Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
If in the opinion of the Department of Labor the applicant organization does not
appear to meet the requirements of this Act for registration, the Department shall,
after ten days notice to the applicant organization, association or union, and within
thirty days of receipt of the abovementioned documents, hold a public hearing in
the province in which the principal office of the applicant is located at which the
applicant organization shall have the right to be represented by attorney and to
cross-examine witnesses; and such hearing shall be concluded and a decision
announced by the Department within thirty days after the announcement of said
hearing; and if after due hearing the Department rules against registration of the
applicant, it shall be required that the Department of Labor state specifically what
data the applicant has failed to submit as a prerequisite of registration. If the
applicant is still denied, it thereafter shall have the right within sixty days of formal
denial of registration to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which shall render a
decision within thirty days, or to the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails the
freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is devoid of
factual basis. The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said section is not a
limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with or
without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the
acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations, associations or unions and
the possession of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations". The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges,
much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the possession
and exercise of which registration is required to protect both labor and the public
against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly
accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Again, the 30-day period
invoked by the petitioners is inapplicable to the decision complained of. Said period
is prescribed in paragraph (c) of Section 23, which refers to the proceedings for the
"registration" of labor organizations, associations or unions not to the "cancellation"
of said registration, which is governed by the above quoted paragraph (d) of the
same section.
Opinion:
The enumeration of requirements provided in Section 23 of RA 875 is for the labor
organization to acquire legal personality and be recognized as the legitimate labor
organization of a certain business or company. It is a valid exercise of the police
power because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and union of
workers are engaged affect public interest, which should be protected.
Furthermore, the obligation to submit financial statements, as a condition for the
non-cancellation of a certificate of registration, is a reasonable regulation for the
benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the same generally
solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its
members, huge amounts of money due to them or to the organization.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 96255. September 18, 1992.]
6
GR 92357
Facts:
On April 6, 1989, private respondent labor union, PGA Brotherhood Association
Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), hereinafter referred to as the Union filed a
petition for Direct Certification/Certification Election among the rank and file
employees of Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency (PSVSIA),
GVM Security and Investigations Agency, Inc. (GVM). and Abaquin Security and
Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDA). These three agencies were collectively referred to by
private respondent Union as the PGA Security Agency, which is actually the first
letters of the corporate names of the agencies.
On April 11, 1989, summons was issued to the management of PSVSIA, GVM, ASDA
(PGA Security Agency) at 82 E. Rodriquez Avenue, Quezon City.
On April 11, 26, 1986, petitioners filed a single comment alleging therein that the
said three security agencies have separate and distinct corporate personalities
while PGA Security Agency is not a business or corporate entity and does not
possess any personality whatsoever; the petition was unclear as to whether the
rank-and-file employees mentioned therein refer to those of the three security
agencies collectively and if so, the labor union cannot seek a certification election in
three separate bargaining units in one petition.
Issue: WON petitioners can interfere with the certification election proceeding.
Held:
Except where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively, it has
nothing to do with a certification election which is the sole concern of the workers.
Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere by-stander. It
has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or
appeal the Med-Arbiters orders related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a
certification election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company
union.
This Courts disapprobation of management interference in certification elections is
even more forceful in Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, where we held:
On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the choice of a collective
bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation,
to say the least, deserves no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency
to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair of
labor.
Transcript of BENECO
10
votes would be opened and tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated because they
were cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still
pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were segregated because the
employees who cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the time
of the election. Still five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were
cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however,
that the vote of one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was
counted.
Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes,
specially those cast by the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six
supposedly supervisory employees of the Hotel.
Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment (SOLE), arguing that the votes of the probationary employees should
have been opened considering that probationary employee Gatbontons vote was
tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes,
should not be immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening of the
17 segregated ballots would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169
+ 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short
of the majority which would then become 169.
Secretary affirmed the decision of the med-arbiter. In fine, the SOLE concluded that
the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper.
ISSUES: (1) whether employees on probationary status at the time of the
certification elections should be allowed to vote (2) whether HIMPHLU was able to
obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent.
HELD:
I. On the first issue, the Court rules in the affirmative.
The inclusion of Gatbontons vote was proper not because it was not questioned but
because probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election.
The votes of the six other probationary employees should thus also have been
counted. As Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja holds:
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is
clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit
for purposes of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of
the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union
binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the
bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment
status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The
13
law refers to all the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible
to support the petition is to belong to the bargaining unit. (Emphasis supplied)
For purposes of this section (Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of
2003), any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning
on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor
organization.
All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the selfemployed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes
except collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)
The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot
override the Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well
as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on certification
elections and jurisprudence thereon.
A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a contract are valid
only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
II. As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, the
Court rules in the negative.
It is well-settled that under the so-called double majority rule, for there to be a
valid certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the
winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
Prescinding from the Courts ruling that all the probationary employees votes
should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory employees should be
excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase from 321 to
337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid
votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority
is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was
not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate
court that the opening of the 17 segregated ballots will not materially affect the
outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such member
were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable.
It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid
votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the required majority, and not
just to determine which union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but
valid votes has thus become material.
To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to
determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority
14
representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of
negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement.
-Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the
No Union Raiding Clause of the Code of Ethics adopted by the members of the
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and
intervenor are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30%
requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of
the President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the
Congress for decision. The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P.
President to the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the
same to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed by the
late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress, stating, among
other things, the following: 1 In a National Executive Board meeting of the
Katipunang Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army &
Navy Club, it was duly approved that the above-captioned case be referred back to
the BLR and that MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM. The BLR endorsed the case
to Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leodegardo, Jr., of Region IV for appropriate action. On
May 5, 1977, Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter Section of Region IV,
Department of Labor, promulgated an order 2 dismissing the case pursuant to the
letter of the President of the T.U.C.P. Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of
Labor Relations predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to grant
or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the secret ballot to elect the
true union representative. On September 17, 1977, the Bureau Director issued a
resolution 3 dismissing the appeal.
HELD
Employees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA because management refused to
bargain with the union. A certification of election is warranted. Workers welfare can
be promoted through the bargaining process. Certification of election is the fairest
and most effective way f determining which labor organization can truly represent
the working force. The will of the majority is controlling. The director is still
empowered to call for a certification election. Instead of ordering an election,
Director dismissed the appleal of PLUM based on the decision of TUCP. This is
frowned upon by the Court.
Disposition
Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions are nullified and set aside.
Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold a certification election forthwith. This
decision is immediately executory. No costs.
Transport Corporation vs. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma, G.R. No. 106830
(227 SCRA 827)
Facts:
16
Petitioner argued that the present case must be indefinitely suspended until the
ongoing cases are resolved by the NLRC and the Supreme Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case
No. 00-08-04708-91 entitled R. Transport Corporation vs. Jose S. Torregaza, et. al.,
wherein Labor Arbiter de Castro declared the strike staged by respondent CLOP
illegal and ordered the strikers to pay petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 as
exemplary damages; b) NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-03415092 filed by respondent CLOP
and its members for illegal dismissal; and c) NLRCNCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92
filed by respondent CLOP in behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal
(Rollo, pp. 139-145).
On September 29, 1992, Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied the
motion to suspend the conduct of the certification election on the ground that: The
pendency of NLRC-NCR Cases before the NLRC is not a valid ground for the
suspension of the already stalled petition for certification election which must be
resolved with dispatch. This must be so, because the employees subject of the
pending cases before the NLRC legally remain as employees of respondent until the
motion to declare them as having lost their employment status by reason of the
illegal strike or their complaint for illegal dismissal is finally resolved.
Issue:
Whether or not the employment status of the members of CLOP who joined the
must be first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted?
Held:
The petition is without merit.
As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. vs. Torres,
211 SCRA 95 (1992): At any rate, it is now well-settled that employees who have
been improperly laid off but who have a present, un-abandoned right to or
expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification elections
(Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 548). Thus, and to repeat, if the dismissal is
under question, as in the case now at bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or
unfair labor practice was filed, the employees concerned could still qualify to vote in
the elections. Therefore, the employees of petitioner who participated in the strike,
legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare their employment status
legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC.
17