9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 163, JUNE 30, 1988 323

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople
*
No. L-73681. June 30,1988.

COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc., petitioners, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE

PALMOLIVE SALES UNION, respondents.

Labor Laws;  Reinstatement;  An employer cannot be compelled to continue with the employment ofa
person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance towards his employer and whose continuance in the service
is patently inimical to his interest.—The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite
a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible
with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the
employees the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a
habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect
not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side. The law, in protecting
the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

324

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Colgate Palmoliue Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

To order the reinstatement of the erring employees namely, Mejia, Sayson and Reynante would in effect
encourage unequal protection of the laws as a managerial employee of petitioner company involved in the
same incident was already dismissed and was not ordered to be reinstated. As stated by Us in the case of
San Miguel Brewery vs. National Labor Union, "an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with
the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasan^e towards his employer,
and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest."
Same; Same; Certification Election; Procedure for a representation case, outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the
Labor Code in relation to Arts. 239-240; The requirements in ascertaining majority representation are
calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice ofthe employees against all
contenders; Case at bar.—The petition merits our consideration. The procedure for a representation case is
outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union
registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining majority
representation. The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V, Book V of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the
true choice of the -employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate that the State shall
"assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and
humane conditions of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned
provisions of the pertinent statutes. When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is
disregarded. When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact disregarded this procedure
and its legal requirements. There was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the Union
indeed enjoyed majority representation. Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding of a
certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a mere formality as there was a compelling legal
reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is precisely the object of litigation in
a pending cancellation case filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority status. Even in a
case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made
does not warrant a direct certification. More so as in the case at bar, when the records of the suit show that
the

325

VOL. 163, JUNE 30, 1988 325

Colgate Palmolive Philippi?ies, Inc. us. Ople

required proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that the basis of the direct
certification was the Union's mere allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular salesmen.
In other words, respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion of the respondent Union that
it enjoyed the support of the majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to the test of
competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in
rendering the assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure provided under the law for
representation cases because: (a) He has created havoc by impliedly establishing a procedural shortcut to
obtaining a direct certification—by merely filing a notice of strike. (b) By creating such a short-cut, he has
officially encouraged disrespect for the law. (c) By directly certifying a Union without sufficient proof of
majority representation, he has in effect arrogated unto himself the right, vested naturally in the employees
to choose their collective bargaining respresentative. (d) He has in effect imposed upon the petitioner the
obligation to negotiate with a union whose majority representation is under serious question. This is highly
irregular because while the Union enjoys the blessing of the Minister, it does not enjoy the blessing of the
employees. Petitioner is therefore under threat of being held liable for refusing to negotiate with a union
whose right to bargaining status has not been legally established. (pp. 9-10, Rollo) The order of the
respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in
conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the
evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees the law warrants their dismissal without
making any distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent
Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the
management and/or employers' side. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
oppression nor selfdestruction of the employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees namely,
Mejia, Sayson and Reynante would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws as a managerial
employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident was already dismissed and was not ordered to
be reinstated. As stated by Us in the case of San Miguel Brewery vs. National Labor Union, "an employer
cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of
misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is
patently inimical to his interest."

326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Minister of Labor and Employment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PARAS, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the Order of respondent
Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE) directly certifying private respondent as the
recognized and duly-authorized collective bargaining agent for petitioner's sales force and
ordering the reinstatement of three employees of petitioner.
Acting on the petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order, this Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondents from enforcing and/or carrying out
the assailed order.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain,
dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with
the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union.
After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition
of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code,
Thereafter the case was captioned AJML-3-142-85, BLR3-86-85, "In Re: Assumption of
Jurisdiction over the Labor Dispute at Colgate Palrnolive Philippines, Inc." In its position paper,
petitioner poirited out that—

(a) There is no.legal basis for the charge that the company refused to bargain collectively
with the.union considering that the alleged union is not the certified agent of the company
salesmen;
(b) The union's status as a legitimate labor organization is.still under question because on 6
March 1985, a certain Monchito Rosales informed the BLR that an overwhelming
majority of the salesmen are not in favor of tbe Notice of Strike allegedly filed by the
Union (Annex "C");
(c) Upon verification of the records of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, it appeared
that a petition for cancellation of the

327

VOL. 163, JUNE 30, 1988 327

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

registration of the alleged union was filed by Morichito Rosales on behalf of certain
salesmen of the company who are obviously against the formation of the Colgate
Palmolive Sales Labor Union which is supposed to represent them;
(d) The preventive suspensions of salesmen Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante and
Corneiio Mejia, and their eventual dismissal from the employ of the company were carried
out pursuant to the inherent right and prerogative of management to discipline erring
employees; that based on the preliminary investigation conducted by the company, there
appeared substantial grounds to believe that Sayson, Reynante and Mejia violated
company rules and regulations necessitating their suspension pending further
investigation of their respective cases;

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

It was also ascertained that the company sustained damages resulting from the
(e) infractions committed by the three salesmen, and that the final results of the
investigation fully convinced the company of the existence of just causes for the dismissal
of the three salesmen;
(f) The formation of the union and the membership therein of Sayson, Reynante and Mejia
were not in any manner connected with the company's decision to dismiss the three; that
the fact that their dismissal came at a time when the alleged union was being formed was
purely coincidental;
(g) The union's charge therefore, that the iriembership in the union and refusal to retract
precipitated their dismissal was totally false and amounted to a malicious imputation of
union busting;
(h) The company never coerced or attempted to coerce employees, much less interferred in
the exercise of their right to self-organization; the company never thwarted nor tried to
defeat or frustrate the employees' right to form their union in pursuit of their collective
interest, as long as that right is exercised within the limits prescribed by law; in fact,
there are at present two unions representing the rank and file employees of the company
—the factory workers who are covered by a CBA which expired on 31 October 1985 (which
was renewed on May 31,1985) and are represented by Colgate Palmolive Employees
Union (PAFLU); whereas, the salaried employees are covered by a CBA which will expire
on 31 May 1986 represented by Philippine Association of Free Labor Union (PAFLU)—
CPPI Office Chapter. (pp. 4-6, Rollo)

The respondent Union, on the other hand, in its position paper, reiterated the issue in its Notice
to Strike, alleging that it was duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations
328

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

under Registry No. 10312-LC with a total membership of 87 regular salesmen (nationwide) out of
117 regular salesmen presently employed by the company as of November 30,1985 and that since
the registration of the Union up to the present, more than 2/3 of the total salesmen employed are
already members of the Union, leaving no doubt that the true sentiment of the salesmen was to
form and organize the ColgatePalmolive Salesmen Union. The Union further alleged that the
company is unreasonably delaying the recognition of the union because when it was informed of
the organization of the union, and when presented with a set of proposals for a collective
bargaining agreement, the company took an adversarial stance by secretly distributing a "survey
sheet on union membership" to newly hired salesmen from the Visayas, Mindanao and Metro
Manila areas, purposely avoiding regular salesmen who are now members of the union; that in
the accomplishment of the form, District Sales Managers, and Sales Supervisors coerced
salesmen from the Visayas and Mindanao by requiring them to fill up and/or accomplish said
form by checking answers which were adverse to the union; that with a handful of the survey
sheets secured by management through coercion, it now would like to claim that all salesmen are
not in favor of the organization of the union, which acts are clear manifestations of unfair labor
practices.
On August 9,1985, respondent Minister rendered a decision which:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

(a) found no merit in the Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by
petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the
secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism,
(b) found the three salesmen, Peregrino1 Sayson, Salvador Reynante & Cornelio Mejia "not
without fault" and that "the company  has grounds to dismiss above named salesmen"

and at the same time respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the
collective bargaining agent for the

________________
1 Petitioner company.

329

VOL. 163, JUNE 30, 1988 329

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the
company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Minister in his
assailed Order, dated December 27, 1985. Petitioner now comes to Us with the following:
Assignment ofErrors

Respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when he directly certifled the Union solely on
the basis of the latter's self-serving assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in
petitioner's company.

II

Respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when, notwithstanding his very own fmding
that tbere was just cause for the dismissal of the three (3) salesmen, he nevertheless ordered their
reinstatement. (pp. 7-8, Rollo)

Petitioner concedes that respondent Minister has the power to decide a labor dispute in a case
assumed by him under Art. 264 (g) of the Labor Code but this power was exceeded when he
certified respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company's salesmen since
this is not a representation proceeding as described under the Labor Code. Moreover the Union
did not pray for certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to
petitioner-company.
The petition merits our consideration. The procedure for a representation case is outlined in
Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union
registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining
majority representation. The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V,
Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated to ensure that the certified
bargaining representative is the true choice of the employees against all contenders. The
Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization,
collective bar-
330
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. us. Ople

gaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work," should be achieved under a
system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes. When an
overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the
intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded. When
respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact disregarded this procedure and its
legal requirements. There was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the
Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. Contrary to the respondent Minister's
observation, the holding of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a mere
formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union
whose legitimacy is precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case filed by certain
"concerned salesmen," who also claim majority status. Even in a case where a union has filed a
petition for certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made does not warrant a
direct certification. More so as in the case at bar, when the records of the suit show that the
required proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that the basis of the direct
certification was the Union's mere allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular
salesmen. In other words, respondent Minister merely relied on the selfserving assertion of the
respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the majority of the salesmen, without subjecting
such assertion to the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its petition, what
the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the assailed orders was to make a mockery of the
procedure provided under the law for representation cases because:

(a) He has created havoc by impliedly establishing a procedural short-cut to obtaining a

direct certiflcation—by merely filing a notice of strike.
(b) By creating such a short-cut, he has officially encouraged disrespect for the law.
(c) By directly certifying a Union without sufficient proof of majority representation, he has
in effect arrogated unto himself the right, vested naturally in the employees, to choose
their collective bargaining representative.

331

VOL. 163, JUNE 30, 1988 331

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople

(d) He has in effect imposed upon the petitioner the obligation to negotiate with a union
whose majority representation is under serious question. This is highly irregular because
while the Union enjoys the blessing of the Minister, it does not enjoy the blessing of the
employees. Petitioner is therefore under threat of being held liable for refusing to
negotiate with a union whose right to bargaining status has not been legally established.
(pp. 9-10, Rollo)

The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on
their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding of
guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees
the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a
habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
9/16/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side. The
law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of
the employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees namely, Mejia, Sayson and
Reynante would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws as a managerial employee of
petitioner company involved in the same incident was already dismissed and was not ordered 2
to
be reinstated. As stated by Us in the case of San Miguel Brewery vs. National Labor Union,  "an
employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who
admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose
continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to
3
his interest."
In the subject order, respondentMinister cited a case implying that "the proximity of the
dismissal of the employees to the assumption order 4
created a doubt as to whether their dismissal
was really for just cause or due to their activities."
This is of no moment for the following reasons:

________________
2 97Phil. 378.
3 
Oceanic Commercial Employees and Labor Assn. v. Oceanic Commercial, Inc., case No. 5787 UCP-CIR, Acting
Secretary of Labor, December 9,1978.
4 P. 13,Rollo.

332

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Albior

(a) Respondent Minister has still maintained in his assailed order that a just cause existed to
justify the dismissal of the employees.
(b) Respondent Minister has not made any finding substantiated by evidence that the
employees were dismissed because of their union activities.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Order of
the respondent Minister, dated December 27, 1985 for grave abuse of discretion. However, in
view of the fact that the dismissed employees are first offenders, petitioner is hereby ordered to
give them separation pay. The temporary restraining order is hereby made permanent.  SO
ORDERED.

     Yap (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Order reuersed and set aside.

Note.—A certification election is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is where
the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Art. 59 of the Labor Code
because it was requested to bargain collectively. Thereafter, the role of the employer in the
certification process ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. (Tupas vs. Trajano, 120 SCRA 64.)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017495bcfb7b1e8a1dba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7