Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions

(PAFLU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Case No. 120G.R. No. L-43760 (August 21, 1976)

Considering there were seventeen spoiled ballots, it is the

submission that there was a grave abuse of discretion on the
part of respondent Director.

FACTS:
Petitioner lost to National Federation of Free
Labor Unions (NAFLU) in the certification
elections for the exclusive bargaining agent of
the employees
in
Philippine Blooming Mills,
Company, Inc. Tallied votes are as follows:
NAFLU
429
PAFLU
414
SPOILED BALLOTS
17
(NOT
COUNTED)
ABSTAINED
4
TOTAL BALLOTS
864
(Note: NAFLU didnt obtain the majority vote, which
is 432.)

Issue:
Whether Director Noriel acted with grave abuse of discretion in
granting NAFLU as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
employees in the Philippine Blooming Mills
Held:
Director Noriel did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
Certiorari does not lie. The conclusion reached by the Court
derives support from the deservedly high repute attached to
the construction placed by the executive officials entrusted

Petitioner contends that the spoiled should be

considered as in the ruling in a previous case.
Respondent answered that the ruling in the previous
case was based on the Industrial Peace Act, which has
been superseded by the present Labor Code and as
such cannot apply to the case at bar.
ISSUE:
W/N the Respondent acted with grave abuse of
discretion by not allowing t h e s p o i l e d b a l l o t s
to be con sidered as in the previous case of
A l l i e d Wo r k e r s Association of the Philippines vs.
CIR.
HELD:
There was no grave abuse of discretion made by
Respondent since the basisof the ruling in the Allied
Workers case has been superseded by the
present
Labor Code.
Also,
the
Rules
and
Regulations implementing the present Labor
Code has been already been made known to public
and as such has the enforcing power in the case at
bar.

with the responsibility of applying a statute. The Rules and

Regulations implementing the present Labor Code were
issued by Secretary Blas Ople of the Department of Labor and
took effect on 3 February 1975, the present Labor Code
having been made known to the public as far back as 1 May
1974, although its date of effectivity was postponed to 1
November 1974,. It would appear then that there was more
than enough time for a really serious and careful study of such
suppletory rules and regulations to avoid any inconsistency
with the Code. This Court certainly cannot ignore the
interpretation thereafter embodied in the Rules. As far back as
In re Allen, a 1903 decision, Justice McDonough, as ponente,
cited this excerpt from the leading American case of Pennoyer
v. McConnaughy, decided in 1891: The principle that the
contemporaneous construction of a statute by the executive
officers of the government, whose duty it is to execute it, is
entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily control the
construction of the statute by the courts, is so firmly embedded

LATIN MAXIM:
1, 2a, 39a

in our jurisprudence that no authorities need be cited to

support it. There was a paraphrase by Justice Malcolm of
such a pronouncement in Molina v. Rafferty, a 1918 decision:

PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Courts will and should respect the contemporaneous

GR L-43760, 21 August 1976 (72 SCRA 396)

construction placed upon a statute by the executive officers

Second Division, Fernando (p): 4 concurring

whose duty it is to enforce it, and unless such interpretation is

Facts: In the certification election held on February 27, 1976,

respondent Union obtained 429 votes as against 414 of
petitioner Union. Again, admittedly, under the Rules and
Regulations implementing the present Labor Code, a majority
of the valid votes cast suffices for certification of the victorious
labor union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. There

clearly erroneous will ordinarily be controlled thereby. Since

then, such a doctrine has been reiterated in numerous
decisions. As was emphasized by Chief Justice Castro, the
construction placed by the office charged with implementing
and enforcing the provisions of a Code should he given
controlling weight.

were four votes cast by employees who did not want any

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with costs against

union. On its face therefore, respondent Union ought to have

petitioner PAFLU.

been certified in accordance with the above applicable rule.

Petitioner, undeterred,

would

seize

upon

the

doctrine

announced in the case of Allied Workers Association of the

Philippines v. Court of Industrial Relations that spoiled ballots
should be counted in determining the valid votes cast.