494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Once that requisite is complied with, however, the
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
No. L-48347. October 3, 1978. *
SCOUT RAMON V. ALBANO MEMORIAL COLLEGE,
petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, and
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (Scout Ramon V. Albano
Memorial College Chapter), respondents.
Labor Law; Certification Election; Concept and purpose of
certification election.The same principle was again given
expression in language equally emphatic in the subsequent case of
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Bureau of Labor
Relations: Petitioner thus appears to be woefully lacking in
awareness of the significance of a certification election for the
collective bargaining process. It is the fairest and most effective way
of determining which labor organization can truly represent the
working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the will of the
majority, if given expression in an honest election with freedom on
the part of the voters to make their choice, is controlling. No better
device can assure the institution of industrial democracy with the
two parties to a business enterprise, management and labor,
establishing a regime of self-rule. That is to accord respect to the
policy of the Labor Code, 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.
Same; Same; Same; Bureau of Labor Relations may order
holding of certification election despite failure to meet 30% consent
________________
*SECOND DIVISION.
495
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 495
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
requirement; Order for holding certification election valid even if
30% requirement was not met at the time of filing of petition provided
the same were thereafter met.Conformably to the above basic
concept, this Court, in the aforesaid Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions decision, 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.
Code makes clear that 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. Necessarily then,
the argument of petitioner as to the inability of private respondent
to come up with the required signatures when the petition was first
filed falls to the ground. At any rate, additional signatures were
subsequently secured. The allegation that there was thereafter a
retraction on the part of a number of such signatories lends added
support to the decision arrived at by respondent Noriel that the only
way of determining with accuracy the true will of the personnel
involved in the bargaining unit is to conduct a certification election.
At any rate, that is a factual matter, the resolution of which by
respondent Noriel is entitled to respect by this Tribunal.
Same; Same; Same; Employer should maintain hands-off policy
in disputes over question of majority union; Ill-effects of intervention
of management to the holding of certification election; Case at bar.
There is relevance likewise to this excerpt from Monark
International, Inc. v. Noriel, cited in the Comment of Solicitor
General Mendoza: There is another infirmity from which the
petition suffers. It 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, a
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 contractbar rule. This case certainly does not tall
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 unions That is repugnant to the concept of
collective bargaining. That is
496
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
against the letter and spirit of welfare legislation intended to
protect, labor and to promote social justice. The judiciary then
should be the last to look with tolerance at such efforts of an
employer to take part in the process leading to the free and
untrammeled choice of the exclusive bargaining representative of
the workers.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court, Certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Martiniano A. Valdisimo for petitioner.
Jaime D. Lauron for private respondent.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
General Reynato S, Puno and Solicitor Jesus V. Diaz for
the Public Respondent.
FERNANDO, Acting C.J.:
The grave abuse of discretion imputed to respondent Director
of Labor Relations Carmelo C. Noriel, when he ordered a
certification election at the instance of private respondent,
Federation of Free Workers, was his alleged failure to abide
by previous rulings of the Department of Labor. Assuming
such to be the case, the point raised is not decisive of this
controversy. As was made apparent in the Comment of
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, the challenged order
1
conforms to the decisions of this Court. Where the law is
concerned, it is this Tribunal that speaks authoritatively.
Petitioner has failed to make out a case. We dismiss.
The controversy began with the filing of a petition for
certification election on September 22, 1977 by the Scout
Ramon V. Albano Memorial College Chapter of private
respondent labor union. It alleged that the written consent of
67 employees out of an alleged total working force of 200, more
or less, had been secured. There was, on October 21, 1977, a
motion to dismiss the petition filed by the employer, the
present petitioner. It was based on the lack of the 30% consent
require-
_____________
1 He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and
Solicitor Jesus V. Diaz.
497
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 497
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
ment, as there were 250 employees, the required thirty
percent of the said work force being 75. With the figure of the
actual number of employees in the school establishment thus
supplied, private respondent submitted on October 26, 1977
the additional signatures of 22 employees in support of its plea
for a certification election. There was an opposition on the part
of the present petitioner. It was filed on November 2, 1977.
Then came, fifteen days later, an order from the Med-Arbiter
assigned to the case dismissing the petition for certification on
the ground that the compliance with the 30% requirement
must be shown as of the time of its filing. Private respondent
appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations such order of the
MedArbiter dismissing its petition. Respondent Noriel on
February 8, 1978 sustained the appeal, ordering a certification
election at the Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College
within twenty (20) days from receipt thereof, with the follow-
ing as contending unions: 1. FFW (Scout Ramon V. Aibano
Memorial College Chapter); 2. No Union. Petitioner moved for
its reconsideration, but it did not succeed. An appeal to the
Secretary of Labor was likewise of no avail Hence this petition.
As set forth at the outset, there is no merit to this petition.
1. The present Labor Code did not take effect until
November 1, 1974. The day before, on October 31, 1974 this
2
Court, speaking through Justice E. Fernandez, now retired, in
Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. National Labor
Relations Commissions, held fast to the existing doctrine
3
emphasizing the significance of a certification election in a
regime of collective bargaining. Then in the first decision after
its effectivity, United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries
v. Noriel, it was pointed out: The institution of collective
4 organization to represent the workers in a collective
bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime manifestation of
industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the
relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by
coming to terms That is to govern themselves in matters that
really count. As labor,
_______________
2 Presidential Decree No. 570-A, Sec. 64.
3 L-38955-56, October 31, 1974, 60 SCRA 450.
4 L-40810, October 3, 1975, 67 SCRA 267.
498
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is
indispensable that they be represented by a labor organization
of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial is a
certification election. So our decisions from the earliest case of
PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Co. Free Telephone Workers
Union to the latest, Philippine Communications, Electronics &
Electricity Workers Federation (PCWF) v. Court of Industrial
Relations, had made clear. The same principle was again
5 exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election
given expression in language equally emphatic in the
subsequent case of Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations: Petitioner thus appears
6 clear that it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a
to be woefully lacking in awareness of the significance of a
certification election for the collective bargaining process. It is
the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force. It is a
fundamental postulate that the will of the majority, if given
expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of
the voters to make their choice, is controlling. No better device
can assure the institution of industrial democracy with the two
parties to a business enterprise, management and labor,
establishing a regime of self-rule. That is to accord respect to
7 part of a number of such signatories lends added support to
the policy of the Labor Code, 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
bargaining unit. 8
_______________
5 Ibid, 273. PLDT Employees Union is reported in 97 Phil. 424, a 1955
decision. The Philippine Electronics decision, L-34531, promulgated on March
29, 1974, is found in 56 SCRA 480.
6 L-42115, January 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 132.
7 Ibid, 139.
8 Cf. Federation Obrera v. Noriel, L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; UE
Automotive Employees and Workers Union-Trade Unions of the Philippines
and Allied Services v. Noriel, L-44350, Nov. 25, 1976, 74 SCRA 72; Philippine
Labor Alliance Council v. Bureau of Labor Relations. L-41288, Jan, 31,
1977, 75 SCRA 162; Todays Knitting Free Workers Union v. Noriel, L-45057,
Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 450; Benguet Exploration Miners Union v. Noriel, L-
44110, March 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 107; Kapisanan v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20,
1977, 77 SCRA 414; Rowell Labor Union-Trade Unions of the Philippines
499
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 499
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
2. Conformably to the above basic concept, this Court, in the
aforesaid Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions
decision, recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the
notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement.
Once that requisite is complied with, however, the Code makes
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. Necessarily then, the argument of petitioner as to the
9
inability of private respondent to come up with the required
signatures when the petition was first filed falls to the ground.
At any rate, additional signatures were subsequently secured.
The allegation that there was thereafter a retraction on the
the decision arrived at by respondent Noriel that the only way
of determining with accuracy the true will of the personnel
involved in the bargaining unit is to conduct a certification
election. At any rate, that is a factual matter, the resolution of
which by respondent Noriel is entitled to respect by this
Tribunal. 10
_______________
v. Ople, L-42270, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 166; Vassar Industries Employees
Union v. Estrella, 44652, March 31, 1978; National Mines and Allied Workers
Union v. Luna, L-46722, June 15, 1978; General Textiles Allied Workers
Association v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, L-45719, July 31, 1978.
9 Article 258 of the Labor Code reads in lull: Requisites for certification
election.Any petition for certification election filed by any legitimate labor
organization shall be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent
(30%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification
of such petition, 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.
10 Cf. Antipolo Highway Lines v. Inciong, L-38523, June 27. 1975, 64 SCRA
441; Jacqueline Industries v. National Labor Relations Commission, L-37034,
Aug. 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 397; Federa
500
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
3. There is relevance likewise to this excerpt from Monark
International, Inc. v. Noriel, cited in the Comment of Solicitor
General Mendoza: There is another infirmity from which the
petition suffers. It 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, a 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 unions. That is repugnant to the concept
of collective bargaining. That is against the letter and spirit of
welfare legislation intended to protect labor and to promote
social justice. The judiciary then should be the last to look with
tolerance at such efforts of an employer to take part in the
process leading to the free and untrammeled choice of the
exclusive bargaining representative of the workers.11
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed, with
costs. This decision is immediately executory. The restraining
order is hereby lifted. A certification election must be
conducted forthwith.
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino Concepcion Jr. and Santos,
JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
_____________
cion Obrera v. Noriel. L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; Kapisanan ng
mga Manggagawa v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 414; Monark
International, Inc. v. Noriel, L-47570-71, May 11, 1978. was promulgated on
May 11, 1978. Cf. Consolidated Farms, Inc., II v. Noriel, L-47752, July 31,
1978.
501
VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 501
Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel
Notes.Labor union with substantial interest in elections
for choosing the collective bargaining agent have the right to
take part therein provided that the application to intervene is
timely filed. (Federation of Free Workers vs. Paredes 54 SCRA
75)
The law contemplates participation of all employees in a
certification election. (B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B.F.
Goodrich Confedential and Salaried Employees Union-
NATU, 49 SCRA 532).
The holding of a certification election is not barred by the
maintenance-of-membership clause in the collective
bargaining agreement. (Philippine Communications
Electronics Electricity Workers Federation vs. C.I.R., 56 SCRA
480).
 The minutes of the election which stated that the election
was peaceful may be held sufficient to rebut the pretense that
it was characterized with disorder. (Acoji Workers Union vs.
National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU), 7
SCRA 730).
A union which failed to intervene despite notice of
publication of the filing of the petition for certification
elections by another union, is not entitled to notice of
hearing. (National Labor Union vs. Go Soc & Sons, 23 SCRA
431).
Certification proceeding not a litigation.A certification
proceeding is not a litigation in the sense the term is commonly
understood, where conventional rules of evidence (such as
those on the proper identification of a non-adversary, fact-
finding character in which the CIR plays the part of a
disinterested investigator seeking merely to ascertain the
desires of employees as to the matter of their representation.
Especially is this so where, as here, the petition for
certification and the claim of majority representation are
uncontested.
As such, formality and rigidity are all together lacking. The
proceeding is not technical nor is the investigation required to
take any particular form. (National Labor Union vs. Go Soc &
Sons, L-21260, April 30 1968.)
Significance of petition for certification.The slightest
doubt cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses
significance in a petition for certification is that through such
502
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Suarnaba vs. Workmens Compensation Commission
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. (Federation of the United Workers
Organization [F.U.W.O] vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-
37392, December 19, 1973.)
Employees have constitutional right to choose which labor
organization to join.Petitioner Labor union was in the past
apparently able to enlist the allegiance of the working force in
the Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, thereafter, a
number of such individuals joined private respondent labor
union. That is a matter clearly left to their sole uncontrolled
judgment. x x x There is both a constitutional and statutory
recognition that laborers have the right to form unions to take
care of their interest vis-a-vis their employees. Their freedom
to form organization would be rendered nugatory if they could
not choose their own leaders to speak on their behalf and to
bargain for them. It cannot be otherwise, for the freedom to
choose which labor organization to join is an aspect of the
constitutional mandate of protection to labor. (Federacion
Obrera De la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
Filipinas vs. Noriel, 72 SCRA 24.)
Where a labor organization objects to the participation
election of a company-dominated union and as a result, a
complaint for unfair labor practice case against the employer
is filed, the status of the latter union must first be cleared in
such a proceeding before the voting could take place. (B.F.
Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich Confidential and
Salaried Employees UnionNATU, 49 SCRA 532.)
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.