Labor and Management
In finding that respondent bank is guilty of constructive dismissal, the Labor Arbiter mainly hinges its ruling on the Constitutional dogma that due to the lopsided power of capital over labor, the State shall intervene as an equalizer consistent with the social justice policy affording protection to labor (Rollo, pp. 114-115).
While we agree with the Labor Arbiter that in light of this Constitutional mandate, we must be vigilant in striking down any attempt of the management to exploit or oppress the working class, it does not mean, however, that we are but bound to uphold the working class in every labor dispute brought before this Court for our resolution.
While our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and on the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play ( Kar Asia, Inc. v. Corona, G.R. No. 154985, 24 August 2004, 437 SCRA 184, 189).
It should be remembered that the Philippine Constitution, while inexorably committed towards the protection of the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, nevertheless mandates the policy of social justice so as to strike a balance between an avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of the legal rights of capital, the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg, on the other. Indeed, we should not be unmindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence (Cebu Metal Corporation v. Roberto Saliling, G. R. No. 154463, 5 September 2006).
The presumption in favor of labor cannot defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interest of labor and management and to guaranty that labor and management stand on equal footing when bargaining in good faith with each other, not to tilt the scale to favor one over the other.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169570.htm
Batas Pinoy 
What happens if a petitioner in a class suit (labor case) signed two different verification & certification of non forum shopping from two different counsels? In the same manner having executed two spa/aif in favor of two different union leaders from the same union group. Will the certiorari filed by the original group, which initially represented petitioner, be in any way affected or dismissed because of this action? Thanks.