Labor Law 2 A2010 - 95-
Part 6 Jan.18, 1961, AFWU laborers were again back doing the same
Union Representation:
Establishing Union Majority Status
6.1. PRE-CONDITION- EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
ELECTION- Pre-requisite
Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION
before a petition for certification election can be entertained?
An employer employee relationship is a precondition since without
such relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part of
either the employer or employee.
Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election to
choose their bargaining representative when there is no duty to
collectively bargain anyway. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Cia
Maritima, 19 SCRA 258, 1967)
ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION V C. MARITIMA et
al.
19 SCRA 258
BENGZON; JAN.31, 1967
NATURE
Petitions for review by certiorari of CIR decision
FACTS
- This is a consolidation of 3 cases involving both parties
- Respondent Compania Maritima (MARITIMA), a local corp. engaged in
shipping entered into a contract for lease of services with petitioner
Allied Free Workers’ Union (AFWU), a duly registered legitimate labor
union. In the contract, it was stipulated that AFWU will do and perform
all the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all vessels or boats
of MARITIMA in Iligan City; that the contract is good and valid for 1
month starting Aug.12, 1952, but may be renewed by agreement of the
parties with the reservation that MARITIMA has the right to revoke said
contract even before the expiration of the term, if and when AFWU fails
to render good service.
- Towards the end of 1953, MARITIMA complained to AFWU of
unsatisfactory and inefficient service. To remedy the situation,
MARITIMA was forced to hire extra laborers from among “stand-by”
workers not affiliated to any union.
- On July 1954, AFWU sent a written proposal to MARITIMA for a CBA,
but the latter did not reply. Thereafter, AFWU instituted an action in the
CIR praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit
composed of all the laborers doing arrastre and stevedoring work for
MARITIMA, to which action MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER-
EE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the
termination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered by
the latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination was
to take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with the
Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The
latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and
conditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to be
carried out on Sept.1, 1954.
- On Aug.26, 1954, AFWU charged MARITIMA of unfair labor practices
(ULPs) before the CIR. MARITIMA answered, again denying the ER-EE
relationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed an
action to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doing
arrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and for
recovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI ordered
the rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWU
members from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels.
AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction ordering
the maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961. Thus, after
Disini
work as before.
- On Nov.4, 1963, after almost 10 years, the CFI finally rendered
its decision: In pursuance of the provisions of Sec.12 of R.A.
875 and the Rules of this court on certification election, the
Honorable Secretary of Labor or any of his authorized
representative is hereby requested to conduct certification
election among all the workers and/or stevedores working in the
wharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastre
service aboard Compania Maritima vessels docking at Iligan City
port in order to determine their representative for collective
bargaining with the employer, whether these desire to be
represented by the petitioner Allied Free Workers Union or
neither; and upon termination of the said election, the result
thereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for further
consideration. From this ruling, both parties appealed, AFWU
claiming that it should be declared outright as the majority union
while MARITIMA contends that said court could not even have
correctly ordered a certification election considering that there
was an absence of ER-EE relationship between it and said
laborers.
ISSUE
WON the order of a certification election by the CIR was proper.
(WON there was an ER-EE relationship between AFWU and
MARITIMA)
HELD
NO. Before a certification election can be held, there must exist
an ER-EE relationship between the ER and the petitioner union.
Ratio The duty to bargain collectively exists only between the
“employer” and its “employees.” Where there is no duty to
bargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification elections
in connection therewith.
Reasoning In its findings, the CIR observed that after the
rescission, the AFWU laborers continued working in accordance
with the “cabo system,” which was the prevailing custom in the
place. Under this system, the union was an independent
contractor. The CIR also made a finding that prior to the contract
between MARITIMA and AFWU, the former had an oral arrastre
and stevedoring agreement with another union, the Iligan
Laborers Union (ILU), which agreement was also based on the
“cabo” system. After unsatisfactory service, MARITIMA cancelled
this oral contract and entered into a new contract with AFWU,
the terms and conditions of which were similar to the oral
contract with ILU. The written contract between AFWU and
MARITIMA was signed under the assurance by AFWU that the
same arrangement previously had with the former union
regarding performance and execution of arrastre and
stevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the custom
of such kind of work in Iligan. Thus, petitioner union operated as
a labor contractor under the so-called “cabo” system.
- From these findings, Insofar as the working agreement was
concerned, there was no real difference between the contract
and the prior oral agreement. Both were based on the “cabo”
system. Hence, since the parties observed the "cabo" system
after the rescission of the contract, and since the characteristics
of said system show that the contracting union was an
independent contractor, it is reasonable to assume that AFWU
continued being an independent contractor of MARITIMA. And,
being an independent contractor, it could not qualify as an
"employee". With more reason would this be true with respect to
the laborers. Moreover, there is no evidence at all regarding the
characteristics of the working arrangement between AFWU and
MARITIMA after the termination of the CONTRACT. All we have
to go on is the court a quo's finding that the “cabo” system was
observed-a system that negatives employment relationship.
- Since the only function of a certification election is to
determine, with judicial sanction, which union shall be the official
representative or spokesman of the “employees” will be, there
being no ER-EE relationship between the parties disputants, it
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 96-
follows that there is neither a duty to bargain collectively. Thus, the order
for certification election in question cannot be sustained.
Disposition appealed decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED insofar as it
dismissed the charge of ULP, but REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar
as it ordered the holding of a certification election. The petition for
certification election should be DISMISSED.
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)
300 SCRA 120
PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election
among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the
petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that
the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-
and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the
proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be
conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file
employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal
standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.
- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory
employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of
accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.
- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said
that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union
is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is
not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru
the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees
who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from
the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.
6.2. METHODS OF ESTABLISHING
MAJORITY STATUS
1. Purpose
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v
LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 94929-30
CRUZ, Mar 18, 1992
NATURE:
FACTS:
- The collective bargaining agreement of the International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate Port
Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due
to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the
laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting
their moves.
- on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan
(SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent
signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were
submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition.
- On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the
Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.
- another petition for certification election was filed by the Port
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The
consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days
after the filing of the petition.
- On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the
ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows:
Disini
In a petition involving an organized establishment or
enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent
collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified
petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter
shall immediately order the certification election by secret
ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of
the collective bargaining agreement and supported by the
written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all
the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed
before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be
dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%)
requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition,
otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasis
supplied.)
- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUP
appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
election. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order of
the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
- ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28,
1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in the
bargaining unit.
- PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the Labor
Code. The article provides in part as follows:
Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.
? In organized establishments, when a verified petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed before the Department of Labor and
Employment within the sixty-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-
Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
when the verified petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . . .
- The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbiter
should automatically order election by secret ballot when the
petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the
bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied
with the law when they submitted the required consent
signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner
complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification
election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect
of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
- Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was
based on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by
Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted
above. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certification
election cases shall be final and unappealable.
- For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in these
proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its
petition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to
represent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The
private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that the
ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an
affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that
agreement.
ISSUE:
WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents
when they dismissed the petitions for certification election
because the consent signatures had not been submitted
simultaneously with the petition
HELD:
YES
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 97- Disini
- pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for
to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending
unwavering policy of the Court" has been "to require a certification labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,
election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third
should be the collective bargaining representative." choice: "NO UNION."
- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall TUPAS 1
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where TUEU-OLALIA 95
they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory NO UNION 1
policy that should not be circumvented. SPOILED 1
- the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the CHALLENGED 141
25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification
election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of METHOD OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS,
the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the PURPOSE. The purpose of a certification election is precisely
requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees
implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented
be given only a directory effect. by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which
- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not particular labor organization.
carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not
applicable to a petition in intervention. Disposition Petition GRANTED
- the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a
non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly
applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct
ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of
2. Elections-Certification Election;
the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their Consent Election; and Run-Off Election-
dealings with management. Voluntary Recognition, Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03
- Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for
industrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to this
singular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorized
Distinctions- Certification and Consent
representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a Elections
more certain indication of the will of the workers.
The certification election is the best method of determining the will of the
workers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in their Distinguish Consent Election and Certification
negotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreement Election
that will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there A consent election:
be no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous  Is an agreed one,
management and a union covertly supporting it while professing its  Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of
loyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated bargaining unit
because of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval
and support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the While a certification election
real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of  Is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the em
the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the collective bargaining.
voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules
that will exalt procedure over substantial justice. From the very nature of consent election,
 It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import an
DISPOSITION Petition GRANTED.  Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participan
although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose t
expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period. (Warren Manufacturing v. BLR

REYES V TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484
NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the
right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni
Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification
election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to
be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau
of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries
Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-
Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries
and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and
Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be
qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted
under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240
employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
What is the PURPOSE of a certification election?
It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of:
1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargaining OR the
2) And if they choose to have a union represent them, they will choose WHICH
EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate barg
1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union
2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union.
WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU
OF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-
ANGLO
G.R. No. L-76185
PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary
injunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 98-
set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of the
resolution of the Bureau of Labor
FACTS
-June 13, 1985. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial
Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition for certification election
-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2 and
the Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and to
expire on July 31, 1986.
-PACIWU filed a Notice of Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Return-
to-Work Agreement was signed stipulating: “To resolve the issue of union
representation at Warren Mfg. Corp. parties have agreed to the holding of a
consent election among the rank and file on August 25, 1985 at the premises of
the company to be supervised by MOLE . . .”
-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWU
filed an Election Protest. Election Protest was dismissed.
-June 5, 1986. PACIWU filed a petition for certification election.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation-
Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also
filed.
-Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30%
support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law
and the existence of a duly ratified CBA.
- August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted
to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and
file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2.
WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union.
-Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor
Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on
certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining
unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certification
election rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule.
ISSUE/S
WON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the
Contract Bar Rule applies
HELD
NO
-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August
25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this
controversy, was a consent election and not a certification election.
-As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent election is
an agreed one, its purpose being merely to determine the issue of
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective
bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at determining
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
- From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct
process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification
election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle
the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA
although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to
1
Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent
sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun. 
2 WON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algire’s motion
same
3
Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor Code
Disini
choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after
the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period.
- It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said
projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA
at the company until its expiry date on July 31, 1986. It is,
therefore, unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25,
1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union
should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a
collective contract, there being an existing collective bargaining
agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determine
which labor union shall administer the said existing contract.
Disposition Petition dismissed.
ALGIRE V DE MESA
237 SCRA 647
ROMERO; October 19, 1994
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the
Secretary of Labor
FACTS
- Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition
for the holding of an election of union officers with the
Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
- DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an
Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an
election be held.
- In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the
election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16,
1990 between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and
Regalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under the
supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed
representation officer.
- In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark
choices with either a check mark or an ‘X’ mark. There
should also be no other markings on the ballot.
- De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total
votes cast were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
- Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots
which had two check marks was erroneously declared to
be a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clear
as to the choice made by the voter.
- The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s
favor and certified the latter’s group to be the unions
validly elected officers.
- De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was
granted. Another order for a new election of officers was
made by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-election
conference was scheduled.
- Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied for lack of merit.
- Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer
(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and
supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions
arising from the conduct of the elections, but the
determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE
was in excess of its authority since the case is an intra-union
activity
HELD
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 99-
NO
Ratio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being
merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the
workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and
distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a
certification election.
Reasoning
- What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a
certification election.
- If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representation
officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have
done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to
assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or
irregularity arising from said election.
Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby
AFFIRMED.
3. Policy
No Direct Certification
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE
163 SCRA 323
PARAS; June 30, 1988
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged
refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing
employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining
non-union members from joining the union.
- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the
MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.
- Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in the
Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by
petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with
the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly
intended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondent
Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective
bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered
the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground
that the employees were first offenders.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by
respondent
ISSUE
WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified
respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company's
salesmen since the case is not a representation proceeding as
described under the Labor Code and the Union did not pray for
certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to
petitioner-company.
HELD
YES.
- The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of
the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union
registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to
aid in ascertaining majority representation.
- The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule
V, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated
to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice of
the employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate that
the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions
Disini
of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the
aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.
- When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext
of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of
the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.
- When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact
disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There
was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether
the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.
- Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding
of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a
mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to
directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is
precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case
filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority
status.
- Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for
certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made
does not warrant a direct certification.
- More so, when the records of the suit show that the required
proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that
the basis of the direct certification was the Union's mere
allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular
salesmen.
- Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion
of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the
majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to
the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its
petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the
assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure
provided under the law for representation cases.
Disposition Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE
Employer Certification- Voluntary Recognition
Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03
RULE VII
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized
establishments with only one legitimate labor organization,
the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation
status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such
recognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice of
voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued
the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or
certificate of creation of a chartered local.
Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. -
The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied
by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the
following documents:
(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition
attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition;
(b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary
recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining
unit where the union seeks to operate;
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 100-
RULE VII
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
(continued)
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit,
accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary
recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the
bargaining unit; and
(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor
organization operating within the bargaining unit.
All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary
recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer
representative and president of the recognized labor union.
Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary
recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where
there is no other registered labor union operating within the
bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor
Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the
notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of
legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned.
Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form,
number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same
period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply
with the necessary requirements.
Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete
the requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this
Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory, the
Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition
together with all its accompanying
documents without prejudice to its re-submission.
Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition.
- From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the
recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and
obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in
the bargaining unit.
Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for
certification election by any labor organization for a period of one
(1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Upon
expiration of this one-year period, any legitimate labor
organization may file a petition for certification election in the
same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized
union,unless a collective bargaining agreement between the
employer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executed
and registered with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule
XVII of these Rules.
Effect One Union Only
GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED
LABOR UNION
134 SCRA 82
MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations.
FACTS
- George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping, while
Associated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate labor
organization.
Disini
- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed by
ALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE
bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of
petitioner corporation, there being no labor union.
- Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does not
represent the majority of the employees concerned, and that
more than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vessels
claim they are not members of any union.
- August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying
ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employees
denied their membership. Corporation moved that a certification
election should be called.
- Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of the
documents, opined that there existed a doubt regarding the
majority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawal
of the members, and directed a certification election.
- Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Director
reconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as sole
bargaining agent.
ISSUE
1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose
their sole and exclusive bargaining representative with
petitioner thru a certification election;
2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certification
election.
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Employees have the constitutional right to choose the
labor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of such
right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be
denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election.
Reasoning The holding of a certification election is a statutory
policy that should not be circumvented.
- The best forum to determine if there was indeed undue
pressure exerted upon the employees to retract their
membership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballot
where they can freely express their choice).
- The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affect
the freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or ‘No
Union’).
DISPOSITION
The Regional Office concerned of MoLE is directed to cause the
holding of a certification election.
4. Religion/ Past Non- Participation
REYES v. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484
NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of
the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
"Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were
contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 101- Disini
and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 467 SCRA 107
348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually
Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005
took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau
Facts
of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were
-CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary for Labor Relations,
141 members of the INK.
Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a
The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be
certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file
cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations,
employees.
(a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established
- Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition
rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO UNION."
for certification election with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. It
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-
TUPAS 1
file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following
TUEU-OLALIA 95
documents were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificate
NO UNION 1
certifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a
SPOILED 1
local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of
CHALLENGED 141
respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and
ISSUE/S
attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of
1. WON the members of the INC should not be allowed to vote
respondent’s officers and their respective addresses, again
“because they refused to participate in the previous
prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification
certification elections."
signifying that respondent had just been organized and no
amount had yet been collected from its members, signed by
2. WON the NLRC was correct in saying that "if the workers who
respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by
are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in the exercise of their
Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid
religious belief opted not to join any labor organization as a
employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and
consequence of which they themselves can not have a
Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by
bargaining representative, then right to be represented by a
Sagun.
bargaining agent should not be denied to other members of
-SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for
the bargaining unit."
certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is
not listed or included in the roster of legitimate labor
HELD
organizations based on the certification issued by the Officer-In-
1. NO.
Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII,
Ratio EFFECT NON-PARTICIPIATION PREVIOUS ELECTION. No
Atty. Jesus B. Gabor.
law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to
-Respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the
vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification
same documents earlier attached to its petition for certification.
elections.
The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president
Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in
2. NO.
compliance with the requirements for the creation of a
Ratio RELIGION/PAST NON-PARTICIPATION. Neither law,
local/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code and its Implementing
administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees
Rules; and it was hoped that the submissions would facilitate the
affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification
listing of respondent under the roster of legitimate labor
election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is
organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE
to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining
Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of
unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not.
Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from 30
July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a labor
organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the
required documents.
6.3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION-
PROCESS LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. Sec. of Labor
1. The Union as Initiating Party [NACUSIP and CAILO]
247 SCRA 1
Vitug ; August 1995
ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining;
Facts
(b)ART. 212.
To be Definitions.
certified - (h)
as the "Legitimate
exclusive labor organization"
representative means
of all the any labor
-Thein organization
employees an appropriate
Med-Arbiter, duly registered
bargaining
sustained by with
the the
unit for Department
purposes
Secretary ofcollective
Labor
of ofLabor and and
Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.
bargaining; Employment, has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give him
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annualno audited
other financial
choice thanstatements,
to conductincluding the balance
a certification sheet
election and the
upon the
profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date ofreceipt
receiptofofthe
thecorresponding
request, afterpetition.
the union has been duly recognized
by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
"Art. 257. in the bargaining
Petitions unit, or
in unorganized within sixty (60)-
establishments.
calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the where
In any establishment collective bargaining
there negotiation;
is no certified bargaining
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor agent,
organization and its members;
a certification election shall automatically be conducted by
(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other
organization."
projects not contrary to law. -National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the
Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary,Philippines-TUCP
the income and the properties of legitimate
("NACUSIP-TUCP") labor
filed with theorganizations,
Department
including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they mayofreceiveLabor from
andfraternal and similar
Employment organizations,
("DOLE") a petitionlocal for
or foreign,
direct
which are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be or
certification free
forfrom taxes, duties
certification andtoother
election assessments.
determine the sole and The
exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly exclusive repealing this provision.
collective bargaining (As amended
representative by supervisory
of the Section 17,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). employees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation
("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimate
national labor organization; that LSC was employing 55
San Miguel Corp. v. Mandaue
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 102-
supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of the
union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over
the supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective
bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no
legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to
the holding of a certification election.
-LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No.
003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar
Central Supervisory Chapter.
-LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a
patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of
discretion, Sec. of Labor denied it. Petition for certiorari was filed.
Issue WON the certification election should push through
Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate.
It was held in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment:
"But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic
conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it
also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor
organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE
and includes any branch or local thereof.' Rule 1, Section 1(j), Book V of
the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization
as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes
any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' "
Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton
which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a
petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself
that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal
requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate
labor organization in good standing.
The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by
the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with
the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded;
being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the
NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the
federation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local
chapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor
organization in good standing. Accordingly, in Progressive
Development, we elucidated:
"In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary
requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the
Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows:
"'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall
have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books
of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the
reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national
unions shall be observed.'
"Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently registered
unions' refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained
in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws,
set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chapter
must likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for
requiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union
registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is
greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation
requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements
applicable to independent union registration are no longer required in
the case of the formation a local or chapter. The policy of the law in
conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be
balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the
commission of fraud.
"A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor
organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR:
"1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor
federation or national union, and
"2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and
the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the
Disini
secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or
chapter, and attested to by its president.
"Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the
local or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization."
The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy
of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory
Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the
Secretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the
Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
certification election is dismissed. No costs.
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)
300 SCRA 120
PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election
among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the
petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that
the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the
proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be
conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file
employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal
standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.
- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory
employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of
accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.
- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said
that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is
composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is
not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the
exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who
are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the
list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.
ISSUE/S
WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and
file employees
HELD
NO.
Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that
"supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees.”
Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic
antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of
rank-and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of their
interests which cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion
proceedings.
Disposition Petition is granted.
SAMAHAN v SEC OF LABOR (FILSYSTEMS)
290 SCRA 680
PUNO, J.; June 5, 1998
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution and order
of respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition for
certification election
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 103-
FACTS
- petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-
NAFLU-KMU) is a registered labor union. It filed a petition for
certification election among the rank-and-file employees of private
respondent Filsystems, Inc. Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning
petitioner's status as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of
lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been
submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within 30 days from its
execution.
- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner has no
legal personality for failure to submit its contract of affiliation on time.
Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as an
independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for
certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation.
- another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition for
certification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondent
filed a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic.
Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that the
certification election was void for having been held during the pendency
of the appeal.
ISSUE/S
1. WON petitioner had legal personality to file the petition
2. WON the appeal was rendered moot and academic
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Petitioner is an independently registered labor union. As a
legitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for certification
election cannot be questioned.
Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU
will, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation. Despite affiliation, the local
union remains the basic unit free to serve the interests of its members
independently of the federation.
2. NO
Ratio The certification election and the CBA are void for having occured
during the pendency of an unresolved representation case with the
Secretary.
Reasoning Petitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its petition.
The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election.
Disposition Petition is granted.
A. Organized Establishment
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the
two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law
library
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
Disini
RA 9481 Sec. 10. Article 256 of the Labor Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“ART. 256. Representation Issue in
Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization
including a national union or federation which has
already issued a charter certificate to its local
chapter participating in the certification election or a
local chapter which has been issued a charter
certificate by the national union or federation before
the Department of Labor and Employment within the
sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the
collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter
shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
when the verified petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all
the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the
will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit.
(RA 9481 continued)
To have a valid election, at least a majority of all elig
union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be ce
in the unit. When an election which provides for three or mo
valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted betwe
votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contend
votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed by a national
names of the local chapter’s officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall con
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
Definition
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V
LAGUESMA
209 SCRA 606
PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of
California Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation
of Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation
Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia,
that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO
Chapter is a duly registered chapter.
- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does
not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big
number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not
actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise,
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 104-
nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law would
classify them as supervisors.
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when
there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a
petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories
does not apply.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies
HELD
1. No.
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor
organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified
bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the management
Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of
CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that
of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a
petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise
indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25%
subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been
expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is
presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those
with existing bargaining agents.
Freedom Period
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v. Laguesma
212 SCRA 281
Nocon ; Aug. 6, 1992
Nature Petition for Certiorari
Facts
-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in the
construction and fabrication business and conducts its construction
business in different construction sites here and abroad while its
fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel and Marine Structures
Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard.
-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees when
existing fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for
steel structures and other heavy construction works. Said project
employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment
Agreements which indicate the specific projects to which they are
assigned and the duration of their employment. Upon the expiration of
their contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees is
automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assigned
have not yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for the
remainder of the project. The positions occupied by the regular rank-
and-file employees and the project employees are basically similar in
nature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner's business.
-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association
("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner.
-Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor
("LAKAS-NFL", for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with
the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the
Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification
election.
-Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment.
Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private
respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment
appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic's
appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG site
who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and
completely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike
was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by
the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner
Disini
agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project
employees with at least one year of service pending the final
outcome of the certification election case.
Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees were
regularized effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said
Agreement.
-On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFA
informing the former about the admission into URFA of the
membership of 410 regular project employees who were formally
regularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlantic
filed MFR alleging that the employees sought to be represented
by the private respondent LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of
the petitioner and are deemed included in the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and-file employees of
Atlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.
Issue
WON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BAR
rule and failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged
regular workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the
regularization of all said workers
Held
Yes, he committed grave abuse of discretion.
Section 1 of Article II of petitioner's Collective Bargaining
Agreement with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as
follows:
ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The
appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists
of those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY who
have remained as such up to the date of execution of this
Agreement, as well as those who may hereafter acquire the
same status. It is hereby understood and agreed that the
following are not within the appropriate bargaining unit and,
therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:
a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff
members, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;
b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as
contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular
employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this
Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are
assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this
Contract, and provided further that relievers who are assigned to
regular positions which may become vacant shall be duly
considered for such regular positions after attaining the six
months probationary period.
c. Security personnel."
Although the aforementioned definition does not include
petitioner's regular project employees in the coverage of the
existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and
the URFA, the regularization of all the regular project employees
with at least one year of service and the subsequent
membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the
alleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-
NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees by
contemplation of law and included in the appropriate
bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement
consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent
LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.
The Labor Code provides:
"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau
shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duty
registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the
parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."
Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing
Rules end Regulations likewise provides:
"If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in
accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 105-
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
agreement."
-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which is
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular
rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular
project employees with more than one year of service, bars any
other labor organization from filing a petition for certification
election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment of
Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrial
peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of
the collective bargaining agreement.
Disposition Petition Granted
When Applied
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION V CALLEJA
179 SCRA 127
REGALADO; May 5, 1989
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
- The associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading, Inc.
(GAWTI) that majority of the latter's employees have authorized ALU to
be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and requested
GAW Trading Inc., for a conference for the execution of an initial CBA.
GAWTI recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
the majority of its employees and for which it set the time for conference
and/or negotiation at 4PM on May 12, 1986 at the Pillsbury Office,
Aboitiz Building Juan Luna Street, Cebu City. On May 15, 1986, ALU in
behalf of the majority of the employees of GAW Trading Inc. and GAWTI
signed and executed the CBA.
- In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL)
together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertook
a Strike after it failed to get the management of GAWTI to sit for a
conference respecting its demands in an effort to pressure GAWTI to
make a turnabout of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, as to which strike
GAWTI filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, and
which strike Labor Arbiter Tumamak held as illegal.
- On May 19, 1986, GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU)
Federation filed a Certification Election petition but as found by Med-
Arbiter Cumba, without having complied with the subscription
requirement for which it was merely considered an intervenor until
compliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition as
bargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by southern Philippines
Federation of Labor (SPFL)
- In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly filed with
the MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter Cumba ruled for the
holding of a certification election in all branches of GAWTI in Cebu City,
as to which ALU filed MFR, which was treated as an appeal. So the
entire record of subject certification case was forwarded for the Director,
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), MOLE, Manila.
- BLR Director Trajano, granted ALU's appeal (MFR) and set aside the
questioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effective
and valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social Security
Labor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor
(SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of Additional
Evidence.’ GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajano’s decision was reversed
by herein public respondent Calleja. ALU filed MFR but was denied.
Hence this petition.
- Calleja ordered the holding of a certification election ruling that the
"contract bar rule" relied upon by her predecessor Trajano does not
apply in the present case. Calleja ruled that CBA is defective because it
"was not duly submitted in accordance with Sec. I, Rule IX, Book V of
the Implementing Rules of BP 130." There’s no proof that CBA has been
posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5
Disini
days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by the
majority of the employees in the bargaining unit."
ISSUE
WON Calleja erred in reversing Trajano’s ruling and ordering the
holding of a certification election.
HELD
NO
The CBA in question is defective.
- The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only
when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1)
possession of the status of majority representation by the
employees' representative in accordance with any of the means
of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code;
(2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain
under Art.256, par. (a) of the Labor Code4
- The standing of ALU as an exclusive bargaining representative
is dubious. The recognition by GAWTI appears to have been
based on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support of
the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.
- In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified the
union as the bargaining representative, SC voided such
certification where there was a failure to properly determine with
legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority
representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification
election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere
formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and
unilaterally certify a union
- CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI to
post the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in the
establishment at least 5 days before its ratification, [b] the finding
of Calleja that 181 of the 281 workers who "ratified" the same
now " strongly and vehemently deny and/or repudiate the alleged
negotiations and ratification of the CBA.
- Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further
underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was
filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a
petition for certification election had already been filed on May
19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the
signatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it was
enough to initiate certification election.
Disposition Public respondent’s order for the conduct of a
certification election among the rank-and-file workers of
respondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED
GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA
422 SCRA 514
QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004
4
Art. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE
within the 60-day period before the expiration of a CBA,
the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by
secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by
the written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at
least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must
have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit.
When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the
valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted
between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of
votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the
number of votes cast.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 106-
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA with
General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April
28, 1989, which included the issue of representation effective for a term
of three years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive to
December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.
- On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the
union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter-
proposal be submitted within ten days.
- As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and
individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from
their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal
differences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate
a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal.
- The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the
NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of
GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right
to self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed
the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election
be held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers.
The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the labor
arbiter’s decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon the
effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case of
GMC-Independent Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 to
November 30, 1993. All other provisions of the CBA are to be
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Thus, the
NLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining
agent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA.
Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into
negotiation with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individual
letters of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members from
February to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by GMC on its
employees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC also found GMC
guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its employees
to self-organization. With respect to the union’s claim of discrimination,
the NLRC found the claim unsupported by substantial evidence.
- On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision
of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. It
found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the union justified and the
allegation of coercion exerted by GMC on the union’s members to resign
unfounded. Hence, the union filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals. The CA reinstated the January 30, 1998 NLRC
decision. A motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed by GMC, but
in a resolution dated October 26, 2000, the CA denied it for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE
(1) WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the
duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its
employees to self-organization
(2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years to
begin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposed
on GMC
HELD
1. YES
- Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715,
states:
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall,
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five
(5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall
be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of
the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five
year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of
Disini
the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not
later than three (3) years after its execution....
- The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA
should last for five years. The relation between labor and
management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the
fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested
for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on
November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining
agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation
within five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on
December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted
within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity of
the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was
obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in
good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-
proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic
terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor
practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, which provides
that:
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be
unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
...
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by
this Code;
...
- Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the
phrase “duty to bargain collectively,” thus:
ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in
good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement....
We have held that the crucial question whether or not a party
has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns
on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of
good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to
be drawn from the facts.[ The effect of an employer’s or a
union’s actions individually is not the test of good-faith
bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions,
considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, both
parties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meet
and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this
obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC
within three years from the effectivity of the original CBA. But
GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to
devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union
and the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation.
GMC’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s
proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith.
Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to
the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of
the duty to bargain collectively.
- GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to self-
organization. The CA found that the letters 13 union members
signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that
GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records show that
GMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longer
enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that the
resignations of the union members occurred during the
pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s
desperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the
union.
2. NO
- The Code provides:
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 107-
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective
bargaining agreement. – ....It shall be the duty of both parties to keep
the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period [prior to its
expiration date] and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.
The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they
are still in the process of working out their respective proposal and
counter proposal. The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its
provision shall continue to govern the relationship between the parties,
until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that
all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is guilty of bad faith.
However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely
delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is
warranted.
- It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and
conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on
GMC’s employees for the remaining two years of the CBA’s duration.
We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA
after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was
GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its
statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the
draft CBA proposed by the union.
Disposition Petition dismissed.
2. Form of Petition
Signature Verification and Verification of Pleadings
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION V.
SEC. OF LABOR
227 SCRA 821
QUIASON : November 16, 1993
FACTS:
- Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local chapters of labor
federations duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the rank and file workers of respondent QCC, a domestic
corporation engaged in the metal industry.
- On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent
QCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed with
the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a
petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a
list of signatures of company employees, who signified their consent
to a certification election among the rank and file employees of QCC.
- Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent FFW-
SMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the
certification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employees
had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as required by law;
and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of petitioner,
had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC.
- On October 30, 1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed a second
petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by De
Pedro.
- On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for
certification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC
- Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. On
June 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying
the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter.
ISSUE:
WON the petition for certification election was verified as required by law
HELD:
YES
Disini
Reasoning
- First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected
president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself
therefrom and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC before
the petition for certification election was filed on
September 27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of De
Pedro from the company is of no moment, considering
that the petition for certification election was filed
before his dismissal on August 22, 1992.
- Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not
jurisdictional requisite. Even if verification is lacking
and the pleading is formally defective, the courts may
dispense with the requirement in the interest of justice
and order of correction of the pleading accordingly.
Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are
not binding in labor cases; and this rule is specifically
applied in certification election proceedings, which are
non-litigious but merely investigative and non-
adversarial in character. Nevertheless, whatever
formal defects existed in the first petition were cured
and corrected in the second petition for certification
election.
- Third, attached to the original petition for certification
election was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of
the 300 employees belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFW-
SMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to delete from the
list some 36 signatures which are allegedly forged and
falsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a joint affidavit
of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the
signatures therein.
- Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13
was disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures
which is definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the total
number of company employees required by law to
support a petition for certification election. The
disclaimer of 13 employees by their respective
signatures covers only their own personal participation
and cannot in any way be extended to include the rest
of those who did not question the same.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition dismissed
TODAY’S KNITTING v NORIEL
75 SCRA 450
FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977
FACTS:
-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing with
the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of a
certification election. Along with this were 200 signatures of
Company’s employees confirming such petition. A petition for
intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers
Union. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it
had already been voluntarily recognized by the management as
the bargaining representative.
-Today’s Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that
intervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized by
management as representing the minority of the workers.
Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was
no legal bar to the petition for certification.
-Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the
petition for certification election. The matter was then appealed
to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordered
a certification election to be conducted by the Bureau within
twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari
and prohibition petition with this Court
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 108-
ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate
elections inspite of the company’s recognition that another union is the
bargaining representative
HELD: NO
-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that
the petition for certification election should have in its favor "the written
consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. The
duty then cast on the Detector of Labor Relations is to ascertain whether
there has been such a compliance. There is no doubt in this case there
was evidence that more than a total of two-hundred signatures were
obtained by respondent Union in seeking such a certification election.
The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite
had been met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the
language of the above provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to
conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the
representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and
certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
all the employees in the unit."
3. Venue
CRUZVALE, INC. V LAGUESMA
238 SCRA 389
QUIASON; November 25, 1994
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari, with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order, to reverse and set aside the
decision of respondent Undersecretary (Laguesma) upholding the order
of respondent Med-Arbiter (Tutay)
FACTS
- Private respondent, Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV,
a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
workers of petitioner.
- Petitioner filed its comment to the petition for certification election. It
sought the denial of the petition, among the grounds enumerated is that
the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no jurisdiction over the
petition since petitioner Company's place of business is located at
Cubao, Quezon City, which is outside the jurisdiction of the said
Regional Office. Consequently, it is the National Capital Region or NCR
of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said petition.
- Med-Arbiter found petitioner's claim unmeritorious and rendered a
decision in favor of respondent union.
ISSUE/S
1. WON petitioners correctly interpreted Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:
“Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the
Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the
Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.”
HELD
1. NO
Ratio The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the
venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike
jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue
merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue
touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance
of the case.
Reasoning Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code refers only to cases where the place of
work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the
employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office
where the petition for certification election is filed. The said provision
does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the
place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the
employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different
Disini
regional offices. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus
Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into
consideration the fact that there are many companies with
factories located in places different from places where the
corporate offices are located.
The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party
whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case
may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a
labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and
the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of
another competent agency sitting in another place to the
inconvenience of the worker.
Petitioner has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing
on the petition for certification election before the Regional Office
No. IV, which has its offices in Quezon City, the same city where
the principal place of business of petitioner is located. Petitioner
is, therefore, being unreasonable in demanding that the petition
for certification election be filed with the National Capital Region
Office, which holds offices in Manila.
Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional
Offices, the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor
Relations Commission prescribes that all cases in which labor
arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch office
which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the
complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules
defines the workplace as follows:
“For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as
the place or locality where the employee is regularly
assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the
place where the employee is supposed to report back after a
temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . “
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the
temporary restraining order is LIFTED.
4. Substantial Support
RATIONALE
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) V
FERRER-CALLEJA
169 SCRA 490
GANCAYCO; November 6, 1989
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
- Several days before the expiration of the CBA between
petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and
Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National
Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for
certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional
Office in Tacloban city.
- Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support
of its petition.
ISSUES
1. WON the holding of certification elections in organized
establishments is mandated only where a petition is filed
questioning the majority status of the incumbent union, and that
it is only after establishing that a union has indeed a
considerable support that a certification election should be
ordered
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning in cases of organized establishments where there
exists a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether
the petition for certification election wasfiled within the sixty-day
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 109-
freedom period. Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Executive Order No. 111, provides:
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In
organized establishments, when a petition questioning the majority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
Department within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the
collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the will
of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must
have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the
valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent
of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of
the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between
the choices receiving the two highest number of votes.
Article 256 is clear. The mere filing of a petition for certification election
within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director
to order the holding of a certification election.
Was the petition filed by NAFLU instituted within the freedom period?
The record speaks for itself. The previous CBA entered into by petitioner
ALU was due to expire on April 1, 1987. The petition for certification was
filed by NAFLU on March 23, 1987, well within the freedom period.
Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
ST. JAMES SCHOOL v. ST. JAMES SCHOOL
476 SCRA 12
(pending)
COMPLIANCE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V
LAGUESMA
209 SCRA 609
PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order
FACTS
-On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the
supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was filed by
the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing
Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO)
-In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a
certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the
required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big
number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually
supervisors
-FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that under
the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit
at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the
signatories does not apply
-Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted among
the supervisory employees of California Manufacturing Corporation
-CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment which,
however, affirmed the above order
-CMC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this
petition.
ISSUE
WON the petition for the holding of a certification election should be
denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%)
of all its supervisors
Disini
HELD
No
-CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is
clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by
Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed
only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing
bargaining agents.
-Compliance with the said requirement need not even be
established with absolute certainty
-The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the
statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force
asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied
with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to
order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining
which of the contending labor organizations shall be the
exclusive collective bargaining agent.
-The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes
mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other
instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal,
ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for
certification
Disposition
The petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
MOTION INTERVENTION
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V
LAGUESMA
207 SCRA 392
CRUZ; March 18, 1992
FACTS
- The CBA between the workers of the International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and
Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions
were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the
next CBA and were already plotting their moves.
- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a
petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at
least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were
submitted 11 days after the petition.
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition
for intervention.
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the
Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April
6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after
the filing of the petition.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground
that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that
the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition.This
contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article
256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
election., DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed
the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently
registered with the DOLE.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 110- Disini

ISSUE/S SUBMISSION
WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of
Art 256 of the Labor Code
ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION V.
HELD SECRETARY OF LABOR
YES 294 SCRA 640
- Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right
to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and
ROMERO; August 28, 1998
unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a certification
FACTS
election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization
- Company entered into CBA with OTCLU (Oriental Tin Can
should be the collective bargaining representative."
Labor Union). - 248 rank and file workers FFW to file a petition
- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious
for certification election. However, this petition was repudiated
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall
by waiver of 115 signatories who ratified the new CBA.
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where
- OTCWU-FFW filed petition for certification election,
they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory
accompanied by “authentic signatures” of 25% of employees.
policy that should not be circumvented.
- OTCLU filed motion for dismissal of the petition for certification
- In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the
election. It said the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% as
simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing
some of the employees allegedly withdrew their support.
of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to
- Company filed comment alleging that the new CBA was already
frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the
ratified.
workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article
- OTCWU-FFW filed a reply, alleging that the employer has no
256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the
legal personality to oppose petition for certification election.
regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly,
- DOLE issued certificate of registration of the CBA. It showed
we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within
that the CBA between the OTCLU and the company has the
the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the
force and effect of law.
holding of a certification election, 8 subject to the submission of the
- OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed
consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
notice of strike with NCMB.grounded on alleged dismissal of
- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not
union members/officers. Company directed the officers to return
carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not
to work. None of them did.
applicable to a petition in intervention. As long as the motion for
- Med-arbiter dismissed petition for certification election.
intervention has been properly and timely filed and the intervention
- OTCWU-FFW appealed to Sec of Labor. Pending appeal, they
would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this
staged a strike. They prevented free ingress and egress of non-
is so even if the eventual purpose of the Motion for Intervention is to
striking employees, and vehicles. NLRC issued a writ of
participate in the Certification Election.
preliminary injunction.
- The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was filed because
- Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting
the principal petitions had complied with the requirement for the consent
aside the order of Med-arbiter.
signatures as specified by Article 256. Hence, its intervention should not
- After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed
be disallowed simply because of the withdrawal or failure to appeal of
petitions for certiorari before SC.
SAMADA and PEALU.
- It is correct to say that as a matter of strict procedure, a petition for
ISSUE/S
intervention should be deemed automatically dismissed where the
1. WON the employer can challenge petitions for certification
principal petition itself fails. However, that technical rule should be
election
allowed to prevent a correct determination of the real representative of
2. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification
the workers in line with their constitutional rights to self-organization and
election
collective bargaining.
3. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election
- Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for
because a new CBA has already been ratified.
industrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to this
4. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case
singular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorized
representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a
HELD
more certain indication of the will of the workers.
1. NO
- Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the
- Certification elections are exclusively the concern of
Labor Code provides that the representation case shall not be adversely
employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to
affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60
challenge the same.
days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
- The only instance when an employer may concern itself with
representation case. As the new CBA was entered into at the time when
employee representation activities is when it has to file the
the representation case was still pending, it follows that it cannot be
petition for certification election because there is no existing CBA
recognized as the final agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.
in the unit and it was requested to bargain collectively, pursuant
- There was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
to Article 258 of Labor Code. After filing the petition, the role of
excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when they
the employer ceases and it becomes a mere bystander.
dismissed the petitions for certification election because the consent
Company’s interference in the certification election below by
signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition. The
actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly
issue of majority representation thus remains open and awaits
creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union.
settlement. Following the rulings above-quoted, we hereby declare that
2. YES
the newly-concluded CBA cannot constitute a bar to the holding of a
- Since question of right of representation as between competing
certification election.
labor organizations in a bargaining unit is imbued with public
- Any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers must be
interest, law governs the choice of a collective bargaining
resolved in favor of the holding of the certification election. This is
representative which shall be the duly certified agent of the
preferable to the suppression of the voice of the workers through the
employees concerned. An official certification becomes
prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over
necessary where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate
substantial justice.
and reasonable proof of its majority authorization and where the
Disposition Petition GRANTED.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 111-
employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts the
majority representation of several contending bargaining groups. IArticle
255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor
organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
- The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without,
however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a
certification election applies only when representation is not in issue.
There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of
the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of
representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a
bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be
resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the
proper government authority.
3. NO
- Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of
existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for.
- Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period
gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a
new CBA has been entered into within that period. This is clearly
provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this
rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary
where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the
bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the
legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a
bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period.
4. YES
- The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be
employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating
the same.
- All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the
holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going
through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election
is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate
bargaining unit.
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V
LAGUESMA
207 SCRA 392
CRUZ; March 18, 1992
FACTS
- The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union
(APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent
the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting
their moves.
- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for
certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the
employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the
petition.
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for
intervention.
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The
consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they
did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book
V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be
submitted upon filing of petition. This contention was upheld by the Med-
Arbiter.
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted
simultaneously with the petition for certification election.
-DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the
Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
Disini
- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently
registered with the DOLE.
ISSUE/S
WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
application of Art 256 of the Labor Code
(On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required)
- PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should
automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is
supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining
unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law
when they submitted the required consent signatures several
days after filing the petition.
- PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for
certification election, including its own petition for intervention,
had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
HELD:
- Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the
United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs.
Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor
Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain
concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the
workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic
concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor
Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a
certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30%
requirement”.
- SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule
requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent
signatures upon the filing of petition for certification
election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the
determination of the legitimate representative of the
workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in
Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more
reason why the regulation should at best be given only a
directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a
petition for certification election within the freedom period
is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the
holding of a certification election, subject to the submission
of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from
such filing.
EFFECT WITHDRAWAL
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF
CLUB INC v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES
UNION-PGTWO
395 SCRA 699
CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing CA
decision denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and
December 29, 1998
FACTS
- October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
(THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate
labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file
employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election
before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch
No. IV
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 112-
- November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election
because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and
fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors,
resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as
well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and
separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition,
only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of
the signatures in the list of union members were secured through
fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten
denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the
petition.
-
THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid
affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account
of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on
October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order
provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to
collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation,
it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor
Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09,
automatically order the conduct of a certification election.
- January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the
holding of a certification election
- DOLE Resolution of November 12, 19981 > setting aside the June 4,
1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR
denied
- CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE
Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for
certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule,
hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the
basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well
as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to
adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations.
ISSUE
WON the withdrawal of some union members from the certification
election will affect the result
HELD:
NO
- As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition
for certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement
and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it
to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not
to intervene in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged
withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification
election, this Court’s following ruling is instructive:
"T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed
retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election
itself wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret
ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees
should in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot
rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such
representation and certification election cases are not to be taken as
contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non-
adversary, fact-finding character as to which of the competing unions
represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and
exclusive collective bargaining representative with their employer."
Disposition Petition is DENIED. Let the records of the case be
remanded to the office of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional
Branch No. IV, for the immediate conduct of a certification election
subject to the usual pre-election conference.
DISCRETION RULE APPLICATION
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF LABOR
RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA
PARAS; Dec 29, 1989
Disini
NATURE
Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
FACTS
Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW
Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital
Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate
petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on
behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners
Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other
respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW
Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the
same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank
and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development,
Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources.
All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their
position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds —
disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some
signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service
resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The
Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to
be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime
Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth
Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas
Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of
the Order.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied they
filed the instant petition for "Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction" with a Prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order enjoining public respondents from
conducting any further proceedings in the said five cases.
ISSUE
WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a
certification election
HELD
YES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs.
B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU
(49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act
would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the
employees, all of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be
pooled to determine which labor organization should be its
exclusive representative. This Court had made it clear that We
should give discretion to the Court of Industrial Relations, or in
this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or
not to grant a petition for certification election considering the
facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge.
Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the
30% requirement (now 20%) makes it mandatory upon the
Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification
election in order to determine the exclusive-bargaining agent of
the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with such, the
Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of
certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is
supported by less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor
Relations has discretion whether or not to order the holding of
certification election depending on the circumstances of the
case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures vs. Musicians Guild,
et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election,
the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in
determining the procedure necessary to insure a fair and free
choice of bargaining representatives by employees, and having
exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot interfere.
(Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA 690).
Dispositive Petition denied
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 113-
WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION LOCAL V.
TRAJANO
G.R. No. 75724
BIDIN; May 6, 1991
NATURE Petition for certiorari
FACTS
The Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (PTGWO)
instituted a petition for certification election alleging, in substance, that
thirty percent (30%) of the rank and file workers of the Nasipit Lumber
Company (NALCO) and its sister companies supported its petition; that
almost all of the 2,100 workers of the company belonged to bargaining
agent; that the collective bargaining agreement between NALCO and
WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 would expire on June 30, 1985; and that
there has been no certification election in the company during the twelve
(12) months immediately preceding the petition's filing. Attached to the
petition were the signatures of some 612 purported employees of the
company.
-This was opposed by the compulsory intervenor WAWU-ULGWP Local
101 on the grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent
requirement as the names and signatures appearing in the list submitted
by PTGWO had been secured through fraud and that the purported
signatures thereon were mere forgeries.
-The members of the Local KMU-WAWU adopted a resolution to
disaffiliate from ULGWP invoking the law on disaffiliation which limits
such actions only within the 60-day freedom period. WAWU contended
that as an independently registered union, its disaffiliation from ULGWP
did not extinguish its judicial personality; that it was the principal party to
the CBA while ULGWP was only its agent from which it could disaffiliate
at will; that while it was in favor of the certification election, the
federation's name should not be attached to its own in the same ballot;
that as the principal party to the CBA, it was the bargaining agent
entitled to administer and enforce the agreement with the employer; that
the issue of disaffiliation was not a prejudicial question to the settlement
of representation proceedings; that, in fact, it could be treated in a
separate proceeding. Further, WAWU enjoined NALCO from farther
deducting union dues in favor of ULGWP.
-On the other hand, ULGWP argued that since it lacks the requisite
support from the members of the bargaining unit, the petition should not
be granted; that the disaffiliation of WAWU was void as only 429 out of
total union membership of 2,149 voted in its favor and since no notice of
disaffiliation was given to ULGWP by WAWU as required by the
federation's constitution and by-laws; that WAWU had not acquired any
legal personality to participate in the representation proceedings as it
had not died its intervention within the freedom period; that while it was
true that majority of its officers had disaffiliated, ULGWP had
reorganized its local and had a new set of officers elected, that the
federation had issued a charter to WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 making it
a local organization of the federation; that being the true and real
compulsory intervenor, WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 should be placed on
the ballot as a choice for the workers in the certification election.
Moreover, ULGWP stressed to NALCO that WAWU's disaffiliation was
void and, hence, it was still entitled to receive the dues checked-off from
the members of the bargaining unit.
ISSUE
1. WON a certification election should be held at the employer
corporations
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning From the comment and supplemental comment of
respondent WAWU, it appears evident that the issues in this case have
become moot and academic. But even assuming such is not the case, it
has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably
partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner
definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to
represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to
said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor
Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification
Disini
election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30%
requirement. As observed by the Solicitor General, serious
doubts exist whether WAWU-ULGWP-Local 101 still represents
the majority of the rank-and-file employees at the employer
corporations. Thus, while WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 maintains
that the work force consists of 2,149 rank-and-file employees,
yet PTGWO was able to muster 620 support signatures, not to
mention that 429 of its members voted to disaffiliate from
WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. Consequently, the
sentiments/loyalties of the remaining 1,100 rank-and-file
employees is yet to be determined by the best means possible
which is through certification election.
Disposition Petition DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic
6.4. UNORGANIZED
ESTABLISHMENT
ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor
organization" means any labor organization
duly registered with the Department of Labor
and Employment, and includes any branch or
local thereof.
ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate
labor organization shall have the right:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining;
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining;
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its
annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet
and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days
from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been
duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the
expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or
during the collective bargaining negotiation;
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of
the labor organization and its members;
(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
organization and its members, including cooperative, housing,
welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the
contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor
organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and
contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar
organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and
exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from
taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided
herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly
repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 114-
ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989).
RA 9481
Sec. 11. Article 257 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“ART. 257. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. - In
any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor
organization, including a national union or federation which has
already issued a charter certificate to its 1ocal/chapter
participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which
has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or
federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a national
union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names
of the local chapter’s officers and members.”
1. DEFINITION
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
CORPORATION vs. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 101730
BELLOSILLO; June 17, 1993
NATURE
-petition for certiorari
FACTS
-PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity)
filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department
of Labor and Employment praying for the holding of a certification
election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine
Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity).
Disini
-UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T
was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100
supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the
bargaining unit sought to be established
-PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on
the ground that UNION members were performing managerial
functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees.
Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already
existed among its rank-and-file employees which barred the filing
of the petition.
-UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under
the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join
the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although
they may form their own.
-The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that "a
certification election . . . (be) conducted among the supervisory
personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation
(PT&T)."
ISSUE
2. WON there should be a certification election pushed by the
UNION
HELD
2. YES.
Reasoning The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is
Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads —
"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the
Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization" (emphasis supplied)
The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified
bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION,
which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for
certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent
represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed
an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of
the Labor Code.
The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already
represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T
an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees.
After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees."
Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public
respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting
the petition for certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor
Code provides that said election should be automatically
conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V,
Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it
mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a
certification election. It reads —
"Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional
Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate
action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition,
shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case
for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an
unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately
order the conduct of a certification election . . ."
Disposition Petition DENIED
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V
LAGUESMA
209 SCRA 606
PARAS; June 8, 1992
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 115-
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California
Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter
(CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation
while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter.
- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not
contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the
supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they
have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and
functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors.
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when
there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a
petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories
does not apply.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies
HELD
1. No.
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor
organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified
bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the management
Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of
CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that
of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a
petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise
indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25%
subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been
expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is
presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those
with existing bargaining agents.
CELINE MARKETING V CA (RUIZ)
205 SCRA 849
GRINO-AQUINO; February 4, 1992
NATURE
Petition for certioari
FACTS
- DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma ordered the holding of a certification
election among its rank-and-file employees, as prayed for in a petition
filed by the Confederation of Filipino Workers. Such petition was
amended to include all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its
outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North, etc.
comprising more or less 100 employees.
- Celine Mktg moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the
CFW had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and file
employees, and that it failed to submit a copy of the charter certificate
issued to the local union. At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, CFW
submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union.
- The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-production of
the original and for lack of proof that the organizational documents of the
union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
- The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those grounds.
- The union appealed the order to the DOLE Sec which was granted.
- Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements in Sec 3, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of LC
HELD
NO
Disini
Ratio While it may be true that the petition for certification
election did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rank-
and file employees of the petitioner, their consent is not
necessary when the bargaining unit that the union seeks to
represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification
election may be filed by any union, not by the employees.
Reasoning Thus, Art 257 of the Labor Code, as amended by
R.A. 6715, provides: “In any establishment where there is no
certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of
a petition by a legitimate labor organization.”
- The law assumes that the union is the real party in interest in a
petition for certification election. Anyway, the certification election
itself is the appropriate forum for the employees to express their
choice of a bargaining representative or none at all.
Disposition Finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
Undersecretary's resolution, the petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED.
MANDATORY ELECTION
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. VS
LAGUESMA
325 SCRA 425
QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000
NATURE: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS:
- Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for
brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with
principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue
City. Private respondent SRBI Association of
Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical
Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor
organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress
of the Philippines (TUCP).
- On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in
Cebu City granted Certificate of Registration to
APSOTEU-TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.
- On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for
certification election of the supervisory employees of
SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-
TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with
the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more
supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these
employees supported the petition: (4) there was no
existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification
election had been held in SRBI during the past 12
months prior to the petition.
- On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss
the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of
a certification election on two grounds. First, that the
members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial
or confidential employees. Second, the Association of
Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the
Philippines or ALU-TUCP was representing the union.
- The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were
not managerial employees but merely supervisory
employees.
- On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied
petitioner's motion to dismiss.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 116-
- SRBI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of
merit. The certification election was ordered.
- On June 16, 1994, the Med-Arbiter scheduled the holding of
the certification election for June 29, 1994.
- On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter an urgent
motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter denied the
same. SRBI then filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days
later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election
scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for
reconsideration.
- The Med-Arbiter later denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
- SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary
- Petitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DOLE Regional
Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's
registration. It averred that the APSOTEU-TUCP members
were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by
law from joining or organizing unions.
- DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of merit.
He ruled that APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor
organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges
granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the
right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that
until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU-
TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to
represent its members for collective bargaining purposes.
- SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's
decision
Issue:
WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification
election
HELD: YES
Reasoning
One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b)
of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the
requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter
upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.
2. THE EMPLOYER AS INITIATING PARTY
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested
to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an
election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining
agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a
certification election.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working
days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20)
days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor.
RA 9481
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the
Labor Code to read as follows:
“ART. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases,
whether the petition for certification election is filed by an
employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not
be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose
a petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in
such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed
of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of
employees during the pre-election conference should the Med-
Arbiter act favorably on the petition.”
Disini
NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM) V
LAGUESMA
433 SCRA 244
PANGANIBAN, June 28, 2004
NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
-Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union
(NDGMTEU) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and
registered with DOLE filed with Med-Arbitration Branch a
petition for direct certification as sole and exclusive
bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and
file employees of NDGM. Med Arbiter issued an order granting
the certification election (in accordance with A257 of LC,
considering that NDGM was an unorganized establishment, to
give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining
agent) and ordering Representation officer Francisco to
undertake a pre-election conference.
-during the pre-election conference, the parties agreed that the
certification election shall be conducted and that the eligible
voters shall be those employees appearing in the list submitted
by management (who were regular employees). NDGM
registered a motion to include probationary and substitute
employees in the list of qualified voters, but was denied by Med-
Arbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor
Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a
certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did
not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against
the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was
opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their
union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was
granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was
dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for
lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected.
CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary,
certification election complaints should have been raised before
the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters
was already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the
qualification of the workers because in the process of choosing
the collective bargaining representative, the employer was
definitely an intruder
Petitioner’s contention: (1)A259, LC5 would allow the staying
(suspension) of the holding of certification election, with its
appeal of the denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the
excluded employees so they could represent these employees
and question the validity of the election
ISSUE/S
1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the
NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE
Secretary on the Motion to Include the probationary and
Substitute Employees in the list of Qualified Voters
2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the
election
HELD
5
“Art 259. Appeal from certification election orders.– Any party to an
election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by
the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the
grounds that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have
been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar
days.”
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 117-
1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten
notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should
not stay the holding of the certification election.
Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact,
"[i]nterlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or
denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention
issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be
appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the
appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition."
-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay
the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the
issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal
of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay
the holding thereof where the employer company is an
unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly
recognized or certified as a bargaining representative.
-This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may
impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative.
Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free
collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to "promote
and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x"; and "to
ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making
processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare."
Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by
Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the
holding of a certification election, the later provision reads:
Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable." The
Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide
the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the
appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any
certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and
inappealable."
-A259 clearly speaks of the "order x x x of the election." Hence, the
Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the
subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification
election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6
and 7 of the implementing rules6.
2. NO.
Ratio. Unless it filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code, the employer has no standing to question
the election, which is the sole concern of the workers. The Labor Code
states that any party to an election may appeal the decision of the med-
arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the proceedings, but a
stranger which had no right to interfere therein.
Reasoning. JOYA V. PCGG (DEFINITION OF LEGAL STANDING): Legal standing
means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the x x x act that
is being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.
Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party. NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a
result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification
election. Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case.
6 - Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
"SEC. 6. Procedure." Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall
assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon
receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from
submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized
establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a
certification election.
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority
status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified
petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order
the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed x x x.
"SEC. 7 . Appeal." Any aggrieved party may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter to
the Secretary on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof
established by the Secretary for the conduct of election have been violated.
Disini
Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-
interest, may question their removal from the voters’ list.
-On Claim that NDGM has the support of all the excluded
employees, as made known in a letter stating the employees’
desire to participate in the certification election, and citing cases7
wherein allegedly management was allowed to interfere in
certification elections: All these cases state precisely the
opposite. All employees should be given an opportunity to make
known their choice of who shall be their bargaining
representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the
employer with the personality to question the certification
election.
-MONARCH INTERNATIONAL CASE: It [petition] was filed by the
employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process.
Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to
assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its
representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification
election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining
its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the
interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter.
An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed
by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within
the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible,
management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For [if] it
does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is
partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].
-The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of
certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of
the right of the employees to determine their own bargaining
representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings.
They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the
employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way
affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by
the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter
and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to
promote social justice.
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the
assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO
ORDERED.
SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION – FSM v
TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION
428 SCRA 524
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
FACTS
- Petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the Med-
Arbitration Section OF DOLE. Respondent opposed the petition,
contending that members of petitioner union are not its
employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an
independent contractor. Respondent claimed that it engaged
SMC to manufacture and sew its multi-purpose industrial bags.
- The Med-Arbiter held that respondent is the employer of the
members of petitioner union and directed that a certification
election be conducted by its regular rank and file workers. On
appeal, the DOLE Sec affirmed the decision.
by the DOLE Sec. for being late by 7 days. Upon appeal, the CA
set aside the resolutions of the DOLE and disallowed the
conduct of a certification election.
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in setting aside the Resolutions of the DOLE
Sec.
HELD YES
7
Monark International v. Noriel, Eastland Manufacturing Company v.
Noriel and Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 118-
Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a
certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to
the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within 15 calendar
days.
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution
of the Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory.
Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary, the entire records of the
case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation of the
Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court.
In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, it was ruled that the
remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the
Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably
file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. And without a motion for reconsideration seasonably
filed within the 10-day reglementary period, the questioned Decision or
Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory. Consequently,
the merits of the case can no longer be reviewed to determine if the
Secretary could be faulted for grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably is
jurisdictional and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered final and
executory resolutions of the Secretary of the DOLE.
Even if there was no procedural flaw on the part of respondent, still the
CA should have denied respondents petition for certiorari. It has been
held that "in certification elections, the employer is a bystander, it has no
right or material interest to assail the certification election."
Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate
labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any
participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining
representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of
petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered
parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it
. day period before the expiration of the collective
3. NATURE OF PROCEEDING
Nature
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v CIR
13 SCRA 285
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.; Feb. 26, 1965
NATURE
FACTS
- Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with Young
Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and
Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions bound themselves to
undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports at 50-50. YMLUS later sent
NALCO a letter demanding the withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the
ground that its registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled;
VISLU refused as the order of cancellation had not become final.
YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried out.
- NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final
determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due
hearing, decide which union gets the job, or comply with the 50-50
arrangement.
- After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by
YMLUS and retaliation from VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with the CIR
praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain from preventing
VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU,
ordering them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and
order making such injunctions permanent.
- both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the CIR but later submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. Judge
Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties to continue observing the
50-50 arrangement until it is decided by certification election, which
Disini
party was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO
each filed MFRs as to the holding of certification elections which
were denied, hence this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy
2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining
to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the
jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from
questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily
submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence.
2. NO.
Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and
is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2
unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision
of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of
rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining
unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and
this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR,
unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.
Disposition Order appealed from is affirmed.
4. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS
AND PROCEDURE
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the
two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law
library
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In
any establishment where there is no certified bargaining
agent, a certification election shall automatically be
conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended
by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 119-
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When
requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition
the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified
collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau
shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20)
working days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within
twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
a. Effect of Private Agreement
ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) vs.
DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS
91 SCRA 482
AQUINO; Jul 16, 1979
NATURE
Appeal from an order of the Director of Labor Relations
FACTS
- This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union and a member of Trade
Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), filed with the Ministry of
Labor a petition for certification election.
- Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the
record of the case to the TUCP, a federation of labor unions, allegedly
by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the said
federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be referred
to it for possible settlement in accordance with its Code of Ethics.
- The TUCP has not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed in this
Court the instant petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor
Relations to decide the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP
to return to the Director the record of the case.
ISSUE
WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer
to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification
election case.
HELD
NO.
Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor
Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational
prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of
trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions is an anomalous,
deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory
jurisdiction in representation cases.
Reasoning
a. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the
Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the
regional offices of the Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive
authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes,
grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management
relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural,
except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of
collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration."
b. Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases
shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. " Article 260 of the
same Code provides that the Bureau of Labor Relations should decide
Disini
appeals in representation cases "within fifteen (15) working
days", or twenty working days, according to section 10, Rule V,
Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code. Section 10 further provides that "the decision of the
Bureau in all cases shall be final and unappealable."
DISPOSITION
The president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the TUCP
is ordered to return to the Director of Labor Relations the original
record of the case. The Director is directed to decide the appeal
within ten days from the receipt of the record.
PLUM V NORIEL
119 SCRA 299
DE CASTRO; December 15, 1982
NATURE
Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the
Bureau of Labor Relations for having been issued in excess of
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It, likewise, prays
for an order directing respondent director to hold a certification
election so that the employees in the company can elect a union
representative to negotiate an improved collective bargaining
agreement to replace the agreement which has expired on
February 1, 1976
FACTS
- Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a
petition, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey
Club, Inc.
The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor
Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said
petition and alleged among other things, that it is the recognized
collective bargaining 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.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 120- Disini
HELD records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins,
Employees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA because management the posting of huge streamers, as well as the alleged escorting
refused to bargain with the union. A certification of election is warranted. of voters by SMJALU have unduly pressured, influenced,
Workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process. vitiated, or in any manner affected the choice of the workers.
Certification of election is the fairest and most effective way f
determining which labor organization can truly represent the working
c. Voting List and Voters
force. The will of the majority is controlling. The director is still
empowered to call for a certification election. Instead of ordering an Voting List
election, Director dismissed the appleal of PLUM based on the decision ACOJE WORKERS' UNION v. NATIONAL MINES
of TUCP. This is frowned upon by the Court. AND ALLIED WORKERS' UNION
Disposition Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions are
7 SCRA 730
nullified and set aside. Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold a CONCEPCION; April 23, 1963
certification election forthwith. This decision is immediately executory.
No costs. NATURE Appeal by certiorari from an Order of the Court of
Industrial Relations
b. Posting Notice FACTS
- Pursuant to an Order of the CIR and a Resolution thereof en
Jisscor Independent Union v. Torres banc, the Department of Labor, through the Bureau of Labor
221 SCRA 699 Relations, conducted a "consent election" among the workers of
GRIÑO-AQUINO; May 11, 1993 the Company, in which five labor unions participated, namely,
the Acoje United Workers' Union, the Acoje Labor Union
(PELTA), the Acoje Labor Union (PLUM), respondent National
Nature:Certiorari
Mines and Allied Workers' Union (NAMAWU), and petitioner
Acoje Workers' Union.
Facts:
- The Department of Labor certified that the result of the election
- JISSCOR Independent Union (JIU) filed a petition for certification
was that National Mines & Allied Workers' Union had 560 votes
election among the rank-and-file employees of the Jacinto Iron and Steel
and Acoje Workers' Union had 278.
Sheets Corporation (JISSCOR) before the Med- Arbitration Unit of the
- Prior thereto, petitioner Union — which had been defeated by
DOLE.
respondent Union by a margin of 282 votes — had filed a motion
- Upon agreement JIU, the intervenor SMJ-ALU and the JISSCOR
to invalidate said election upon several grounds.
management, the Med-Arbiter set the certification election on
- LC issued held that said motion was without merit, and
September 4, 1990.
certifying respondent Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining
- However, on the appointed date, instead of an election, as previously
agent of all the workers of the Company. A reconsideration of
agreed upon by all the parties, another pre-election conference was held
said order having been denied by the Court en banc, petitioner
.
interposed the present appeal by certiorari, and now maintains
- Another agreement was entered into by JIU, JISSCOR and SMJ-ALU,
that the lower court should have invalidated the aforementioned
providing that the election would be conducted on September 6, 1990
election for the same was "the result of acts of terrorism, force,
from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., and that "the mandatory five (5) days
threat and intimidation employed by" agents of respondent
posting is hereby waived by agreement of the parties"
Union.
-Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU (SMJ- ALU)
- Petitioner alleges that, "if heard or given its day in Court" it
won the cert. elec. JIU then registered a protest in the minutes of the
could have proven that: (a) not less than 310 workers of the
election and formally filed a protest in the DOLE.
Company were threatened the night immediately preceding the
- Med-Arbiter Falconitin declared the cert. election null and void.
election by agents of respondent Union individually "to cast their
- SMJ-ALU appealed to the DOLE Secretary
vote for said Union . . . or else;" b) the agents of respondent
- DOLE Sec granted the appeal of SMJ-ALU and certified SMJ-ALU as
Union were even aided by the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz,
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file workers
Zambales, and his policemen, and, as a consequence, said
of JISSCOR pursuant to the results of the certification election.
Municipal Mayor was suspended from office; c) the acts
performed by said agents of respondent Union "resulted into
ISSUE:
unlawful disorder, damaged belongings, and physical injuries
WON there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
suffered by the workers"; d) many workers were unable to vote
jurisdiction in certifying SMJ-ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
for justified causes; and e) many workers, subject of unfair labor
agent of the rank-and-file employees of JISSCOR.
practice case actually pending in Court, were not allowed to
vote, contrary to law.
HELD: NO.
- Grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the
ISSUE
representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the
WON the elections should be invalidated.
proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. The minutes
of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use
HELD
of emblem, visor, pin. Other protests not so raised are deemed waived.
- NO. The last two grounds are untenable. IThe labor unions
- There is no merit in the argument that the non-posting of the notice of
concerned agreed, not only to the holding of the aforementioned
the certification election as prescribed misled and confused the workers
election, but, also, to the use of the Company payroll of March
regarding the mechanics of the election.
31, 1961, as the basis for determining who are qualified to vote
- JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with
subject to the approval of the lower court. Said labor unions were
JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices.
given an opportunity to make their comments and observations
- The doctrine of estoppel is based on grounds of public policy, fair
on the list of workers contained in the payroll and to ask or
dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak
suggest the inclusion or exclusion of names therein or therefrom.
against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one
Petitioner's representative then stated that it would abide by
to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The
whatever ruling the court may make on the matter of inclusion
results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers
and exclusion of voters. The court issued the corresponding
were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters, 99 were
order for the holding of the election and made its ruling on the
able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. Nothing in the
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 121-
question as to who were qualified to vote, and petitioner did not move for
a reconsideration of said ruling, although two (2) other labor unions and
the Company did so, and their motions for reconsideration were denied
by the Court en banc. Hence, petitioner may no longer contest the
accuracy of the aforementioned voters' list.
- There were only 971 qualified voters. Of these, 904 had voted, so that
only 67 qualified voters had failed to cast their votes. It is obvious that
this number plus the 19 ballots challenged in the election are insufficient
to offset the plurality of 282 votes obtained by respondent Union.
- Petitioner did not claim that any voter had been coerced to vote for
respondent Union.
- "There are many cases where the workers were threatened, coerced
and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU." But this general allegation,
without anything to indicate the number of workers involved, without the
supporting affidavit of any of them, and without an offer to introduce their
testimony or the testimony of any of them, was — in the light of the
attending circumstances — clearly insufficient to warrant the invalidation
of the aforementioned election.
- As regards the disorder that had allegedly characterized the election,
the minutes thereof suffice to refute petitioner's pretense. We quote from
said minutes: "Balloting went on smoothly up to closing time at 7:00 p.m.
There was spirit of comraderie among the representative of the
contesting unions throughout the proceedings. Peace and order was
maintained by the 18th PC Company at Iba, Zambales, graced by the
presence of the Provincial Commander in person."
Disposition The order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the petitioner.
Notre Dame of Greater Manila vs Laguesma
433 SCRA 225
Medialdea, J; 2004
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Notre Dame of Greater Manila was questioning the fact that a
certification election was held despite the fact that under the rules,
the same should have been delayed pending a review by the
Secretary of Labor of an appeal with regard the exclusion of the
probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified
voters as ordered by the Representation Official. The petitioner
claimed that said officer committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE/S
WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by petitioner’s
appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters.
HELD
No. The Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the
decision of the med-arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the
proceedings, but a stranger which had no right to interfere therein.
In Joya v. PCGG, this Court explained that “‘[l]egal standing’ means a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the x x x act that is
being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.
Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party.
- The petitioner did not and will not sustain direct injury as a result of the
non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification election.
Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. Only the
employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question
their removal from the voters’ list.
-This Court would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere
with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor Code
relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely
for the protection of the right of the employees to determine their own
Disini
bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these
proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering
the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way
affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by
the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter
and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to
promote social justice.
Disposition
Petition is denied.
ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY V
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES
SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY
476 SCRA 12
CARPIO; November 23, 2005
NATURE
Petition for review assailing Court of Appeals Resolution
sustaining the Decision of DOLE directing the opening of the
challenged ballots cast during the certification election
FACTS
- Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City
filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective
bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of St. James School of Quezon City
- 26 June 1999 > certification election was held at the DOLE
office in Manila with 149 eligible voters and 84 casting their
votes. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging
the 84 votes. St. James alleged that it had 179 rank and file
employees, none of whom voted in the certification election. St.
James argued that those who voted were not its regular
employees but construction workers of an independent
contractor, Architect Bacoy
- 6 January 2000 > Med-Arbiter Falconitin declared the
certification election to be null and void ab initio and ruled that:
1) 84 voters were no longer working at St. James and supported
his ruling using the roster of rank and file employees submitted
by St. James, which did not include the names of the 84 voters
2) since the construction projects have ceased, some of the
workers were no longer entitled to vote in the certification
election
3) even if the 84 workers were to be included in the 179 rank and
file employees, the total number of voters would be 263. Thus,
the 84 votes cast would not be sufficient to constitute a majority
of all eligible voters to have a valid certification election.
- Samahang Manggagawa appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
- 5 May 2000 > DOLE reversed the ruling of Med-Arbiter
Falconitin. DOLE ruled that:
1) Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-
academic personnel or the rank and file employees from the
motor pool, construction and transportation departments, and not
all the rank and file employees of St. James.
2) Med-Arbiter Falconitin erred in including all the rank and file
employees of St. James, whether teaching or non-teaching
personnel, in the computation of the total number of employees.
3) the list submitted by St. James contained only the
administrative, teaching and office personnel of the school.
- St. James filed MFR. DOLE denied the MFR. St. James filed a
special civil action before the CA.
- 5 September 2001 > CA dismissed the petition and ruled that
DOLE did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
ruling of Med-Arbiter Falconitin.
ISSUE
WON St. James’s list which included administrative, teaching
and office personnel is the basis for the quorum in the
certification election
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 122-
HELD
NO
- The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the
Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang
Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the
computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor
pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora
campus and not on all the employees in St. James’ five campuses
where there is a total of 570 rank and file employees.
- Section 2, Rule XII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules provides:
Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings. – All
employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit
sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the
certification or consent election shall be qualified to vote. A dismissed
employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall
be allowed to vote in the election.
In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the eligibility of
voters, all contested voters shall be allowed to vote. However, their
votes shall be segregated and sealed in individual envelopes in
accordance with Section 9 of these Rules.
- The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the
certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to
determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the
149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the certification
election.
- St. James further alleges that the names of the 84 voters are not on
the list of its rank and file employees. On this score, we sustain the
factual finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists
of its administrative, teaching and office personnel. These
administrative, teaching and office personnel are not members of
Samahang Manggagawa. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that
Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list submitted
by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of
Samahang Manggagawa.
Disposition Petition DENIED.
Voters ALL Employees
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC V DIRECTOR OF LABOR
RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA
180 SCRA 749
PARAS; December 29, 1989
NATURE
Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
FACTS
- Unions filed with the MOLE petitions for direct certification and/or
certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees
(there are a total of 5 petitions)
- the employers filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that some
signatories were ineligible as they had less than 1 year of service, while
others were probationary employees, resulting in non-compliance with
the 30% requirement.
- the arbiter issued an order for the a certification election among the
rank-and-file employees. MFR of the employers was denied, so they
filed this petition in the SC
ISSUE
1. WON probationary employees and employees with less than 1 year of
service are qualified participants in a certification election
HELD
1. YES
Ratio In a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote. Art.255: “labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of
Disini
the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining.”
Reasoning 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 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”.
- Thus, the contention of the employers that the very fact that
probationary employees have not earned regular status, they are
not the bargaining unit is untenable.
- Petitioners argue that more than a majority of the signatories to
the petitions for certification election “have disaffiliated from the
two respondent unions and have joined another union.”
Petitioners then contend that, with the mass disaffiliation the
petition for certification would fall short of the 20% consent
required by the LC. However, this will not defeat the petition for
certification election. On the contrary, it becomes more
imperative to conduct one. The alleged disaffiliation from the
petitioning unions in favor of another union raised a genuine
representation issue which can best be tested in a certification
election.
- employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor
organization which they desire to join. The exercise of such right
would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be
denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election, which
is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary
character, the bargaining unit to represent them
Disposition Petition is denied
BARRERA V CIR (PAWO)
GRN L-32853
FERNANDO; September 25, 1981
Facts:
Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name
of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged
an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The
unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of
failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike.
Issue
WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the
employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice
case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with
respondent-unions
Held
No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays)
If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a
certification election of a company dominated union, as a result
of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the
employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first
cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take
place. However, In this case the situation is exactly the reverse.
It is management that would have an unfair labor practice case
filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some of its employees
concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a certification
election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way, the
result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an
organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's
prerogatives. The difficulties and obstacles that must be then
hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the personnel, who had
not as yet made up their minds one way or the other. This is not
to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair
labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 123-
not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to
prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the
organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved,
in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also
the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that
management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of
its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with
things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement
sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim,
lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays).
Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention
of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks
of the labor organizations 'designated or selected for the purpose of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law
clearly contemplates all the employees, not only some of them. As much
as possible then, there is to be no unwarranted reduction in the number
of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that
in the meanwhile, which may take some time, some of those who are
employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair
labor practice case."
Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike
and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically
follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to
participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their
jobs.
Disposition Petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS vs.
NORIEL
98 SCRA 474
Fernando; June 30, 1980
FACTS
After the order calling for certification election at Pacific Mills, Inc. (the
First Order) became final, the Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU) filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) a motion
to participate in said election. BLR allowed said motion for intervention.
BLR explained that PAFLU’s motion was filed before the scheduled
election; and that even before the Supreme Court issued a TRO on the
matter, a certification election among the rank and file (RNF) employees
resulted in PAFLU receiving about 63% of the total votes cast. Hence
the present petition, which invokes the finality of the First Order and,
thus, seeks to exclude PAFLU from the election.
ISSUE WON PAFLU’s motion will prosper
HELD: YES
RATIO: For the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be
maintained and, thus, manifest steadfast adherence to the concept
of industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining
unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification
election. The success of this petition [i.e. the exclusion of PAFLU from
the election] would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a
principle that has been firmly embedded in jurisprudence. We are not
inclined to take that step.8
EASTLAND MANUFACTURING CO. INC. v. NORIEL
111 SCRA 674
FERNANDO; February 10, 1982
8 respondent did not include all the eligible employees of petitioner
What SC seems to be driving at is that about 63% of the company’s RNFs
participated in the scheduled election by voting for PAFLU. If SC allows the
present petition to exclude PAFLU from the election, then about 63% of the voters
in said election would be effectively disenfranchised.
Disini
Nature: Certiorari
Facts:
Eastland Manufacturing had 275 people in its labor force of
whom 175 were members of respondent labor union. They
signed a petition for the holding of a certification election. That
fact in itself would more than justify the granting of such a plea,
the 30% mandatory requirement being met. It was alleged,
however, that there were 43 employees with less than 6 months
service and 6 who had left their employment. Even then there
would still be more than 30% of the employees whose votes
certainly should be counted. However, Eastland was adamant.
Issue:
WON the reliance of Noriel (director of BLR) under A257 on the
requirement of the law of 30 % of all the employees suffices
Held:
As noted earlier, for purposes of membership in any labor union,
the one year period is required. That is one thing. Who can vote
in a certification election is another. The plain language of the
law certainly is controlling. All employees can participate. The
later article is, therefore, lacking in any relevance. It is not a
limitation to the right of an those in a collective bargaining unit to
cast their vote.
-Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions v. Noriel: "From United
Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, a 1975
decision, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that for
the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be maintained
and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of
industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining
unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a
certification election. The latest decision in point, promulgated
barely a year ago, is United Lumber and General Workers v.
Noriel. This Court has resolutely set its face against any attempt
that may frustrate the above statutory policy. The success of this
petition would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a
principle that has been firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
We are not inclined to take that step."
- It is only worth recalling that even under the Industrial Peace
Act that was the ruling consistently followed.
- Federation of the United Workers Organization v. Court of
Industrial Relations categorically stated: "The slightest doubt
cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses
significance in a petition for certification is that through such a
device the employees are given the opportunity to make known
who shall have the right to represent them. What is equally
important is that not only some but all of them should have the
right to do so."
Dispositive: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
R. TRANSPORT CORP. VS LAGUESMA
227 SCRA 827
Quiason; November 16, 1993
Petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside the Resolutions of
the Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for the
conduct of the certification election, and another one denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
FACTS
-Respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines
(CLOP), filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition
for certification election among the rank and file employees of
the petitioner.Med-Arbiter A. Dizon dismissed the petition on the
ground that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by
but only the drivers, conductors and conductresses to the
exclusion of the inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers,
mechanics and washerboys.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 124-
So subsequently, respondent. CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a
second petition for certification election,which included all the rank and
file employees of the company, who hold non-managerial. and non-
supervisorial positions.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the second
petition and contended that the dismissal of the first petition constituted
res judicata. Petitioner argued that respondent CLOP should have
interposed an appeal to the dismissal of the first petition and its failure to
do so barred it from filing another petition for certification election. Med-
Arbiter R. Parungo rendered a decision, which ordered that a
certification election among the regular rank and file workers of
petitioner company be conducted. The Associated Labor Unions (ALU-
TUCP) filed a motion for intervention and alleged that it has members in
the proposed bargaining unit. Subsequently, the National Federation of
Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a separate petition for certification election)
and a motion to consolidate related cases to avoid confusion.
Dissatisfied with the Decision dated July 3, 1991 rendered by Med-
Arbiter R. Parungo, petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who,
through Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, affirmed the Med-
Arbiter in its Resolution dated July 22, 1992 calling for the conduct of the
certification election. The Resolution, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
“With regard however, to the question on propriety of consolidation,
there is merit in the argument of respondent-appellant on the need to
consolidate the separate petitions for certification election because they
involve the same bargaining unit. Case No. NCR-OD-M-91-10-058
should be consolidated with that of Case No. NCR- OD-M-91-05-062,
where the petition of NAFLU should be treated as an intervention and
resolved by the Med-Arbiter together with the intervention of ALU-TUCP.
-Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, again stressing the
principle of res judicata. Petitioner further argued that the second
petition for a certification election by respondent CLOP, NAFLU and
ALU-TUCP were barred at least for a period of one year from the time
the first petition of CLOP was dismissed pursuant to Section Rule V,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as
amended. Undersecretary Laguesma denied the motion for
reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial
Questions as an Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed on
July 31, 1992. Petitioner argued that the present case must be
indefinitely suspended until the following cases are resolved by the
NLRC and the Supreme Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04708-
91 entitled "R". Transport Corporation v. 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 NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92 filed by
respondent CLOP in behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal
(Rollo, pp. 139-145). Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied
the motion to suspend the conduct of the certification election.
ISSUE/S
WON the second petition for certification election should have been filed
after one year from the dismissal of the first petition certification election
WON the employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who
joined the strike must first be resolved before a certification election can
be conducted.
HELD
Petition dismissed
RATIO:
1. NO. Under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code as amended. Said section provides as
follows: When to file: In the absence of collective bargaining agreement
duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification
election may be held within one year from the date of the issuance of a
final certification election result.
Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of law.
The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an
actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting
of votes. In this case, there was no certification election conducted
precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a
Disini
defective petition which did not include all the employees who
should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit.
2. NO. As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables
Industries, Inc. v. 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, unabandoned right to or expectation
of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification elections.
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 practices 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.
It should be noted that it is the petitioner, the employer, which
has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a
certification election. This must not be so for the choice of a
collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees.
The employer has no right to interfere in the election and is
merely regarded as a bystander (Divine Word University of
Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 213 SCRA 759
[1992]).
Effect of Non-Participation Previous Election
REYES v. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484
NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of
the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
"Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were
contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),
and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS).
Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only
240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240
employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for
votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending
labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,
conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third
choice: "NO UNION."
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
TUPAS 1
TUEU-OLALIA 95
NO UNION 1
SPOILED 1
CHALLENGED 141
Held:
Furthermore, failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to
the right to participate in future elections. No law, administrative
rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by
reason of neglect to exercise the right in past cases.
Voting Day
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 125-
ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION VS CALLEJA
174 SCRA 477
MEDIALDEA; June 29, 1989
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) is
a corporation that operates a rattan furniture factory at Mandaue City,
Cebu.
- Upon petition of Buklod ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), one of
several labor unions at ADMACOR'S factory, the Labor Relations
Division ordered a certification election to be conducted on May 21,
1986, a regular business day.
- On May 19,1986, several factory workers of ADMACOR held a strike.
No previous notice of strike was filed by the factory workers with the
Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office. On May 20,1986,
ADMACOR filed a petition for the indefinite resetting of the scheduled
certification election, which petition was not acted upon by the Labor
Relations Division.
- On May 21, 1986, the scheduled certification election was conducted,
despite the strike. Of the 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as their exclusive bargaining
agent. On the same day, ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike
and for illegal picketing.
- On May 23, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification
election conducted on May 21, 1986 as null and void on the ground that
there being a strike by some workers in the premises of the factory on
the day of the certification election, such day cannot be considered a
regular business day, pursuant to Section 2, Rule VI, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, to wit:
Section 2. Election conducted during regular business day. – The
election shall be set during the regular business day of the
company unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
- On August 5, 1986, the Med-Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR's complaint
and certified SPFL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank and file employees of ADMACOR. This dismissal was appealed by
ADMACOR to the Bureau of Labor Relations.
- public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja acting as Director of the Bureau
of Labor Relations dismissed the appeal of ADMACOR and affirmed the
decision of the Med-Arbiter. The motion for intervention filed by the
Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR was denied for having
been filed after the actual certification election had already been
conducted. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution was also
denied. These two resolutions are assailed in this petition for having
been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
- Meanwhile, on January 26,1987, a decision on the twin complaints for
illegal strike and illegal picketing was rendered by Labor Arbiter
Tumamak declaring the strike as illegal
- In this petition, ADMACOR questions the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Labor Relations to resolve or determine the factual and legal basis of a
strike in relation to the question of representation of employees. It said:
What is directly in issue is the jurisdiction of the Bureau to rule, as it did,
on the protest filed after the election by the petitioner. Petitioner's protest
involves the regularity of the election, due to the contemporaneous, in
fact, even antecedent conduct of an illegal strike. Instead of holding in
abeyance the election protest so that the Labor-Arbiter could properly
resolve the pending complaints, the Bureau rendered its assailed
Resolutions in excess of its jurisdiction. The Bureau had assumed on its
own an implied determination of the legality or illegality of the
complaints.
ISSUE
WON the BLR had no jurisdiction in dismissing its protest against the
certification election during the pendency of the case before the Labor
Arbiter on the validity of the strike
HELD NO.
Disini
Reasoning The question involving the legality of the strike which
was conducted against ADMACOR is an independent issue, the
resolution of which pertains to the Labor Arbiter. On the other
hand, the issue of the validity of the certification election pertains
solely to the Bureau of Labor Relations, originally, the Med-
Arbiter and by way of appeal, to the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations. There was no overlapping by the Bureau of the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter on the question of legality, or
illegality of the complained strike. The allegation that the Bureau
assumed on its own an implied determination of said issue is
belied by the fact that the assailed resolutions of respondent
Director confined itself to the issue of the validity of the
certification election. There was nothing in the assailed
resolutions which contain any conclusion or ruling by the Bureau
that the alleged strike was legal or illegal.
What was resolved was whether or not there was compliance
with the procedural requirement set by Section 2, Rule VI, Book
VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election
shall be set during a regular business day.
- In answer to petition's contention that there being a strike on
May 21, 1986, the day the certification election was held, said
day cannot be considered a regular business day, the
respondent Director ruled: Furthermore, anent complainant's
contention that the certification election was conducted not on
regular business day, the same is devoid of merit. The records
further show that during the pre-election conference the
contending parties agreed that the election should be conducted
on May 21, 1986 which was, on that time, a determined regular
business day of the company. This was in accordance with
Section 2, Rule VI Book V, of the IRR of the Labor Code which
explicitly provides that “The election shall be set during the
regular business day of the company unless otherwise agreed
upon by the parties.” The alleged strike and/or picketing of
some employees at the company's premises which
coincided with the actual conduct of certification election
might, perhaps have affected the actual performance of
works by some employees, but did not necessarily make
said date an irregular business day of the company to go
against the aforesaid Rule.
- In the first place, since petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the
Bureau when it filed its election protest before the Med-Arbiter, it
cannot now be allowed to repudiate the same jurisdiction after
failing to obtain affirmative relief. Moreover, it can not be denied
that an actual election was conducted on said date where, of the
423 workers who voted, 413 voted for SPFL as its exclusive
bargaining agent. In the "Minutes of the Certification Election
among the Rank and File Employees of Asian Design
Manufacturing Corp.", the representatives of the contending
unions, and of the Ministry of Labor even attested that the
election was peaceful and orderly and none of the parties
registered any protest on any matter concerning the election
proceedings. There is thus, no valid reason to annul the
certification election.
- also, a certification election is the sole concern of the workers.
The only exception is where the employer has to file a petition
for certification election pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor
Code because it was requested to bargain collectively.
Thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process
ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. The pronouncement of
this Court concerning management interference in certification
elections is well worth repeating:
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.
Disposition ACCORDINGLY the petition is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 126-
d. Validity
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC
v LAGUESMA (MNMPP)
267 SCRA 303
MENDOZA; JAN.31, 1997
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN)
and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific
Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and file employees at the
Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC). MNMPP filed a petition for CE
(certification election) alleging that there were more or less 130 rank and
file employees at the PPC whom it was seeking to represent. The
petition for CE was initially dismissed by the Med-Arbiter but was
approved on appeal to the Sec. of Labor (SoL).
- In the subsequent pre-election conferences ordered by the DOLE, PPP
repeatedly failed to appear despite being given sufficient notice and
warning that should it fail to appear, the list of employees submitted by
MNMPP would instead be used as basis for determining the eligible
voters.
- On Sept. 23, 1991, SAMAHAN and MNMPP agreed to hold the CE on
Oct. 21, 1991 on the basis of the list of employees submitted by MNMPP
without prejudice to the submission by petitioner SAMAHAN of its own
list but both later agreed to postpone election to await the list of
employees requested from the SSS.
- On Sept. 10, 1992, upon motion of MNMPP, the CE was set for Oct.6,
1992, but SAMAHAN objected despite having earlier agreed to hold the
election using the list furnished by the SSS, it also objected to the
participation of a 3rd labor union, KAMAPI, which had field a motion for
intervention. Thereafter, SAMAHAN filed a Manifestation/Motion that it
was not participating in the CE and asked that the CE held on the same
day be nullified.
- The CE was finally held on Oct.6, 1992 and the results were:
No. of Eligible Voters ................................98
Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic
(MNMPPP)...............................................56
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic
(SAMAHAN)...........................................2
Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino.(KAMAPI)………….................... 0
No Union ...............................................1
No. of Spoiled Ballots cast ....................3
Total no of Votes Cast………………........62
- On Oct. 9, 1992 petitioner SAMAHAN protested the result alleging
among others that there were discrepancies in the list of voters
submitted by the SSS. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the election protest of
SAMAHAN and upheld the result of the CE. After the SoL denied its
appeal and affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision, SAMAHAN moved for a
reconsideration which was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUES
1. WON the CE held on Oct. 6, 1982 was valid
2. WON it was proper to use the list of EEs furnished by the SSS as
basis for determining the total no. of eligible voters in the bargaining unit.
HELD
Disini
1. YES, valid.
Reasoning Art.256 of the LC provides that in order to have a
valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit
must have cast their votes. The CE results show that more than
a majority (62 out of 98 eligible voters) cast their votes. Hence,
the legal requirement was met.
2. YES.
Ratio Whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union
represents the majority of the rank and file employees, in the
absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification
election is the most democratic method of determining the
employees' choice of their bargaining representative. It is the
appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on
representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the
employees themselves.
Reasoning Ideally, it should be the payroll which should have
been used for the purpose of the election. However, the
unjustified refusal of the company to submit the payroll in its
custody, despite efforts to make it produce it, compelled resort to
the SSS list as the next best source of information. After all, the
SSS list is a public record whose regularity is presumed.
Moreover, as announced in UE Automotive Employees v Noriel,
where it concerns the weight to be accorded to the wishes of the
majority as expressed in an election conducted fairly and
honestly, certain provisions that may be considered mandatory
before the voting takes place become thereafter merely directory
in order that the wishes of the electorate prevail
- At all events petitioner must be deemed to have waived the
objection based on this ground, considering that this objection
was raised for the first time in petitioner's appeal from the
decision of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's protest. At the
latest, petitioner's objection to the use of the SSS should have
been raised during the elections and formalized in its election
protest.
Disposition Petition for certiorari DENIED for lack of merit.
e. Protest
Period
TIMBUNGCO v CASTRO
183 SCRA 140
NARVASA; Mar 14 1990
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
- Emmanuel Timbungco was the president of Kapisanan ng
Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco
Corporation composed of employees of Associated Anglo
American Tobacco Corporation. The union had a three-year
collective bargaining agreement with AAATC, to expire August
24, 1984.
- On July 15, 1984, a general meeting of all the members of the
Kapisanan was convoked by Timbungco, where the disaffiliation
of the Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF,
and the amendment of its constitution and by-laws was
unanimously approved. A new set of officers was also elected
which included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without
opposition.
- On July 23, 1984 Timbungco submitted to the Bureau of Labor
Relations the following documents:
1) a certified copy of the Kapisanan's amended constitution
and by-laws;
2) an affidavit jointly executed by him and the union
secretary declaring that the Kapisanan was the sole
collective bargaining agent in AAATC;
3) a copy of the minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1984;
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 127- Disini
4) a copy of the Kapasiyahan (Resolution) of the rank and file G.R. No. 152094
members to disaffiliate from the Federacion FOITAF.
PANGANIBAN; JULY 22, 2004
- A new registration certificate was issued in due course to the
Kapisanan, indicating its independence of Federacion FOITAF.
NATURE
- Then in the first week of September, 1985, Timbungco commenced
Petition for Review under Rule 45, seeking to annul the Decision,
negotiations for a new CBA with AAATC, which lasted for about a year
and the Resolution of the CA (w/c set aside decision of Usec of
and ultimately resulted in the execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of
Labor)
another three-year CBA.
- on April 8, 1986 Leodegario L. Zapanta, 1st National President of the
FACTS
Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO), sent a letter to
-Nov 25, 1997. A certification election was conducted among the
the Bureau of Labor Relations advising it that the majority of the
regular rank and file employees of DHL Phils Corp. The choices
members of the Kapisanan had affiliated with ADLO.
were petitioner and “no union.”
- on April 10, 1986, ADLO's Executive National Vice-President Tayo,
wrote AAATC to the same effect and requested in view of the
-Dec 19, 1997. Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL
consequent loss by the Kapisanan of its status as recognized
Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the Industrial
representative of the bargaining unit that AAATC stop deduction of union
Relations Division of the DOLE a Petition for the nullification of
dues and thenceforth ignore and otherwise refuse to deal with
the certification election. The officers of petitioner were
Timbungco and his group. Another letter, also asking AAATC to stop
charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election
deducting union dues, or hold such dues in trust pending resolution of
proceedings, particularly by misrepresenting to the voter-
the representation issue, was sent on April 12, 1986 by Delicano
employees that it was an independent union, when it was in
Pajares, a member of the Kapisanan.
fact an affiliate of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
- AAATC replied and stated that it could not accede to the request to
stop deduction of union dues since it had been dealing over many years
-This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their
with the Kapisanan as its workers' authorized bargaining representative.
selection of petitioner in the certification election. Supporting
- On April 23, 1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor
this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled withdrew
Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan, alleging that
their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves
he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the
into an independent union (BUKLOD).
petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid,
and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union
-Dec 23, 1997. BUKLOD was issued a Certificate of
officers. He also adverted to the existing collective bargaining
Registration by DOLE.
agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC.
- the Med-Arbiter issued an Order declaring invalid the election of union
-Jan 19, 1998. The election officer issued certification order to
officers which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another election
DHL-URFA-FFW (on the basis of the results of the
of union officers to be conducted in the premises of AAATC under the
certification election, where petitioner got 546 votes and “no
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This was affirmed in toto
union” got 348 votes)
by Bureau of Labor Relations Director Trajano. Timbungco's motion for
reconsideration was denied.
-May 18, 1998. Med-Arbiter nullified the Nov 25, 1997
certification election and ordered the holding of another one
ISSUE
with the following contending choices: DHL-URFA-FFF,
WON the election of officers on July 15, 1984 it appearing that there is
BUKLOD, and “no choice.”
no record of the number of members who attended the meeting, the
number of those who actually voted, and the number of votes obtained
-DOLE Usec Dimapilis-Baldoz set aside Med-Aribiter’s
by each candidate, and that a COMELEC (committee on elections) had
deicision. Said that the issue of representation had already
not been formed to supervise the election is valid.
been settled with finality in favor of petitioner, and that no
petitions for certification election would be entertained within
HELD
one year from the time the election officer had issued the
Ratio Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against
Certification Order.
elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days
from the close of the election proceedings and must be decided by the
-CA annulled and set aside Usec’s decision. CA: election
latter within twenty (20) working days.
officer’s issuance of a Certification Order on Jan 19, 1998 was
Reasoning
precipitate because, prior thereto, respondent had filed with
- private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have
the med-arbiter a Petition for nullification of the election.
come too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have
Furthermore, the Certification was not in accordance with
forfeited their right to impugn the same. In this case, the protest against
Dept Order No. 9 (1997). The charges of fraud and deceit,
the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of
lodged immediately after the election by petitioner’s former
almost two (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no informal
members against their officers, should have been treated as
protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the election. There
protests or issues of eligibility within the meaning of Sec 13 of
was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results
DO 9.
thereof.
- It does not appear that the dispensing by the membership of the
ISSUE
Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or formalities in relation to
WON the Certification Election was valid
the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the deprivation of any
substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of
HELD
a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the
NO
expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of
(Period of Protest)
officers.
-The late filing of the Petition for a new election can be excused
Disposition Petition is granted
under the peculiar facts of this case, considering that the
employees concerned did not sleep on their rights, but promptly
DHL PHILS CORP UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOC- acted to protect their prerogatives. Petitioner should not be
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW) permitted to use legal technicalities to perpetrate the betrayal
V BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILS CORP foisted by its officers upon the majority of the employees.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 128-
Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to suppress the welfare
of labor.
-Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code,
as amended, the election officer’s authority to certify the results of the
election is limited to situations in which there has been no protest filed;
or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within
five days from the close of the election proceedings.
Petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in rendering its assailed
Decision, considering that no protest or challenge had been formalized
within five days, or raised during the election proceedings and entered in
the minutes thereof. Petitioner adds that respondent did not file any
protest, either, against the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the
former’s officers during the election.
We disagree. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to
respondent’s Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the
election officer should have deferred issuing the Certification of the
results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be
applied to the present case.
Respondent’s contention is that a number of employees were lured by
their officers into believing that petitioner was an independent union.
Since the employees had long desired to have an independent union
that would represent them in collective bargaining, they voted “yes” in
favor of petitioner. Having been misled, a majority of them eventually
disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an independent union, which
thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having been formed
just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its
protest within five days from the close of the election proceedings.
(Notably, after it had applied for registration with the BLR, respondent
filed its Petition to nullify the certification election. Petitioner opposed
the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of
registration at the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of
the latter four days after the filing of the Petition, the misgivings of the
former were brushed aside by the med-arbiter. Indeed, the fact that
respondent was not yet a duly registered labor organization when the
Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in its
application for registration.)
The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not
sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural
technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be
taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail
over the welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be
accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor
organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this
opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioner’s officers in the
present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent
and independent choice.
Disposition Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED
f. Appeal
PHIL. FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES V
TORRES
211 SCRA 95
PARAS; July 3, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment
FACTS
- October 13, 1988 - Med-Arbiter Base issued an order which granted
the petition for certification election filed by the Trade Union of the
Disini
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Said order directed the
holding of a certification election among the regular and
seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc.
- A series of pre-election conferences were held to discuss all
issues relative to the conduct of the certification election, except
that which pertains to the voting qualifications of the 194 workers
enumerated in the lists of qualified voters submitted by TUPAS.
- After a late submission of the parties of their respective position
papers, Mod-Arbiter Base issued an Order (dated December 9,
1988) which allowed 184 of the 194 questioned workers to vote,
subject to challenge, in the certification election to be held on
December 16, 1989. Parties were furnished copies of the order.
- December 12, 1988 - The notice of certification election was
duly posted. 168 of the questioned workers actually voted on
election day.
- In the scheduled certification election, petitioner PFVI objected
to the proceeding, through a Manifestation filed with the
Representation Officer before the close of the election
proceedings. The Manifestation outlined the following
allegations:
- The posting of the list of eligible voters authorized to
participate in the certification election was short of the
5 day requirement provided by law. It was posted only
on December 12, 1988 and the election was held on
December 16, 1988, only four days prior to the
scheduled certification election.
- By agreement of PFVI and TUPAS, workers whose
names were inadvertently omitted in the list of qualified
voters were allowed to vote subject to challenge.
Thirty eight of them voted on election day.
- The ‘yes’ votes failed to obtain the majority of the votes cast in
said certification election. Hence it was necessary that the 168
challenged votes be opened to determine the true will of the
employees.
- January 20, 1989 – PFVI filed a position paper arguing against
the opening of said votes mainly because said voters were
neither regular employees nor seasonal workers because they
allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days.
- TUPAS, on the other hand, argued that the employment status
of said employees has been resolved when Labor Arbiter
Martinez declared that said employees were illegally dismissed.
- In an Order dated February 2, 1989 Med-Arbiter Base ordered
the opening of said 168 challenged votes upon his observation
that said employees were illegally dismissed in accordance with
the foregoing Decision of Labor Arbiter Martinez. ‘Yes’ votes
amounted to 165.
- February 23, 1989 - PFVI formally filed a Protest, claiming that
the required 5-day posting of notice was not allegedly complied
with and that the list of qualified voters so posted failed to
include 55 regular workers agreed upon by the parties as
qualified to vote. The Protest further alleged that those ineligible
to vote were allowed to vote.
ISSUE
WON the DOLE secretary committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the certification of
TUPAS as the sole bargaining agent mainly on an erroneous
ruling that the protest against the canvassing of the votes cast by
168 dismissed workers was filed beyond the reglementary period
HELD
NO
Ratio The phrase “close of election proceeding” as used
in Sections 3 and 4 of the pertinent Implementing Rules
(Rule 6, Book 5) refers to that period from the closing of
the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes as it
could not have been the intention of the Implementing
Rules to include in the term “close of the election
proceedings” the period for the final determination of the
challenged votes and the canvassing since it may take a
very long period of time.
Reasoning
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 129-
- Section 3 of the Implementing Rules state: “The Representation officer
may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the
election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the
representation officer before the close of the proceedings. Protests not
so raised are deemed waived. Such protest shall be contained in the
minutes of the proceedings.”
- Section 4 reads: “Where the protest is formalized before the med-
arbiter within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings, the
med-arbiter shall decide same the within 20 working days from the date
of formal action. If not formalized within the prescribed period, the
protest shall be deemed dropped. The decision may be appealed to the
Bureau in the same manner and on the same grounds as provided
under Rule 5.”
- Rule 5 provides that “the following requirements in order that a protest
filed thereunder would prosper, to wit:
(1) The protest must be filed with the representation officer
and made of record in the minutes of the proceedings before
the close of election proceedings, and
(2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter
within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings.”
- PFVI, after filing a manifestation of protest on election day on
December 16, 1988, only formalized the same on February 20, 1989, or
more than two months after the close of election proceedings.
- PFVI’s arguments that election proceedings include not only casting of
votes but necessarily includes canvassing and appreciation of votes cast
do not hold water. If the argument were to be entertained that
canvassing and appreciation of all the votes cast were terminated only
on February 16, 1989 and it was only then that the election proceedings
were deemed closed, it can still be said that when the formal protest was
filed on February 20, 1989, the five-day period within which to file the
formal protest still subsisted and its protest was therefore formalized
within the reglementary period.
- With regard to the argument that the notice of holding a certification
election was posted only 4 days before the actual election, the Court
held that a substantial number of voters turned up. Viewed thus in the
light of the substantial participation in the elections by voter-employees,
and further in the light of the rule a liberal approach be taken in
interpreting the Constitution's protection to labor and social justice
provisions and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing
the constitutional mandate, the Court ruled that the lack of one day in
the posting of notices was insignificant and not compelling enough to
nullify the elections.
Disposition Dismissed for lack of merit
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FILSYSTEMS
V SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
(FILSYSTEMS, INC.)
290 SCRA 680
PUNO; June 5, 1998
FACTS
- Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-
NAFLU-KMU), a registered labor union filed a Petition for Certification
Election among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent
FILSYSTEMS, Inc. before the DOLE - NCR
- Respondent opposed the petition. It questioned the status of petitioner
as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its
contract of affiliation with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) within thirty (30) days from its
execution.
- Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap dismissed the petition for certification
election. He ruled that petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no
legal personality.
- Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. It reiterated its contention that as an independently
registered union, it has the right to file a petition for certification election
regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.
- Respondent opposed the appeal. It argued that petitioner should have
filed its petition for certification election as an independently registered
union and not as a union affiliated with NAFLU-KMU.
Disini
- Meanwhile, another union, the Filsystem Workers Union
(FWU), filed a Petition for Certification Election in the same
bargaining unit.
- The Med-Arbitration - NCR Branch granted the petition.
- The certification election held on April 19, 1996, was won by
FWU. The FWU was certified on April 29, 1996, as the exclusive
bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of private
respondent. Eventually, FWU and the private respondent
negotiated a CBA.
- Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of petitioner as it
has become moot and academic.
- In opposing the Motion to Dismiss Appeal, petitioner contended
that its appeal is not moot as the certification election held on
April 19, 1996, was void for violating Section 10, Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, viz:
SEC. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. - The Secretary
shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from
receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of
the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of
the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.
- Petitioner further argued that the CBA executed between the
FWU and the private respondent could not affect its pending
representation case following Section 4, Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code which states:
SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements. - The representation case shall not,
however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered
before or during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the
pendency of the representation case.
- Respondent Secretary dismissed the appeal interposed by
petitioner on the ground that it has been rendered moot by the
certification of FWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of the rank-and-file workers of respondent company. Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when
he affirmed the Resolution of the Med-Arbiter dismissing
petitioner's petition for certification election for failure to prove its
affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.
2. WON the appeal filed by the petitioner was rendered moot
and academic by the subsequent certification election ordered
by the Med-Arbiter, won by the FWU and which culminated in a
CBA with private respondent.
HELD
1. YES.
- Firstly, it must be underscored that petitioner is an
independently registered labor union as evidenced by a
Certificate of Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate
labor organization, petitioner’s right to file a petition for
certification election on its own is beyond question.
- Secondly, the failure of petitioner to prove its affiliation with
NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file said petition for
certification election as an independent union. At the most,
petitioner's failure will result in an ineffective affiliation with
NAFLU-KMU. Still, however, it can pursue its petition for
certification election as an independent union. Despite affiliation,
the local union remains the basic unit free to serve the common
interest of all its members and pursue its own interests
independently of the federation.
2. NO.
- The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for
certification election was seasonably appealed. The appeal
stopped the holding of any certification election. Section 10,
Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code
is crystal clear and hardly needs any interpretation.
- Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at
the time the CBA was entered between FWU and private
respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the Implementing
Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will
not prejudice petitioner's pending representation case or render
the same moot.
- The Court bewail private respondent's tenacious opposition to
petitioner's certification election petition. Such a stance is not
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 130-
conducive to industrial peace. When a petition for certification election
is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy for the
employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice
of the bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be
notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not,
however, be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to
oppose it. An employer that involves itself in a certification election
lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company union.
Disposition Petition GRANTED.
NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA v LAGUESMA
433 SCRA 224
PANGANIBAN; June 29, 2004
NATURE
-Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
-October 14, 1991: Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers &
Employees Union (NGMTEU), a legitimate labor organization duly
accredited and registered with the DOLE, filed with the Med-Arbitration
Branch a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file
employees of NDGM.
-November 18, 1991: Med-Arbiter issued an order granting the petition
for certification election and directing the representation officer to
undertake a pre-election conference, taking into account two choices:
NDGMTEU or no union.
-January 8, 1992: pre-election conference was conducted wherein
parties agreed, among others, that the certification election shall be
conducted on January 18, 1992 from 10:00am to 2:00pm and that the
eligible voters shall be ‘those employees appearing in the list submitted
by management as agreed upon by the parties by affixing their
signatures on said list.’
-January 13, 1992: NDGM registered a motion to include probationary
and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters. On the same day,
Med-Arbiter Falconitin denied said motion by handwritten notation on the
motion itself.
-January 17, 1992: NDGM filed an appeal from the said handwritten
‘order’ excluding probationary and substitute employees from the list of
voters.
-January 18, 1992: certification election results: YES-56 and NO-23 with
4 segregated ballots and 1 spoiled ballot. Against this conduct of
elections and its results, NDGM filed a written notice of protest.
-January 27, 1992: a motion seeking the certification of NDGMTEU as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file
employees of NDGM was filed. This was approved by Med-Arbiter on
March 16, 1992.
-March 30, 1992: NDGM lodged an appeal from the order of certification.
USec Laguesma dismissed it for lack of merit, and rejected MFR.
-CA dismissed petition for certiorari, denied MFR. It ruled
1. that Med-Arbiter Falconitin’s notation on petitioner’s "Motion to Include
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters"
was not an order that could be the subject of an appeal to the SOLE.
2. that NDGM was deemed to have abandoned its appeal of the notation
when it filed another one on March 30, 1992, also with the labor
secretary. Thus, the holding of the certification election was
unnecessary.
3. that complaints regarding the conduct of the certification election
should have been raised with the registration officer before the close of
the proceedings.
4. that NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the
workers who should be included in the list of voters because, in the
process of choosing their collective bargaining representative, the
employer was definitely an intruder.
ISSUES
WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by NDGM’s
appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters.
Disini
HELD
Unless it has filed a petition for a certification election
pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, an employer has
no standing to question such election or to interfere therein.
Being the sole concern of the workers, the election must be
free from the influence or reach of the company.
-Art. 259, LC pertains not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders
like the subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for
certification election. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter
are appealable. Interlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter
prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders
granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for
a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any
issue arising therefrom may be raised in the appeal on the
decision granting or denying the petition.
-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that
may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is
manifested by the issuance of Dept Order No. 40: Under the new
rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification
election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer
company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union
has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining
representative.
-This new rule decreases or limits the appeals that may impede
the selection by employees of their bargaining representative.
Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free
collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to
promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining
and to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-
making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
-Joya v. PCGG: Legal standing means a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained
or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act that is being
challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be
personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the
constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.
-Clearly, NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a
result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the
certification election. Hence, it does not have any material
interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the
real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the
voters’ list.
-To buttress its locus standi to question the certification election,
petitioner argues that it has the support of all the excluded
employees. This support was made known to the representation
officer in a letter stating the employees’ desire to participate in
the certification election. True, all employees should be given an
opportunity to make known their choice of who shall be their
bargaining representative. Such provision, however, does not
clothe the employer with the personality to question the
certification election.
-The employer is the adversary in the collective bargaining
process. Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is
designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose
its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter,
certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of
ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances
where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the
matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle
interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not
fall within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as
possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy.
For if it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that
it is partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].
-SC would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere
with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor
Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were
enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 131-
to determine their own bargaining representative. Employers are
strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or
hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any
way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the
mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor secretary. To allow
them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of welfare
legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice.
Disposition Petition denied. CA affirmed. Costs against NDGM.
SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION-FEBRUARY SIX
MOVEMENT V TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION
428 SCRA 524
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the CA.
FACTS
- The controversy arose from a petition for certification election filed with
the Med-Arbitration Section, DOLE, Calamba, Laguna by petitioner
SMC. The petitioner alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization that
seeks to represent the regular rank-and-file workers at Titan Megabags
(respondent).
- Respondent opposed the petition, saying that members of petitioner
union are not its employees but of Stitchers Multipurpose Cooperative
(SMC), an independent contractor. SMC was contracted to sew the
industrial bags.
- The Med-Arbiter held that the respondent corporation is the employer
of the members, and directed that a certification election be conducted
by its rank-and-file.
- On appeal, DOLE Secretary affirmed in toto Med-Arbiter’s Order re:
pushing through with the certification election.
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by office
of DOLE Secretary for being late by seven days.
- Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with CA, alleging that the
Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that an
employer-employee relation existed between respondent and member of
petitioner union. The CA set aside the resolutions of the Office of the
DOLE secretary, and disallowed the certification election.
ISSUE
1. HOW an appeal is made for certification election proceedings.
HELD
Procedure
Ratio The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of
Secretary of DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably
file a special civil action for certiorari under RULE 65 of the Rules.
Without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed, the resolution
becomes final and executory.
Art. 259, LC: any party to a certification election may appeal the order of
the Med-Artbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the
same within 15 calendar days.
Sec. 15, Rule XI, Book V, LC IRR: the Decision or Resolution of the
Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory. Upon
finality of the Decision, the entire records of the case shall be remanded
to the office of origin for implementation, unless restrained by
appropriate court.
- Even if there was no procedural flaw, still the CA should have denied
respondent’s petition for certiorari. In certification elections, the employer
is a bystander. It has no right or material interest to assail the
certification election. When a petition for certification election is filed by a
legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to
have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining
representative.
Disini
DISPOSITION
The petition is granted. Resolution of the Office of the DOLE
Secretary is affirmed.
g. Annulment
Allegations/Grounds
UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION v NORIEL
(EDUVALA, GATCORD)
67 SCRA 267
FERNANDO, J.; October 3, 1975
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside a
certification election
FACTS
- petitioner United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries
Philippines (UEUGIP) alleged that in a pre-election conference
held by the BLR, it was agreed that petitioner would be listed in
the ballot as UEUGIP. However, it was deleted in the notice of
the certification election and in the sample ballot and replaced
with a non-contending party. Petitioner did not file a complaint
regarding this, but it filed a grievance referring to alleged
electioneering of nuns as observers or inspectors in behalf of
respondent GATCORD.
- GATCORD won the certification election with 63% of the votes
while UEUGIP got 4.5%. Even if all the votes of the 7 losing
unions were added, they would still be 1,823 votes short of
GATCORD's votes.
- There was some confusion as to the leadership of UEUGIP as
a faction of UEUGIP, represented by a Mr. Diaz, clashed with
Mr. Escreza, UEUGIP's duly elected president. Mr. Diaz then
claimed to have joined another union but later claimed once
again to represent UEUGIP.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the certification election should be set aside
2. WON the presence of nuns and a priest is electioneering
HELD
1. NO
Ratio What is significant in a certification election is that
employees are given the opportunity to know who shall
represent them.
Reasoning The grievance complained of is more fancied than
real. UEUGIP has little support & could not match GATCORD.
The majority must rule in a certification election.
2. NO
Ratio The wide latitude accorded religious groups in the
exercise of their freedom cautions against reliance on such a
ground to invalidate a certification election.
Reasoning That petitioner chose not to press this point is
understandable. Contractual rights, even labor matters, must
yield to religious freedom.
Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR V
SECRETARY
287 SCRA 599
MENDOZA; March 19, 1998
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 132-
- A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file
employees of the Hijo Plantation. The resulting choice was “ no union”.
However, the results were nullified because of allegations that the
company intervened in the elections.
- A new election was held. National Federation of Labor (NFL) won.
- The Trust Union Society and Trade Workers-KILUSAN (TRUST-
Kilusan), the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines
(ULGWP), the Hijo Labor Union and the Hijo Plantation, Inc (HPI) sought
the nullification of the results of the certification election on the ground
that it was conducted despite the pendency of the appeals filed by Hijo
Labor Union and ULGWP from the order, dated August 17, 1989, of the
Med-Arbiter denying their motion for intervention. They claim that only
54% of the workers voted. HPI claimed that it was not informed or
properly represented at the pre-election conference.
- Acting Labor Secretary dela Serna directed Arbiter Pura to investigate.
The latter found irregularities.
- The Arbiter summoned the unions for a hearing.
- The DOLE then upheld the election. It did no give weight to the
investigation of the Arbiter. Accordingly, the Labor Secretary denied the
petition to annul the election filed by the ULGWP, TRUST-KILUSAN,
HLU and the HPI. However, on motion of HPI, the Secretary of Labor,
on reversed his resolution.
ISSUE/S
1. WON respondent company can file a petition to nullify the elections.
2. WON protests concerning the election should be registered and
entered into the minutes of the election proceedings before it can be
considered and it should be formalized within 5 days
3. WON the contending unions are estopped from questioning the
election
4. WON the letter appeals were credible
HELD
1. Yes.
Reasoning What the DOLE Secretary considered in reversing its earlier
rulings was not the petition of the employer but the letter-appeals that
the employees sent to his office denouncing the irregularities committed
during the certification election. The petition of private respondent was
simply the occasion for the employees to voice their protests against the
election. Nor is it improper for private respondent to show interest in the
conduct of the election. Private respondent is the employer. The manner
in which the election was held could make the difference between
industrial strife and industrial harmony in the company. What an
employer is prohibited from doing is to interfere with the conduct of the
certification election for the purpose of influencing its outcome.
2. No.
Reasoning The complaint in this case was that a number of employees
were not able to cast their votes because they were not properly notified
of the date. They could not therefore have filed their protests within five
(5) days. At all events, the Solicitor General states, that the protests
were not filed within five (5) days, is a mere technicality which should not
be allowed to prevail over the workers' welfare
3. No.
Reasoning In its comment, ATU-TUCP states, that “the
representative of the Association of Trade Unions really attest to the fact
that we cannot really identify all the voters who voted on that election
except some workers who were our supporters in the absence of Hijo
Plantation representatives. We also attest that the polling precinct were
not conducive to secrecy of the voters since it was conducted outside of
the Company premises. The precincts where the election was held were
located in a passenger waiting shed infront of the canteen across the
road; on the yellow pick-up; at the back of a car; a waiting shed near the
Guard House and a waiting shed infront of the Guard House across the
road. Herein private respondents also observed during the election that
there were voters who dictated some voters the phrase "number 3" to
those who were casting their votes and those who were about to vote.
Number 3 refers to the National Federation of Labor in the official ballot.
- ATU-TUCP explains that it did not file any protest because it expected
workers who had been aggrieved by the conduct of the election would
file their protest since it was in their interests that they do so.
Disini
4. YES
Reasoning The records shows that as early as August 22 and
30, 1989, employees already wrote letters/affidavits alleging
irregularities in the elections and disfranchisement of workers.
These were attached to respondent’s petition just 16 days after
the election. It is not true therefore that the employees slept on
their rights.
As to the claim that letters dated May 7, 1991 and June 14, 1991
bear these same dates because they were prepared by private
respondent HPI and employees were merely asked to sign them,
suffice it to say that this is plain speculation which petitioner has
not proven by competent evidence.
As to the letters not being verified, suffice it to say that technical
rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.
Disposition Petition is denied.
DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File
Association-Federation of Free Workers v.
Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phil. Corp.
434 SCRA 670
Panganiban; July 22, 2004
Nature
Petition for review on certiorari
Facts
-A certification election was conducted among the regular rank
and file employees in the main office and the regional branches
of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were
DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File Association-Federation of
Free Workers (DHL) and “no union.” Election officer certified
DHL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and
file employees of the corporation. Later, Buklod ng Manggagawa
ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the
Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the nullification of the
certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with
committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings,
particularly by misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was
an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW). This misrepresentation was
supposedly the basis for their selection of DHL in the certification
election. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those
whom it had misled allegedly withdrew their membership from it
and subsequently formed themselves into an independent
union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of
Registration by DOLE. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified
the November 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the
holding of another one with the following contending choices:
DHL, Buklod, and “no choice.” DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda
Dimapilis-Baldoz held on appeal that the issue of representation
had already been settled with finality in favor of DHL, and that no
petitions for certification election would be entertained within one
year from the time the election officer had issued the
Certification Order.
-CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the members
of petitioner -- 704 out of 894 of them -- provided a compelling
reason to conduct a certification election anew in order to
determine, once and for all, which union reflected their choice. A
new certification election is called for.
Issue WON the certification election is valid
Held Yes, it is valid.
Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V (Labor Relations)
of the Labor Code, as amended, the election officer’s authority to
certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which
there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has
not been perfected or formalized within five days from the close
of the election proceedings. Further, Section 14 of the same
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 133-
Rules provides that when a protest has been perfected, only the med-
arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is based on
the election officer’s function, which is merely to conduct and supervise
certification elections. It is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and
decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to
certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents
occurring during the campaign is within the med-arbiter’s discretion.
When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondent’s
Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer
should have deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof.
Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be applied to the
present case. Employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their
failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period
for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere
technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the
workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to
determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on
their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal
committed by petitioner’s officers in the present case, the employees
were prevented from making an intelligent and independent choice. The
making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the
free choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification
election may be set aside for misstatements made during the campaign,
where 1) a material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign; 2)
an opportunity for reply has been lacking; and 3) the misrepresentation
has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in
the election. A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on their free
choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an
authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true,
especially when the employees are unable to evaluate the truth or the
falsity of the assertions.
-The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president,
misrepresented it to the voting employees as an independent union
constituted a substantial misrepresentation of material facts of vital
concern to those employees. The materiality of such misrepresentation
is self-evident. The employees wanted an independent union to
represent them in collective bargaining, free from outside interference.
Thus, upon knowing that petitioner was in fact an affiliate of the FFW,
the members disaffiliated from petitioner and organized themselves into
an independent union. Additionally, the misrepresentation came from
petitioner’s recognized representative, who was clearly in a position to
hold himself out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an
authoritative position to know the true facts. Although petitioner won in
the election, it is now clear that it does not represent the majority of the
bargaining employees, owing to the affiliation of its members with
respondent. The present uncertainty as to which union has their support
to represent them for collective bargaining purposes is a salient factor
that this Court has seriously considered. The bargaining agent must be
truly representative of the employees. At the time of the filing by
respondent of the Petition for nullification, allegiances and loyalties of
the employees were like shifting sands that radically affected their
choice of an appropriate bargaining representative. The polarization of
a good number of them followed their discovery of the fraud committed
by the officers of petitioner. The purpose of a certification election is
precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an
appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be represented by a labor
organization and, in the affirmative case, by which one. Once
disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification
election is the most expeditious way of determining which union should
be the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees.
Disposition Petition denied
Irregularities
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNION V
NORIEL
116 SCRA 694
AQUINO; September 21, 1982
Disini
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
- Confederation of Labor Unions (CCLU) was 1 of 4 unions
wanting to be certified as the collective bargaining representative
of the employees in the Redson Textile Manufacturing
Corporation (RTMC) with place of business in Pasig, MM. Its co-
petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association,
(RELA) is a CCLU local in the said corporation. The other unions
were the National Union of Garments Textile and General
Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) the National Trade
Union (NATU) and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU).
- On Aug. 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the
premises of the corporation. As no union obtained a majority
vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the2 largest number of votes,
agreed that a run-off election would be held on Nov. 6, 1980.
- On Nov. 6, 1980, 3 election supervisors from the MOLE arrived
but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the
company premises in spite of the heavy rain. Said election
supervisors decided to hold the certification election "outside the
premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex
building" They used as ballot box "an improvised carton box."
The union representatives did not object to the improvised
polling place and ballot box.
- Just before election was closed at 6:30PM, the ALU
representative, Taneo, executed a written protest or
manifestation, alleging that the management of Redson Textile
did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises;
that the company prevented 50% of workers from voting by not
allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing
them to work OT; that its security guards "manhandled" the ALU
VP and that their "active intervention" caused "chaos and
confusion" for around 30mins; that the company refused to
furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot
box and that the election supervisors declared the election
closed in spite of ALU's objection.
- ALU nevertheless won, and because of this, Taneo withdrew
his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the
proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn
"before the close of the proceedings". CCLU representatives
refused to sign the minutes of the election.
- Fresnoza, CCLU representative, filed protest with BLR and
alleged that the certification election was irregular and disorderly
because, among others, (a) no booths were provided for by the
company; (b) the election started much later than the hour
agreed upon by the parties, and prayed that the certification
election be annulled.
- Noriel, OIC of BLR, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit.
He also denied CCLU's MFR, certified ALU as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in Redson Textile
Manufacturing Corporation. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WON the certification election was valid
HELD
NO
- The certification election is invalid because of certain
irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift
(10p.m. to 6a.m.) and some of those in the afternoon shift were
not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010 voters only 692
voted and about 318 failed to vote; (2) the secrecy of the ballot
was not safeguarded; (3) the election supervisors were remiss in
their duties and were apparently "intimidated" by a union
representative and (4) the participating unions were overzealous
in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to
such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts.
- The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees
"true representation in their collective bargaining with an
employer" That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election
because many employees or union members were not able to
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 134-
vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not
render assistance in the holding of the election.
Disposition Petition GRANTED. The resolutions of the Officer-in-
Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations are hereby set aside.
TIMBUNGCO V CASTRO
183 SCRA 140
NARVASA; March 14, 1990
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
- The petitioner, Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of Kapisanan,
composed of employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco
Corporation. The union had a three-year collective bargaining
agreement with said Corporation. The stipulated expiration date was
August 24, 1984.
- On July 15, 1984 or within the so-called "freedom period" of sixty (60)
days - a general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was
convoked by Timbungco. At that meeting the body unanimously
approved, among others, the disaffiliation of the Kapisanan from the
mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and the amendment of its
constitution and by-laws. A new set of officers was also elected which
included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without opposition.
These events are set forth in the minutes drawn up by the Kapisanan's
Secretary, which also recorded that the body had agreed to dispense
with the formation of a COMELEC and the preparation of a tally sheet
showing the number of votes received by each candidate, the members
simply having entered individual nominations to the different positions
and listed their choices therefor. Timbungco thereafter submitted to the
Bureau of Labor Relations the necessary documents. In the first week of
September, 1985, Timbungco commenced negotiations for a new
collective bargaining agreement with the representatives of AAATC. The
negotiations lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in the
execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year collective
bargaining agreement.
- On April 23,1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan. He alleged
that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the
petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid,
and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union
officers. He also adverted to the existing collective bargaining
agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC.
- After appropriate proceedings, Med-Arbiter L. Reynante issued an
Order dated July 3, 1986 declaring invalid the election of union officers
which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another election of union
officers to be conducted in the premises of AAATC under the
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This Order was, on
appeal, affirmed in toto in a Resolution rendered by Bureau of Labor
Relations. Timbungco's motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
WON the election of officers of July 15, 1984 is valid, although there is
no record of the number of members who attended the meeting, the
number of those who actually voted, and the number of votes obtained
by each candidate, and that a COMELEC had not been formed to
supervise the election.
HELD
YES
- In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the
membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or
formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the
deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused
the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more
importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular
will in the choice of officers. In the second place, as the Office of the
Solicitor General points out, the private respondents' objections to the
elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must be deemed
Disini
in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same.
Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against
elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5)
days from the close of the election proceedings and must be
decided by the latter within (20) working days. In this case, the
protest against the election was presented to the med-arbiter
only after the lapse of almost (2) years after it was held. And in
that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever
presented against the election. Indeed, there was tacit
acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results
thereof, for during that period of almost (2) years, certain
significant events took place without demur or objection of any
sort on the part of private respondents and the rest of the
members of the Kapisanan: Timbungco officially made known to
the Bureau of Labor Relations the Kapisanan's disaffiliation from
the Federacion FOITAF and obtained a new certificate of
registration for the union after complying with the requisites
prescribed therefor; he and the other officers of the Kapisanan
negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded in
bringing about the execution of a new collective bargaining
agreement which was afterwards filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations in accordance with pertinent regulations; and
Timbungco and the entire membership of the Kapisanan
accepted benefits granted and assumed the obligations set out
in said collective bargaining agreement.
Disposition Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations are
nullified and set side.
6.5. CERTIFICATION OF
DESIGNATED MAJORITY
ART.
UNION
255. Exclusive bargaining representation and
workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. - The
labor organization designated or selected by the majority of
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
However, an individual employee or group of employees
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-
making processes of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their
rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and
employers may form labor-management councils:
Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such
labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the
majority of all employees in said establishment. (As
amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989).
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department
of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period
before the expiration of the collective bargaining
agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an
election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five
percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to
ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority
of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes.
The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes
cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which
provides for three or more choices results in
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 135-
(A256 continued)
no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving
the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number
of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%)
of the number of votes cast.vir
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989).
ILO Convention No. 135
Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971
Article 1
Workers' representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective
protection against any act prejudicial to them, including
dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers'
representative or on union membership or participation in union
activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or
collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements.
Article 2
1. Such facilities in the undertaking shall be afforded to workers'
representatives as may be appropriate in order to enable them
to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently.
2. In this connection account shall be taken of the
characteristics of the industrial relations system of the country
and the needs, size and capabilities of the undertaking
concerned.
3. The granting of such facilities shall not impair the efficient
operation of the undertaking concerned.
Article 3
For the purpose of this Convention the term workers'
representatives means persons who are recognised as such
under national law or practice, whether they are--
(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives
designated or elected by trade unions or by members of such
unions; or
(b) elected representatives, namely, representatives who are
freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance
with provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective
agreements and whose functions do not include activities which
are recognised as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in
the country concerned.
Article 4
National laws or regulations, collective agreements, arbitration
awards or court decisions may determine the type or types of
workers' representatives which shall be entitled to the protection
and facilities provided for in this Convention.
Article 5
Where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union
representatives and elected representatives, appropriate
measures shall be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that
the existence of elected representatives is not used to
undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their
representatives and to encourage co-operation on all relevant
matters between the elected representatives and the trade
unions concerned and their representatives.
Article 6
Effect may be given to this Convention through national laws or
regulations or collective agreements, or in any other manner
consistent with national practice.
Disini
Majority Union
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA
DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
494 SCRA 195
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
FACTS
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees.
This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
requirements.
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification
election was denied.
-Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’
refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
however suddenly went on strike
-Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
-Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll
reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
of union members.
ISSUE
1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and
not for all the employees of the Hotel.
HELD
1) No.
-As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
-The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the
DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive
representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner,
hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain
collectively in their behalf
-Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in
behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
-the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to
divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file
employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not
members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same
shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their
terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
conditions of work”
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 136-
- Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union
MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION V. BRION
482 SCRA 87
CHICO-NAZARIO: January 9, 2006
NATURE:
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
FACTS:
- Petitioner Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC) is a domestic
corporation engaged in mining business and operation, while
private respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union
Local 103 (NAMAWU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank and file employees of petitioner.
- On 29 January 1996, NAMAWU submitted its Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposals to petitioner. Due to
petitioner’s inaction to the proposals submitted by NAMAWU,
the latter filed on 19 March 1996, its first Notice of Strike with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB),
Bacolod City, for refusal to bargain and Unfair Labor Practice.
- Eventually, petitioner presented its counter-proposals and
started the CBA negotiations. While the negotiations were
going on, petitioner dismissed some workers effective 06 May
1996.
- NAMAWU filed a second Notice of Strike for Unfair Labor
Practice against petitioner.
- While the NCMB Bacolod City was conducting conciliation
meetings, petitioner issued Notices of Temporary Lay-off to its
selected rank and file employees effective 07 October 1996.
- One of the employees, Abuana, filed an individual case of
illegal dismissal.
- After the NCMB failed to conciliate the labor dispute between
NAMAWU and petitioner, then Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing, on 03
October 1996, assumed jurisdiction over the case
- In an order dated 30 July 1997 (Quisumbing order), Secretary
Quisumbing resolved the labor dispute in favor of NAMAWU:
(1) directing the reinstatement with backwages of the workers
laid-off in May and October 1996; (2) finding petitioner guilty of
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice; (3) directing the
parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement
incorporating all the terms and conditions of the previous
bargaining agreement; and (4) providing for across-the-board
increase of all rank-and-file workers.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted
by succeeding DOLE Secretary Cresenciano Trajano in an
order dated 17 April 1998 (Trajano order). The Trajano order
modified the Quisumbing order as follows: (1) setting aside
the finding of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice and
remanding these issues to the arbitration level of the NLRC for
a hearing on the merits; and (2) deleting the award of
backwages for the workers to be reinstated.
- Pending resolution of the issue of unfair labor practice and
illegal termination, the Company is directed to physically
reinstate all workers, whether union members or not who were
laid-off on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996.
- The Executive Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VI, National Labor Relations Commission, is hereby deputized
as Hearing Officer and is directed to conduct hearing/s and
receive evidence as expeditiously as possible on the issues of
unfair labor practice and terminations effected by the
Company on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996, and to submit
his Report and Recommendation to this Office within ten (10)
days from termination of the hearing.
Disini
- Meanwhile, the Labor Arbiter which was filed by
Abuana ruled that the retrenchment effected by MMC
on 07 May 1996 and 07 October 1996 were valid and
legal.
- Dissatisfied by the Quisumbing and Trajano orders,
petitioner MMC filed a petition for certiorari before this
Court
- In a resolution dated 06 July 1998 (Resolution), this
Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the
then Secretary of DOLE Quisumbing did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing his order dated 30
July 1997.
- Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the
Resolution.
- On 11 September 1998, NAMAWU filed a Motion for
Partial Execution with the DOLE which was not acted
upon due to the pendency of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
- During the pendency of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, the decision in St. Martin’s Funeral
Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission was
promulgated. Following the ruling in said case,
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of our resolution
dated 06 July 1998 was remanded to the Court of
Appeals for proper disposition.
- On 14 June 1999, the appellate court denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- On 10 February 2000, NAMAWU filed an Ex-Parte
Manifestation and Second Motion for Execution with
the Secretary of DOLE. The motion also sought
assistance from the Bureau of Working Conditions
(BWC) in the computation of the awards/benefits due
NAMAWU’s members under the Quisumbing order.
- On 25 July 2000, the BWC submitted to the DOLE its
findings and observation, coming up with a
computation in the aggregate amount of One Hundred
Fifty-Nine Million, Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy-One and 30/100 (P159,054,971.30) Pesos for
loss of time, benefits, rice subsidy, health insurance
bonus and backwages of union members who were
illegally dismissed.
- Petitioner filed a comment to the BWC findings on 08
September 2000, stating that the BWC computation
was erroneous for the following reasons: (1) there is
no legal basis for the computation of backwages
because the Trajano order deleted the award of
backwages made in the Quisumbing order; (2) the
entitlement to backwages of the employees retrenched
in May and October 1996 would be dependent on the
resolution of the cases for illegal dismissal and unfair
labor practice; and (3) the wage increase awarded by
the Secretary cannot be availed of by the other
employees who were not retrenched in May and
October 1996.
- On 18 November 2000, 149 employees of petitioner
who claimed were part of the 215 members of
NAMAWU filed a Motion for Intervention With Prior
Leave before the Office of the Secretary of DOLE.
- In an order dated 09 May 2001, DOLE Acting
Secretary Arturo D. Brion granted NAMAWU’s motion
for execution, approved BWC’s computation of the
benefits due to the laid-off employees and denied the
motion for intervention
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On 11
May 2001, then DOLE Acting Secretary Brion issued a
Partial Writ of Execution, directing to proceed to the
MMC premises for the execution of the same. In an
order dated o6 June 2001, Acting Secretary Brion
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- With the denial of petitioner’s motion, Carlos G. Nerja,
Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras, who claimed to represent
the 342 employees of petitioner at that time and who
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 137-
allegedly stand to be adversely affected by the enforcement of
the Partial Writ of Execution, filed a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals
- NAMAWU filed a motion for consolidation of the two petitions
which was granted by the appellate court in its order dated 12
November 2001.
- The Court of Appeals dispose of the two petitions by
dismissing them in a Decision dated 24 January 2002.
- Motions for reconsiderations were filed, which the Court of
Appeals denied in an order dated 18 March 2003.
- Carlos G. Nerja, Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras filed a petition for
review before this Court which was dismissed on 09 June
2003.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the CA erred in not ruling that the Trajano order modified
the Quisumbing order and thus, Brion abused his discretion in
ordering and issuing a writ of execution based on the
Quisumbing order
2. WON the CA erred in not ruling that NAMAWU had no legal
standing to seek the implementation of the assailed orders given
that majority of its total membership has chosen to disaffiliate
HELD:
1. NO
Reasoning
- It must be noted that the Trajano order omitted the findings of
unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal and the award of
backwages which were embodied in the Quisumbing order.
Since we upheld entirely the findings in the Quisumbing order,
i.e., illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, award of
backwages, reinstatement and wage increase in our
Resolution, as a result the Trajano order is necessarily
vacated.
- Furthermore, the dispositive portion could not have been
clearer as it categorically declares that the Secretary of Labor,
i.e., Leonardo Quisumbing, did not commit grave abuse in his
order dated 30 July 1997, thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of
showing that the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave
abuse of discretion in his order of July 30, 1997.
- The order that we sustained in the foregoing fallo is the
Quisumbing order which is dated 30 July 1997, and definitely
not the Trajano order which is dated 17 April 1998. Even if we
did not explicitly annul the Trajano order, nevertheless the
tenor of the Resolution’s dispositive portion indubitably
decreed that we sustained the order dated 30 July 1997 or the
Quisumbing order. Indeed, it is the dispositive part of the
judgment that actually settles and declares the rights and
obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, authoritatively,
notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent statements in
the body that may tend to confuse. It is the dispositive part
that controls, for purposes of execution. Hence, there is no
doubt that it was the Quisumbing order, not the Trajano order,
that we upheld in our Resolution and which should be the
basis of the writ of execution.
2. NO
Reasoning
- Article 256 of the Labor Code partly provides:
REPRESENTATION ISSUE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS. In
organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before
the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter
shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified
petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five (25%)
percent of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
xxxx
Disini
- At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
filed.
- According to the foregoing provision, for a union to become an
exclusive bargaining representative of a particular establishment,
it must emerge as winner in a certification election. In the case at
bar, there was no certification election held challenging the
majority status of NAMAWU as the exclusive bargaining
representative of petitioner’s employees. NAMAWU, therefore,
remains the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner’s
employees and possesses legal standing to represent them.
Dispositive: Petition denied
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v
LAGUESMA
236 SCRA 586
PUNO; September 21, 1994
FACTS
- Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election
with the Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a
bargaining representative for the rank-and-file employees of the
Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able
to secure a Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing
CBA with any labor organization.
- It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition,
Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by
DOLE as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-
and-file employees of Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged
between Transunion and ILO-Phils covering the company's rank-
and-file employees. The CBA was ratified. When the President of
ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union conflict followed and the subject
CBA was filed with DOLE, for registration purposes, only 3
months from its execution. The Certification of Registration was
issued by DOLE.
- ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings
initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the
existing CBA between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed
that the petition for certification election should be entertained
only during the freedom period, or sixty days before the
expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the
ground of prematurity.
- TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed
outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the
Labor Code, the prohibition against certification election under
Article 232 of the same Code should not apply to third parties
such as petitioner.
- The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter.
The MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied.
ISSUE
1. WON a certification election may be conducted
2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30-
day period prescribed under Article 231
HELD
1. NO
It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file
employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILO-
PHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by
Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA
with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and
filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the
director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS.
"as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall
remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion
of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification election be
conducted, outside of the sixty-day freedom period immediately
before the expiry date of the five-year term of the CBA.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 138- Disini
2.YES
Articles 231 and 232 of the Labor Code read:
"Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements.
---- . . . .
"Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the
Bureau or the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and
Employment for registration accompanied with verified proofs of its
posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification
by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of such
Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from receipt
thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from its
submission.
"xxx xxx xxx" Effect of Certification
"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. ---- The Bureau shall
not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action
which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing National v. San Miguel
collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under (pending)
Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."
Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads:
"Art. 253-A. Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties
may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, 6.7. BARS TO CERTIFICATION
be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status
of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no ELECTION
certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and 1. One Year Bar Rule
Employment outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date of Period Covered
expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. . . ."
It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the CBA within 30 R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION V LAGUESMA
days from date of execution under Article 231 was not met. The subject 227 SCRA 827
CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It was ratified on December QUIASON; November 16, 1993
8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for registration purposes on March 14,
1990. Be that as it may, the delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently NATURE Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 RoC, seeking to
explained, i.e., there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed set aside the Resolutions of the Undersecretary of the DOLE
to the presidency of ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for the conduct of
only on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume, as what the certification election, and denying the petitioner’s motion for
petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only on April 30, 1990, as 5 reconsideration
days before its registration, on the unsupported surmise that it was done
to suit the law that enjoins Regional Offices of DOLE to act upon an FACTS
application for registration of a CBA within five 5 days from its receipt - January 4, 1991- respondent Christian Labor Organization of
thereof. In the absence of any substantial evidence that DOLE officials the pHilippines (CLOP) filed with Med-Arbitration Unit of DOLE a
or personnel, in collusion with private respondent, had antedated the petition for certification election among the rank and file
filing date of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance employees of petitioner.
of official functions holds. - April 8, 1991- Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground
More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural requirement that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent
should not adversely affect the substantive validity of the CBA between did not include all the eligible employees of petitioner, but only
ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corp. covering the company's rank and the drivers, conductors and conductresses, excluding inspectors,
file employees. A collective bargaining agreement is more than a dispatchers, mechanics, washerboys.
contract. It is highly impressed with public interest for it is an essential - May 10, 1991- respondent CLOP rectified its mistake and filed
instrument to promote industrial peace. Hence, it bears the blessings a second petition for certification election, which included all the
not only of the employer and employees concerned but even the rank and file employees of the company who hold non-
Department of Labor and Employment. To set it aside on technical managerial and non –supervisorial positions.
grounds is not conducive to the public good.
ISSUE/S
WON the second petition for certification election should have
6.6.
ART. EXCLUSIVE
255. Exclusive bargaining representationBARGAINING
and workers’
participation in policy and decision-making. - The labor been filed after one year from the dismissal of the first petition
organization REPRESENTATIVE
designated or selected by the majority of AND the certification election under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the
employees inINDIVIDUAL
an appropriate collective Omnibus Rules Implementing the LC as amended, which says:
WORKERbargaining unit shall be the
exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the When to file: In the absence of collective bargain
purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee agreement duly registered in accordance with A231 of the
or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present Code, a petition for certification election may be filed any
grievances to their employer. time. However, no certification election may be held within
one year from the date of issuance of a final certification
election resul.t
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall
have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the HELD NO
Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to Reasoning Petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision.
participate in policy and decision-making processes of the “Final certification election result” means that there was an actual
establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a
will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this counting of votes. In this case, there was no certification election
purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management
councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such
labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the
majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by
Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 139- Disini
conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the - On May 5, 1989 the DWUEUALU filed a second notice of strike
ground of a defective petition which did not include all the employees charging the University with violation of the return-to-work order
who should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit. and unfair labor practices such as dismissal of union officers,
coercion of employees and illegal suspension. The Office of the
Disposition Petition is dismissed Secretary called for a series of conciliation and mediation
conferences between the parties. At the July 5, 1989
conference, the University agreed to submit its proposals on how
to settle amicably the labor dispute on or before July 17, 1989.
Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Trajano DWU failed to appear. Instead, its representative phoned in a
request for the resetting of the conference. Hence, the
201 SCRA 453 conference was rescheduled for July 19, 1989. DWU once again
(pending) failed to appear.
- DWUEU-ALU pursued its second notice of strike on November
24, 1989. The Secretary of Labor received a Resolution passed
2. Deadlock Bar Rule by the students urging his assumption of jurisdiction over the
labor dispute and the earliest resolution of the case.
Requirements Consequently, Secretary Drilon again ordered all striking workers
to return to work within 24 hours and the University to accept
National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry them back under the same terms and conditions of employment.
v. Trajano - The Secretary concluded that for reneging on the agreement of
May 10, 1988 and for its reluctance and subscription to legal
208 SCRA 18 delay, DWU should be declared in default. He also maintained
(pending) that since the University cannot claim deprivation of due process,
the Office of the Secretary of Labor may rightfully impose the
Union's May 19, 1988 collective bargaining agreement proposals
motu proprio.

ISSUES
No Deadlock WON in the absence of a certified CBA and there having been
no certification election held for more than 5 years, a certification
election is mandatory
DIVINE WORD UNIV. OF TACLOBAN V SEC OF
LABOR HELD
213 SCRA 759 NO.
ROMERO; September 11, 1992 Ratio In the absence of a CBA, an employer who is requested to
bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election
any time except upon a clear showing that one of these two
NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the orders of the Secretary of
instances exists: (a) the petition is filed within one year from the
Labor
date of issuance of a final certification election result or (b) when
a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or
FACTS
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
- September 6, 1984, Med-Arbiter certified the Divine Word University
lockout.
Employees Union (DWUEU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
Reasoning While there is no question that the petition for
of the Divine Word University (DWU). On March 7, 1985, DWUEU
certification election was filed by DWU after almost 4 years from
submitted its collective bargaining proposals. On March 26, 1985, the
the time of the certification election and, therefore, there is no
University replied and requested a preliminary conference to be held on
question as to the timeliness of the petition, the problem appears
May 28, 1985. However, two days before the scheduled conference,
to lie in the fact that the Secretary of Labor had found that a
DWUEU's resigned vice-president unilaterally withdrew the CBA
bargaining deadlock exists.
proposals. Consequently, the preliminary conference was cancelled.
- A "deadlock" is defined as the "counteraction of things
- After almost three years, DWUEU, which had by then affiliated with the
producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization
Associated Labor Union, requested a conference with the University to
caused by the opposition of persons or of factions (as in
continue the collective bargaining negotiations. Not having heard from
government or a voting body): standstill." There is a deadlock
the University, DWUEU-ALU sent a follow-up letter. Despite the letter,
when there is a “complete blocking or stoppage resulting from
the University persisted in maintaining silence.
the action of equal and opposed forces; as, the deadlock of a
- DWUEU-ALU filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining
jury or legislature.” The word is synonymous with the word
deadlock and unfair labor practice acts, specifically, refusal to bargain,
impasse which "presupposes reasonable effort at good
discrimination and coercion of employees. The conferences which were
faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, does not
held after led to the conclusion of an agreement on May 10, 1988.
conclude in agreement between the parties."
However, an hour before the agreement was concluded, the University
- In this case, there was no reasonable effort at good faith
filed a petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter ordered the
bargaining specially on the part of the DWU. Its indifferent
conduct of a certification election. DWUEU-ALU filed an urgent motion
attitude towards collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the
seeking to enjoin the Med-Arbiter from further acting on the matter of the
failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement. As it was evident
certification election. The Labor Secretary granted said motion.
that unilateral moves were being undertaken only by the
- On the other hand, DWUEU-ALU, consonant with the agreement,
DWUEU-ALU, there was no "counteraction" of forces or an
submitted its collective bargaining proposals on May 19, 1988. These
impasse to speak of.
were ignored by the University. Thereafter, marathon conciliation
- DWUEU was not entirely blameless in the matter of the delay in
conferences were conducted but to no avail. Hence, the Secretary of
the bargaining process. While it is true that as early as March 7,
Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute directing all striking
1985, it had submitted its collective bargaining proposals and
workers to report back to work within 24 hours and the management to
that, its subsequent withdrawal by the DWUEU vice-president
accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior
being unauthorized and therefore ineffective, the same
to the work stoppage. The Secretary also designated the NCMB to hear
proposals could be considered as subsisting, the fact remains
the case and to submit its report thereon.
that it remained passive for 3 years. The records do not show
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 140-
that during this 3-year period, it exerted any effort to pursue collective
bargaining as a means of attaining better terms of employment. It was
only after its affiliation with the ALU that it requested an initial
conference for the purpose of collective bargaining. That the DWUEU
abandoned its collective bargaining proposals prior to its affiliation with
ALU is further confirmed by the fact that in the May 10, 1988 agreement,
it bound itself to submit a new set of proposals. Under the
circumstances, the agreement of May 10, 1988 may as well be
considered the written notice to bargain referred to in Art. 250(a) of the
LC, which thereby set into motion the machinery for collective
bargaining, as in fact, on May 19,1988, DWUEU-ALU submitted its
collective bargaining proposals.
- Be that as it may, while the Court recognizes that technically, DWU has
the right to file the petition for certification election as there was no
bargaining deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer that the assailed
Orders be annulled would put an unjustified premium on bad faith
bargaining.
- Bad faith on the part of the University is further exemplified by the fact
that an hour before the start of the May 10, 1988 conference, it
surreptitiously filed the petition for certification election. And yet during
said conference, it committed itself to "sit down" with the Union.
Obviously, the University tried to preempt the conference which would
have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition far certification
election. In so doing, the University failed to act in accordance with Art.
252 of the Labor Code which defines the meaning of the duty to bargain
collectively as "the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith." Moreover, by filing
the petition for certification election while agreeing to confer with the
DWUEU-ALU, the University violated the mandate of Art 19 of the Civil
Code that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.
3. Contract Bar Rule
ART. 232. Prohibition on certification
election. - The Bureau shall not entertain any
petition for certification election or any other
action which may disturb the administration of
duly registered existing collective bargaining
agreements affecting the parties except
under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
Code. (As amended by Section 15, Republic
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
History
GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES' UNION OF THE
PHILIPPINES V SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE
108 PHIL 1112
MONTEMAYOR; July 26, 1960
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review an order of the Court of Industrial
Relations
FACTS
- The CIR directed that an election between the United Seamen's Union
of the Philippines (USUP) and GSMU be held among the unlicensed
members and crew of the respondent South Sea Shipping Lines. USUP
was thereafter certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.
Disini
- The Shipping Line and USUP entered into a CBA, which
provided that the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect for 2 years from its taking effect and thereafter for another
period 2 years, unless either party shall notify the other in writing
of its intention or election to terminate the agreement as of the
end of the current term. GMSU insists that this CBA was but a
renewal of an agreement between the USUP and Shipping Line
entered into sometime in 1955.
- More than 2 years after the holding of the last certification
election, GMSU filed with the CIR a petition for certification
election alleging that there were 2 labor unions to which were
affiliated unlicensed crew members; that as members of the
GMSU petitioners constituted 10% of all the unlicensed crew
members; and that there had not been a certification election
within 12 months before the filing of the petition. This was in
accordance with Section 12 (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875.
- USUP intervened and filed a motion for dismissal claiming that
there was an existing CBA between itself and the Shipping Line
entered for a period of 2 years, which period was reasonable,
and which agreement contained reasonable conditions of
employment, and that the existence of such agreement barred
another certification election.
- CIR, invoking the "contract-bar rule", granted the motion to
dismiss. It held that the then existing contract between the
Shipping Line and the USUP, which was for a period of two
years contained provisions regarding wages, closed shops,
check off, grievances, machinery and other conditions regarding
employment relationships. According to the CIR, these
circumstances plus the fact that there was no showing that the
contracting union was company dominated support the validity
and reasonableness of the agreement between the Shipping
Line and the USUP, the duly certified bargaining representative,
and that the existence of such contract barred the holding of a
certification election.
ISSUES
WON there should be a certification election
HELD
YES
Ratio When there is a bargaining contract for more than a year,
it is too early to hold a certification election within a year from the
effectivity of said bargaining agreement; also that a 2 year
bargaining contract is not too long for the purpose of barring a
certification election. For this purpose, a bargaining agreement
may run for 3, even 4 years, but in such case, it is equally
advisable that to decide whether or not within those 3 or 4 years,
a certification election should not be held, may well be left to the
sound discretion of the CIR, considering the conditions involved
in the case, particularly, the terms and conditions of the
bargaining contract. Where the bargaining contract is to run for
more than 2 years, the principle of substitution may well be
adopted and enforced by the CIR.
Reasoning
- When ever a substantial number of employees in an
appropriate bargaining agreement desires to be represented by
a union or organization other than that which had negotiated a
collective bargaining contract with the management, the CIR is
faced with the dilemma of the right of contract or the right of
representation:
- As a solution to this problem, there are three possibilities:
(1) hold that a CBA valid when made is a bar to a new
certification throughout its existence, regardless of the length of
its term (contract-bar)
(2) hold that employees may shift their allegiance during the term
of the agreement but that the contract continues in force with the
new union.
(3) refuse to proceed to an election, in the presence of a
collective bargaining contract where the contract granted
exclusive recognition is to be effective only for a reasonable
period and was negotiated by a union representing at the time a
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 141-
majority of the employees (in an appropriate unit) prior to any claim by a
rival labor organization'.
- The National Labor-Relations Board, which is the counterpart of our
CIR, regards the conflict as one which requires it to strike a balance
between the desirability of achieving stability in industrial relations
secured through bargaining, on the one hand, and the benefits flowing
from the grant of employee full freedom in their choice of representative,
on the other.
- The Board initially took the unqualified view that the existence of
agreements was no bar to certification of bargaining representatives.
This gave support to the doctrine of substitution whereby a change of
representatives would alter an existing contract only by "substituting the
new union for the old under its substantive terms"
- The Board subsequently held that a CBA of reasonable duration is "in
the interest of the stability of industrial relations", a bar to certification
elections. In adopting the "contract-bar policy", the Board was careful in
refusing to announce an inflexible rule as to its authority, and whenever
possible, it avoided a determination of the contract's effect on its power
of certification election.
- In 1947, the Board held that it would regard a 2 year contract as a bar
to an election until its expiration, because collective bargaining had: "So
emerged from a stage of trial and error (that) the time has come when
stability of industrial relations can better be served, without
unreasonably restricting employees in their right to change
representatives, by refusing to interfere with bargaining relations
secured by collective agreements for 2 years' duration."
- In 1953, the same Board announced that: "The time has arrived when
stability of labor relations can be better served, without unreasonably
restricting employees in their right to change representatives, by holding
as a bar collective bargaining agreements even for 5 years' duration
(when) a substantial part of the industry concerned is covered by
contracts with a similar term."
- From all this, it may be seen that the National Labor Relations Board
has not adopted an iron-clad policy, rigid and fixed, but rather one to be
applied according to the changing conditions and industrial practices.
Dispositive CIR order dismissing the petition for certification election
and refusing to allow the selection of a new bargaining agent was valid
under the circumstances obtaining at the time. However, inasmuch as
there has been a renewal of the bargaining agreement for another 2
years and because it seems that the present agreement is but a renewal
of the one entered into way back in 1955, so that until the expiration of
the present agreement, it is advisable that a new certification election be
held. Remanded to CIR.
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS
(CCLU) V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
60 SCRA 451
FERNANDEZ; Oct 31, 1974
NATURE
Original petition in SC – certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction
FACTS
- CMC renewed CBA with CELA, an affiliate of petitioner CCLU, a
legitimate labor organization.
- FFW, another organization, filed with NLRC a Petition for Certification
Election.
- A copy of CMC-CELA CBA was filed with BLR for certification; it was
certified.
- CMC filed answer to petition praying for dismissal of petition on ground
of contract-bar rule.
- CBA was also signed by Redson and RELA. It was filed with NLRC
and certified. FFW, however, had already filed Petition for Certification
Election
- Redson prayed for dismissal of petition on ground that petition was
barred by CBA which it had with RELA.
Disini
- CELA-CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed motion to dismiss petitions
for certification election.
- NLRC granted petitions and directed BLR to conduct
certification elections.
- This petition prays for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining NLRC from taking any action.
- SC Second Division allowed holding of certification election but
issued a restraining order enjoining respondents from opening
the ballot boxes, canvassing and announcing the results.
ISSUE
WON CBA has to be certified before it can constitute a bar to
petition for certification elections
HELD
YES
- Contract bar rule is a principle in labor law that a CBA of
reasonable duration is, in the interest of the stability of industrial
relations, a bar to certification elections.
- Assuming arguendo that a non-certified CBA may serve as a
bar to certification election, petitioners would still be bereft of
cause to complain. When petition was filed by FFW at CMC, the
CBA had not yet been filed.
- Petition for certification election at Redson was filed on a date
when no CBA had been entered into between Redson and
RELA.
- Law says that after 12 months, a certification election may be
requested either by the employer or a requisite number of
employees. The petitions allege that there has been no
certification election in company for the last 12 mos which
allegation was not denied by CMC and Redson.
- Law also says that it’s mandatory on SC to order election to
determine representative of employees where a petition is filed
by at least 10% of the employees
Disposition Petition is dismissed
FERNANDO, J., CONCURRING:
- The new Labor Code is scheduled to be operative 1st day of
next month - this case should not be the vehicle where doctrines
impressed with certain degree of novelty should be announced.
- In this case, the contract bar rule hardly poses any obstacle.
- LVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians Guild: Unless actuation of
CIR, here the NLRC, could be shown to deviate from basic norm,
a plea for reversal of order complained of would be marked by
futility.
- Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Benguet Consolidated
Inc.: SC has recognized a latitude of discretion in CIR, the
agency which is in a better position to see to it that the
certification election is property conducted.
- Federation of United Workers Organization v. CIR: Through
petition for certification, employees are given the opportunity to
make known who has right to represent them. What is equally
important is that not only some but all of them should have the
right to do so.
- While the right to free and unfettered choice by employees of
their exclusive bargaining representative should be respected,
there are circumstances which in the interest of stability of labor
relations, call for a relaxation in its observance.
- The contract bar rule in the US: Two competing values
clashed. Statute guarantees right to bargain through
representatives of their own choosing. Also, statute aims to
achieve stability. So the Board declared that the existence of a
CBA will not bar an election but the winning union was subject to
the existing agreement.
- The pragmatic approach has been followed, due note taken of
varied as well as changing conditions to make it truly responsive.
It’s going too far to affix to the contract bar rule the element of
inflexibility.
Rule Statement
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 142- Disini
to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good
faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting
LETRAN (AEFL) and ELEONOR AMBAS any grievances or questions arising under such agreement
340 SCRA 587 and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if
requested by either party but such duty does not compel
KAPUNAN; September 18, 2000 any party to agree to a proposal or to make any
Nature: Certiorari
concession.
FACTS:
- Salvador Abtria (AEFL President) initiated the renegotiation of its CBA
- Noteworthy in the above definition is the requirement on both
w/ Letran for the last 2 years of the CBA's 5 year lifetime from 1989-
parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and
1994. On the same year, the union elected a new set of officers Ambas
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose
emerged as the newly elected President.
of negotiating an agreement. Undoubtedly, AEFL lived up to this
- Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but Letran,
requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to
through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared for
LETRAN. On the other hand, petitioner devised ways and means
signing by the parties. The parties submitted the disputed CBA to a
in order to prevent the negotiation.
referendum by the union members, who eventually rejected the said
- Letran's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is
CBA.
obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals
- Letran accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the
presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals
NLRC. LA Madriaga decided in favor of Letran. However, the LA's
were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any
decision was reversed on appeal before the NLRC.
counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner
- January 1996, the union notified the NCMB of its intention to strike on
prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March
the grounds of Letran’ s: non-compliance with the NLRC (1) order to
13, 1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the
delete the name of Atty. Federico Leynes as the union's legal counsel;
Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as
and (2) refusal to bargain.
its excuse for failing to file its reply. This is a clear violation of
- January 18, 1996, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA
Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in
and to start negotiation on a new five-year CBA starting 1994-1999.
collective bargaining, to wit:
- February 7, 1996, the union submitted its proposals to petitioner, which
Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following
notified the union six days later or on February 13, 1996 that the same
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
had been submitted to its Board of Trustees. In the meantime, Ambas
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall
was informed through a letter dated February 15, 1996 from her superior
serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its
that her work schedule was being changed from Monday to Friday to
proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later
Tuesday to Saturday. Ambas protested and requested management to
than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.
submit the issue to a grievance machinery under the old CBA.
x x x
- Due to Letran's inaction, the union filed a notice of strike on March 13,
- Kiok Loy vs. NLRC: the company's refusal to make counter-
1996. The parties met on March 27, 1996 before the NCMB to discuss
proposal to the union's proposed CBA is an indication of its bad
the ground rules for the negotiation. The union received Letran's letter
faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an
dismissing Ambas for alleged insubordination. Hence, the union
answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear
amended its notice of strike to include Ambas' dismissal.
evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. In the case at bar,
- April 20, 1996, both parties again discussed the ground rules for the
petitioner's actuation show a lack of sincere desire to negotiate
CBA renegotiation. However, petitioner stopped the negotiations after it
rendering it guilty of unfair labor practice.
purportedly received information that a new group of employees had
- Moreover, the series of events that transpired after the filing of
filed a petition for certification election.
the first notice of strike in January 1996 show petitioner's resort
- June 18, 1996, the union finally struck. On July 2, 1996, public
to delaying tactics to ensure that negotiation would not push
respondent the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed
through. Thus, on February 15, 1996, or barely a few days after
jurisdiction and ordered all striking employees including the union
the union proposals for the new CBA were submitted, the union
president to return to work and for petitioner to accept them back under
president was informed by her superior that her work schedule
the same terms and conditions before the actual strike. Letran
was being changed from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to
readmitted the striking members except Ambas. The parties then
Saturdays. A request from the union president that the issue be
submitted their pleadings including their position papers which were filed
submitted to a grievance machinery was subsequently denied.
on July 17, 1996.
Thereafter, the petitioner and the union met on March 27, 1996
- Sec of Labor gave an order declaring Letran guilty of unfair labor
to discuss the ground rules for negotiation. However, just two
practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of Ambas with
days later, or on March 29, 1996, petitioner dismissed the union
backwages. Letran filed a MR which was denied.
president for alleged insubordination. In its final attempt to thwart
- CA: dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings of the Secretary of
the bargaining process, petitioner suspended the negotiation on
Labor and Employment.
the ground that it allegedly received information that a new group
of employees called the Association of Concerned Employees of
ISSUES:
Colegio (ACEC) had filed a petition for certification election.
(1) WON LETRAN is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain
Clearly, petitioner tried to evade its duty to bargain collectively.
with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations
Petitioner, however, argues that since it has already submitted
for a new CBA upon mere information that a petition for certification has
the union's proposals to the Board of Trustees and that a series
been filed by another legitimate labor organization
of conferences had already been undertaken to discuss the
ground rules for negotiation such should already be considered
HELD:
as acts indicative of its intention to bargain. As pointed out
1. NO.
earlier, the evidence on record belie the assertions of petitioner.
Petitioner, likewise, claims that the suspension of negotiation
REASONING:
was proper since by the filing of the petition for certification
1. A252 of the LC defines the meaning of the phrase "duty to bargain
election the issue on majority representation of the employees
collectively," as follows:
has arose. According to petitioner, the authority of the union to
Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. - The duty to
negotiate on behalf of the employees was challenged when a
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation
rival union filed a petition for certification election. Citing the case
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 143-
of Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises,
petitioner asserts that in view of the pendency of the petition for
certification election, it had no duty to bargain collectively with the union.
Ratio:
In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining
process there must be a valid petition for certification election
raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a
petition for certification election does not ipso facto justify the
suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must first
comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing
Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be
filed during the sixty-day freedom period. The "Contract Bar Rule"
under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, provides that: " .… If a collective
bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a
motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60)
days prior to the expiry date of such agreement."
-The rule is based on A 232, in relation to A253, 253-A and 256 of the
LC. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may
be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is
extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse of
the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as
continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly
executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to
ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by
preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by
them in good faith and for the stipulated original period.
In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994.
-The petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a legitimate
labor organization, was filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was
filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was
barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining
agreement. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue
and, as such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not
constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation. Reliance, therefore, by
petitioner of the ruling in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v.
Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced since that case involved a legitimate
representation issue which is not present in the case at bar.
- Significantly, the same petition for certification election was dismissed
by the Secretary of Labor on October 25, 1996. The dismissal was
upheld by this Court in a Resolution, dated April 21, 1997.
- In view of the above, there is no doubt that petitioner is guilty of unfair
labor practice by its stern refusal to bargain in good faith with
respondent union.
Dispositive: The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PREMEX v. SEC
OF LABOR
(PENDING)
BARBIZON PHILS. v. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR
261 SCRA 738
KAPUNAN; September 16, 1996
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule65 ROC
FACTS
- BUKLOD won the certification election as the sole bargaining
representative of the rank and file employees. A CBA was negotiated.
Disini
- While the CBA was still in force, several employees organized
themselves into the Nagkakaisang Supervisors Ng Barbizon
Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the Nagkakaisang Excluded
Monthly Paid Employees Ng Barbizon, Philippines, Inc.
(NEMPEBPI) allegedly because they were excluded from the
coverage of the existing CBA between petitioner and BUKLOD.
- NSBPI and NEMPEBPI each filed petitions for certification
elections. Both were dismissed by the arbiter. They appealed to
the SOLE. The SOLE ordered that a certification election be
conducted. 2 MFRs were denied. Thus this petition.
- Petitioner maintains its stance that the petition for certification
election filed by the NSBPI must necessarily fail because the
employees designated as "supervisors" cannot legally form a
supervisors' union by virtue of the BLR's final decision declaring
the abovementioned employees mere rank and file workers.
Being part of the rank and file, petitioner avers that said
employees belong to the "employer wide unit," which is the
appropriate bargaining unit of all its rank and file employees and
which is represented by the BUKLOD as the sole certified
bargaining agent.
- Petitioner further asserts that the Undersecretary of Labor
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting NSBPI's petition
for certification election as this was tantamount to an
unjustifiable reversal of the BLR's final ruling that the subject
employees are not supervisory employees, but merely rank and
file, due to the nature of their duties and functions.
ISSUE
1. WON the excluded employees (the “supervisors”) can form a
union for collective bargaining, when they were declared as
mere rank and file and there is already a union for rank and file
employees.
2. WON the existing CBA is a bar to the certification election.
HELD
1. YES
- Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, proceeding as it does from the
wrong premise. Petitioner obstinately believes that NSBPI's
petition for certification election was granted because the
employees carrying the appellation "supervisor" were deemed
supervisory employees. The status of the subject employees
however, is not the issue in the case at bar. Their status as
"supervisors" is not in dispute. The decision that settled with
finality that said employees are merely rank and file and this fact
has been accepted by the petitioning union NSBPI. NSBPI's
petition for certification election was granted because the subject
employees, including petitioner's monthly paid employees, were
expressly excluded from the bargaining unit and from the
coverage of the CBA executed between petitioner and BUKLOD,
as clearly stated therein. This is the real reason behind the
certification election in question. This was not successfully
debunked by petitioner.
- The exclusion of petitioner's "supervisors" from the bargaining
unit of the rank-and-file employees indiscriminately curtailed the
right of these employees to self-organization and representation
for purposes of collective bargaining, a right explicitly mandated
by our labor laws and "accorded the highest consideration."
- BUKLOD cannot successfully act as the bargaining agent of
and duly represent petitioner's "supervisor" employees since the
latter were expressly excluded from the appropriate bargaining
unit.
- The "one union-one company" rule is not without exception.
The exclusion of the subject employees from the rank-and-file
bargaining unit and the CBA is definitely a "compelling reason"
for it completely deprived them of the chance to bargain
collectively with petitioner and are thus left with no recourse but
to group themselves into a separate and distinct bargaining unit
and form their own organization.
- The receipt by petitioner's "supervisor" employees of certain
benefits under the CBA between BUKLOD and petitioner is not
sufficient to deny the petition for certification election filed by the
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 144-
labor organization formed by the excluded employees. It is not
equivalent to and does not compensate for the denial of the right of the
excluded employees to self-organization and collective bargaining.
2. NO
- The petition for certification election cannot be deterred by the
"contract-bar rule," which finds no application in the present case. The
petitioning union NSBPI is not questioning the majority status of Buklod
as the incumbent bargaining agent of petitioner's rank and file
employees. The petition for certification election is addressed to a
separate bargaining unit — the excluded employees of petitioner.
- A contract bar applies in a situation where the petition is directed
towards one and the same bargaining unit. This does not appear to
be so in the case considering the built-in-limitation in the CBA excluding
the workers sought to be represented by herein petitioner from its
coverage, albeit, their being admittedly rank and file employees.
- The certification election as ordered would only affect those rank and
file employees who are excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA.
Disposition Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
Incomplete Contract
BUKLOD NG SAULOG TRANSIT v. CASALLA
99 PHIL 16
PADILLA; May 9, 1956
NATURE
Petition for review
FACTS
-The respondents, 65 in number, employees of the Saulog Transit, Inc.,
filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for a certification
election, alleging that the total number of employees in the Saulog
Transit, Inc. was 583; that there were two labor organizations which
represented the employees in the Saulog Transit, Inc., to wit: the Buklod
ñg Saulog Transit and the Saulog Transit Employees Union; and that the
certification election prayed for was for the purpose of determining the
sole bargaining representative of the employees in the Saulog Transit,
Inc.
-The president of the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit filed its answer stating
that a collective bargaining agreement had been entered into by and
between the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit, a duly registered union with the
Department of Labor, on the one hand, and the Saulog Transit, Inc., on
the other;
-An election was held peacefully and orderly, the result thereof having
been forwarded to the Department of Labor, against which election and
the result thereof no protest as regards the legality thereof was lodged;
that having acquired a juridical personality from the time of its
registration, the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit entered into a collective
bargaining contract already referred to covering the well-being of the
members of which the respondents were still members.
-The Saulog Transit, Inc. filed a pleading entitled "Appearance and
Manifestation" averring that the allegation that the respondents
constituted 10 per cent of the total number of employees of the Saulog
Transit, Inc. was for the Court to determine; and that it had dealt and
had been dealing with the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit in accordance with
a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between them,
the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit representing the employees of the Saulog
Transit, Inc. as an industrial unit. the Court rendered judgment
directing . . . that a certification election be held
ISSUE
WON an order of certification election shall issue on the basis of the
evidence established
Disini
HELD
YES. The trial court found that the collective bargaining
agreement entered into by and between the Saulog Transit, Inc.
and the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit "does not touch in substantial
terms the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment of all the employees in the company
but seeks to establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers,
conductors and inspectors who are members of the Buklod ñg
Saulog." And even in the supplementary agreement, there is no
clear-cut stipulation as to "rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions or employment." In their reply
the respondents claim that such an agreement and the
supplementary agreement have not been identified and offered
in evidence and should not be taken into consideration. The trial
court took, however, into consideration both agreements and
found that the first agreement being incomplete does not bar a
certification election; and as to the supplementary agreement the
Court held that it having been entered into after the filing of the
petition for a certification election the same cannot and does not
bar a certification election. The affidavit filed by the President of
the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit is not mentioned in the order and
resolution appealed from. It is clearly an effort on the part of the
petitioner to supply what was lacking in the two agreements
already mentioned. The contention that as section, Republic Act
No. 875, does not require that the agreement be in writing unless
either party request that it be reduced to writing, thereby
insinuating that there had been a verbal understanding before
the written agreement was entered into, has no bearing and
effect in a case where there is a written agreement which the
Court of Industrial Relations found incomplete. In these
circumstances we are of the opinion that the collective
bargaining agreement entered is no bar to a certification election
at the instance of at least 10 per cent of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit, pursuant to section 12,
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875.
Disposition order and resolution AFFIRMED
Premature Contract
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC
PLASTIC V LAGUESMA
267 SCRA 307
MENDOZA; January 31, 1997
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
-Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic
(SAMAHAN) and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang
Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of
rank and file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC).
-MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election
-SAMAHAN countered by seeking the cancellation of MNMPP's
union registration, as a result, MNMPP's petition to be certified
as the bargaining agent was dismissed.
-MNMPP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who reversed the
decision of the Med-Arbiter and ordered the holding of a
certification election
-The PPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration but its motion was
denied.
- Accordingly, the pre-election conference was held
-Petitioner SAMAHAN moved to defer the conference,
alleging that there existed a collective bargaining agreement
between PPC and SAMAHAN which was a bar to the
certification election.
-MNMPP opposed the motion, contending that the execution of
the subject CBA during the pendency of the representation case
did not bar the holding of a certification election.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 145-
-On September 10, 1992, upon motion of MNMPP, the certification
election was finally set for October 6, 1992.
-On said date, the certification election was held, and MNMPP won.
-On October 9, 1992, SAMAHAN protested the result of the certification
election
-Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin, dismissed the election protest
--SAMAHAN appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It argued that the
contract-bar rule should be applied.
-Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma denied the appeal of SAMAHAN
and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter.
-SAMAHAN moved for a reconsideration, but its motion was denied on
July 29, 1993. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the
pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for
certification election bars the holding of a certification election
HELD
No.
-Petitioner's contention in its Motion for Deferment of Pre-election
Conference was that the CBA between it and the PPC signed during the
pendency of the representation proceedings, rendered the certification
election moot and academic.
-Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, §4
provides: The representation case shall not, however, be adversely
affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or
during last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the
pendency of the representation case.
-This rule was applied in the case of ALU-TUCP v. Trajano where
the Court held that the representation case will not be adversely
affected by a CBA registered before or during the freedom period
or during the pendency of the representation case.
-In ALU v. Calleja, it was also held that a CBA, which was prematurely
renewed, is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.
-Hence, the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the
pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for
certification election on August 24, 1990, cannot possibly prejudice the
certification election nor render it moot.
Disposition The petition for certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit
CITIZEN’S LABOR UNION-CCLU V CIR
18 SCRA 624
CASTRO; November 12, 1966
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction
FACTS
- The Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) filed a petition for
certification election with the CIR, alleging that it is a labor union
organized among the employees of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO)
Pandacan Terminal, Manila; that it represents the majority of the non-
supervisory employees of the said terminal unit; that there exists a
collective bargaining agreement between the Citizen’s Labor Union
(CLU) and the ESSO, of a duration of three (3) years and three (3)
months; and that its aim in asking for a certification election is merely to
determine which union will administer the contract during the remainder
of the term thereof. MME claims that the CLU can no longer be
considered as the representative of the rank and file of the employees
and laborers of ESSO at its Pandacan Terminal unit, because it has lost
its majority status inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of its
members have given up their membership therein.
- CLU and the ESSO filed motions to dismiss the petition on the ground
that an existing CBA is a bar to the holding of a certification election.
CIR denied such MD.
- The DOLE proceeded with the election and the result thereof shows
that the MME obtained votes of more than one-half of the rank and file
Disini
employees and laborers of the ESSO. The CIR certified the
MME as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
ISSUE
Which union should be recognized as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the ESSO employees at the Pandacan
Terminal unit?
HELD
The record is barren of evidence upon which this Court may
properly reach a definitive determination.
Reasoning It would seem then that the burden of coming
forward with proof of majority status is upon the union asserting
it. The CLU claims that it is the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent on the strength of its prior collective bargaining history; the
MME claims that it is the one that should be recognized on the
basis of the will of the employees.
- Against the claim of the MME that it represents the will of the
majority of the rank and file employees at the Pandacan
Terminal unit, is the manifestation, advanced with vehemence, of
both the CLU and the ESSO that after the secret ballot election,
the employee composition has substantially changed because a
great number of the employees and laborers in the Pandacan
Terminal unit have left their employment, retired, or been
compulsorily laid off with the approval of the CIR.
- Against the presumption of continued majority status is the
rule that such majority status does not continue forever ---
(1) "especially in face of an assertion and offer of proof to the
contrary"
(2) "in view of altered circumstances which have likely occurred
in the interim"
(3) "by a change in the conditions which demonstrates that a
shift in sentiment actually exists among the employees, and is
caused by other factors than the employer's refusal to bargain
collectively"
Disposition This Court is constrained to remand this case to the
CIR, with instructions that it exert and exercise, without delay,
the powers conferred upon it by law, and take such actions and
issue such orders as the environmental circumstances will
accordingly warrant.
Exception
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS.
(PWUP) VS. LAGUESMA, INTERNATIONAL
CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES (ICTS)
00 SCRA 00
CRUZ, March 18, 1992
NATURE PETITION for review of the order of the
Undersecretary of Labor and Employment
FACTS
-International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI) had a CBA
with the incumbent union, Associate Port Checkers and Workers
Union (APCWU) which was due to expire. The other unions in
ICTSI, Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA), Port
Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP), and Port Employees
Association and Labor Union (PEALU). SAMADA first filed a
petition for certification election with the consent of at least 25%
of the employees (consent signatures) in the bargaining unit
submitted 11 days after the petition. PEALU filed another petition
for certification election with the consent signatures 35 days after
the filing of the petition. PWUP filed a petition for intervention.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEULU were consolidated for joint
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
petition for certification election on the ground that the said
unions DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT SET
FORTH IN SECTION 6, RULE V, BOOK V OF THE
 Labor Law 2
IMPLEMENTING RULES9, specifically for non-compliance with the
requirement that the consent signatures should be filed also at the time
of filing. – motion to dismiss the consolidated petition upheld by med-
arbiter
-PWUP (intervenor) appealed to SEC OF LABOR: A26, LC did not
acquire the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the
petition for certification election. SAMADA and PEULU did not appeal.
Sec of labor dismissed PWUP’s appeal.
-ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for new CBA which was
subsequently ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit
and subsequently registered with DOLE.
PWUP’s contention: Sec. Laguesma committed grave abuse of
discretion in the application of A256 of LC; Under A256, Med-Arbiter
should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is
supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit
(consent signatures). SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with
the requirements of submitting consent signatures, even if they
submitted it several days after. The dismissal of the consolidated
petitions for certification election, and its petition for intervention, had the
effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
ICTSI’s contention: dismissal was based on A256, LC as implemented
by IR; Sec10, Rule V, Book V of IR states that decisions of SEC in
certification election cases shall be final and unappealable; Tupas vs.
Inciong cited where it was held that there would be no need for holding a
certification election when the incumbent union’s CBA with the employer
was ratified by majority of workers, and the majority affirmed their
membership in the incumbent union.
APCWU’s contention: PWUP had no personality to represent
SAMADA or PEALU, the principal parties in the case which had not
appealed. Invoked TUPAS case; claims that the ratification of the new
CBA by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of their
membership in the union that negotiated that agreement.
SOLGEN’s contention: agreed with petitioner that there has been
substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. A256 should be
liberally interpreted pursuant to A4, LC.
ISSUES
1. WON a certification election should be held
2. WON the consent signatures should be submitted together with the
petition [in relation to the 1st issue]
3. WON PWUP had legal standing to contest the decision on the petition
for certification election
HELD
1. YES
Reasoning. Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing
workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the
constant and unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a
certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor
organization should be the collective bargaining representative."
-The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where
they are working.
-Belyca Corporation vs. Ferrer-Ca1leja: the holding of a certification
election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented
-Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and
General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: x x x it has long been
settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the
holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive
and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent
the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic
concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the
exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election
notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. (Scout Ramon
9 management.
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective
bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately
order the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining
agreement and supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining
unit. Any petition filed before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%)
requirement shall be satisfied upon the filling of the petition, otherwise the petition shall be dismissed.
A2010 - 146- Disini
V. Albano Memorial College v. Noriel, 85 SCRA 494 [1978];
Vicmico Industrial Workers Asso. v. Noriel, 13 1 SCRA 569
[1984])
- The certification election is the best method of determining the
will of the workers on the crucial question of who shall represent
them in their negotiations with the management for a collective
bargaining agreement that will best protect and promote their
interests. It is essential that there be no collusion against this
objective between an unscrupulous management and a union
covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor, or at
least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its
representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and
support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the
real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the
holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the
suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy
observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over
substantial justice.
2. NO
Reasoning. The administrative rule requiring the simultaneous
submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of
petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to
frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the
workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in
Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more
reason why the regulation should at best be given only a
directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a
petition for certification election within the freedom period is
sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a
certification election, subject to the submission of the consent
signatures within a reasonable period from such filing,
-PAFLU v. BLR: “even conceding that the statutory requirement
of 30% of the labor force asking for a certification election had
not been strictly complied with, respondent Director is still
empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of
ascertaining which (of the contending labor organizations) shall
be the exclusive collective bargaining representative. (National
Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Luna, et al., 83 SCRA 607)”
3. YES. The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was
filed because the principal petitions had complied with the
requirement for the consent signatures as specified by Article
256. Its intervention should not be disallowed simply because of
the withdrawal or failure to appeal of SAMADA and PEALU.
Ratio.
Reasoning. PAFLU v. Ferrer-Calleja: xxx the requisite written
consent of at least 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit
applies to petitioners for certification election only and not to
motions for intervention. x x x As long as the motion for
intervention has been properly and timely filed and the
intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should
not be denied and this is so even if the eventual purpose of the
Motion For Intervention is to participate in the Certification
Election. After all, the original applicant had already met the 20%
requirement.
- As a matter of strict procedure, a petition for intervention should
be deemed automatically dismissed where the principal petition
itself failed. However, that technical rule should not be allowed to
prevent a correct determination of the real representative of the
workers in line with their constitutional rights to self-organization
and collective bargaining.
-The certification election is not a litigation but a mere
investigation of a non adversary character where the rules of
procedure are riot strictly applied. Technical rules and objections
should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union
that has the support or confidence of the majority of the workers
and is thus entitled to represent them in their dealings with
Obiter:
TUPAS VS. INCIONG
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 147-
-SC modified Tupas in Associated Labor Unions vs. Calleja: even if CBA
was ratified, certification election not yet moot and academic. There is
no contract-bar rule (where the law prohibits the holding of
certification elections during the lifetime of the collective
bargaining agreement).
-Tupas did not say that the mere ratification of the CBA by the majority
of the workers signified their affirmation of membership in the
negotiating union.
-requirements: (1) ratification of the CBA, (2) affirmation of membership
in the negotiating union. The second requirement has not been
established in the case at bar as the record does not show that the
majority of the workers, besides ratifying the new CBA, have also
formally affiliated with APCWU.
-Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the
Labor Code: representation case shall not be adversely affected by a
collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a
subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.
As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation
case was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final
agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.
DECISIONS OF SEC OF LABOR FINAL AND INAPPEALABLE
San Miguel Corp. v. Secretary of Labor: It is generally understood that
as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative
power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of
such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by statute. Judicial review is proper in caw of lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged
order dated August 21, 1990, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
public respondent is DIRECTED to schedule and bold certification
election among the workers of the International Container Terminal
Services, Inc., this to be done with all possible dispatch. No costs.
Not Registered CBA
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v LAGUESMA
236 SCRA 586
PUNO; September 21, 1994
FACTS
- Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election with the
Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a bargaining
representative for the rank-and-file employees of the Transunion
Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able to secure a
Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor
organization.
- It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition, Integrated
Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by DOLE as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged between Transunion and
ILO-Phils covering the company's rank-and-file employees. The CBA
was ratified. When the President of ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union
conflict followed and the subject CBA was filed with DOLE, for
registration purposes, only 3 months from its execution. The Certification
of Registration was issued by DOLE.
- ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings initiated
by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the existing CBA
between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed that the petition for
certification election should be entertained only during the freedom
period, or sixty days before the expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter
dismissed the petition on the ground of prematurity.
- TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed
outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the Labor Code,
the prohibition against certification election under Article 232 of the
same Code should not apply to third parties such as petitioner.
- The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter. The
MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied.
ISSUE
1. WON a certification election may be conducted
Disini
2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30-
day period prescribed under Article 231
HELD
1. NO
It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file
employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILO-
PHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by
Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA
with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and
filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the
director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS.
"as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall
remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion
of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification election be
conducted, outside of the sixty-day freedom period immediately
before the expiry date of the five-year term of the CBA.
2.YES
Articles 231 and 232 of the Labor Code read:
"Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements.
---- . . . .
"Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the
same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Office of the
Department of Labor and Employment for registration
accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two
conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the
majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of
such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from
receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau
with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five
(5) days from its submission.
"xxx xxx xxx"
"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. ---- The Bureau
shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duly
registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting
the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
Code."
Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads:
"Art. 253-A. Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the
parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect
is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside
the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of
such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . ."
It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the CBA
within 30 days from date of execution under Article 231 was not
met. The subject CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It
was ratified on December 8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for
registration purposes on March 14, 1990. Be that as it may, the
delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently explained, i.e.,
there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed to the
presidency of ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE
only on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume, as
what petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only on April 30,
1990, as 5 days before its registration, on the unsupported
surmise that it was done to suit the law that enjoins Regional
Offices of DOLE to act upon an application for registration of a
CBA within five 5 days from its receipt thereof. In the absence of
any substantial evidence that DOLE officials or personnel, in
collusion with private respondent, had antedated the filing date
of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance of
official functions holds.
More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural
requirement should not adversely affect the substantive validity
of the CBA between ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corp.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 148-
covering the company's rank and file employees. A collective bargaining
agreement is more than a contract. It is highly impressed with public
interest for it is an essential instrument to promote industrial peace.
Hence, it bears the blessings not only of the employer and employees
concerned but even the Department of Labor and Employment. To set it
aside on technical grounds is not conducive to the public good.
REGISTERED CBA
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE
PHILS V NLRC (CENAPRO)
305 SCRA 219
PURISMA, J.; March 25, 1999
NATURE
- petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- petitioners were casual EEs of private respondent CENAPRO
Chemicals Corp. (CCC) of which the collective bargaining representative
of all rank and file EEs was CENAPRO Employees Assn (CCEA). Their
CBA excluded casual EEs from membership. The casual EEs who had
rendered at least 1-6 years of service sought regularization but were
denied, thus forming themselves into an organization affiliated with the
Association of Independent Unions in the Phils (AIUP). AIUP filed a
petition for certification election which CCEA opposed based on the
contract bar rule. AIUP filed a notice of strike on the grounds of
systematic union busting.
-While on strike, the union perpetrated illegal acts such as the
padlocking of the company’s gate and preventing non-striking EEs from
reporting to work. CCC filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC which
granted a TRO. Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practices
and illegal lockout while CCC filed a complaint for illegal strike. The
Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and dismissed petitioner’s
complaint. 5 union officers lost employment status, 15 union members
were not reinstated due to quitclaims, 4 workers were ordered reinstated
(petitioners herein).
-both parties appealed. Pending the appeals, the 4 workers were
reinstated upon motion of AUIP; CCC prayed that separation pay be
given instead. CCC argued that reinstatement was inappropriate due to
strained relations but the Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution
directing reinstatement. CCC appealed again; NLRC affirmed in toto the
Labor Arbiter’s decision. CCC filed an MFR; NLRC modified its decision,
ordering instead the payment of separation pay. Hence this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. WON respondent company was guilty of the unfair labor practice of
systematic union busting
HELD
1. NO.
Reasoning The strike staged by petitioner was in the nature of a union-
recognition-strike. Such a strike is meant to compel the employer to
recognize one’s union as the bargaining representative to work out a
CBA despite its doubtful majority status. At the time AIUP filed the
petition for certification election, there was an existing CBA between
CCC and CCEA, the incumbent bargaining representative.
-As such, this petition should not have been entertained because of the
contract bar rule (A232 LC). When a CBA has been duly registered, a
petition for certification election or motion for intervention may only be
entertained within 60 days prior to the expiry of said agreement. Hence,
CCC acted accordingly and did not commit union busting.
Disposition Petition Granted.
EXPIRED CBA
Disini
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN vs.
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY
OF LETRAN and ELEONOR AMBAS
340 SCRA 587
KAPUNAN; Sep 18, 2000
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
The Court found the petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran
guilty of unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the
newly-elected representative of the Association of Employees
and Faculty of Letran in the person of Eleanor Ambas. It filed
the present petition seeking reversal of the decision of the CA
and posed the argument that the reason why it suspended the
ongoing negotiations for a new CBA was because a petition for
certification has been filed by another legitimate labor
organization.
ISSUE
WON petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the
ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) upon mere information that a petition for
certification has been filed by another legitimate
labor organization
HELD YES.
Ratio In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the
bargaining process there must be a valid petition for certification
election raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the
mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso
facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The
petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for
certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom
period. The Contract Bar Rule under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V,
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides
that: . If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly
registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition
for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
agreement. The rule is based on Article 232,[8] in relation to
Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of the Labor Code. No petition for
certification election for any representation issue may be filed
after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is
extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite
the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still
considers the same as continuing in force and effect until a
new CBA shall have been validly executed. Hence, the
contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to ensure
stability in the relationship of the workers and the company
by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier
entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated
original period.
Reasoning In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA
was from 1989-1994. The petition for certification election by
ACEC, allegedly a legitimate labor organization, was filed with
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May
26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day
freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the
existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining
agreement. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation
issue and, as such, the filing of the petition for certification
election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.
DISPOSITION
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 149-
6.8. SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATION
ELECTION
Prejudicial Question Rule
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It shall
be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere
with the formation or administration of any labor
organization, including the giving of financial or other
support to it or its organizers or supporters;
BF Goodrich Phils. v. B.F. Goodrich Confidential and
Salaried Employees Union
(pending)
UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION VS BLR
(JULY CONVENTION)
128 SCRA 316
MELENCIO- HERRERA ; March 22, 1984
FACTS:
- United CMC Textile Workers Union is the incumbent collective
bargaining representative of all rank and file workers of
CENTEX. Respondent PAFLU is also a legitimate labor
organization seeking representation as the bargaining agent
of the rank and file workers of CENTEX.
- On August 31, 1978, CMC filed a complaint for Unfair Labor
Practice (ULP Case) against CENTEX and PAFLU alleging
that CENTEX had helped and cooperated in the organization
of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. Local PAFLU by allowing the
organizing members of the PAFLU to solicit signatures of
employees of the company who are members of the
complainant union to disaffiliate front complainant union and
join the respondent PAFLU, during company time and inside
the company premises on August 21, 1978 and the following
days thereafter.
- While the ULP Case was pending, PAFLU filed a Petition for
Certification Election (the Certification Case, for short) among
the rank and file workers of CENTEX
- CMC intervened in the Certification Case and filed a Motion to
Dismiss. It then filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of
Labor Relations for deadlock in the CBA negotiations with
CENTEX. The parties having failed to effect a conciliation, the
Labor Minister assumed jurisdiction on the Deadlock Case.
- In the Certification Case the Med-Arbiter issued an Order for
the holding of a certification election among CENTEX rank
and file workers, whereby qualified voters could choose either
PAFLU or petitioner as the collective bargaining
representative or No Union at all. On appeal, this was affirmed
by respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WON public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming
the Order of the Med-Arbiter calling for a certification election despite:
(a) the pendency of an unfair labor practice case filed by petitioner
charging respondent PAFLU as being company-dominated: (b) the
existence of a deadlock in negotiations for renewal of the collective
bargaining agreement between petitioner and the Central Textile Mills,
Inc. (CENTEX, for short); and (c) a reasonable doubt as to whether the
Disini
30% requirement for holding a certification elections has been
met.
HELD YES
The case can be resolved on the basis of the first
issue alone which must be answered in the affirmative. Under
settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal charge of
company domination is a prejudicial question that, until decided,
bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason being
that the votes of the members of the dominated union would not
be free.
The ULP Case was filed anterior to the Certification
Case. There is no assertion that such complaint was flimsy, or
made in bad faith or filed purposely to forestall the certification
election. So no reason existed for the Industrial Court to depart
from its established practice of suspending the election
proceeding. If there is a union dominated by the company, to
which some of the workers belong, an election among workers
and employees of the company would not reflect the true
sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees
because the votes of the members of the dominated union would
not be free. And we have held, through Mr. Justice J.B.L.
Reyes. that such diarge of company domination is a prejudicial
question that unid decided, shall suspend or bar proceedings for
certification election.
The rationale for the suspension of the election proceedings has
been further amplified as follows:
Only a formal charge of company domination may serve as a
bar to and stop a certification election, the reason being that if
there is a union dominated by the Company, to which some of
the workers belong, an election among the workers and
employees of the company would riot reflect the true sentiment
and wishes of the said workers and employees from the
standpoint of their welfare and interest, because as to the
members of the company dominated union, the vote of the said
members in the election would not be free. It is equally true,
however, that the opposition to the holding of a certification
election due to a charge of company domination can only be
filed and maintained by the labor organization which made the
charge of company domination because it is the entity that
stands to lose and suffer prejudice by the certification election,'
the reason being that its members might be overwhlemed in the
voting by the other members controlled and dominated by the
Company.
There would be an impairment of the integrity of the
collective bargaining process if a company-dominated union
were allowed to participate in a certification election. The timid
the timorous, and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could
easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of
management.
Party and Issue
BARRERA V CIR (PAWO)
GRN L-32853
FERNANDO; September 25, 1981
Facts:
Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name
of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged
an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The
unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of
failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike.
Issue
WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the
employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice
case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with
respondent-unions
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 150-
Held
No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays)
If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a
certification election of a company dominated union, as a result of which
a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was
filed, the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a
proceeding before such voting could take place. However, In this case
the situation is exactly the reverse. It is management that would have an
unfair labor practice case filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some
of its employees concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a
certification election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way,
the result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an organization
bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. The difficulties
and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of
the personnel, who had not as yet made up their minds one way or the
other. This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing
an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit
should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not,
to prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the
organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved,
in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also
the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that
management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of
its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with
things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement
sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim,
lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays).
Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention
of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks
of the labor organizations 'designated or selected for the purpose of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law
clearly contemplates all the employees, not only some of them. As much
as possible then, there is to be no unwarranted reduction in the number
of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that
in the meanwhile, which may take some time, some of those who are
employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair
labor practice case."
Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike
and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically
follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to
participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their
jobs.
Disposition petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed
United CMC Textile Workers Union vs Bureau of
Labor Relations (PAFLU)
128 SCRA 316
Melencio-Herrera, J; 1984
NATURE Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- This is a dispute between two unions, the petitioner and the
private respondent, vying to be the collective bargaining
representative of the rank and file employees of Central Textile
Mills (CENTEX).
- Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice alleging that
private respondent is a company union in that CENTEX had
"helped and cooperated in the organization of the Central Textile
Mills, Inc. – Local PAFLU.
- Thereafter, PAFLU filed a petition for a certification which was
approved by the public respondent.
- Petitioner then filed a notice of strike which was prevented when
the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction of the case.
- The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations approved the
Disini
certification election. Hence this petition alleging error in
the interpretation of the law by the said Director.
ISSUE/S
WON the pendency of the ULP Case charging a participating
union in the certification election proceedings as company
dominated is a prejudicial question to the conduct of the election
HELD
Yes. Under settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal
charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that, until
decided, bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason
being that the votes of [be members of the dominated union
would not be free. The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31,
1978, or anterior to the Certification Case, which was presented
on September 5, 1978, The pendency of the charge was known
to respondent public official by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss
filed by petitioner as intervenor in the Certification Case. No
allegation has been made that said ULP Case was instituted in
bad faith to forestall the Certification Case.
- "What is settled law, dating from the case of Standard Cigarette
Workers' Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations (101 Phil. 126),
decided in 1957, is that if it were a labor organization objecting to
the participation in a certification election of a company-
dominated union, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair
labor practice case against tire employer was filed, the status of
the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before
such voting could take place.”
Disposition
The resolution of the director is reversed and set aside.
6.9. EFFECT, PENDING PETITION,
CANCELLATION TRADE
UNION REGISTRATION
ART. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The
following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with
the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the
list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the
preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption
or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto;
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit
these documents together with the list of the newly
elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses
within thirty (30) days from election;cvirtual law library
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the
Bureau within thirty (30) days after the closing of every
fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in
the preparation of the financial report itself;
(e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo"
system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by
law;
(f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which
provide terms and conditions of employment below
minimum standards established by law;
(g) Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation
fees from employers;
(h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code,
checking off special assessments or any other fees without
duly signed individual written authorizations of the
members;
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the
Bureau once a year or whenever required by the Bureau;
and
(j) Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237
and 238.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 151- Disini
by the Constitution are not impaired or compromised. It is
axiomatic that any demands of court employees for higher
compensation or improved facilities must be viewed in the
context of the fiscal autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution to
the Judiciary. (Constitution, Article VIII, Section 3). Neither
DOLE, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), nor any other
agency would have jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. And
since unresolved legal questions commenced elsewhere are
ultimately decided by us, the final decision on all such questions
would still be with this Court.
- All this does not mean that the separation of powers doctrine
ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES requires us to supervise the details of self-organization activities
V FERRER-CALLEJA in the courts. In the same way that CSC validly conducts
203 SCRA 596 competitive examinations to grant requisite eligibilities to court
employees, we see no constitutional objection to DOLE handling
GUTIERREZ JR; November 15, 1991 the certification process in the Court of Appeals, considering its
expertise, machinery, and experience in this particular activity.
NATURE
Executive Order No. 180 requires organizations of government
Petition to ascertain the power, if any, of DOLE, more specifically the
employees to register with both CSC and DOLE. This
BLR, to supervise the activities of government employees - in this case,
ambivalence notwithstanding, the CSC has no facilities,
unions of judiciary personnel who serve in the CA
personnel, or experience in the conduct of certification elections.
The BLR has to do the job.
FACTS
- ACAE cannot persuasively challenge the validity of Executive
- April 4, 1990 > Union of Concerned Employees of the Court of Appeals
Order No. 180 because its very personality to bring this suit is
(UCECA), a registered union filed a petition for accreditation and/or
premised on its having organized under the same executive
certification election with the BLR alleging that the Association of Court
order. The first paragraph of the petition reads:
of Appeals Employees (ACAE) which is the incumbent bargaining
Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS
representative, no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the rank-
EMPLOYEES, ACAE for brevity, is an association of
and-file employees. The UCECA alleged that there was a mass
government employees duly organized and existing under and
resignation of ACAE members on April 14, 1989.
by virtue of Executive Order No. 180, duly accredited as the
- May 10, 1990 > ACAE filed its Comment and/or Opposition. It stated
exclusive representative of the rank-and-file employees of the
that the listing by the ACAE of its membership at three hundred three
Court of Appeals…
(303) employees was a product of fraud. It charged the UCECA with
2. NO
misrepresentation, forgery and perjury in attaching to its petition, a copy
Ratio The established rule is correctly followed by the public
of the names of members some of which were twice listed, written
respondent that an order to hold a certification election is proper
without consent or unsigned, and some of the signatures of which were
despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the
forged. In addition, the petitioner alleged that some of the UCECA
registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for
members, upon learning of the fraudulent act, resigned from the union.
this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it
- In its reply, the UCECA stated that its registry book was not smeared
still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order
with fraud and claimed that any mistakes were only clerical errors.
directing a cancellation.
- June 18, 1990 > ACAE filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of
Reasoning
Registration of the UCECA in BLR on the ground of fraud and
- It is the policy of the State in protecting the rights of labor to
misrepresentation by UCECA in obtaining its Registration Certificate and
ensure and maintain industrial peace. For this reason, all
in preparing its Registry Book of members
employees of an appropriate bargaining unit shall be given an
- July 16, 1990 > UCECA filed a motion to dismiss for being dilatory, to
opportunity to organize and to determine which labor
which ACAE replied that the maxim of res ipsa loquitur should be
organization should be their exclusive bargaining representative.
applied as the "fraudulent documents submitted by UCECA speak for
Hence, a petition for certification election filed by an interested
themselves."
labor organization shall be dealt with accordingly, with a view to
- July 30, 1990 > BLR ruled that the cancellation proceedings is not a
attaining this objective. This is especially true when it involves
bar to the holding of a certification election. It granted the UCECA's
the ultimate respect for and protection of the rights of
prayer for a certification election. BLR found that UCECA was supported
government employees. In granting to employees in the civil
by three hundred three (303) or forty (40%) percent of the seven
service the right to organize, a procedure has been enacted to
hundred sixty two (762) rank-and-file employees of the court. ACAE's
allow them to select what union shall be the recognized
motion for reconsideration was denied.
representative for all those in one agency, i.e., a certification
- August 21, 1990 > BLR conducted a pre-election conference.
election. (Sections 5, 6 and 12; Executive Order No. 180;
- Feeling that it was being stampeded into participating in a certification
Sections 3 and 4, Rule V and Rule VI, Rules and Regulations to
election, ACAE filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. We issued
Govern the Exercise of the Government Employees to Self-
a temporary restraining order effective August 29, 1990.
Organization)
Disposition Petitioner having failed to show grave abuse of
ISSUES
discretion committed by the public respondent, the petition is
1. WON BLR acted with grave abuse of discretion when it granted the
hereby DISMISSED. The assailed orders of the public
petition for certification election to determine the certified bargaining
respondent are AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order
agent to represent the rank-and-file employees of the CA
issued on August 29, 1990 is LIFTED.
2. WON a petition for cancellation of registration of the union requesting
for a certification election is a bar to the resolution of a prior petition for
certification election PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V
LAGUESMA (Nagkakaisang-Lakas ng
HELD
1. NO Manggagawa)
- It is the function of this Court to regulate all activities of Judges and 271 SCRA 593
court personnel, the Supreme Court included, to the end that the KAPUNAN; April 18, 1997
independence, effectiveness, and integrity of the judiciary as mandated
 Labor Law 2 A2010 - 152- Disini
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
- July 9, 1993: Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-
Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a petition for certification
election with the Department of Labor in behalf of the rank and
file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation
(Pizza Hut).
- August 20, 1993: Progressive (petitioner) filed a verified
Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and
misrepresentation in the respondent Union's registration
making it void and invalid. Among the bases of fraud was the
fact that while the application for registration of the charter
was supposed to have been approved in the organizational
meeting held on June 27, 1993, the charter certification issued
by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one
(1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, and that the
Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition
were not properly acknowledged and notarized.
- August 30, 1993: Progressive filed a Petition seeking the
cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud
and falsificatio. Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with the
Med-Arbiter requesting suspension of proceedings in the
certification election case until after the prejudicial question of
the Union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings
for cancellation of registration.
- In an Order dated September 29, 1993, Med-Arbiter Rasidali
C. Abdullah directed the holding of a certification election
among petitioner's rank and file employees.
- On appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor, Labor
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma in a Resolution dated
December 29, 1993 denied the same.

ISSUE
WON after the necessary papers and documents have been
filed by a labor organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor
Relations merely becomes a ministerial function. (Action and
Denial of Application and Remedy)

HELD NO
Ratio Registration requirements specifically afford a measure
of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into
joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose
is to control union funds or use the labor organization for
illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid exercise of the
police power, because the activities in which labor
organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged
directly affect the public interest and should be protected.
EFFECT, PENDING PETITION, CANCELLATION TRADE UNION
REGISTRATION (P.24)
- Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate
labor organization it begins to possess all of the rights and
privileges granted by law to such organizations.
- Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and
documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization
irregularly recognized. Under such circumstances, the labor
organization, not being a legitimate labor organization,
acquires no rights, particularly the right to ask for certification
election in a bargaining unit. The invalidity of respondent
Union's registration would negate its legal personality
to participate in certification election.

Disposition Petition is granted and remanded to Med-Arbiter.