G.R. No. 164301 BPI v. BPI Employees Union-Davao August 10, 2010

Facts:

Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) moves for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s Decision dated August 10, 2010, holding that former employees of the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) “absorbed” by BPI pursuant to the two banks’ merger in 2000 were covered by the Union Shop Clause in the then existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of BPI with respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (the Union).

Continue reading

Advertisements

G.R. No. 77395 Belyca Corporation v. Dir. Calleja, et. al. November 29, 1988

Facts:

On June 3, 1986, private respondent Associated Labor Union (ALU)-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization, filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees/workers of Belyca Corporation, a duly organized, registered and existing corporation, employing approximately 205 rank and file employees/workers.

Continue reading

G.R. No. 160352 Republic v. Kawashima July 23, 2008

Facts:

On January 24, 2000, KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent.

Continue reading

G.R. No. 117169 PhilTread Workers Union, et al. v. Confesor, et al. March 12, 1997

Facts:

Petitioner PTWU filed a notice of strike on grounds of unfair labor practice, more specifically union busting and violation of CBA. On the other hand, private respondent Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation filed a notice of lockout. It also filed a petition to declare illegal the work slowdowns staged by the petitioner Union. Both cases were then consolidated. Several conciliation meetings were conducted but the parties failed to settle their dispute.

Continue reading

G.R. No. 49549 Chua-Qua v. Clave and Tay Tung High School August 30, 1990

Facts:

Herein petitioner was a teacher (30 years of age) who fell in love with her student (16 years old), and whom she later married. After their marriage, the teacher’s services were terminated by the school on claim of “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher” and whose “continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and would downgrade the high moral values, of the school.” The allegation of immoral conduct on the part of the teacher was based on supposedly several circumstances whereby the teacher stayed alone with the student in the classroom after school hours when everybody had gone home, with one door allegedly locked and the other slightly open. These instances, it would seem, arose in pursuance of the school’s policy of extending remedial instructions to the students.

Continue reading