This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ves, tools and supplies lost and/or destroyed, and other
miscellaneous expenses, all amounting to P1,911,363.83. So, BENGUET sued UNION, PAFLU and their
respective Presidents to recover said amount in the Court of First Instance of Manila, on the sole premise
that said defendants breached their undertaking in the existing CONTRACT not to strike during the
effectivity thereof .
The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the CONTRACT, particularly
the NoStrike clause, did not bind defendants. The latters' counterclaim was likewise denied. Failing to get a
reconsideration of said decision, BENGUET interposed the present appeal.
ISSUE: 39 (1) Did the Collective Bargaining Contract executed between BENGUET and BBWU on June 23, 1959 and
effective until December 23, 1963 automatically bind UNIONPAFLU upon its certification, on August 18,
1962, as sole bargaining representative of all BENGUET employees?
(2) Are defendants labor unions and their respective presidents liable for the illegal acts committed during
the course of the strike and picketing by some union members?
(3) Are defendants liable to pay the damages claimed by BENGUET?
BENGUET's reliance upon the Principle of Substitution is totally misplaced. This principle, formulated by the
NLRB as its initial compromise solution to the problem facing it when there occurs a shift in employees'
union allegiance after the execution of a bargaining contract with their employer, merely states that even
during the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement executed between employer and employees thru
their agent, the employees can change said agent but the contract continues to bind them up to its
expiration date. They may bargain however for the shortening of said expiration date.
In formulating the "substitutionary" doctrine, the only consideration involved was the employees' interest in
the existing bargaining agreement. The agent's interest never entered the picture. In fact, the justification for
said doctrine was:
... that the majority of the employees,...
View Full Document
- Fall '14