No. L-38258. November 19, 1982.* bargaining contained in its letter of June 20, 1967.

bargaining contained in its letter of June 20, 1967. Neither did the companies
refuse to bargain at all. What it did was to apprise LAKAS of the existing
LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN (LAKAS), petitioner, vs. conflicting demands for recognition as the bargaining representative in the
MARCELO ENTERPRISES and MARCELO TIRE & RUBBER CORP., MARCELO appropriate units involved, and suggested the settlement of the issue by
RUBBER AND LATEX PRODUCTS, MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, means of the filing of a petition for certification election before the Court of
MARCELO CHEMICAL & PIGMENT CORP., POLARIS MARKETING Industrial Relations. This was not only the legally approved procedure but
CORPORATION and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. was dictated by the fact that there was indeed a legitimate representation
No. L-38260. November 19, 1982.* issue. PSSLU, with whom the existing CB As were entered into, was
demanding of respondent companies to collectively bargain with it; so was
MARCELO TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION, MARCELO RUBBER & LATEX Paulino Lazaro of MUEWA, J.C. Espinas & Associates for MACATIFU and the
PRODUCTS, INC., MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, POLARIS MARKETING MFWU, and the complainant LAKAS for MULU which we understand is the
CORPORATION, MARCELO CHEMICAL AND PIGMENT CORP., MARCELO aggrupation of MACATIFU, MFWU and UNWU. On top of all of these, Jose
ENTERPRISES, under which name or style they are also known, petitioners, Roque of UNWU disauthorized the PSSLU from representing his union; and
vs. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN (LAKAS) AND THE similarly, Augusto Carreon of MACATIFU itself informed management as late
HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. as July 11, 1967 or after the demand of LAKAS that no group representing his
Union “is not authorized and should not be entertained.”
Labor Law; There is no evidence that the management of Marcelo group of
companies was guilty of ULP in asking the returning strikers to fill up forms Same; Where there exists a legitimate issue as to which of several unions is
on when they are available for work.—Hence, anent the second issue of the legitimate representative of employees, it is ULP for one of the unions to
whether or not the complaint for unfair labor practice can be sustained, this stage a strike and demand that employer sit down with it for collective
Court rules in favor of the respondent Marcelo Companies and consequently, bargaining.—The clear facts of the case as hereinbefore restated indisputably
the appealed Decision is reversed. This reversal is inevitable after this Court show that a legitimate representation issue confronted the respondent
has pored through the voluminuous records of the case as well as after Marcelo Companies. In the face of these facts and in conformity with the
applying the established jurisprudence and the law on the matters raised.We existing jurisprudence, We hold that there existed no duty to bargain
are not unmindful of the plight of the employees in this case but We consider collectively with the complainant LAKAS on the part of said companies. And
it oppressive to grant their petition in G.R.No.L-38258, for not only is there no proceeding from this basis, it follows that all acts instigated by complainant
evidence which shows that the respondent Marcelo Companies were seeking LAKAS such as the filing of the Notice of Strike on June 13, 1967 (although
for an opportunity to discharge these employees for union activities, or to later withdrawn) and the two strikes of September 4, 1967 and November 7,
discriminate against them because of such activities, but there is affirmative 1967 were calculated, designed and intended to compel the respondent
evidence to establish the contrary conclusion. Marcelo Companies to recognize or bargain with it notwithstanding that it
was an uncertified union, or in the case of respondent Marcelo Tire and
Same; Management’s suggestion that union file necessary complaint in court
Rubber Corporation, to bargain with it despite the fact that the MUEWA of
in view of fact that there are several unions claiming to represent employees
Paulino Lazaro was already certified as the sole bargaining agent in said
does not constitute failure or refusal to bargain in good faith to said union’s
respondent company. These concerted activities executed and carried into
demands.—Contrary to the pretensions of complainant LAKAS, the
effect at the instigation and motivation of LAKAS are all illegal and violative of
respondent Marcelo Companies did not ignore the demand for collective
the employer’s basic right to bargain collectively only with the representative

1
supported by the majority of its employees in each of the bargaining units. strike notice. All of these facts show that it was complainant LAKAS, and not
This Court is not unaware of the present predicament of the employees the respondent Marcelo Companies, which refused to negotiate in the
involved but much as We sympathize with those who have been misled and pending collective bargaining process. All that the facts show is that the
so lost then-jobs through hasty, ill-advised and precipitate moves, We rule bargaining position of complainant LAKAS was inflexible and that it was in
that the facts neither substantiate nor support the finding that the tine with this uncompromising attitude that the strikes were declared,
respondent Marcelo Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice. significantly after notice that management did not or could not meet all of
their 17-points demand.
Same; Employer not guilty of bad faith where it not with union’s officers and
offered suggestions on how to resolve their dif-ferences.—It is also evident Same; Employer may be justified in requiring a reasonable scheduling of
from the records that the charge of bargaining in bad faith imputed to the working hours of returning striking employees and inquiring into their time
respondent companies, is hardly credible. In fact, such charge is valid as only availabilities.—But We are more impressed and are persuaded to accept as
against the complainant LAKAS. The parties had a total of five (5) conferences true the contention of the respondent Marcelo Companies that the
for purposes of collective bargaining. It is worth considering that the first aforestated requirement was only for purposes of proper scheduling of the
strike of September 4, 1967 was staged less than a week after the fourth CBA start of work for each returning strikers. It must be noted that as a
conference and without any benefit of any previous strike notice. In this consequence of the two strikes which were both attended by widespread acts
connection, it must be stated that the notice of strike filed on June 13, 1967 of violence and vandalism, the businesses of the respondent companies were
could not have been the strike notice for the first strike because it was completely paralyzed. It would hardly be justiciable to demand of the
already withdrawn on July 14, 1967. Thus, from these stated facts can be seen respondent companies to readmit all the returning workers in one big force
that the first strike was held while the parties were in the process of or as each demanded readmission. There were machines that were not in
negotiating. Nor can it be sustained that the respondent Marcelo Companies operating condition because of long disuse during the strikes. Some of the
bargained in bad faith since there were proposals offered by them, but the machines needed more than one worker to operate them so that in the
complainant LAKAS stood pat on its position that all of their economic absence of the needed team of workers, the start of work by one without his
demands should be met and that all of these demands should be granted in all teammates would necessarily be useless, and the company would be paying
of the respondent Marcelo Companies. The companies’ refusal to accede to for his time spent doing no work. Finally, We take judicial cognizance of the
the demands of LAKAS appears to be justified since there is no showing that fact that companies whose businesses were completely paralyzed by major
these companies were in the same state of financial and economic affairs. strikes cannot resume operations at once and in the same state or force as
There is reason to believe that the first strike was staged only for the purpose before the strikes.
of compelling the respondent Marcelo Companies to accede to the inflexible
demands of the complainant LAKAS. The records further establish that after Same; Same.—But what strikes Us most in lending credence to respondents’
the resumption of normal operations following the first strike and the allegation that Exhibit “49” was not meant to screen the strikers, is the fact
consequent Return-to-work Agreement, the striking unions led by that all of the returning strikers who filled up the form were scheduled for
complainant LAKAS and the management of the respondent Marcelo work and consequently started with their jobs.It is only those strikers who
Companies resumed their bargaining negotiations. And that on October 13, refused or failed to fill-up the required form, like the herein complaining
1967, complainant LAKAS sent the final drafts of the collective bargaining employees, who were not scheduled for work and consequently have not
proposals for MFWU and UNWU. The second strike of November 7, 1967 was been re-employed by the respondent Marcelo Companies. Even if there was a
then staged immediately after which strike, as before, was again lacking of a sincere belief on their part that the requirement of Exhibit “49” was a ruse at

2
“screening” them, this fear would have been dispelled upon notice of the fact with LAKAS to again exercise its rights as independent local unions,
that each and all of their co-strikers who filled up the required form were in registered before as such, they are no longer affiliates of LAKAS, as what
fact scheduled for work and started to work. The stoppage of their work was transpired here. Naturally, there would no longer be any reason or occasion
not, therefore, the direct consequence of the respondent companies’ for LAKAS to continue representing them. Notable is the fact that the
complained act. Hence, their economic loss should not be shifted to the members purportedly represented by LAKAS constitute the mere minority of
employer. the movant unions, as may be inferred from the allegations of the movant
unions as well as the counter-allegations of LAKAS filed below. As such, they
cannot prevail or dictate upon the will of the greater majority of the unions to
Same; Right to engage in concerted activities is not an absolute one.—It was which they still belong, it appearing that they never disaffiliated from their
never the state policy nor Our judicial pronouncement that the employees’ unions; or stated in another way, they are bound by the action of the greater
rights to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid majority.
and protection, are absolute or be upheld under all circumstances. Same; Same; Where a union brought suit in behalf of employees it was not
Same; Action; A labor union cannot bring an action on behalf of employees authorized to represent, the proper remedy is to drop the union as party to
who are members of another union even if said employees signed the the action and place the names of the employees instead.—This is not to say
complaint.—Firstly, LAKAS cannot bring any action for and in behalf of the that the complaining employees were without any venue for redress. Under
employees who were members of MUEWA because, as intimated earlier in the aforestated considerations, the respondent court should have directed
this Decision, the said local union was never an affiliate of LAKAS. What the amendment of the complaint by dropping LAKAS as the complainant and
appears clearly from the records is that it was Augusto Carreon and his allowing the suit to be further prosecuted in the individual names of those
followers who joined LAKAS, but then Augusto Carreon was not the who had grievances. A class suit under Rule 3, Section 12 of the Rules of Court
recognized president of MUEWA and neither he nor his followers can claim is authorized and should suffice for the purpose.
any legitimate representation of MUEWA. Apparently, it is this split faction of Same; Same; Appeals; Supreme Court may cure defect of inclusion/non-
MUEWA, headed by Augusto Carreon, who is being sought to be represented inclusion of proper parties even on appeal—In fairness to the complaining
by LAKAS. However, it cannot do so because the members constituting this employees, however, We treated their Motion for Reconsideration of the
split faction of MUEWA were still members of MUEWA which was on its own Decision subject of appeal as curing the defect of the complaint as the said
right a duly registered labor union. Hence, any suit to be brought for and in motion expressly manifested their collective desire to pursue the complaint
behalf of them can be made only by MUEWA, and not LAKAS. It appearing for and in their own behalves and disauthorizing LAKAS’ counsel from
then that Augusto Carreon and his cohorts did not disaffiliate from MUEWA further representing them. And We have also treated their petition before Us
nor signed any individual affiliation with LAKAS, LAKAS bears no legal in the same manner, disregarding the fact that LAKAS remained the
interest in representing MUEWA or any of its members. petitioning party, as it appears from the verification that the petition in L-
Same; Same.—Nor will the lower court’s opinion be availing with respect to 38258 was for and in behalf of the complaining employees. The merits of
the complaining employees belonging to UNWU and MFWU. Although it is their petition, however, fall short of substantiating the charge of unfair labor
true, as alleged by LAKAS, that when it filed the charge on December 26, practice against the respondent Marcelo Companies. On the other hand, the
1967, the officers of the movant unions were not yet then the officers thereof, appeal of the Marcelo Companies in L-38260 must be upheld and sustained.
nevertheless, the moment MFWU and UNWU separated from and disaffiliated

3
 while the aforestated local unions were then affiliated with a national
federation, the Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU).
GUERRERO, J.:
It is well to note from the records that when the aforestated CBAs of the said
Separate appeals by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Industrial local unions were nearing their respective expiration dates (March 15, 1967)
Relations (Manila) dated July 20, 1973, as well as the Resolution of the court for MACATIFU and UNWU, and June 5, 1967 for MFWU), the general situation
en banc dated January 24, 1974 denying the reconsideration thereof within the ranks of labor was far from united. The MACATIFU in respondent
rendered in ULP Case No. 4951 entitled, “Lakas ng Manggagawang Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, then headed by Augusto Carreon, did
Makabayan, Petitioner, versus Marcelo Enterprises and Marcelo Tire and not enjoy the undivided support of all the workers of the respondent
Rubber Corporation, Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Marcelo Steel corporation, as there existed a rival union, the Marcelo United Employees and
Corporation, Polaris Marketing Corporation, and Marcelo Chemical and Workers Association (MUEWA) whose president was then Paulino Lazaro. As
Pigment Corporation, Respondents.” events would later develop, the members of the MACATIFU of Augusto
The antecedent facts as found by the respondent Court of Industrial Relations Carreon joined the MUEWA of Paulino Lazaro, after the latter filed a petition
embodied in the appealed Decision are correct, supported as they are by the for direct certification which was granted by the industrial court’s Order of
evidence on record. Nevertheless, We find it necessary to make a re- July 5, 1967 recognizing and certifying MUEWA as the sole and exclusive
statement of the facts that are integrated and inter-related, drawn from the bargaining representative of all the regular workers of the respondent
voluminuous records of these cases which are herein jointly decided, since it corporation. The union rivalry between MACATIFU and MUEWA did not,
would only be from a statement of all the relevant facts of the cases made in however, end with the Order of July 5, 1967, but more than ever developed
all fullness, collectively and comprehensively, can the intricate issues posed into a more pressing problem of union leadership because Augusto Carreon
in these appeals be completely and judiciously resolved. also claimed to be the president of the MUEWA by virtue of the affiliation of
his MACATIFU members with MUEWA. The records also reveal that even the
It appears that prior to May 23, 1967, the date which may be stated as the ranks of MFWU in respondent Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc. was
start of the labor dispute between Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan divided between those supporting Ceferino Ramos and Cornelio Dizon who
(hereinafter referred to as complainant LAKAS) and the management of the both claimed the presidency in said union. Only the UNWU in respondent
Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Marcelo Steel Corporation was then enjoying relative peace as Jose Roque
Inc., Polaris Marketing Corporation, Marcelo Chemical and Pigment was solely recognized as the union’s president. The events that followed are
Corporation, and the Marcelo Steel Corporation (Nail Plan) (hereinafter hereinafter stated in chronological order for a clearer understanding of the
referred to as respondent Marcelo Companies) the Marcelo Companies had present situation.
existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the local unions then
existing within the appropriate bargaining units, viz: (1) the respondent On March 14, 1967, the management of respondent Marcelo Steel
Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, with the Marcelo Camelback Tire and Corporation received a letter requesting the negotiation of a new CBA
Foam Union (MACATIFU); (2) the respondent Marcelo Rubber and Latex together with a draft thereof, from the PSSLU president, Antonio Diaz, for and
Products, Inc., with the Marcelo Free Workers Union (MFWU); and (3) the in behalf of UNWU whose CBA was to expire the following day. Similar letters
respondent Marcelo Steel Corporation with the United Nail Workers Union and proposals were, likewise, sent to the management of respondent Marcelo
(UNWU). These existing CBAs were entered into by and between the parties Tire and Rubber Corporation for and in behalf of MACATIFU, and to

4
respondent Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products for and in behalf of MFWU, VOL. 118, NOVEMBER 19, 1982
whose respective CBAs were both to expire on June 5, 1967.

However, on that very same day of March 14, 1967, the management of
respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation received a letter from the 431
UNWU president, Jose Roque, disauthorizing the PSSLU from representing his
union.
Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan vs. Marcelo Enterprises
Then, on April 14, 1967, Paulino Lazaro of MUEWA requested negotiation of a
new CBA with respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, submitting
therewith his union’s own proposals.
for recognition as the bargaining representative in the appropriate units
Again, on May 3, 1967, the management of respondents Marcelo Tire and involved, consequently suggesting to all to settle the question by filing a
Rubber Corporation and Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc., received petition for certification election before the Court of Industrial Relations, with
another letter requesting negotiation of new CBAs also for and in behalf of an assurance that the management will abide by whatever orders the
the MACATIFU and the MFWU from J.C. Espinas & Associates. industrial court may issue thereon.

Finally, on May 23, 1967, the management of all the respondent Marcelo PSSLU demurred to management’s stand and informed them of its intention
Companies received a letter from Prudencio Jalandoni, the alleged president to file an unfair labor practice case because of management’s refusal to
of the complainant LAKAS. In this letter of May 23, 1967, the complainant bargain with it, pointedly stating that it was with the PSSLU that the existing
LAKAS informed management of the affiliation of the Marcelo United Labor CBAs were entered into. Again, as events later developed, on or about the
Union (MULU) with it. Included therein was a 17-points demand for purposes middle of August 1981, PSSLU filed a Notice of Strike which became the
of the requested collective bargaining with management. subject of conciliation with the respondent companies. In the case of MUEWA,
Paulino Lazaro threatened that his union will declare a strike against
Confronted with a problem of whom to recognize as the bargaining respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation. On the other hand,
representative of all its workers, the management of all the respondent complainant LAKAS for MULU filed on June 13, 1967 before the Bureau of
Marcelo Companies understandably dealt with the problem in this wise, viz: Labor Relations a Notice of Strike against all the respondent Marcelo
(1) it asked proof of authority to represent the MFWU and the MACATIFU Companies, alleging as reasons therefor harassment of union officers and
from J.C. Espinas & Associates; and (2) in a letter dated May 25, 1967, it members due to union affiliation and refusal to bargain. This aforestated
apprised PSSLU, Paulino Lazaro of MUEWA and complainant LAKAS of the Notice of Strike was, however, withdrawn on July 14, 1967.
fact of the existing conflicting demands

In the meantime, as stated earlier in this Decision, the MUEWA filed a petition
431 for direct certification before the industrial court. There being no other union
or interested person appearing before the court except the MUEWA, and

5
finding that MUEWA represented more than the majority of the workers in its contribution to the retirement fund from 1-112%to 3% provided the
respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, the court granted the employees’ contribution will be increased from 1% to 2%. Management
petition and by Order of July 5, 1967, certified MUEWA of Paulino Lazaro as likewise suggested the renewal of the other provisions of the existing CBA.
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular workers in Management’s offers were not accepted by complainant LAKAS who insisted
said respondent. on the grant of all its economic demands and in all of the Marcelo Companies.

On July 11, 1967, Augusto Carreon of MACATIFU wrote the management of As it would later appear during the trial of the ULP case below, and as found
respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation expressly stating that no as a fact by the respondent court, only the economic proposals of
one was yet authorized to submit proposals for and in behalf of the union for complainant LAKAS were the matters taken up in all these CBA conferences.
the renewal of its CBA, adding that “(a)ny group representing our Union is
not authorized and should not be entertained.” Less than a week after the fourth CBA conference, or on September 4, 1967,
the complainant LAKAS declared a strike against all the respondent Marcelo
On July 14, 1967, as earlier stated, the Notice of Strike filed by complainant Companies. Acts of violence and vandalism attended the picketing. Ingress
LAKAS was withdrawn pursuant to a Memorandum Agreement signed on the and egress at the respondents’ premises were successfully blocked. One
same day by management and LAKAS. worker, Plaridel Tiangco, was manhandled by the strikers and was
hospitalized. Windows of the Chemical Plant were badly damaged. As a
Thereafter, or on July 20, 1967, letters of proposal for collective bargaining consequence, ten (10) strikers were later charged before the Municipal Court
were sent by Prudencio Jalandoni of LAKAS to all the respondent Marcelo of Malabon, Rizal, four of whom were convicted while the others were at
companies. In answer thereto, management wrote two (2) letters, both dated large.
July 24, 1967, addressed to Jalandoni, expressing their conformity to sit down
in conference on the points to be negotiated as soon as LAKAS can present On September 13, 1967, the respondent Marcelo Companies obtained a writ
evidence of authority to represent the employees of respondent corporations of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal enjoining
in said conference. The records disclose that it was in the atmosphere of the strikers from preventing the ingress and egress at the respondents’
constant reservation on the part of management as to the question of premises. The following day, a “Return to Work Agreement” (Exhibit “A”) was
representation recognition that complainant LAKAS and management sat executed by and among the management, represented by Jose P. Marcelo and
down for CBA negotiations. Jose A. Delfin, and the local unions, together with complainant LAKAS,
represented by Prudencio Jalandoni for LAKAS, Jose B. Roque for UNWU,
The first conference was held on August 14, 1967, followed by one on August Cornelio Dizon for MFWU and Augusto Carreon for MUEWA, the
16, 1967 whereby management, in formal reply to union’s economic representations of the latter two, however, being expressly subjected by
demands, stated its willingness to give pay adjustments and suggested management to non-recognition. Aside from providing for the immediate
renewal of other provisions of the old CBAs. A third conference was set lifting of the picket lines, the agreement, more pertinently provides, to wit,
although no one from LAKAS or the local unions appeared. On August 29,
1967, the fourth conference was held where, from a letter dated August 30, “4. The management agrees to accept all employees who struck without
1967 from Jose Delfin of Management to Jose B. Roque of UNWU, can be discrimination or harassment consistent with an orderly operation of its
inferred that in the conference of August 29, 1967, the management with various plants, provided it is understood that management has not waived
respect to respondent Marcelo Steel Corporation, agreed to give pay and shall continue to exercise freely its rights and prerogatives to punish,
adjustments from P0.15 to P0.25 to meritorious cases only, and to increase discipline and dismiss its employees in accordance with law and existing

6
rules and regulations that cases filed in court will be allowed to take their said respondents. Because of this second strike, conciliation conferences
normal course.” were again set by the Conciliation Service Division of the Department of
Labor on November 8, November 23, and December 4, 1967. On the last
By virtue of this agreement, the respondent Marcelo Companies resumed aforementioned date, however, neither complainant LAKAS nor the local
operations and the strikers went back to work. As found by the respondent unions appeared.
court, all strikers were admitted back to work, except four (4) namely,
Wilfredo Jarquio, Leonardo Sakdalan, Jesus Lim and Arlington Glodeviza, who Instead, on December 13, 1967, Prudencio Jalandoni of complainant LAKAS,
chose not to report for work because of the criminal charges filed against in behalf of the striking unions, coursed a letter (Exhibit “B”) to Jose P.
them before the municipal court of Malabon and because of the Marcelo of management advising that, “on Monday, December 18, 1967, at
administrative investigation conducted by management in connection with 7:00 o’clock in the morning, all your striking workers and employees will
the acts of violence and vandalism committed during the September 4 strike. return to work under the same terms and conditions of employrnent before
Together with Jesus Lim, three other strikers who reported for work and the strike.” The letter was attested to by Cornelio Dizon for MFWU, Jose
were admitted, namely, Jose Roque, Alfredo Cabel and Ramon Bataycan, were Roque for UNWU and Augusto Carreon for MUEWA. On December 15, 1967,
convicted in said criminal case. the Bureau of Labor Relations was informed by the complainant LAKAS who
requested for the Bureau’s representative to witness the return of the
After the resumption of normal business, the management of the respondent strikers to their jobs.
Marcelo Companies, the complainant LAKAS together with the local unions
resumed their bargaining negotiations subject to the conditions earlier The records reveal that in the meantime, prior to December 13, 1967, some of
mentioned. On October 4, 1967, the parties met and discussed the bargaining the strikers started going back to work and were admitted; and that as early
unit to be covered by the CBA in case one is entered into, union shop as December 4, 1967, the management started posting notices at the gates of
arrangement, check-off, waiver of the employer of the notice requirement in the respective premises of the respondents for strikers to return back to
case of employees’ separation, separation pay in cash equivalent to 12-days work. Similar notices were also posted on December 18 and December 27,
pay for every year of service, retirement plan, and one or two years duration 1967
of the CBA. It was also agreed in that meeting not to negotiate with respect to
respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corpora-don inasmuch as a CBA had Upon their return, the reporting strikers were requested to fill up a certain
already been entered into by management with the MUEWA of Paulino form (Exhibit “49”) wherein they were to indicate the date of their
Lazaro, the recently certified union in said respondent. availability for work in order that they may be scheduled. According to the
respondent Marcelo Companies, this requirement was asked of the strikers
Finally, on October 13, 1967, the negotiations reached its final stage when the for legitimate business reasons within management prerogative. Several of
management of respondents Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc. and the strikers filled up the required form and were accordingly scheduled for
Marcelo Steel Corporation gave the complainant LAKAS a copy of work. The remaining others, led and supported by complainant LAKAS,
management’s drafts of the collective bargaining proposals for MFWU and refused and insisted that they be all admitted back to work without
UNWU, respectively. complying with the aforestated requirement, alleging that the same
constituted a “screening” of the striking workers. As matters stood,
Unexpectedly and without filing a notice of strike, complainant LAKAS Management refused to forego the requirement; on the other hand, the
declared another strike against the respondent Marcelo Companies on
November 7, 1967, resulting in the complete paralyzation of the business of

7
remaining strikers demanded to be readmitted without filing up the form for “4. That each of the aforesaid local unions, before their affiliation with the
scheduling. complainant union LAKAS, had a collective bargaining agreement with
respondents; that after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement
These then constitute the factual background when the complainant LAKAS, above-mentioned and after the abovementioned local unions affiliated with
represented by its counsel, Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, on December 26, 1967, the complainant LAKAS, the said federation sent to respondents’ president,
filed before the respondent court a charge for unfair labor practice against Jose P. Marcelo, on May 23, 1967, a letter, requesting for a negotiation for
the respondent. Marcelo Companies, alleging non-readmission of the striking collective bargaining, together with union proposals thereof, but respondents
members of the three (3) affiliated local unions despite the unconditional refused;
offer to return to work after the strike of November 7, 1967. Based on the
allegations of the foregoing charge and after a preliminary investigation “5. That after respondents knew of the affiliation of the aforementioned local
conducted by the acting Prosecutor of said respondent court, the acting Chief unions with the LAKAS, the said respondents, thru their officers and agents
Prosecutor, Atty. Antonio Tria Tirona, filed on February 12, 1968 the instant began harassing the union members, discriminated against them by
complaint under authority of Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875, otherwise transferring some of its officers and members from one section to another in
known as the Industrial Peace Act. such a way that their work was reduced to manual labor, and by suspending
them without justifiable cause, in spite of long years of service with said
The Complaint below alleges, among others, to wit: respondents;
“1. That complainant is a legitimate labor organization, with its affiliates, “6. That as a result of the abovementioned unfair labor practice of
namely: Marcelo Free Workers Union, United Nail Workers Union, and respondents, and after complainant sent communication thereto, protesting
Marcelo United Employees Unions, whose members listed in Annexes “A”, against the acts of the above-mentioned, complainant decided to stage a
“B”, and “C” of this complaint are considered employees of respondent within strike on September 4, 1967, after filing a notice of strike with the
the meaning of the Act; Department of Labor;
“2. x x x “7. That on September 14, 1967, however, Jose P. Marcelo, and Jose A. Delfin,
xxx president and vice-president of the respondents, respectively, on one hand
and the presidents of the three local unions above-mentioned and the
xxx national president of complainant union on the other, entered into a Return-
to-Work Agreement, providing among others, as follows:
“3. That individual complainants listed in Annexes “ A ”, “B “, and “C” of this
complaint are members of the Marcelo United Employees and Workers ‘4. The management agrees to accept all employees who struck without
Association, Marcelo Free Workers Union, and United Nail Workers Union, discrimination or harassment consistent with an orderly operation of its
respectively; that the members of the Marcelo United Employees and various plants provided it is understood that management has not waived
Workers Union are workers of respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber and shall continue to exercise freely its rights and prerogatives to punish,
Corporation; that the members of the Marcelo Free Workers Union compose discipline and dismiss its employees in accordance with law and existing
the workers of the Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Polaris Marketing rules and regulations and that cases filed in Court will be allowed to take
Corporation, and the members of the United Nail Workers Union compose the their normal course.’
workers of the Marcelo Steel Corporation (Nail Plant);

8
“8. That, contrary to the above Return-to-Work agreement, and in violation annexes “A”, “B” and “C” hereof, with back wages, without, loss of seniority
thereof, respondents refused to admit the members of the three striking local rights and privileges thereof;
unions; that in admitting union members back to work, they were screened in
spite of their long employment with respondent, but respondents gave “(c) Ordering respondents to bargain in good faith with complainant union;
preference to the casual employees; and

“9. That, because of the refusal of the respondents to accept some union “(d) Granting complainant and its complaining members thereof such other
members, in violation of the above-mentioned Return-to-Work agreement affirmative reliefs and remedies equitable and proper, in order to effectuate
and refusal of respondents to bargain in good faith with complainant, the the policies of the Industrial Peace Act.”
latter, together with the members of the three local unions above-mentioned, On March 16, 1968, after an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File
again staged a strike on November 7, 1967; Answer, the respondents filed their Answer denying the material allegations
“10. That on December 13, 1967, complainant sent a letter to respondents of the Complaint and alleging as affirmative defenses,
that the members of the striking unions abovementioned offered to return to “I. That the Collective Bargaining Agreement between respondent Marcelo
work on December 18, 1967 without any condition, but respondents likewise Steel Corporation and the United Nail Workers Union expired on March 15,
refused, and still continue to refuse to reinstate them up to the present; 1967; The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the United Rubber
“11. That hereto attached are the list of names of the members of the three Workers Union (which eventually became the Marcelo Free Workers Union)
local unions above-mentioned who were not admitted back to work by and the respondent Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc., expired on June
respondents, marked as Annexes “A”, “B”, and “G” and made as an integral 5, 1967; the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Marcelo Camelback
part of this complaint; Tire and Foam Union and the Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation expired
on June 5, 1967;
“12. That the union members listed in Annexes “A”, “B”, and “C” hereof were
not able to secure substantial employment in spite of diligent efforts exerted “II. That on May 23, 1967, one Mr. Prudencio Jalandoni of complainant
by them; addressed a communication to Mr. Jose P. Marcelo of respondents informing
him of the alleged affiliation of the Marcelo United Labor Union with
“13. That the above unfair labor practice acts of respondents are in violation complainant and submitting a set of collective bargaining proposal to which
of Section 4, subsections 1, 4 and 6 in relation to Sections 13, 14 and 15 of counsel for respondents replied suggesting that a petition for certification
Republic Act No. 875.” election be filed with the Court of Industrial Relations in view of the several
demands for representation recognition;
The complaint prayed “that after due hearing, judgment be rendered,
declaring respondents guilty of unfair labor practice, and “III. That the transfers of workers from one job to another were made in
accordance with needs of the service. Respondents afforded union officers
“(a) Ordering respondents to cease and desist from further committing the and members affected by the transfers the privilege to watch out for
acts complained of; vacancies and select positions they prefer to be in. No suspensions without
“(b) Ordering respondents to comply with the Return-to-work agreement justifiable cause were made as alleged in the Complaint;
dated September 14, 1967, and to admit back to work the workers listed in

9
“IV. That between May 23, 1967, the date of their first demand for “IX. That respondents posted several times lists of names of workers who had
negotiations, and September 4, 1967, the start of the first strike, proposals not returned to work with the invitation to return to work, but they did not
and counter-proposals were had. Respondents are not aware of whether or return to work;
not a notice of strike was filed with the Court of Industrial Relations;
“X. That a number of workers in the list Annexes “A”, “B” and “C” have
“V. That Mr. Jose P. Marcelo is the President of Marcelo Rubber and Latex resigned after they found more profitable employment elsewhere;
Products, Inc., Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, and Marcelo Steel
Corporation, while Mr. Jose A. Delfin is the acting Personnel Manager of “XI. That the local unions referred to in the Complaint if they ever had
respondent Marcelo Rubber and Latex Products, Inc., Marcelo Tire and affiliated with complainant union had subsequently disaffiliated therefrom;
Rubber Corporation, Marcelo Steel Corporation and Marcelo Chemical and “XII. That the strikes called and declared by the striking unions were illegal;
Pigment Corporation;
“XIII. That the local unions were bargaining in bad faith with respondents,”
“VI That respondents did not refuse to admit members of the striking union.
Only four (4) workers who had criminal cases filed against them voluntarily and praying for the dismissal of the Complaint as well as for the declaration
failed to report to the Personnel Department for administrative investigation; of illegality of the two (2) strikes called by the striking unions.

“VII. That after September 14, 1967, all workers of the different respondent Thereafter, the trial commenced. Then on October 24, 1968, a development
corporations returned to work except the four mentioned in the preceding occurred which gave a peculiar aspect to the case at bar. A Manifestation and
paragraph hereof who have pending criminal cases; between September 14, Motion signed by the respective officers and members of the MUEWA, headed
1967, and November 7, 1967 another strike was declared without justifiable by Paulino Lazaro, was filed by the said union, alleging, to wit,
cause;
“1. That the above-entitled case purportedly shows that the Marcelo United
“VIII. That on November 28, 1967, respondent obtained an injunction from Employees and Workers Association is one of the Complainants being
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City Branch, against the illegal represented by the Petitioner Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LMM);
picketing of the local unions; in the first week of December, 1967, the striking
“2. That it likewise appears in the above-entitled case that the services of the
workers began returning to work; on December 13, 1967, a letter was
herein Petitioner was sought by a certain Augusto Carreon together with his
received from complainant advising respondents that its striking workers
cohorts who are not members of the Marcelo United Employees and Workers
were calling off, lifting the picket line and returning to work, that from the
Association much less connected with the Marcelo Tire and Rubber
first week of December, 1967, respondents invited the striking workers
Corporation wherein the Marcelo United Employees and Workers
desiring to return to work to fill out an information sheet stating therein their
Association has an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement;
readiness to work and the exact dates they were available so that proper
scheduling could be done; a number of workers showed no interest in “3. That to set the records of this Honorable Court straight, the undersigned
reporting to work; management posted in the Checkpoint, Bulletin Boards, officers and members of the Marcelo United
and the gates notices calling all workers to return to work but a number of
workers obviously were not interested in returning anymore; Employees and Workers Association respectfully manifest that the aforesaid
organization has no complaint whatsoever against any of the Marcelo
Enterprises;

10
“4. x x x entitled case (Re: Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan) from further
representing the United Nail Workers Union in the above-entitled case;
“5. x x x, the Complaint filed by the Petitioner in the aboveentitled case in
behalf of the Marcelo United Employees and Workers Association is without “5. That in view further of the fact that the filing of the aboveentitled case
authority from the latter and therefore the officers and/or representatives of was made over and above the objections of the Officers and members of the
the petitioning labor organization should be cited for Contempt of Court; United Nail Workers Union, the latter therefore manifest their intention to
cease and desist as they hereby ceased and desisted from further prosecuting
“6. x x x, the Complaint filed by the Petitioner in the aboveentitled case in the above-entitled case in the interest of a harmonius labor-management
behalf of the Marcelo United and Employees and Workers Association should relation within the Marcelo Enterprises;
be considered as withdrawn;
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
x x x.”
x x x.”
Likewise, a Manifestation and Motion signed by the Officers and members of
This was followed by another Manifestation and Motion filed on November 6, the MFWU, headed by its president, Benjamin Manaol, dated October 28,
1968 and signed by the officers and members of the UNWU, headed by its 1968 and filed November 6, 1968, stated the same allegations as the
President, Juan Balgos, alleging, to wit, Manifestation and Motion filed by the UNWU quoted above, except that the
“1. That the above-entitled case purportedly shows that the United Nail disaffiliation of the MFWU from LAKAS was made effective January 25, 1968.
Workers Union is being represented by the Petitioner Lakas ng The Resolutions of Disaffiliation of both MFWU and UNWU were attached to
Manggagawang Makabayan for the alleged reason that the former is one of these Manifestations.
the affiliates of the latter; On November 19, 1968, complainant LAKAS filed an Opposition to these
“2. That on January 15, 1968, all the Officers and members of the United Nail Manifestations and Motions, materially alleging that, to wit:
Workers Union disaffiliated from the herein Petitioning labor organization “1. That complainants respectfully stated that when Charge No. 2265 was
for the reason that Petitioning labor organization could not serve the best filed on December 26, 1967 in this case, giving rise to the instant complaint,
interest of the Officers and members of the United Nail Workers Union and as the alleged officers of the union-movants were not yet officers on the filing of
such is a stumbling block to a harmonious labor-management relations said Charge No. 2265, x x x
within all the Marcelo enterprises; x x x
“2. That the alleged officers and members who signed the three (3)
“3. That the filing of the above-entitled case by the herein Petitioning labor Manifestations and Motions are the very employees who were accepted back
organization was made over and above the objections of the officers and to work by the respondents during the strike by the complainants on
members of the United Nail Workers Union; September 4, 1967 and November 7, 1967; and the said alleged officers and
“4. That in view of all the foregoing, the Officers and members of the United members who signed the said manifestations and motions are still working
Nail Workers Union do hereby disauthorize the Petitioner of the above- up to the present in the establishments of the respondents.

11
“3. That precisely because of the acceptance back to work of these alleged lack of the required notices of strike before the strikes were declared in both
officers and members of the union-movants, and the refusal of respondents to instances, the Decision, nevertheless, on the opinion that the “procedure of
accept back to work all the individual complainants in this case mentioned in scheduling adopted by the respondents was in effect a screening of those who
Annexes “A”, “B” and “C” of the instant complaint, inspite of the offer to return were to be readmitted,” declared respondent Marcelo Companies guilty of
to work by the complainants herein made to the respondents without any unfair labor practice in discriminating against the employees named in
conditions at the time of the strike, as per complainants’ letter of December Annexes “A”, “B”, and “C” by refusing to admit them back to work while other
13, strikers were admitted back to work after the strike of November 7, 1967.
The dispositive portion of the appealed Decision states, to wit,
1967 (Exh. “B”. for the complainants), which fact precisely gave rise to the
filing of this case. “WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondents should be, as they are
hereby, declared guilty of unfair labor practice only for the discrimination on
xxx terms or conditions of employment as hereinbefore discussed in connection
xxx with the return of the strikers-complainants back to work after the second
strike, and, therefore, ordered to pay the individual complainants appearing
x x x.” in Annexes “A”, “B” and “C” of the Complaint, except Arlington Glodeviza,
Jesus Lim, Wilfredo Jarquio, Leonardo Sakdalan, Jose Roque, Alfredo Cabel,
On January 31, 1969, after the submission of their respective Memoranda on
and those still working, were dismissed for cause, whose contracts expired or
the motions asking for the dismissal and withdrawal of the complaint, the
who had resigned as above indicated, their back wages from December 18,
Court of Industrial Relations issued an Order deferring the resolution of the
1967but only up to June 29, 1970 when this case was submitted for decision,
Motions until after the trial on the merits. To this Order, two separate
without reinstatement, minus their earnings elsewhere for the same period.
Motions for Reconsideration were filed by the respondent companies and the
movant-unions, which motions were, however, denied by the court en banc “As to those who died without having been reemployed, the back wages shall
by its Resolution dated March 5, 1969. be from December 18, 1967 up to the date of then-demise, as indicated in the
body of this Decision, but not beyond June 20, 1970, likewise less their
After the trial onthe merits of the case, and after submission by the parties of
earnings elsewhere.
their respective memoranda, the respondent court rendered on July 20, 1973
the Decision subject of these petitions. On the motions for dismissal or “The Chief Auditing Examiner of this Court, or his duly authorized
withdrawal of the complaint as prayed for by MUEWA, UNWU and MFWU, the representative, is hereby directed to proceed to the premises of respondent
respondent court denied the same on the ground that the instant case was companies to examine their books, payrolls, vouchers and other pertinent
filed by the Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan for and in behalf of the papers or documents as may be necessary to compute the back wages due the
individual employees concerned and not for the movants who were not individual complainant in line with this Decision, and to submit his Report
authorized by said individual complainants to ask for the dismissal. On the thereon not later than twenty (20) days after completion of such examination
merits of the case, while the Decision contained opinions to the effect that the for further disposition of the Court.
respondent Marcelo Companies were not remiss in their obligation to
bargain, and that the September 4, 1967 strike as well as the November 7, SO ORDERED.”
1967 strike, were economic strikes, and were, therefore, illegal because of

12
On August 9, 1973, counsel for respondent Marcelo Companies filed a Motion and the individual complainants. On February 19, 1974 and on February 20,
for Reconsideration of the above Decision assigning as errors, to wit, 1974, both parties filed their respective Notices of Appeals. Hence, these
petitions.
“I. The trial court erred in not finding that complainant Lakas ng
Manggagawang Makabayan (Lakas) has no authority to file and/or to In L-38258, the petition filed by complainant Lakas ng Manggagawang
prosecute the Complaint against respondents in representation of the local Makabayan (LAKAS), the following were assigned as reversible errors, to wit,
unions and/or individual complainants and/or members of local unions in
their individual capacities and in not dismissing the complaint on that ground I. The respondent court erred in finding the strikes of September 4 and
upon motions of the local unions concerned and/or their members. November 7, 1967 to be economic strikes and declaring the said strikes
illegal for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of Section 14(d)
II. The trial court erred in finding that respondent discriminated against of Republic Act 875, although its illegality was condoned or waived because
individual complainants who were not readmitted to work after the of the Return-to-Work agreement on the first strike, and the discriminatory
November 7, 1967 strike while others were able to return to their former rehiring of the striking employees after the second strike.
employment and in holding that the procedure adopted by respondents was
in effect a screening of those who were readmitted and in finding II. The respondent court erred in denying reinstatement to the striking
respondents guilty of unfair labor practice by reason thereof.” complainants in Case No. 4951-ULP, and limiting the computation of their
backwages from December 18, 1967 to June 29, 1970 only, despite its
On August 14, 1973, the individual complainants who had earlier findings of unfair labor practice against private respondents herein as a
disauthorized the counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Pineda, from further consequence of the discriminatory rehiring of the striking employees after
representing them and from amicably settling their claims, on their own the November 7, 1967 strike.
behalf filed their arguments in support of their Motion for Reconsideration,
through a newly retained counsel, Atty. Pablo B. Castillon. Assigned as errors III. The respondent court erred in excluding the other individual
are, to wit, complainants, except those who are still working, those who resigned on or
before December 18, 1967, and those whose employment contract expired,
“I. The findings of the trial court excluding some of the employees from the and denying to these individual complainants the benefits resulting
aforementioned Decision as well as from the benefits resulting therefrom is therefrom.
not in accordance with law and the facts.
On the other hand, in L-38260 which is the petition filed by respondents
“II. The findings of the trial court declaring the strikes of September 4 and Marcelo Enterprises, Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, Marcelo Rubber
November 7, 1967 as illegal for being an economic strike is not in accordance & Latex Products, Marcelo Steel Corporation, Marcelo Chemical & Pigment
with law and the facts adduced in this case. Corporation, and Polaris Marketing Corporation, the following is the alleged
assignment of errors, to wit,
“III. The Honorable trial court in ordering the reduction of the back wages,
without reinstatement, appears to have departed from the substantial I. Respondent court erred in not finding that respondent Lakas ng
evidence rule and established jurisprudence.” Manggagawang Makabayan (LAKAS) had no authority to file and/or to
prosecute the complaint against the petitioners herein in representation of
By Resolution of January 24, 1974, the Court en banc denied the two (2) the local unions and/or individual complainants and/or members of local
Motions for Reconsideration filed by both the respondent Marcelo Companies

13
unions in their individual capacities and in not dismissing the complaint in The first issue poses a procedural question which We shall dwell on after a
Case No. 4951-ULP of respondent court on that ground upon motions of the resolution of the second issue, this latter issue being of greater significance to
local unions concerned and/or their officers and members. the correct determination of the rights of all parties concerned as it treats of
the merits of the present petitions.
II. Respondent court erred in finding that petitioners herein discriminated
against individual complainants in Case No. 4951-ULP of respondent court
who were not readmitted to work after the November 7, 1967 strike, while
others were able to return to their former employment and in holding that Hence, anent the second issue of whether or not the complaint for unfair
the procedure adopted by petitioners herein was in effect a screening of labor practice can be sustained, this Court rules in favor of the respondent
those who were readmitted and in finding petitioners herein guilty of unfair Marcelo Companies and consequently, the appealed Decision is reversed.
labor practice by reasons thereof. This reversal is inevitable after this Court has pored through the
voluminuous records of the case as well as after applying the established
III. Respondent court erred in rendering judgment ordering petitioners jurisprudence and the law on the matters raised. We are not unmindful of the
herein to pay individual complainants in Case No. 4951ULP of respondent plight of the employees in this case but We consider it oppressive to grant
court backwages from December 18, 1967, to June 29, 1970, minus their their petition in G.R. No. L-38258 for not only is there no evidence which
earnings elsewhere, except those who have resigned, those who have been shows that the respondent Marcelo Companies were seeking for an
dismissed for cause, those whose contracts have expired and those who are opportunity to discharge these employees for union activities, or to
already working. discriminate against them because of such activities, but there is affirmative
evidence to establish the contrary conclusion.
IV. Respondent court erred in holding that petitioners herein have waived
their right to declare the strikes of September 4, 1967 and November 7, 1967, The present controversy is a three-sided conflict, although focus has been
illegal. greatly placed upon an alleged labor dispute between complainant LAKAS
and the respondent Marcelo Companies. It would bear emphasizing, however,
From the aforecited assignments of errors respectively made in both that what had been patently disregarded by the respondent industrial court
petitions “before Us, We find that there are only two basic issues posed for and the parties alike, is the fact that LAKAS had never been the bargaining
Our resolution, viz: (1) whether or not the complaint filed by LAKAS against representative of any and all of the local unions then existing in the
the Marcelo Companies can be sustained, in view of the alleged fact that its respondent Marcelo Companies.
authority to file and prosecute the same has been squarely raised in issue at
the first instance before the respondent court; and (2) whether or not the Contrary to the pretensions of complainant LAKAS, the respondent Marcelo
Marcelo Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice, for which they should Companies did not ignore the demand for collective bargaining contained in
be made liable for backwages and be obliged to reinstate the employees its letter of June 20, 1967. Neither did the companies refuse to bargain at all.
appearing in Annexes “A”, “B”, and “C” of the complaint, taking into What it did was to apprise LAKAS of the existing conflicting demands for
consideration the prayer of LAKAS anent the correct payment of said recognition as the bargaining representative in the appropriate units
backwages and the non-exclusion of some employees from the benefits involved, and suggested the settlement of the issue by means of the filing of a
arising from the appealed Decision. petition for certification election before the Court of Industrial Relations. This
was not only the legally approved procedure but was dictated by the fact that
there was indeed a legitimate representation issue. PSSLU, with whom the

14
existing CBAs As were entered into, was demanding of respondent companies of the asserted bargaining agent proof of its representation of its employees.
to collectively bargain with it; so was Paulino Lazaro of MUEWA, J.C. Espinas Having the right to demonstration of this fact, it is not an ‘unfair labor
& Associates for MACATIFU and the MFWU, and the complainant LAKAS for practice’ for an employer to refuse to negotiate until the asserted bargaining
MULU which we understand is the aggrupation of MACATIFU, MFWU and agent has presented reasonable proof of majority representation. It is
UNWU. On top of all of these, Jose Roque of UNWU disauthorized the PSSLU necessary however, that such demand be made in good faith and not merely
from representing his union; and similarly, Augusto Carreon of MACATIFU as a pretext or device for delay or evasion. The employer’s right is however to
itself informed management as late as July 11, 1967 or after the demand of reasonable proof . x x x
LAKAS that no group representing his Union “is not authorized and should
not be entertained.” “x x x Although an employer has the undoubted right to bargain with a
bargaining agent whose authority has been established, without the
Indeed, what We said in Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) requirement that the bargaining agent be officially certified by the National
vs. The Bureau of Labor Relations, 69 SCRA 132, applies as well to this case. Labor Relations Board as such, if the informally presented evidence leaves a
real doubt as to the issue, the employer has a right to demand a certification
“x x x, in a situation like this where the issue of legitimate representation in and to refuse to negotiate until such official certification is presented.”
dispute is viewed for not only by one legitimate labor organization but two or
more, there is every equitable ground warranting the holding of a The clear facts of the case as hereinbefore restated indusputably show that a
certification election. In this way, the issue as to who is really the true legitimate representation issue confronted the respondent Marcelo
bargaining representative of all the employees may be firmly settled by the Companies. In the face of these facts and in conformity with the existing
simple expedient of an election.” jurisprudence,

The above-cited case gives the reason for the need of determining once and We hold that there existed no duty to bargain collectively with the
for all the true choice of membership as to who should be their bargaining complainant LAKAS on the part of said companies. And proceeding from this
representative, which is that, “(E)xperience teaches us, one of the root causes basis, it follows that all acts instigated by complainant LAKAS such as the
of labor or industrial disputes is the problem arising from a questionable filing of the Notice of Strike on June 13, 1967 (although later withdrawn) and
bargaining representative entering into CBA concerning terms and conditions the two strikes of September 4, 1967 and November 7, 1967 were calculated,
of employment.” designed and intended to compel the respondent Marcelo Companies to
recognize or bargain with it notwithstanding that it was an uncertified union,
Respecting the issue of representation and the right of the employer to or in the case of respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, to bargain
demand reasonable proof of majority representation on the part of the with it despite the fact that the MUEWA of Paulino Lazaro was already
supposed or putative bargaining agent, the commentaries in Rothenberg on certified as the sole bargaining agent in said respondent company. These
Labor Relations, pp. 429-431, are forceful and persuasive, thus: concerted activities executed and carried into effect at the instigation and
“It is essential to the right of a putative bargaining agent to represent the motivation of LAKAS are all illegal and violative of the employer’s basic right
employees that it be the delegate of a majority of the employees and, to bargain collectively only with the representative supported by the majority
conversely, an employer is under duty to bargain collectively only when the of its employees in each of the bargaining units. This Court is not unaware of
bargaining agent is representative of the majority of the employees. A natural the present predicament of the employees involved but much as We
consequence of these principles is that the employer has the right to demand sympathize with those who have been misled and so lost their jobs through

15
hasty, illadvised and precipitate moves, We rule that the facts neither economic demands should be met and that all of these demands should be
substantiate nor support the finding that the respondent Marcelo Companies granted in all of the respondent Marcelo Companies. The companies’ refusal
are guilty of unfair labor practice. to accede to the demands of LAKAS appears to be justified since there is no
showing that these companies were in the same state of financial and
There are also other facts which this Court cannot ignore. The complaint of economic affairs. There is reason to believe that the first strike was staged
LAKAS charge that after their first strike of September 4, 1967, management only for the purpose of compelling the respondent Marcelo Companies to
and the striking employees entered into a Return-to-Work Agreement but accede to the inflexible demands of the complainant LAKAS. The records
that it was violated by the respondent companies who “refused to admit the further establish that after the resumption of normal operations following the
members of the three striking local unions x x x and gave preference to the first strike and the consequent Return-to-work Agreement, the striking
casual employees.” (No. 8, Complaint). It is also alleged that the strike of unions led by complainant LAKAS and the management of the respondent
November 7, 1967 was staged “because of the refusal of the respondents to Marcelo Companies resumed their bargaining negotiations. And that on
accept some union members x x x and refusal of respondents to bargain in October 13, 1967, complainant LAKAS sent the final drafts of the collective
good faith with complainant” (No. 9, Complaint). We find however, that in bargaining proposals for MFWU and UNWU. The second strike of November
making these charges, complainant LAKAS lacked candor, truth and fidelity 7, 1967 was then staged immediately after which strike, as before, was again
towards the courts. lacking of a srike notice. All of these facts show that it was complainant
It is a fact found by the respondent court, and as revealed by the records of LAKAS, and not the respondent Marcelo Companies, which refused to
the case, that the respondent Marcelo Companies did not violate the terms of negotiate in the pending collective bargaining process. All that the facts show
the Return-to-Work Agreement negotiated after the first strike. All of the is that the bargaining position of complainant LAKAS was inflexible and that
strikers were admitted back to work except four (4) who opted not to report it was in line with this uncompromising attitude that the strikes were
for work because of the administrative investigation conducted in connection declared, significantly after notice that management did not or could not
with the acts of violence perpetrated during the said strike. meet all of their 17-points demand.
It is also evident from the records that the charge of bargaining in bad faith Respondent court, upholding the contention of petitioner LAKAS that after
imputed to the respondent companies, is hardly credible. In fact, such charge the second strike, the respondent Marcelo Companies, despite the strikers’
is valid as only against the complainant LAKAS. The parties had a total of five unconditional offer to return to work, refused to readmit them without
(5) conferences for purposes of collective bargaining. It is worth considering “screening” which LAKAS insists to be “discriminatory hiring of the striking
that the first strike of September 4, 1967 was staged less than a week after employees,” declared that although the two strikes were illegal, being
the fourth CBA conference and without any benefit of any previous strike economic strikes held in violation of the strike notice requirement,
notice. In this connection, it must be stated that the notice of strike filed on nevertheless held the Marcelo Companies guilty of unfair labor practice in
June 13, 1967 could not have been the strike notice for the first strike discriminating against the complaining employees by refusing to readmit
because it was already withdrawn on July 14, 1967. Thus, from these stated them while other strikers were admitted back to work. We do not agree.
facts can be seen that the first strike was held while the parties were in the
process of negotiating. Nor can it be sustained that the respondent Marcelo It is the settled jurisprudence that it is an unfair labor practice for an
Companies bargained in bad faith since there were proposals offered by employer not to reinstate, or refuse re-employment to, members of union
them, but the complainant LAKAS stood pat on its position that all of their who abandon their strike and make unconditional offer to return to work.1

16
As indeed Exhibit “B” presents an unconditional offer of the striking returning strikers who filled up the form were scheduled for work and
employees to return to work under the same terms and conditions of consequently started with their jobs. It is only those strikers who refused or
employment before the strike, the question then confronting Us is whether or failed to fill-up the required form, like the herein complaining employees,
not on the part of the respondent companies, there was refusal to reinstate or who were not scheduled for work and consequently have not been re-
re-employ the strikers. employed by the respondent Marcelo Companies. Even if there was a sincere
belief on their part that the requirement of Exhibit “49” was a ruse at
We find as a fact that the respondent Marcelo Companies did not refuse to “screening” them, this fear would have been dispelled upon notice of the fact
reinstate or re-employ the strikers, as a consequence of which We overrule that each and all of their co-strikers who filled up the required form were in
the finding of unfair labor practice against said companies based on the fact scheduled for work and started to work. The stoppage of their work was
erroneous conclusion of the respondent court. It is clear from the records not, therefore, the direct consequence of the respondent companies’
that even before the unconditional offer to return to work contained in complained act. Hence, their economic loss should not be shifted to the
Exhibit “B” was made, the repondent Marcelo Companies had already posted employer.
notices for the strikers to return back to work.
It was never the state policy nor Our judicial pronouncement that the
It is true that upon their return, the strikers were required to fill up a form employees’ right to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for
(Exhibit “49”) wherein they were to indicate the date of their availability for mutual aid and protection, are absolute or be upheld tinder all circumstances.
work. But We are more impressed and are persuaded to accept as true the Thus, in the case of Royal Interocean Lines, et al. vs. CIR,3 We cited these
contention of the respondent Marcelo Companies that the aforestated authorities giving adequate panoply to the rights of employer, to wit;
requirement was only for purposes of proper scheduling of the start of work
for each returning striker. It must be noted that as a consequence of the two “The protection of workers’ right to self-organization in no way interfere with
strikes which were both attended by widespread acts of violence and employer’s freedom to enforce such rules and orders as are necessary to
vandalism, the businesses of the respondent companies were completely proper conduct of his businesses, so long as employer’s supervision is not for
paralyzed. It would hardly be justiciable to demand of the respondent the purpose of intimidating or coercing his employees with respect to their
companies to readmit all the returning workers in one big force or as each self-organization and representation. (National Relations Board vs. Hudson
demanded readmission. There were machines that were not in operating Motor Car Co., CC. A., 1942, 123 F 2d. 528).”
condition because of long disuse during the strikes. Some of the machines
needed more than one worker to operate them so that in the absence of the “It is the function of the court to see that the rights of selforganization and
needed team of workers, the start of work by one without his teammates collective bargaining guaranteed by the Act are amply secured to the
would necessarily be useless, and the company would be paying for his time employee, but in its effort to prevent the prescribed unfair labor practice, the
spent doing no work. Finally, We take judicial cognizance of the fact that court must he mindful of the welfare of the honest employer (Martel Mills
companies whose businesses were completely paralyzed by major strikes Corp. vs. M.L.R.L., CC. A., 1940, 11471 F 2d. 264).”
cannot resume operations at once and in the same state or force as before the In Pagkakaisang Itinataguyod ng mga Manggagawa sa Ang Tibay (PIMA),
strikes. Eliseo Samson, et al. vs. Ang Tibay, Inc., et al.,L-22273, May 16, 1967, 20 SCRA
But what strikes Us most in lending credence to respondents’ allegation that 45, We held that the exaction, by the employer, from the strikers returning to
Exhibit “49” was not meant to screen the strikers, is the fact that all of the work, of a promise not to destroy company property and not to commit acts
of reprisal against union members who did not participate in the strike,

17
cannot be considered an unfair labor practice because it was not intended to representation of MUEWA. Apparently, it is this split faction of MUEWA,
discourage union membership. It was an act of a self-preservation designed headed by Augusto Carreon, who is being sought to be represented by LAKAS.
to insure peace and order in the employer’s premises. It was also held therein However, it cannot do so because the members constituting this split faction
that what the Industrial Peace Act regards as an unfair labor practice is the of MUEWA were still members of MUEWA which was on its own right a duly
discrimination committed by the employer in regard to tenure of registered labor union. Hence, any suit to be brought for and in behalf of
employment for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging union them can be made only by MUEWA, and not LAKAS. It appearing then that
membership. Augusto Carreon and his cohorts did not disaffiliate from MUEWA nor signed
any individual affiliation with LAKAS, LAKAS bears no legal interest in
In the light of the above ruling and taking the facts and circumstances of the representing MUEWA or any of its members.
case before Us in relation to the requirement by the respondent companies in
the filling up of Exhibit “49”, We hold and rule that the requirement was an Nor will the lower court’s opinion be availing with respect to the complaining
act of selfpreservation, designed to effect cost-savings as well as to insure employees belonging to UNWU and MFWU. Although it is true, as alleged by
peace and order within their premises. Accordingly, the petition in G. R. No. L- LAKAS, that when it filed the charge on December 26, 1967, the officers of the
38258 should be dismissed, it having failed to prove, substantiate and justify movant unions were not yet then the officers thereof, nevertheless, the
the unfair labor practice charges against the respondent Marcelo Companies. moment MFWU and UNWU separated from and disaffiliated with LAKAS to
again exercise its rights as independent local unions, registered before as
Now to the procedural question posed in the first issue brought about by the such, they are no longer affiliates of LAKAS, as what transpired here.
respondent court’s denial of the motions to withdraw the complaint Naturally, there would no longer be any reason or occasion for LAKAS to
respectively filed by MUEWA, UNWU and MFWU. In their petition (G.R. L- continue representing them. Notable is the fact that the members
38260) the respondent Marcelo Companies maintain that the respondent purportedly represented by LAKAS constitute the mere minority of the
court erred in not dismissing the complaint even as it knew fully well that the movant unions, as may be inferred from the allegations of the movant unions
very authority of LAKAS to represent the labor unions who had precisely as well as the counter-allegations of LAKAS filed below. As such, they cannot
disaffiliated from the LAKAS, was open to serious question and was being prevail or dictate upon the will of the greater majority of the unions to which
ventilated before it. On the other hand, the respondent court rationalized the they still belong, it appearing that they never disaffiliated from their unions;
denial of the aforestated motions to withdraw by holding that the complaint or stated in another way, they are bound by the action of the greater
was filed by LAKAS on behalf of the individual employees whose names were majority.4
attached to the complaint and hence, that the local unions who were not so
authorized by these individual employees, cannot withdraw the said In NARIC Workers’ Union vs. CIR,5 We ruled that, “(a) labor union would go
complaint. The lower court’s opinion is erroneous. beyond the limits of its legitimate purposes if it is given the unrestrained
liberty to prosecute any case even for employees who are not members of
Firstly, LAKAS cannot bring any action for and in behalf of the employees any union at all. A suit brought by another in representation of a real party in
who were members of MUEWA because, as intimated earlier in this Decision, interest is defective.” Under the uncontroverted facts obtaining herein, the
the said local union was never an affiliate of LAKAS. What appears clearly aforestated ruling is applicable, the only difference being that, here, a labor
from the records is that it was Augusto Carreon and his followers who joined federation seeks to represent members of a registered local union never
LAKAS, but then Augusto Carreon was not the recognized president of affiliated with it and members of registered local unions which, in the course
MUEWA and neither he nor his followers can claim any legitimate of the proceedings before the industrial court, disaffiliated from it.

18
This is not to say that the complaining employees were without any venue for
redress. Under the aforestated considerations, the respondent court should
have directed the amendment of the complaint by dropping LAKAS as the
complainant and allowing the suit to be further prosecuted in the individual
names of those who had grievances. A class suit under Rule 3, Section 12 of
the Rules of Court is authorized and should suffice for the purpose.

In fairness to the complaining employees, however, We treated their Motion

for Reconsideration of the Decision subject of appeal as curing the defect of
the complaint as the said motion expressly manifested their collective desire
to pursue the complaint for and in their own behalves and disauthorizing
LAKAS’ counsel from further representing them. And We have also treated
their petition before Us in the same manner, disregarding the fact that LAKAS
remained the petitioning party, as it appears from the verification that the
petition in L38258 was for and in behalf of the complaining employees. The
merits of their petition, however, fall short of substantiating the charge of
unfair labor practice against the respondent Marcelo Companies. On the
other hand, the appeal of the Marcelo Companies in L-38260 must be upheld
and sustained.

WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing considerations, the petition in L-38258 is

dismissed and the petition in L-38260 is granted. The decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment
is rendered holding that the respondent Marcelo Companies are not guilty of
unfair labor practice.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

19