G.R. No. 73681 - Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

Underlying dispute centered on the recognition and certification of the union as the collective bargaining agent for the company’s sales force and the reinstatement of three dismissed employees.

On March 1, 1985, the COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations, alleging unfair labor practices.
The alleged unfair labor practices included:

Refusal on the part of the petitioner to engage in collective bargaining.
Dismissal of union officers and members.
Coercion of employees to retract their union membership and prevention of nonunion employees from joining.

After unsuccessful efforts at an amicable settlement, the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) assumed jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.
The case was recorded under multiple captions (AJML-3-142-85, BLR-3-86-85) indicating the complexity and layering of issues in the proceeding.
On August 9, 1985, MOLE rendered a decision which:

Dismissed the union’s claims of unfair labor practices against the petitioner regarding the alleged failure to negotiate and the distribution of survey sheets.
Found that the three salesmen—Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante, and Cornelio Mejia—were “not without fault,” thereby justifying their dismissal.
Directly certified the COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION as the collective bargaining agent for the company’s sales force and ordered the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees as first offenders.

The union’s majority support among the company’s salesmen was dubious and not properly established.
Testimonies and documentary evidence (e.g., statements by Monchito Rosales) pointed to the lack of overwhelming support among the majority of salesmen.
The suspension and subsequent dismissal of the three salesmen were due to their violation of company rules, based on a detailed preliminary investigation that substantiated just cause.
The formation of the COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION was unconnected to the disciplinary actions against the employees, rendering the union’s claims of union-busting unfounded.

The MOLE overstepped his jurisdiction by directly certifying the union based solely on the union’s self-serving assertion of majority support.
The direct certification bypassed the procedural requirements and due process mandated for representation cases under the Labor Code.
The order to reinstate the dismissed employees was incompatible with the finding of just cause for dismissal and contrary to principles of equal protection for managerial decisions.

The union maintained that it was duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations (Registry No. 10312-LC).
It asserted that:

A significant majority of the sales force (87 out of 117 regular salesmen) supported the union, as indicated by its own position papers and alleged survey results.
The petitioner deliberately engaged in practices—such as distributing survey sheets only to nonunion salesmen—to undermine the union’s credibility and stifle its formation.

Certifying the union on the basis of mere self-serving allegations of majority support without a proper, competitive verification process.
Ordering the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of just cause for their dismissal.

Emphasis was placed on the violation of procedural safeguards and the prescribed representation process under Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code and the relevant provisions of Rule V, Book V.

The case raises important issues regarding compliance with the legal process in union certification.
The MOLE’s actions were criticized for:

Creating a procedural shortcut by bypassing the normal certification election process in favor of unilateral certification.
Encouraging disrespect for legally mandated procedures and potentially undermining the statutory rights of both the employees and the petitioner.

Whether the MOLE committed grave abuse of discretion by directly certifying the union based solely on its self-serving assertions without verifying the union’s majority support through the proper certification process.
Whether ordering the reinstatement of the dismissed employees—despite a clear finding of just cause for their dismissal—violated the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.
Whether the MOLE’s actions amounted to a bypassing of the procedural safeguards enshrined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code and Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code governing representation cases.