Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10321)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Relevant dates in the record: petition for certification election filed March 8, 1954; prior collective bargaining agreements effective March 4, 1947, November 1, 1950, and renewed November 1, 1952; expiration of Cebu Stevedores Association’s registration on January 31, 1955, and renewal by Certificate No. 1477‑IP on September 7, 1955; industrial court en banc resolution dated November 7, 1955; Supreme Court decision issued February 28, 1958.
Applicable constitutional framework: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (appropriate to the decision date).
Procedural History
The Cebu Stevedores Association filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations seeking a certification election to determine the collective bargaining agency for employees of Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. The employer was made respondent. Three other unions—Democratic Labor Association (DLA), Cebu Trade Union, and Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo—intervened, each asserting rights to participate. After hearings on the appropriate bargaining unit and union memberships, Judge José S. Bautista ordered certification elections splitting employees into two bargaining units (regular/permanent employees and casual stevedores), declared DLA the bargaining agent for regulars, found Cebu Stevedores Association unregistered and ineligible, and limited the initial election for casuals to DLA and Cebu Trade Union. Motions for reconsideration prompted an en banc proceeding of the industrial court; a majority reversed, declared a single employer‑wide bargaining unit, and ordered an election including all four unions. The present Supreme Court review followed.
Factual Findings
Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. operates stevedoring (loading/unloading foreign ocean‑going vessels) and lighterage (hauling and storing cargo) businesses. Employment divides into two distinct groups: (1) regular and permanent employees — continuous service, paid semi‑annually/monthly/weekly, entitled to annual bonuses, sick and vacation leave, and overtime pay at 25–50% for overtime; and (2) casual/daily stevedores — work paid daily, laid off periodically, no leave benefits, work contingent on vessel arrivals, and receive 100% additional pay for overtime. A collective bargaining history exists: agreements from 1947, a 1950 agreement (covering daily wage laborers and crew of launches, tugboats, barges, and lighters), and a 1952 renewal. The trial court found DLA had a majority among regulars (128 of 211), and initially found Cebu Stevedores Association unregistered and Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo had effectively waived participation; those latter factual findings were later corrected by the court en banc and by the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the appropriate collective bargaining agency should be determined on the basis of (a) two separate bargaining units — one for regular and permanent employees and one for casual/temporary stevedores — as held by the trial court, or (b) a single employer‑wide bargaining unit embracing all employees regardless of their terms of employment, as held by the industrial court en banc.
Legal Standards and Factors Considered
The Court relied on American precedents and recognized multiple non‑exclusive factors for determining an appropriate bargaining unit. The most pertinent factors identified are: (1) the will or expressed desires of the employees (the Globe doctrine, allowing elections tailored to distinct employee categories when competing units have equally valid bases); (2) affinity or community of interest — similarity of work, duties, compensation and working conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining history between a proposed unit and the employer; and (4) employment status — distinctions such as temporary, seasonal, probationary, or casual employment that may create different mutual interests from permanent employees. The Court emphasized that no single factor is decisive; the weight of each factor depends on the particular circumstances. Prior collective bargaining history is relevant but not determinative when substantial changes in circumstances undermine its present reliability. The principal test is whether a proposed unit groups employees who have substantial mutual interests in wages, hours, and working conditions.
Court’s Analysis
Applying these factors, the Court affirmed the trial court’s core conclusion that two separate bargaining units are appropriate. The Court found the employment status distinction (regular/permanent versus casual/daily stevedores) created different mutual interests and working conditions significant enough to justify separate units. The casual stevedores’ daily hiring, lack of leave benefits, intermittent work conditioned on vessel arrivals, and differing overtime compensation evidenced a divergence of interests from permanent employees. While the existence of a prior plant‑wide collective bargaining agreement was a relevant factor, the Court held that such history was not controlling because other unions had emerged and relations among employees and unions had become diverse and conflicting since th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-10321)
Case Citation and Author
- G.R. No. L-10321; decision dated February 28, 1958.
- Decision authored by Bautista Angelo, J.
Parties and Posture
- Petitioner: Democratic Labor Association.
- Respondent: Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc.
- Intervenors/Other parties: Cebu Stevedores Association, Cebu Trade Union, Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo.
- Relief sought below: Petition for certification election filed March 8, 1954 before the Court of Industrial Relations to determine the appropriate collective bargaining agency for employees of Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc.
- Procedural posture: Trial judge (Judge Jose S. Bautista) issued an order; motions for reconsideration were submitted to the court en banc, producing a split vote and a resolution by the court en banc setting aside the trial judge’s order; present petition is for review of the en banc resolution.
Trial Court Findings of Fact
- Nature of business of respondent company:
- Principally engaged in stevedoring work: loading and unloading cargoes to and from foreign ocean-going vessels docked in the port of Cebu.
- Secondarily engaged in lighterage business: hauling and storing copper, gypsum, oil products and other merchandise to and from the port of Cebu and neighboring islands and provinces.
- Existence of two sets of workers:
- Regular and permanent employees:
- Work continuously.
- Paid either semi-annually, monthly or weekly.
- Receive annual bonuses, sick leave and vacation leave for every year of service.
- Receive overtime compensation ranging from 25% to 50% for overtime work.
- Casual (daily) laborers or stevedores:
- Work solely on loading and unloading of cargoes.
- Paid daily and laid off from time to time.
- Work depending on arrival of foreign vessels.
- Do not enjoy vacation or sick leave.
- When they work overtime, they are paid an additional 100% compensation.
- Regular and permanent employees:
- Prior collective bargaining history:
- A collective bargaining agreement was enforced between the petitioning union and respondent company as early as March 4, 1947.
- That agreement was substituted by another on November 1, 1950.
- The November 1, 1950 agreement was renewed for another two years on November 1, 1952.
- The November 1, 1950 contract expressly covers “laborers on daily wage, officers and members of the crew of launches, tugboats, barges, and lighters” — i.e., all the working force employed in respondent company.
- Union membership facts as found by trial court:
- Democratic Labor Association had a majority among regular and permanent employees: of 211 regular/permanent workers, 128 were affiliated with Democratic Labor Association.
- Cebu Stevedores Association had more casual laborers affiliated with it than the other unions.
- Cebu Stevedores Association was initially found by the trial court not to be registered under the law and thus ineligible to participate in certification election.
- Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo was found by the trial court to have waived its claim and to be no longer interested in the election, an implication drawn from the attitude of its president.
Trial Court Orders
- Declared the Democratic Labor Association as the collective bargaining agency for all regular and permanent workers of respondent company (based on its membership among that class).
- Held that the Cebu Stevedores Association, though having more casual laborers, could not take part in the certification election because it was not a registered union (as found by trial court).
- Ordered that an election be conducted by the Department of Labor among the casual laborers whose names appear on pages 1 and 3-24 of Exhibit 4.
- Designated as the only labor organizations that may be voted in that election: Democratic Labor Association and Cebu Trade Union (both legitimate labor organizations registered according to law).
Motions, Court En Banc Action, and Split Vote
- Motions for reconsideration were filed by respondent Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., Cebu Stevedores Association, and Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo, contesting:
- The trial court’s finding that two collective bargaining units should represent two sets of workers based on terms of employment.
- The trial court’s finding that the two specified unions (Democratic Labor Association and Cebu Trade Union) were the only ones eligible for election participation.
- The court en banc produced a split vote: three judges voting to revoke the trial judge’s order and two judges voting to uphold it.
- Resolution of the court en banc (joined by Judge Juan L. Lanting, with Judges Arsenio I. Martinez and Bienvenido Tan concurring; dissent by Judge Jose S. Bautista, concurred in by Judge Jimenez Yanson) set aside the trial court order and contained the following dispositive parts:
- Declared that the appropriate collective bargaining unit is the employer’s unit, embracing all employees and workers therein involved (i.e., a single, plant-wide unit).
- Ordered the holding of an election wherein four labor unions should take part: Cebu Stevedores Association, Democratic Labor Association, Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo, and Cebu Trade Union.
Court En Banc Findings Contradicting Trial Court
- The court en