which is the representation of an appropriate bargaining unit
RULING
1. No. The policies and guidelines they formulate are subject to review and evaluation of
the principal or executive officers
a. Assessment is independently made without the participation of the higher
administration
2. No. While there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects
thereof. After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and
privileges of a legitimate labor organization (Tagaytay Highlands Case)
3. No. The concepts of a Union and legitimate labor organization are different but related
to the concept of bargaining unit
 a. Labor organization — any union or association of employees which exists for the
purpose of CB
i. The bargaining unit is represented by the Union, and such employees
need not be members of a union seeking the conduct of certification
election
ii. A union certified as an exclusive bargaining agent represents not only its
members but also other employees who are not union members
b. Elements of a bargaining unit:
i. Will of employees
ii. Affinity and unity of employee’s interest
iii. Prior collective bargaining history
iv. Employment status
c. UP Case — exclusion of academic employees to the bargaining unit of non-
academic rank-and-file employees

VICTORIANO (1974)
On members of religious sects cannot be refused or dismissed from employment on the sole
ground that they are not part of the bargaining union
FACTS
- Victoriano is a member of the religious sect — Iglesia ni Cristo. He was employed in the
Elizalde Rope Factory. He was a member of the company’s union which had a CBA
containing a closed shop provision that: “membership in the Union shall be required as
a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by this
Agreement.”
- Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4 of RA 875 prior to its amendment by RA 3350: “the
employer was not precluded from making an agreement with a labor organization to
require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is
the representative of the employees.”
- When RA 3350 was enacted, it introduced an amendment to Section 4(a) paragraph 4:
“…but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit
affiliation of their members in any such labor organization.”
- As such, being a member of a religious sect, Victoriano presented his resignation to the
Union
- The Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking it to separate Victoriano from
the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member.
- The Company then notified Victoriano that unless he could achieve a satisfactory
arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss him
ISSUE
 1. Whether RA 3350 prohibits and bans the members of religious sects that forbid
affiliation of their members with labor unions from joining labor unions — a violation of
the constitutional provision on freedom of association
RULING
1. No. RA 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of the closed
shop agreement the employees belonging to any religious sects which prohibit affiliation
of their members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor
unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers; that in
spite of any closed shop agreement, members of religious sects cannot be refused
employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members
of the collective bargaining union.
SLORD DEVELOPMENT
On CBA as a just cause for termination; stipulation in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of
employees is of equal import as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the LC — CBA is a
law between the company and the union
FACTS
- Respondent Noya was employed as a welder by the petitioner domestic corporation.
Respondent’s employment was covered by the CBA between NLM-Katipunan (Union) —
the company’s sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the regular rank-and-file
employees — and the Company. Among its provisions was a union security clause
stating that any new employee covered by the bargaining unit who attains regular status
in the company but fails to join the union or fails to maintain membership in the union,
will be dismissed
- Respondent asked several employees to affix their signatures on a blank sheet of paper
for the purpose of forming a new union — prompting the president of NLM-Katipunan
to file expulsion proceedings against them for disloyalty
- Respondent organized a new union named BMSDC, which he registered with the DOLE
- NLM-Katipunan with the ratification of its members, expelled the respondent on the
ground of disloyalty.
o A letter was sent by NLM-Katipunan to the petitioner, demanding his
termination from employment pursuant to the union security clause of the CBA
o Respondent was terminated after receiving such notice

RULING (FACTS)
1. LA — respondent’s dismissal was neither illegal nor unfair labor practice
a. NLM-Katipunan has a valid closed shop agreement in the CBA that required the
members to remain with the union as a condition for continued employment
 2. NLRC — affirmed the LA decision with modification  petitioner to pay respondent
nominal damages
a. Failure to provide the respondent ample opportunity to defend himself through
written notices and subsequent hearing
3. CA — there was an illegal dismissal  reinstatement and payment of backwages and
other allowances + attorney’s fees
ISSUE
1. Whether the respondent was illegally dismissed
RULING
1. No. The case law recognizes that dismissal from employment due to the enforcement
of the union security clause in the CBA as a just cause for termination of employment.
a. Similar to the enumerated just causes in the LC, the violation of a union security
clause amounts to a commission of a wrongful act or omission out of one’s own
violation; hence, it can be said that the dismissal process was initiated not by the
employer but by the employee’s indiscretion
b. A stipulation in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees is of equal import
as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the LC, since a CBA is the law
between the company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by
the express policy to give protection to labor; thus, there is parallel treatment
between just causes and violation of the union security clause
c. Article 259 of LC states that “nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop
the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining
agent as a condition for employment, EXCEPT those employees who are already
members of another union at the time of the signing of the CBA