Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 58

Labor Law 2 A2010 - 95- Disini

Part 6 Jan.18, 1961, AFWU laborers were again back doing the same
work as before.
Union Representation: - 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.
Establishing Union Majority Status 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
6.1. PRE-CONDITION- EMPLOYER- election among all the workers and/or stevedores working in the
wharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastre
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP service aboard Compania Maritima vessels docking at Iligan City
ELECTION- Pre-requisite 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
Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION neither; and upon termination of the said election, the result
before a petition for certification election can be entertained? thereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for further
An employer employee relationship is a precondition since without consideration. From this ruling, both parties appealed, AFWU
such relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part of claiming that it should be declared outright as the majority union
either the employer or employee. while MARITIMA contends that said court could not even have
Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election to correctly ordered a certification election considering that there
choose their bargaining representative when there is no duty to was an absence of ER-EE relationship between it and said
collectively bargain anyway. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Cia laborers.
Maritima, 19 SCRA 258, 1967)
ISSUE
WON the order of a certification election by the CIR was proper.
ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION V C. MARITIMA et (WON there was an ER-EE relationship between AFWU and
al. MARITIMA)
19 SCRA 258 HELD
BENGZON; JAN.31, 1967 NO. Before a certification election can be held, there must exist
an ER-EE relationship between the ER and the petitioner union.
NATURE Ratio The duty to bargain collectively exists only between the
Petitions for review by certiorari of CIR decision “employer” and its “employees.” Where there is no duty to
bargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification elections
FACTS in connection therewith.
- This is a consolidation of 3 cases involving both parties Reasoning In its findings, the CIR observed that after the
- Respondent Compania Maritima (MARITIMA), a local corp. engaged in rescission, the AFWU laborers continued working in accordance
shipping entered into a contract for lease of services with petitioner with the “cabo system,” which was the prevailing custom in the
Allied Free Workers’ Union (AFWU), a duly registered legitimate labor place. Under this system, the union was an independent
union. In the contract, it was stipulated that AFWU will do and perform contractor. The CIR also made a finding that prior to the contract
all the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all vessels or boats between MARITIMA and AFWU, the former had an oral arrastre
of MARITIMA in Iligan City; that the contract is good and valid for 1 and stevedoring agreement with another union, the Iligan
month starting Aug.12, 1952, but may be renewed by agreement of the Laborers Union (ILU), which agreement was also based on the
parties with the reservation that MARITIMA has the right to revoke said “cabo” system. After unsatisfactory service, MARITIMA cancelled
contract even before the expiration of the term, if and when AFWU fails this oral contract and entered into a new contract with AFWU,
to render good service. the terms and conditions of which were similar to the oral
- Towards the end of 1953, MARITIMA complained to AFWU of contract with ILU. The written contract between AFWU and
unsatisfactory and inefficient service. To remedy the situation, MARITIMA was signed under the assurance by AFWU that the
MARITIMA was forced to hire extra laborers from among “stand-by” same arrangement previously had with the former union
workers not affiliated to any union. regarding performance and execution of arrastre and
- On July 1954, AFWU sent a written proposal to MARITIMA for a CBA, stevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the custom
but the latter did not reply. Thereafter, AFWU instituted an action in the of such kind of work in Iligan. Thus, petitioner union operated as
CIR praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit a labor contractor under the so-called “cabo” system.
composed of all the laborers doing arrastre and stevedoring work for - From these findings, Insofar as the working agreement was
MARITIMA, to which action MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER- concerned, there was no real difference between the contract
EE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the and the prior oral agreement. Both were based on the “cabo”
termination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered by system. Hence, since the parties observed the "cabo" system
the latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination was after the rescission of the contract, and since the characteristics
to take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with the of said system show that the contracting union was an
Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The independent contractor, it is reasonable to assume that AFWU
latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and continued being an independent contractor of MARITIMA. And,
conditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to be being an independent contractor, it could not qualify as an
carried out on Sept.1, 1954. "employee". With more reason would this be true with respect to
- On Aug.26, 1954, AFWU charged MARITIMA of unfair labor practices the laborers. Moreover, there is no evidence at all regarding the
(ULPs) before the CIR. MARITIMA answered, again denying the ER-EE characteristics of the working arrangement between AFWU and
relationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed an MARITIMA after the termination of the CONTRACT. All we have
action to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doing to go on is the court a quo's finding that the “cabo” system was
arrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and for observed-a system that negatives employment relationship.
recovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI ordered - Since the only function of a certification election is to
the rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWU determine, with judicial sanction, which union shall be the official
members from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels. representative or spokesman of the “employees” will be, there
AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction ordering being no ER-EE relationship between the parties disputants, it
the maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961. Thus, after
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 96- Disini
follows that there is neither a duty to bargain collectively. Thus, the order In a petition involving an organized establishment or
for certification election in question cannot be sustained. enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent
collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified
Disposition appealed decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED insofar as it petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter
dismissed the charge of ULP, but REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar shall immediately order the certification election by secret
as it ordered the holding of a certification election. The petition for ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of
certification election should be DISMISSED. 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
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ) before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be
dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%)
300 SCRA 120 requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition,
PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998 otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasis
supplied.)
NATURE - the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUP
Petition for certiorari appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
FACTS submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election election. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order of
among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III. - ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28,
the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank- 1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in the
and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the bargaining unit.
proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be - PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the Labor
employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal Code. The article provides in part as follows:
standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.
- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory ? In organized establishments, when a verified petition
employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. agent is filed before the Department of Labor and
- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said Employment within the sixty-day period before the
that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-
is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru when the verified petition is supported by the written
the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the
who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the
the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed. 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
6.2. METHODS OF ESTABLISHING petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the
MAJORITY STATUS bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied
with the law when they submitted the required consent
1. Purpose signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification
LAGUESMA election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect
G.R. No. 94929-30 of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
CRUZ, Mar 18, 1992 - Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was
based on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by
NATURE: Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted
above. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the
FACTS: Implementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certification
- The collective bargaining agreement of the International Container election cases shall be final and unappealable.
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate Port - For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in these
Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its
to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the petition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to
laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting represent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The
their moves. private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that the
- on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an
(SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that
signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were agreement.
submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition.
- On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the ISSUE:
Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention. WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
- another petition for certification election was filed by the Port lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The when they dismissed the petitions for certification election
consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days because the consent signatures had not been submitted
after the filing of the petition. simultaneously with 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 HELD:
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows: 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 CERTIFICATION ELECTION
NARVASA; June 2, 1992 What is the PURPOSE of a certification election?
It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of:
NATURE 1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargaining OR the
Special civil action of certiorari 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
FACTS
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. 1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the 2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union.
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. WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau OF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-
of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries ANGLO
Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-
Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries G.R. No. L-76185
and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988
Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be
qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted NATURE
under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 Petition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary
employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK. injunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 98- Disini
set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of the choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after
resolution of the Bureau of Labor the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period.

FACTS - It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said


-June 13, 1985. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA
Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition for certification election at the company until its expiry date on July 31, 1986. It is,
therefore, unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25,
-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition on 1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union
the ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2 and should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a
the Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and to collective contract, there being an existing collective bargaining
expire on July 31, 1986. agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determine
which labor union shall administer the said existing contract.
-PACIWU filed a Notice of Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Return-
to-Work Agreement was signed stipulating: “To resolve the issue of union Disposition Petition dismissed.
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 . . .”
ALGIRE V DE MESA
237 SCRA 647
-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWU ROMERO; October 19, 1994
filed an Election Protest. Election Protest was dismissed.
NATURE
-June 5, 1986. PACIWU filed a petition for certification election. Petition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation- Secretary of Labor
Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also
filed. FACTS
- Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
-Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30% Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition
support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law for the holding of an election of union officers with the
and the existence of a duly ratified CBA. Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
- August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted - DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an
to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an
file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2. election be held.
WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union. - In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the
election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16,
-Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor 1990 between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and
Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on Regalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under the
certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed
unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certification representation officer.
election rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule. - 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.
ISSUE/S - De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total
WON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the votes cast were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
Contract Bar Rule applies - Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots
which had two check marks was erroneously declared to
HELD be a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clear
NO as to the choice made by the voter.
-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August - The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s
25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this favor and certified the latter’s group to be the unions
controversy, was a consent election and not a certification election. validly elected officers.
- De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was
-As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent election is granted. Another order for a new election of officers was
an agreed one, its purpose being merely to determine the issue of made by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-election
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective conference was scheduled.
bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at determining - Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an was denied for lack of merit.
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. - Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer
(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and
- From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI
process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions
the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA arising from the conduct of the elections, but the
although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
1
Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent
sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun.  ISSUE
2 WON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algire’s motion
same
3
was in excess of its authority since the case is an intra-union
Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor Code activity

HELD
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 99- Disini
NO of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the
Ratio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.
merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the - When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext
workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of
distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.
certification election. - When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact
Reasoning disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There
- What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether
certification election. the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.
- If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representation - Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding
officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a
done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to
assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is
irregularity arising from said election. precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case
Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority
AFFIRMED. status.
- Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for
certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made
3. Policy does not warrant a direct certification.
- More so, when the records of the suit show that the required
No Direct Certification 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
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE salesmen.
163 SCRA 323 - Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion
PARAS; June 30, 1988 of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the
majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to
NATURE the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its
Petition for certiorari petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the
assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure
FACTS provided under the law for representation cases.
- The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Disposition Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged
refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing Employer Certification- Voluntary Recognition
employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining
non-union members from joining the union. Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03
- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the
MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
RULE VII
pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
- Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in the
Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by
Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized
petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with
establishments with only one legitimate labor organization,
the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly
the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation
intended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondent
status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such
Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective
recognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice of
bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered
voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued
the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground
the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or
that the employees were first offenders.
certificate of creation of a chartered local.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by
respondent
Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. -
The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied
ISSUE
by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the
WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified
following documents:
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 (a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition
certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition;
petitioner-company.
(b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary
HELD recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two
YES. (2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining
- The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of unit where the union seeks to operate;
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
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 100- Disini
- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed by
RULE VII
ALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of
(continued) petitioner corporation, there being no labor union.
- Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does not
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit, represent the majority of the employees concerned, and that
accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary more than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vessels
recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the claim they are not members of any union.
bargaining unit; and - August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying
ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner
(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor moved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employees
organization operating within the bargaining unit. denied their membership. Corporation moved that a certification
All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary election should be called.
recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer - Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of the
representative and president of the recognized labor union. documents, opined that there existed a doubt regarding the
majority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawal
Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary of the members, and directed a certification election.
recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where - Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Director
there is no other registered labor union operating within the reconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as sole
bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor bargaining agent.
Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the
notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of ISSUE
legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. 1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose
their sole and exclusive bargaining representative with
Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form, petitioner thru a certification election;
number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same 2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certification
period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply election.
with the necessary requirements.
HELD
Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete 1. YES
the requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this Ratio Employees have the constitutional right to choose the
Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory, the labor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of such
Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be
together with all its accompanying denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election.
documents without prejudice to its re-submission. Reasoning The holding of a certification election is a statutory
policy that should not be circumvented.
Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. - The best forum to determine if there was indeed undue
- From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the pressure exerted upon the employees to retract their
recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and membership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballot
obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in where they can freely express their choice).
the bargaining unit. - The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affect
the freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or ‘No
Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for Union’).
certification election by any labor organization for a period of one
(1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Upon DISPOSITION
expiration of this one-year period, any legitimate labor The Regional Office concerned of MoLE is directed to cause the
organization may file a petition for certification election in the holding of a certification election.
same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized
union,unless a collective bargaining agreement between the
employer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executed 4. Religion/ Past Non- Participation
and registered with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule
XVII of these Rules. REYES v. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484
NARVASA; June 2, 1992
Effect One Union Only
NATURE
GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED Special civil action of certiorari
LABOR UNION
FACTS
134 SCRA 82 -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985 Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of
the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
NATURE "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were
Relations. contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
FACTS -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
- George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping, while Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
Associated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate labor Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
organization. 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- Disini
supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or
union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over chapter, and attested to by its president.
the supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective "Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the
bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no local or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization."
legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to
the holding of a certification election. The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy
-LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No. of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory
003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else.
Central Supervisory Chapter.
-LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the
patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of Secretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the
discretion, Sec. of Labor denied it. Petition for certiorari was filed. Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
certification election is dismissed. No costs.
Issue WON the certification election should push through

Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate.


DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)
It was held in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment: 300 SCRA 120
"But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it
also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a NATURE
legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor Petition for certiorari
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 FACTS
the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization - Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election
as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the
any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' " petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that
Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-
which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the
petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be
that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file
requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal
labor organization in good standing. standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.
The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory
the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of
the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded; accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.
being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the - The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said
NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is
federation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is
chapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the
organization in good standing. Accordingly, in Progressive exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who
Development, we elucidated: are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the
"In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.
requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the
Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows: ISSUE/S
"'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and
have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books file employees
of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the
reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national HELD
unions shall be observed.' NO.
"Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently registered Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that
unions' refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a
in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, labor organization of the rank-and-file employees.”
set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chapter Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic
must likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of
requiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union rank-and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of their
registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is interests which cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion
greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation proceedings.
requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements Disposition Petition is granted.
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 SAMAHAN v SEC OF LABOR (FILSYSTEMS)
balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the
commission of fraud.
290 SCRA 680
"A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor PUNO, J.; June 5, 1998
organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR:
"1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor NATURE
federation or national union, and Special civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution and order
"2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and of respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition for
the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the certification election
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 103- Disini
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. RA 9481 Sec. 10. Article 256 of the Labor Code is
Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as an hereby amended to read as follows:
independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for “ART. 256. Representation Issue in
certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation. Organized Establishments. - In organized
- another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition for establishments, when a verified petition questioning
certification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondent the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
filed a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic. agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization
Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that the
certification election was void for having been held during the pendency including a national union or federation which has
of the appeal. already issued a charter certificate to its local
chapter participating in the certification election or a
ISSUE/S local chapter which has been issued a charter
1. WON petitioner had legal personality to file the petition certificate by the national union or federation before
2. WON the appeal was rendered moot and academic the Department of Labor and Employment within the
sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the
HELD collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter
1. YES
Ratio Petitioner is an independently registered labor union. As a shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
legitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for certification when the verified petition is supported by the written
election cannot be questioned. consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all
Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the
will, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation. Despite affiliation, the local will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
union remains the basic unit free to serve the interests of its members unit.
independently of the federation.
2. NO
Ratio The certification election and the CBA are void for having occured (RA 9481 continued)
during the pendency of an unresolved representation case with the To have a valid election, at least a majority of all elig
Secretary. union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be ce
Reasoning Petitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its petition. in the unit. When an election which provides for three or mo
The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election. valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted betwe
Disposition Petition is granted. 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.
A. Organized Establishment
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall con
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
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 Definition
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
day period before the expiration of the collective CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the LAGUESMA
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at 209 SCRA 606
least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in PARAS; June 8, 1992
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid NATURE
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the Petition for review on certiorari
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be FACTS
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the - A petition for certification election among the supervisors of
workers in the unit. When an election which provides for California Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a of Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia,
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO
two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total Chapter is a duly registered chapter.
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty - CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big
library number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise,
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).
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 104- Disini
nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law would agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project
classify them as supervisors. employees with at least one year of service pending the final
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when outcome of the certification election case.
there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees were
petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories regularized effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said
does not apply. Agreement.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed. -On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFA
informing the former about the admission into URFA of the
ISSUE/S membership of 410 regular project employees who were formally
1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies regularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlantic
filed MFR alleging that the employees sought to be represented
HELD by the private respondent LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of
1. No. the petitioner and are deemed included in the existing Collective
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and-file employees of
organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified Atlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.
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 Issue
CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that WON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BAR
of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a rule and failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged
petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise regular workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the
indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25% regularization of all said workers
subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been
expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is Held
presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those Yes, he committed grave abuse of discretion.
with existing bargaining agents. Section 1 of Article II of petitioner's Collective Bargaining
Agreement with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as
follows:
Freedom Period ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The
appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v. Laguesma of those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY who
212 SCRA 281 have remained as such up to the date of execution of this
Agreement, as well as those who may hereafter acquire the
Nocon ; Aug. 6, 1992 same status. It is hereby understood and agreed that the
following are not within the appropriate bargaining unit and,
Nature Petition for Certiorari therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:
Facts a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff
-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in the members, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;
construction and fabrication business and conducts its construction b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as
business in different construction sites here and abroad while its contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular
fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel and Marine Structures employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this
Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard. Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are
-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees when assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this
existing fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for Contract, and provided further that relievers who are assigned to
steel structures and other heavy construction works. Said project regular positions which may become vacant shall be duly
employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment considered for such regular positions after attaining the six
Agreements which indicate the specific projects to which they are months probationary period.
assigned and the duration of their employment. Upon the expiration of c. Security personnel."
their contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees is Although the aforementioned definition does not include
automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assigned petitioner's regular project employees in the coverage of the
have not yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and
remainder of the project. The positions occupied by the regular rank- the URFA, the regularization of all the regular project employees
and-file employees and the project employees are basically similar in with at least one year of service and the subsequent
nature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner's business. membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the
-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association alleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-
("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees by
all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. contemplation of law and included in the appropriate
-Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement
("LAKAS-NFL", for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent
the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.
Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification The Labor Code provides:
election. "Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau
-Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment. shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private other action which may disturb the administration of duty
respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the
appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."
Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic's Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing
appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG site Rules end Regulations likewise provides:
who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and "If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in
completely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 105- Disini
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by the
agreement." majority of the employees in the bargaining unit."
-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which is ISSUE
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular WON Calleja erred in reversing Trajano’s ruling and ordering the
rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular holding of a certification election.
project employees with more than one year of service, bars any
other labor organization from filing a petition for certification HELD
election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of NO
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The CBA in question is defective.
-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment of - The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only
Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrial when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1)
peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of possession of the status of majority representation by the
the collective bargaining agreement. employees' representative in accordance with any of the means
Disposition Petition Granted of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code;
(2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain
When Applied 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
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION V CALLEJA based on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support of
179 SCRA 127 the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.
REGALADO; May 5, 1989 - In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified the
union as the bargaining representative, SC voided such
NATURE certification where there was a failure to properly determine with
Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority
representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification
FACTS election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere
- The associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading, Inc. formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and
(GAWTI) that majority of the latter's employees have authorized ALU to unilaterally certify a union
be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and requested - CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI to
GAW Trading Inc., for a conference for the execution of an initial CBA. post the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in the
GAWTI recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for establishment at least 5 days before its ratification, [b] the finding
the majority of its employees and for which it set the time for conference of Calleja that 181 of the 281 workers who "ratified" the same
and/or negotiation at 4PM on May 12, 1986 at the Pillsbury Office, now " strongly and vehemently deny and/or repudiate the alleged
Aboitiz Building Juan Luna Street, Cebu City. On May 15, 1986, ALU in negotiations and ratification of the CBA.
behalf of the majority of the employees of GAW Trading Inc. and GAWTI - Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further
signed and executed the CBA. underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was
- In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a
together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertook petition for certification election had already been filed on May
a Strike after it failed to get the management of GAWTI to sit for a 19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the
conference respecting its demands in an effort to pressure GAWTI to signatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it was
make a turnabout of its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and enough to initiate certification election.
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, as to which strike Disposition Public respondent’s order for the conduct of a
GAWTI filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, and certification election among the rank-and-file workers of
which strike Labor Arbiter Tumamak held as illegal. respondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED
- 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 GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA
requirement for which it was merely considered an intervenor until 422 SCRA 514
compliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition as QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004
bargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by southern Philippines
Federation of Labor (SPFL) 4
- In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly filed with Art. 256. Representation issue in organized
the MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter Cumba ruled for the establishments. In organized establishments, when a
holding of a certification election in all branches of GAWTI in Cebu City, verified petition questioning the majority status of the
as to which ALU filed MFR, which was treated as an appeal. So the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE
entire record of subject certification case was forwarded for the Director, within the 60-day period before the expiration of a CBA,
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), MOLE, Manila. the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by
- BLR Director Trajano, granted ALU's appeal (MFR) and set aside the secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by
questioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effective the written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs in the
and valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social Security appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at
Labor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must
(SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of Additional have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
Evidence.’ GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajano’s decision was reversed majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the
by herein public respondent Calleja. ALU filed MFR but was denied. exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit.
Hence this petition. When an election which provides for three or more
- Calleja ordered the holding of a certification election ruling that the choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the
"contract bar rule" relied upon by her predecessor Trajano does not valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted
apply in the present case. Calleja ruled that CBA is defective because it between the labor unions receiving the two highest
"was not duly submitted in accordance with Sec. I, Rule IX, Book V of number of votes: Provided, That the total number of
the Implementing Rules of BP 130." There’s no proof that CBA has been votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the
posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5 number of votes cast.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 106- Disini
the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not
NATURE later than three (3) years after its execution....
Petition for certiorari
- The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA
FACTS should last for five years. The relation between labor and
- Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA with management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the
General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested
28, 1989, which included the issue of representation effective for a term for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on
of three years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive to November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining
December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991. agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation
- On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the within five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on
union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter- December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted
proposal be submitted within ten days. within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity of
- As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was
individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in
their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-
differences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic
a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal. terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor
- The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, which provides
NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of that:
GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right
to self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be
the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
be held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers. labor practice:
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 (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by
effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the this Code;
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 - Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Thus, the phrase “duty to bargain collectively,” thus:
NLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining
agent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA. ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to
Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
negotiation with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in
letters of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members from good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement....
February to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by GMC on its
employees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC also found GMC We have held that the crucial question whether or not a party
guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its employees has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns
to self-organization. With respect to the union’s claim of discrimination, on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of
the NLRC found the claim unsupported by substantial evidence. good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to
- On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision be drawn from the facts.[ The effect of an employer’s or a
of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. It union’s actions individually is not the test of good-faith
found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the union justified and the bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions,
allegation of coercion exerted by GMC on the union’s members to resign considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, both
unfounded. Hence, the union filed a petition for certiorari before the parties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meet
Court of Appeals. The CA reinstated the January 30, 1998 NLRC and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
decision. A motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed by GMC, but purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this
in a resolution dated October 26, 2000, the CA denied it for lack of merit. obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC
Hence, the instant petition. within three years from the effectivity of the original CBA. But
GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to
ISSUE devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union
(1) WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the and the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation.
duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its GMC’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s
employees to self-organization proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith.
(2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years to Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to
begin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposed the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of
on GMC the duty to bargain collectively.
- GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to self-
HELD organization. The CA found that the letters 13 union members
1. YES signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that
- Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715, GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records show that
states: GMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longer
enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that the
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any resignations of the union members occurred during the
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five desperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the
(5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent union.
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall 2. NO
be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of - The Code provides:
the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five
year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 107- Disini
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective Reasoning
bargaining agreement. – ....It shall be the duty of both parties to keep - First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected
the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period [prior to its therefrom and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC before
expiration date] and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. the petition for certification election was filed on
September 27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of De
The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they Pedro from the company is of no moment, considering
are still in the process of working out their respective proposal and that the petition for certification election was filed
counter proposal. The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its before his dismissal on August 22, 1992.
provision shall continue to govern the relationship between the parties, - Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not
until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that jurisdictional requisite. Even if verification is lacking
all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is guilty of bad faith. and the pleading is formally defective, the courts may
However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely dispense with the requirement in the interest of justice
delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is and order of correction of the pleading accordingly.
warranted. Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are
- It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and not binding in labor cases; and this rule is specifically
conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on applied in certification election proceedings, which are
GMC’s employees for the remaining two years of the CBA’s duration. non-litigious but merely investigative and non-
We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA adversarial in character. Nevertheless, whatever
after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was formal defects existed in the first petition were cured
GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its and corrected in the second petition for certification
statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the election.
draft CBA proposed by the union. - Third, attached to the original petition for certification
election was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of
Disposition Petition dismissed. 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
2. Form of Petition falsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a joint affidavit
of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the
Signature Verification and Verification of Pleadings signatures therein.
- Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION V. was disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures
which is definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the total
SEC. OF LABOR number of company employees required by law to
227 SCRA 821 support a petition for certification election. The
QUIASON : November 16, 1993 disclaimer of 13 employees by their respective
signatures covers only their own personal participation
FACTS: and cannot in any way be extended to include the rest
- Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local chapters of labor of those who did not question the same.
federations duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of DISPOSITIVE:
all the rank and file workers of respondent QCC, a domestic Petition dismissed
corporation engaged in the metal industry.
- On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the TODAY’S KNITTING v NORIEL
Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent 75 SCRA 450
QCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed with
the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a
FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977
petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a
FACTS:
list of signatures of company employees, who signified their consent
-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing with
to a certification election among the rank and file employees of QCC.
the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of a
- Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent FFW-
certification election. Along with this were 200 signatures of
SMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the
Company’s employees confirming such petition. A petition for
certification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employees
intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers
had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as required by law;
Union. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it
and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of petitioner,
had already been voluntarily recognized by the management as
had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC.
the bargaining representative.
- On October 30, 1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed a second -Today’s Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that
petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by De intervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized by
Pedro. management as representing the minority of the workers.
- On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was
certification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC no legal bar to the petition for certification.
- Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. On -Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the
June 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying petition for certification election. The matter was then appealed
the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter. to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordered
a certification election to be conducted by the Bureau within
ISSUE: twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari
WON the petition for certification election was verified as required by law and prohibition petition with this Court
HELD:
YES
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 108- Disini
ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate regional offices. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus
elections inspite of the company’s recognition that another union is the Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into
bargaining representative consideration the fact that there are many companies with
factories located in places different from places where the
HELD: NO corporate offices are located.
-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party
the petition for certification election should have in its favor "the written whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case
consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. The may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a
duty then cast on the Detector of Labor Relations is to ascertain whether labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and
there has been such a compliance. There is no doubt in this case there the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of
was evidence that more than a total of two-hundred signatures were another competent agency sitting in another place to the
obtained by respondent Union in seeking such a certification election. inconvenience of the worker.
The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite Petitioner has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing
had been met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the on the petition for certification election before the Regional Office
language of the above provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to No. IV, which has its offices in Quezon City, the same city where
conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the the principal place of business of petitioner is located. Petitioner
representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and is, therefore, being unreasonable in demanding that the petition
certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of for certification election be filed with the National Capital Region
all the employees in the unit." 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
3. Venue 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
CRUZVALE, INC. V LAGUESMA complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules
238 SCRA 389 defines the workplace as follows:
QUIASON; November 25, 1994 “For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as
the place or locality where the employee is regularly
NATURE assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the
Special civil action of certiorari, with prayer for a writ of preliminary place where the employee is supposed to report back after a
injunction or temporary restraining order, to reverse and set aside the temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . “
decision of respondent Undersecretary (Laguesma) upholding the order Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the
of respondent Med-Arbiter (Tutay) temporary restraining order is LIFTED.

FACTS
- Private respondent, Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), filed with the 4. Substantial Support
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV,
a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file RATIONALE
workers of petitioner.
- Petitioner filed its comment to the petition for certification election. It ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) V
sought the denial of the petition, among the grounds enumerated is that
FERRER-CALLEJA
the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no jurisdiction over the
petition since petitioner Company's place of business is located at 169 SCRA 490
Cubao, Quezon City, which is outside the jurisdiction of the said GANCAYCO; November 6, 1989
Regional Office. Consequently, it is the National Capital Region or NCR
of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said petition. NATURE Special civil action of certiorari
- Med-Arbiter found petitioner's claim unmeritorious and rendered a
decision in favor of respondent union. FACTS
- Several days before the expiration of the CBA between
ISSUE/S petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and
1. WON petitioners correctly interpreted Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states: Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for
“Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional
Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Office in Tacloban city.
Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.” - Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support
HELD of its petition.
1. NO
Ratio The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the ISSUES
venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike 1. WON the holding of certification elections in organized
jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue establishments is mandated only where a petition is filed
merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue questioning the majority status of the incumbent union, and that
touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance it is only after establishing that a union has indeed a
of the case. considerable support that a certification election should be
Reasoning Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules ordered
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 HELD
employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office 1. NO
where the petition for certification election is filed. The said provision Reasoning in cases of organized establishments where there
does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the exists a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether
place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the the petition for certification election wasfiled within the sixty-day
employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 109- Disini
freedom period. Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Executive Order No. 111, provides: HELD
No
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In -CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is
organized establishments, when a petition questioning the majority clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by
status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed
Department within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing
collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall bargaining agents.
automatically order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the will -Compliance with the said requirement need not even be
of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid established with absolute certainty
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must -The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the
have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force
valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied
of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining
the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between which of the contending labor organizations shall be the
the choices receiving the two highest number of votes. exclusive collective bargaining agent.
-The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes
Article 256 is clear. The mere filing of a petition for certification election mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other
within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal,
to order the holding of a certification election. ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for
certification
Was the petition filed by NAFLU instituted within the freedom period?
The record speaks for itself. The previous CBA entered into by petitioner Disposition
ALU was due to expire on April 1, 1987. The petition for certification was The petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
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)
MOTION INTERVENTION
COMPLIANCE
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V LAGUESMA
LAGUESMA 207 SCRA 392
209 SCRA 609 CRUZ; March 18, 1992
PARAS; June 8, 1992
FACTS
- The CBA between the workers of the International Container
NATURE
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and
Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction
Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions
and/or temporary restraining order
were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the
next CBA and were already plotting their moves.
FACTS
-On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the - Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a
petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at
supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was filed by
least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were
the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing
submitted 11 days after the petition.
Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO)
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition
-In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a
for intervention.
certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the
required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big
Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April
number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually
6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after
supervisors
the filing of the petition.
-FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that under
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint
the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground
at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the
that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section
signatories does not apply
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that
-Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted among
the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition.This
the supervisory employees of California Manufacturing Corporation
contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.
-CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment which,
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article
however, affirmed the above order
256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
-CMC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this
submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
petition.
election., DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed
the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
ISSUE
- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
WON the petition for the holding of a certification election should be
collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority
denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%)
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently
of all its supervisors
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- Disini
employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts the - Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
majority representation of several contending bargaining groups. IArticle collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority
255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently
appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor registered with the DOLE.
organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining. ISSUE/S
- The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a application of Art 256 of the Labor Code
certification election applies only when representation is not in issue.
There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of (On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required)
the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of - PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should
representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is
bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining
resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law
proper government authority. when they submitted the required consent signatures several
3. NO days after filing the petition.
- Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of - PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for
existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for. certification election, including its own petition for intervention,
- Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and
gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
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 HELD:
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this - Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the
rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs.
where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor
bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain
bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period. concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the
4. YES workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic
- The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor
employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a
the same. certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30%
- All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the requirement”.
holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going - SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule
through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent
is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor signatures upon the filing of petition for certification
organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the
bargaining unit. 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
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V reason why the regulation should at best be given only a
LAGUESMA directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a
207 SCRA 392 petition for certification election within the freedom period
CRUZ; March 18, 1992 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
FACTS
such filing.
- 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 EFFECT WITHDRAWAL
the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting
their moves. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF
- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for
certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the
CLUB INC v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES
employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the UNION-PGTWO
petition. 395 SCRA 699
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003
intervention.
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port NATURE
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing CA
consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition. decision denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they December 29, 1998
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 FACTS
submitted upon filing of petition. This contention was upheld by the Med- - October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
Arbiter. (THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file
simultaneously with the petition for certification election. employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election
-DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch
Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal. No. IV
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 112- Disini
- November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election
because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and NATURE
fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as
well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and FACTS
separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition, Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW
only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital
the signatures in the list of union members were secured through Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate
fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on
denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners
petition. Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other
-
THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW
affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank
of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development,
October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources.
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, All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their
it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization. position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds —
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some
Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service
automatically order the conduct of a certification election. resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The
- January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to
holding of a certification election be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime
- DOLE Resolution of November 12, 19981 > setting aside the June 4, Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth
1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas
denied Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of
- CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE the Order.
Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for
certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied they
hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the filed the instant petition for "Certiorari and Prohibition with
basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well Preliminary Injunction" with a Prayer for the issuance of a
as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to temporary restraining order enjoining public respondents from
adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. conducting any further proceedings in the said five cases.

ISSUE ISSUE
WON the withdrawal of some union members from the certification WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a
election will affect the result certification election

HELD: HELD
NO YES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs.
- As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU
for certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement (49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act
and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the
to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not employees, all of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be
to intervene in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged pooled to determine which labor organization should be its
withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification exclusive representative. This Court had made it clear that We
election, this Court’s following ruling is instructive: should give discretion to the Court of Industrial Relations, or in
"T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or
retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election not to grant a petition for certification election considering the
itself wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge.
ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended
should in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the
rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such 30% requirement (now 20%) makes it mandatory upon the
representation and certification election cases are not to be taken as Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification
contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non- election in order to determine the exclusive-bargaining agent of
adversary, fact-finding character as to which of the competing unions the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with such, the
represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of
exclusive collective bargaining representative with their employer." certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is
supported by less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor
Disposition Petition is DENIED. Let the records of the case be Relations has discretion whether or not to order the holding of
remanded to the office of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional certification election depending on the circumstances of the
Branch No. IV, for the immediate conduct of a certification election case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures vs. Musicians Guild,
subject to the usual pre-election conference. et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election,
the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in
DISCRETION RULE APPLICATION 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.
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF LABOR (Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA 690).
RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA
PARAS; Dec 29, 1989 Dispositive Petition denied
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 113- Disini
WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION LOCAL V. election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30%
requirement. As observed by the Solicitor General, serious
TRAJANO doubts exist whether WAWU-ULGWP-Local 101 still represents
G.R. No. 75724 the majority of the rank-and-file employees at the employer
BIDIN; May 6, 1991 corporations. Thus, while WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 maintains
that the work force consists of 2,149 rank-and-file employees,
NATURE Petition for certiorari yet PTGWO was able to muster 620 support signatures, not to
mention that 429 of its members voted to disaffiliate from
FACTS WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. Consequently, the
The Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (PTGWO) sentiments/loyalties of the remaining 1,100 rank-and-file
instituted a petition for certification election alleging, in substance, that employees is yet to be determined by the best means possible
thirty percent (30%) of the rank and file workers of the Nasipit Lumber which is through certification election.
Company (NALCO) and its sister companies supported its petition; that
almost all of the 2,100 workers of the company belonged to bargaining Disposition Petition DISMISSED for having become moot and
agent; that the collective bargaining agreement between NALCO and academic
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 6.4. UNORGANIZED
company.
-This was opposed by the compulsory intervenor WAWU-ULGWP Local
ESTABLISHMENT
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 ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor
signatures thereon were mere forgeries. organization" means any labor organization
-The members of the Local KMU-WAWU adopted a resolution to duly registered with the Department of Labor
disaffiliate from ULGWP invoking the law on disaffiliation which limits
such actions only within the 60-day freedom period. WAWU contended
and Employment, and includes any branch or
that as an independently registered union, its disaffiliation from ULGWP local thereof.
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 ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate
separate proceeding. Further, WAWU enjoined NALCO from farther labor organization shall have the right:
deducting union dues in favor of ULGWP. (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of
-On the other hand, ULGWP argued that since it lacks the requisite collective bargaining;
support from the members of the bargaining unit, the petition should not (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
be granted; that the disaffiliation of WAWU was void as only 429 out of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
total union membership of 2,149 voted in its favor and since no notice of collective bargaining;
disaffiliation was given to ULGWP by WAWU as required by the (c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its
federation's constitution and by-laws; that WAWU had not acquired any annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet
legal personality to participate in the representation proceedings as it and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days
had not died its intervention within the freedom period; that while it was from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been
true that majority of its officers had disaffiliated, ULGWP had duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and
reorganized its local and had a new set of officers elected, that the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
federation had issued a charter to WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 making it bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the
a local organization of the federation; that being the true and real expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or
compulsory intervenor, WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 should be placed on during the collective bargaining negotiation;
the ballot as a choice for the workers in the certification election. (d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of
Moreover, ULGWP stressed to NALCO that WAWU's disaffiliation was the labor organization and its members;
void and, hence, it was still entitled to receive the dues checked-off from (e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
the members of the bargaining unit. (f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
organization and its members, including cooperative, housing,
ISSUE welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
1. WON a certification election should be held at the employer Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the
corporations contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor
organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and
HELD contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar
1. YES. organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and
Reasoning From the comment and supplemental comment of exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from
respondent WAWU, it appears evident that the issues in this case have taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided
become moot and academic. But even assuming such is not the case, it herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly
has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act
partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
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
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 114- 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
ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any organization" (emphasis supplied)
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med- bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION,
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the
organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for
March 21, 1989). 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
RA 9481 the Labor Code.
The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already
Sec. 11. Article 257 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read
represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T
as follows:
an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees.
“ART. 257. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. - In
After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for
any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-
employees."
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor
Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public
organization, including a national union or federation which has
respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting
already issued a charter certificate to its 1ocal/chapter
the petition for certification election among the supervisory
participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which
employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor
has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or
Code provides that said election should be automatically
federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a national
conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V,
union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names
Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it
of the local chapter’s officers and members.”
mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a
certification election. It reads —
1. DEFINITION "Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional
Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition,
CORPORATION vs. LAGUESMA shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case
for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
G.R. No. 101730 In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an
BELLOSILLO; June 17, 1993 unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately
order the conduct of a certification election . . ."
NATURE
-petition for certiorari Disposition Petition DENIED

FACTS
-PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity)
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V
filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department LAGUESMA
of Labor and Employment praying for the holding of a certification 209 SCRA 606
election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine PARAS; June 8, 1992
Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity).
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 115- Disini
NATURE Ratio While it may be true that the petition for certification
Petition for review on certiorari election did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rank-
and file employees of the petitioner, their consent is not
FACTS necessary when the bargaining unit that the union seeks to
- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification
Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers election may be filed by any union, not by the employees.
(FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter Reasoning Thus, Art 257 of the Labor Code, as amended by
(CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation R.A. 6715, provides: “In any establishment where there is no
while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter. certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of
contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the a petition by a legitimate labor organization.”
supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they - The law assumes that the union is the real party in interest in a
have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and petition for certification election. Anyway, the certification election
functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors. itself is the appropriate forum for the employees to express their
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when choice of a bargaining representative or none at all.
there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a Disposition Finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories Undersecretary's resolution, the petition for certiorari is
does not apply. DISMISSED.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.

ISSUE/S MANDATORY ELECTION


1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies

HELD SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. VS


1. No. LAGUESMA
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor 325 SCRA 425
organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified
bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective
QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000
bargaining agreement with the management
Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of
NATURE: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
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
FACTS:
petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise
indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25% - Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for
subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with
expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue
presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those City. Private respondent SRBI Association of
with existing bargaining agents. Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical
Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor
CELINE MARKETING V CA (RUIZ) organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress
of the Philippines (TUCP).
205 SCRA 849 - On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in
GRINO-AQUINO; February 4, 1992 Cebu City granted Certificate of Registration to
APSOTEU-TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.
NATURE - On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for
Petition for certioari certification election of the supervisory employees of
SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-
FACTS TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with
- DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma ordered the holding of a certification the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more
election among its rank-and-file employees, as prayed for in a petition supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these
filed by the Confederation of Filipino Workers. Such petition was employees supported the petition: (4) there was no
amended to include all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North, etc. between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification
comprising more or less 100 employees. election had been held in SRBI during the past 12
- Celine Mktg moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the months prior to the petition.
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
- On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss
issued to the local union. At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, CFW the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of
submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union. a certification election on two grounds. First, that the
- The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-production of members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial
the original and for lack of proof that the organizational documents of the or confidential employees. Second, the Association of
union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations. Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the
- The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those grounds. Philippines or ALU-TUCP was representing the union.
- The union appealed the order to the DOLE Sec which was granted. - The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
- Hence, this petition for certiorari. on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were
not managerial employees but merely supervisory
ISSUE employees.
WON the private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory - On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied
requirements in Sec 3, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of LC petitioner's motion to dismiss.

HELD
NO
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 116- Disini
- 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 NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM) V
same. SRBI then filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days
later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election LAGUESMA
scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for 433 SCRA 244
reconsideration. PANGANIBAN, June 28, 2004
- The Med-Arbiter later denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
- SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- Petitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DOLE Regional
Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's FACTS
registration. It averred that the APSOTEU-TUCP members -Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union
were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by (NDGMTEU) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and
law from joining or organizing unions. registered with DOLE filed with Med-Arbitration Branch a
- DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of merit. petition for direct certification as sole and exclusive
He ruled that APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and
organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges file employees of NDGM. Med Arbiter issued an order granting
granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the the certification election (in accordance with A257 of LC,
right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that considering that NDGM was an unorganized establishment, to
until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU- give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining
TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to agent) and ordering Representation officer Francisco to
represent its members for collective bargaining purposes. undertake a pre-election conference.
- SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's -during the pre-election conference, the parties agreed that the
decision 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
Issue: registered a motion to include probationary and substitute
WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification employees in the list of qualified voters, but was denied by Med-
election Arbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor
Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a
HELD: YES certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did
Reasoning not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against
One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was
of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was
purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was
requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected.
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary,
upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. certification election complaints should have been raised before
the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed. was already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the
qualification of the workers because in the process of choosing
2. THE EMPLOYER AS INITIATING PARTY 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
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested
appeal of the denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the
to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an
excluded employees so they could represent these employees
election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining
and question the validity of the election
agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a
certification election.
ISSUE/S
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working
1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the
days.
NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20)
Secretary on the Motion to Include the probationary and
days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by
Substitute Employees in the list of Qualified Voters
the Secretary of Labor.
2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the
election
RA 9481 HELD
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the
Labor Code to read as follows: 5
“Art 259. Appeal from certification election orders.– Any party to an
“ART. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, 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
whether the petition for certification election is filed by an grounds that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the
employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have
be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar
a petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in days.”
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.”
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 117- Disini
1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-
notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should interest, may question their removal from the voters’ list.
not stay the holding of the certification election. -On Claim that NDGM has the support of all the excluded
Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact, employees, as made known in a letter stating the employees’
"[i]nterlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or desire to participate in the certification election, and citing cases7
denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention wherein allegedly management was allowed to interfere in
issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be certification elections: All these cases state precisely the
appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the opposite. All employees should be given an opportunity to make
appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition." known their choice of who shall be their bargaining
-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the
the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the employer with the personality to question the certification
issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal election.
of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay -MONARCH INTERNATIONAL CASE: It [petition] was filed by the
the holding thereof where the employer company is an employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process.
unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to
recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its
-This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification
impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative. election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining
Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the
collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to "promote interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter.
and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x"; and "to An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed
ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within
processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare." the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible,
Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For [if] it
Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is
Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].
holding of a certification election, the later provision reads: -The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of
Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable." The certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of
Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the right of the employees to determine their own bargaining
the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings.
appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the
certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way
inappealable." affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by
-A259 clearly speaks of the "order x x x of the election." Hence, the the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter
subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to
election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6 promote social justice.
and 7 of the implementing rules6.
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the
2. NO. assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO
Ratio. Unless it filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to ORDERED.
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- SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION – FSM v
arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the proceedings, but a TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL
stranger which had no right to interfere therein. CORPORATION
Reasoning. JOYA V. PCGG (DEFINITION OF LEGAL STANDING): Legal standing
428 SCRA 524
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 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
is being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in FACTS
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere - Petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the Med-
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Arbitration Section OF DOLE. Respondent opposed the petition,
Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one contending that members of petitioner union are not its
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an
unrelated party. NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a independent contractor. Respondent claimed that it engaged
result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification SMC to manufacture and sew its multi-purpose industrial bags.
election. Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. - 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.
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 by the DOLE Sec. for being late by 7 days. Upon appeal, the CA
receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from set aside the resolutions of the DOLE and disallowed the
submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition. conduct of a certification election.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized ISSUE
establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a WON the CA erred in setting aside the Resolutions of the DOLE
certification election.
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority
Sec.
status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified
petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order HELD YES
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 7
the Secretary on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof Monark International v. Noriel, Eastland Manufacturing Company v.
established by the Secretary for the conduct of election have been violated. Noriel and Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 118- Disini
Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a party was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO
certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to each filed MFRs as to the holding of certification elections which
the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within 15 calendar were denied, hence this petition.
days.
ISSUE/S
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules 1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy
Implementing the Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution 2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election
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 HELD
case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation of the 1. YES.
Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court. Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining
to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the
In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, it was ruled that the jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from
remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily
Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence.
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably 2. NO.
file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and
Civil Procedure. And without a motion for reconsideration seasonably is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2
filed within the 10-day reglementary period, the questioned Decision or unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision
Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory. Consequently, of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of
the merits of the case can no longer be reviewed to determine if the rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining
Secretary could be faulted for grave abuse of discretion. unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and
Respondents failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably is this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR,
jurisdictional and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered final and unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.
executory resolutions of the Secretary of the DOLE. Disposition Order appealed from is affirmed.
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 4. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS
held that "in certification elections, the employer is a bystander, it has no
AND PROCEDURE
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 ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of verified petition questioning the majority status of the
petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
. day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
3. NATURE OF PROCEEDING automatically order an election by secret ballot when the
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at
Nature least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v CIR in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
13 SCRA 285 unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.; Feb. 26, 1965 receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
NATURE workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
FACTS majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
- Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with Young be conducted between the labor unions receiving the
Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions bound themselves to number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports at 50-50. YMLUS later sent percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law
NALCO a letter demanding the withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the library
ground that its registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled; At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
VISLU refused as the order of cancellation had not become final. shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried out. incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
- NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,
determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
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 ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In
praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain from preventing any establishment where there is no certified bargaining
VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU, agent, a certification election shall automatically be
ordering them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
order making such injunctions permanent. petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended
- both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
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
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 119- 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."

ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When DISPOSITION


requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition The president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the TUCP
the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified is ordered to return to the Director of Labor Relations the original
collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau record of the case. The Director is directed to decide the appeal
shall, after hearing, order a certification election. within ten days from the receipt of the record.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20)
working days. PLUM V NORIEL
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within 119 SCRA 299
twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. DE CASTRO; December 15, 1982
NATURE
Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the
a. Effect of Private Agreement Bureau of Labor Relations for having been issued in excess of
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It, likewise, prays
ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) vs. for an order directing respondent director to hold a certification
election so that the employees in the company can elect a union
DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS representative to negotiate an improved collective bargaining
91 SCRA 482 agreement to replace the agreement which has expired on
AQUINO; Jul 16, 1979 February 1, 1976

NATURE
Appeal from an order of the Director of Labor Relations FACTS
- Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a
FACTS petition, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive
- This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey
Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union and a member of Trade Club, Inc.
Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), filed with the Ministry of The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor
Labor a petition for certification election. Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said
- Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the petition and alleged among other things, that it is the recognized
record of the case to the TUCP, a federation of labor unions, allegedly collective bargaining representative of all the employees of the
by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the said company and that it is in the process of negotiating a
federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be referred modification of the collective bargaining agreement.
to it for possible settlement in accordance with its Code of Ethics. - Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO,
- The TUCP has not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed in this this time invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of
Court the instant petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Ethics" adopted by the members of the Trade Union Congress of
Relations to decide the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP the Philippines (T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and intervenor
to return to the Director the record of the case. are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the
30% requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was
ISSUE forwarded to the Office of the President of the T.U.C.P. for the
WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer purpose of submitting the matter to the Congress for decision.
to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P.
election case. President to the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn
transmitted the same to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office
HELD with a forwarding letter signed by the late Roberto S. Oca in his
NO. capacity as President of the Congress, stating, among other
Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor things, the following: 1
Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational "In a National Executive Board meeting of the Katipunang
prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the
trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions is an anomalous, Army & Navy Club, it was duly approved that the above-
deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory captioned case be referred back to the BLR and that MJCR-
jurisdiction in representation cases. OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining
Reasoning agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM."
a. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the The BLR endorsed the case to Officer-in-Charge Vicente
Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the Leodegardo, Jr., of Region IV for appropriate action.
regional offices of the Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive On May 5, 1977, Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter
authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both Section of Region IV, Department of Labor, promulgated an
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, order 2 dismissing the case pursuant to the letter of the
grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management President of the T.U.C.P.
relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural, Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations
except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to
collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance grant or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration." the secret ballot to elect the true union representative.
b. Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases On September 17, 1977, the Bureau Director issued a resolution
shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. " Article 260 of the 3 dismissing the appeal.
same Code provides that the Bureau of Labor Relations should decide
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- Disini
question as to who were qualified to vote, and petitioner did not move for bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these
a reconsideration of said ruling, although two (2) other labor unions and proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering
the Company did so, and their motions for reconsideration were denied the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way
by the Court en banc. Hence, petitioner may no longer contest the affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by
accuracy of the aforementioned voters' list. the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
- There were only 971 qualified voters. Of these, 904 had voted, so that secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter
only 67 qualified voters had failed to cast their votes. It is obvious that and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to
this number plus the 19 ballots challenged in the election are insufficient promote social justice.
to offset the plurality of 282 votes obtained by respondent Union.
- Petitioner did not claim that any voter had been coerced to vote for Disposition
respondent Union. Petition is denied.
- "There are many cases where the workers were threatened, coerced
and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU." But this general allegation, ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY V
without anything to indicate the number of workers involved, without the
supporting affidavit of any of them, and without an offer to introduce their
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES
testimony or the testimony of any of them, was — in the light of the SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY
attending circumstances — clearly insufficient to warrant the invalidation 476 SCRA 12
of the aforementioned election. CARPIO; November 23, 2005
- As regards the disorder that had allegedly characterized the election,
the minutes thereof suffice to refute petitioner's pretense. We quote from NATURE
said minutes: "Balloting went on smoothly up to closing time at 7:00 p.m. Petition for review assailing Court of Appeals Resolution
There was spirit of comraderie among the representative of the sustaining the Decision of DOLE directing the opening of the
contesting unions throughout the proceedings. Peace and order was challenged ballots cast during the certification election
maintained by the 18th PC Company at Iba, Zambales, graced by the
presence of the Provincial Commander in person." FACTS
Disposition The order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs - Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City
against the petitioner. filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective
bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction and
Notre Dame of Greater Manila vs Laguesma transportation employees of St. James School of Quezon City
433 SCRA 225 - 26 June 1999 > certification election was held at the DOLE
office in Manila with 149 eligible voters and 84 casting their
Medialdea, J; 2004
votes. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging
the 84 votes. St. James alleged that it had 179 rank and file
NATURE
employees, none of whom voted in the certification election. St.
Petition for certiorari
James argued that those who voted were not its regular
employees but construction workers of an independent
FACTS
contractor, Architect Bacoy
- Notre Dame of Greater Manila was questioning the fact that a
- 6 January 2000 > Med-Arbiter Falconitin declared the
certification election was held despite the fact that under the rules,
certification election to be null and void ab initio and ruled that:
the same should have been delayed pending a review by the
1) 84 voters were no longer working at St. James and supported
Secretary of Labor of an appeal with regard the exclusion of the
his ruling using the roster of rank and file employees submitted
probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified
by St. James, which did not include the names of the 84 voters
voters as ordered by the Representation Official. The petitioner
2) since the construction projects have ceased, some of the
claimed that said officer committed grave abuse of discretion.
workers were no longer entitled to vote in the certification
election
ISSUE/S
3) even if the 84 workers were to be included in the 179 rank and
WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by petitioner’s
file employees, the total number of voters would be 263. Thus,
appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the
the 84 votes cast would not be sufficient to constitute a majority
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters.
of all eligible voters to have a valid certification election.
- Samahang Manggagawa appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
HELD
- 5 May 2000 > DOLE reversed the ruling of Med-Arbiter
No. The Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the
Falconitin. DOLE ruled that:
decision of the med-arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the
1) Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-
proceedings, but a stranger which had no right to interfere therein.
academic personnel or the rank and file employees from the
In Joya v. PCGG, this Court explained that “‘[l]egal standing’ means a
motor pool, construction and transportation departments, and not
personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
all the rank and file employees of St. James.
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the x x x act that is
2) Med-Arbiter Falconitin erred in including all the rank and file
being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in
employees of St. James, whether teaching or non-teaching
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
personnel, in the computation of the total number of employees.
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.
3) the list submitted by St. James contained only the
Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one
administrative, teaching and office personnel of the school.
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
- St. James filed MFR. DOLE denied the MFR. St. James filed a
unrelated party.
special civil action before the CA.
- The petitioner did not and will not sustain direct injury as a result of the
- 5 September 2001 > CA dismissed the petition and ruled that
non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification election.
DOLE did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. Only the
ruling of Med-Arbiter Falconitin.
employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question
their removal from the voters’ list.
ISSUE
-This Court would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere
WON St. James’s list which included administrative, teaching
with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor Code
and office personnel is the basis for the quorum in the
relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely
certification election
for the protection of the right of the employees to determine their own
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 122- Disini
HELD the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
NO bargaining.”
- The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the Reasoning Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the
Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence,
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the all rank-and-file employees, probationary or permanent, have a
computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their
campus and not on all the employees in St. James’ five campuses employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the
where there is a total of 570 rank and file employees. petition for certification election. The law refers to “all” the
- Section 2, Rule XII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules provides: employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to
Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings. – All support the petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit”.
employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit - Thus, the contention of the employers that the very fact that
sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the probationary employees have not earned regular status, they are
certification or consent election shall be qualified to vote. A dismissed not the bargaining unit is untenable.
employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall - Petitioners argue that more than a majority of the signatories to
be allowed to vote in the election. the petitions for certification election “have disaffiliated from the
In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the eligibility of two respondent unions and have joined another union.”
voters, all contested voters shall be allowed to vote. However, their Petitioners then contend that, with the mass disaffiliation the
votes shall be segregated and sealed in individual envelopes in petition for certification would fall short of the 20% consent
accordance with Section 9 of these Rules. required by the LC. However, this will not defeat the petition for
- The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the certification election. On the contrary, it becomes more
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the imperative to conduct one. The alleged disaffiliation from the
certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to petitioning unions in favor of another union raised a genuine
determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the representation issue which can best be tested in a certification
149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the certification election.
election. - employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor
- St. James further alleges that the names of the 84 voters are not on organization which they desire to join. The exercise of such right
the list of its rank and file employees. On this score, we sustain the would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be
factual finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election, which
of its administrative, teaching and office personnel. These is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary
administrative, teaching and office personnel are not members of character, the bargaining unit to represent them
Samahang Manggagawa. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that Disposition Petition is denied
Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list submitted
by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of
BARRERA V CIR (PAWO)
Samahang Manggagawa.
GRN L-32853
Disposition Petition DENIED. FERNANDO; September 25, 1981

Voters ALL Employees Facts:


Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC V DIRECTOR OF LABOR of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged
an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The
RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of
180 SCRA 749 failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike.
PARAS; December 29, 1989
Issue
NATURE WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the
Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice
case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with
FACTS respondent-unions
- Unions filed with the MOLE petitions for direct certification and/or
certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees Held
(there are a total of 5 petitions) No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays)
- 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 If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a
others were probationary employees, resulting in non-compliance with certification election of a company dominated union, as a result
the 30% requirement. of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the
- the arbiter issued an order for the a certification election among the employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first
rank-and-file employees. MFR of the employers was denied, so they cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take
filed this petition in the SC place. However, In this case the situation is exactly the reverse.
It is management that would have an unfair labor practice case
ISSUE filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some of its employees
1. WON probationary employees and employees with less than 1 year of concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a certification
service are qualified participants in a certification election election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way, the
result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an
HELD organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's
1. YES prerogatives. The difficulties and obstacles that must be then
Ratio In a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the personnel, who had
appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote. Art.255: “labor not as yet made up their minds one way or the other. This is not
organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair
an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 123- Disini
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 Nature: Certiorari
organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved, Facts:
in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also Eastland Manufacturing had 275 people in its labor force of
the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that whom 175 were members of respondent labor union. They
management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of signed a petition for the holding of a certification election. That
its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with fact in itself would more than justify the granting of such a plea,
things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement the 30% mandatory requirement being met. It was alleged,
sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim, however, that there were 43 employees with less than 6 months
lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays). service and 6 who had left their employment. Even then there
Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention would still be more than 30% of the employees whose votes
of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks certainly should be counted. However, Eastland was adamant.
of the labor organizations 'designated or selected for the purpose of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate Issue:
collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the WON the reliance of Noriel (director of BLR) under A257 on the
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law requirement of the law of 30 % of all the employees suffices
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 Held:
of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that As noted earlier, for purposes of membership in any labor union,
in the meanwhile, which may take some time, some of those who are the one year period is required. That is one thing. Who can vote
employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair in a certification election is another. The plain language of the
labor practice case." law certainly is controlling. All employees can participate. The
later article is, therefore, lacking in any relevance. It is not a
Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike limitation to the right of an those in a collective bargaining unit to
and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically cast their vote.
follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to -Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions v. Noriel: "From United
participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, a 1975
jobs. decision, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that for
the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be maintained
Disposition Petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed 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
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS vs. barely a year ago, is United Lumber and General Workers v.
NORIEL Noriel. This Court has resolutely set its face against any attempt
98 SCRA 474 that may frustrate the above statutory policy. The success of this
Fernando; June 30, 1980 petition would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a
FACTS principle that has been firmly embedded in our jurisprudence.
We are not inclined to take that step."
After the order calling for certification election at Pacific Mills, Inc. (the - It is only worth recalling that even under the Industrial Peace
First Order) became final, the Philippine Association of Free Labor Act that was the ruling consistently followed.
Unions (PAFLU) filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) a motion - Federation of the United Workers Organization v. Court of
to participate in said election. BLR allowed said motion for intervention. Industrial Relations categorically stated: "The slightest doubt
BLR explained that PAFLU’s motion was filed before the scheduled cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses
election; and that even before the Supreme Court issued a TRO on the significance in a petition for certification is that through such a
matter, a certification election among the rank and file (RNF) employees device the employees are given the opportunity to make known
resulted in PAFLU receiving about 63% of the total votes cast. Hence who shall have the right to represent them. What is equally
the present petition, which invokes the finality of the First Order and, important is that not only some but all of them should have the
thus, seeks to exclude PAFLU from the election. right to do so."

ISSUE WON PAFLU’s motion will prosper Dispositive: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

HELD: YES R. TRANSPORT CORP. VS LAGUESMA


227 SCRA 827
RATIO: For the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be
Quiason; November 16, 1993
maintained and, thus, manifest steadfast adherence to the concept
Petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside the Resolutions of
of industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining
the Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification
(DOLE) affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for the
election. The success of this petition [i.e. the exclusion of PAFLU from
conduct of the certification election, and another one denying
the election] would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
principle that has been firmly embedded in jurisprudence. We are not
inclined to take that step.8
FACTS
-Respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines
EASTLAND MANUFACTURING CO. INC. v. NORIEL (CLOP), filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition
111 SCRA 674 for certification election among the rank and file employees of
the petitioner.Med-Arbiter A. Dizon dismissed the petition on the
FERNANDO; February 10, 1982 ground that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by
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 but only the drivers, conductors and conductresses to the
participated in the scheduled election by voting for PAFLU. If SC allows the exclusion of the inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers,
present petition to exclude PAFLU from the election, then about 63% of the voters
in said election would be effectively disenfranchised.
mechanics and washerboys.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 124- Disini
So subsequently, respondent. CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a defective petition which did not include all the employees who
second petition for certification election,which included all the rank and should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit.
file employees of the company, who hold non-managerial. and non- 2. NO. As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables
supervisorial positions.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the second Industries, Inc. v. Torres, 211 SCRA 95 (1992): At any rate, it is
petition and contended that the dismissal of the first petition constituted now well-settled that employees who have been improperly laid-
res judicata. Petitioner argued that respondent CLOP should have off but who have a present, unabandoned right to or expectation
interposed an appeal to the dismissal of the first petition and its failure to of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification elections.
do so barred it from filing another petition for certification election. Med- Thus, and to repeat, if the dismissal is under question, as in the
Arbiter R. Parungo rendered a decision, which ordered that a case now at bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or unfair
certification election among the regular rank and file workers of labor practices was filed, the employees concerned could still
petitioner company be conducted. The Associated Labor Unions (ALU- qualify to vote in the elections.
TUCP) filed a motion for intervention and alleged that it has members in Therefore, the employees of petitioner who participated in the
the proposed bargaining unit. Subsequently, the National Federation of strike, legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare
Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a separate petition for certification election) their employment status legally terminated or their complaint for
and a motion to consolidate related cases to avoid confusion. illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC.
Dissatisfied with the Decision dated July 3, 1991 rendered by Med- It should be noted that it is the petitioner, the employer, which
Arbiter R. Parungo, petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who, has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a
through Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, affirmed the Med- certification election. This must not be so for the choice of a
Arbiter in its Resolution dated July 22, 1992 calling for the conduct of the collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees.
certification election. The Resolution, in pertinent part, reads as follows: The employer has no right to interfere in the election and is
“With regard however, to the question on propriety of consolidation, merely regarded as a bystander (Divine Word University of
there is merit in the argument of respondent-appellant on the need to Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 213 SCRA 759
consolidate the separate petitions for certification election because they [1992]).
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 Effect of Non-Participation Previous Election
resolved by the Med-Arbiter together with the intervention of ALU-TUCP.
-Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, again stressing the
REYES v. TRAJANO
principle of res judicata. Petitioner further argued that the second 209 SCRA 484
petition for a certification election by respondent CLOP, NAFLU and NARVASA; June 2, 1992
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, NATURE
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as Special civil action of certiorari
amended. Undersecretary Laguesma denied the motion for
reconsideration. FACTS
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
Questions as an Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed on Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of
July 31, 1992. Petitioner argued that the present case must be the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
indefinitely suspended until the following cases are resolved by the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
NLRC and the Supreme Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04708- certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were
91 entitled "R". Transport Corporation v. Jose S. Torregaza, et. al., contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
wherein Labor Arbiter de Castro declared the strike staged by employees in the bargaining unit.
respondent CLOP illegal and ordered the strikers to pay petitioner the -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
amount of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; b) NLRC-NCR Case No. Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
06-03415092 filed by respondent CLOP and its members for illegal Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
dismissal; and NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92 filed by unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
respondent CLOP in behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),
(Rollo, pp. 139-145). Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS).
the motion to suspend the conduct of the certification election. Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only
ISSUE/S 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the
WON the second petition for certification election should have been filed supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240
after one year from the dismissal of the first petition certification election employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
WON the employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for
joined the strike must first be resolved before a certification election can votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending
be conducted. labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,
conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third
HELD choice: "NO UNION."
Petition dismissed The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
RATIO: TUPAS 1
1. NO. Under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules TUEU-OLALIA 95
Implementing the Labor Code as amended. Said section provides as NO UNION 1
follows: When to file: In the absence of collective bargaining agreement SPOILED 1
duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for CHALLENGED 141
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 Held:
final certification election result. Furthermore, failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to
Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of law. the right to participate in future elections. No law, administrative
The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by
actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting reason of neglect to exercise the right in past cases.
of votes. In this case, there was no certification election conducted
precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a
Voting Day
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 125- Disini
Reasoning The question involving the legality of the strike which
was conducted against ADMACOR is an independent issue, the
ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING resolution of which pertains to the Labor Arbiter. On the other
CORPORATION VS CALLEJA hand, the issue of the validity of the certification election pertains
174 SCRA 477 solely to the Bureau of Labor Relations, originally, the Med-
MEDIALDEA; June 29, 1989 Arbiter and by way of appeal, to the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations. There was no overlapping by the Bureau of the
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter on the question of legality, or
illegality of the complained strike. The allegation that the Bureau
FACTS assumed on its own an implied determination of said issue is
- Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) is belied by the fact that the assailed resolutions of respondent
a corporation that operates a rattan furniture factory at Mandaue City, Director confined itself to the issue of the validity of the
Cebu. certification election. There was nothing in the assailed
- Upon petition of Buklod ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), one of resolutions which contain any conclusion or ruling by the Bureau
several labor unions at ADMACOR'S factory, the Labor Relations that the alleged strike was legal or illegal.
Division ordered a certification election to be conducted on May 21, What was resolved was whether or not there was compliance
1986, a regular business day. with the procedural requirement set by Section 2, Rule VI, Book
- On May 19,1986, several factory workers of ADMACOR held a strike. VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election
No previous notice of strike was filed by the factory workers with the shall be set during a regular business day.
Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office. On May 20,1986, - In answer to petition's contention that there being a strike on
ADMACOR filed a petition for the indefinite resetting of the scheduled May 21, 1986, the day the certification election was held, said
certification election, which petition was not acted upon by the Labor day cannot be considered a regular business day, the
Relations Division. respondent Director ruled: Furthermore, anent complainant's
- On May 21, 1986, the scheduled certification election was conducted, contention that the certification election was conducted not on
despite the strike. Of the 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for Southern regular business day, the same is devoid of merit. The records
Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as their exclusive bargaining further show that during the pre-election conference the
agent. On the same day, ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike contending parties agreed that the election should be conducted
and for illegal picketing. on May 21, 1986 which was, on that time, a determined regular
- On May 23, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification business day of the company. This was in accordance with
election conducted on May 21, 1986 as null and void on the ground that Section 2, Rule VI Book V, of the IRR of the Labor Code which
there being a strike by some workers in the premises of the factory on explicitly provides that “The election shall be set during the
the day of the certification election, such day cannot be considered a regular business day of the company unless otherwise agreed
regular business day, pursuant to Section 2, Rule VI, Book V of the upon by the parties.” The alleged strike and/or picketing of
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, to wit: some employees at the company's premises which
Section 2. Election conducted during regular business day. – The coincided with the actual conduct of certification election
election shall be set during the regular business day of the might, perhaps have affected the actual performance of
company unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. works by some employees, but did not necessarily make
- On August 5, 1986, the Med-Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR's complaint said date an irregular business day of the company to go
and certified SPFL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the against the aforesaid Rule.
rank and file employees of ADMACOR. This dismissal was appealed by - In the first place, since petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the
ADMACOR to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Bureau when it filed its election protest before the Med-Arbiter, it
- public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja acting as Director of the Bureau cannot now be allowed to repudiate the same jurisdiction after
of Labor Relations dismissed the appeal of ADMACOR and affirmed the failing to obtain affirmative relief. Moreover, it can not be denied
decision of the Med-Arbiter. The motion for intervention filed by the that an actual election was conducted on said date where, of the
Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR was denied for having 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for SPFL as its exclusive
been filed after the actual certification election had already been bargaining agent. In the "Minutes of the Certification Election
conducted. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution was also among the Rank and File Employees of Asian Design
denied. These two resolutions are assailed in this petition for having Manufacturing Corp.", the representatives of the contending
been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of unions, and of the Ministry of Labor even attested that the
discretion. election was peaceful and orderly and none of the parties
- Meanwhile, on January 26,1987, a decision on the twin complaints for registered any protest on any matter concerning the election
illegal strike and illegal picketing was rendered by Labor Arbiter proceedings. There is thus, no valid reason to annul the
Tumamak declaring the strike as illegal certification election.
- In this petition, ADMACOR questions the jurisdiction of the Bureau of - also, a certification election is the sole concern of the workers.
Labor Relations to resolve or determine the factual and legal basis of a The only exception is where the employer has to file a petition
strike in relation to the question of representation of employees. It said: for certification election pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor
What is directly in issue is the jurisdiction of the Bureau to rule, as it did, Code because it was requested to bargain collectively.
on the protest filed after the election by the petitioner. Petitioner's protest Thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process
involves the regularity of the election, due to the contemporaneous, in ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. The pronouncement of
fact, even antecedent conduct of an illegal strike. Instead of holding in this Court concerning management interference in certification
abeyance the election protest so that the Labor-Arbiter could properly elections is well worth repeating:
resolve the pending complaints, the Bureau rendered its assailed On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the
Resolutions in excess of its jurisdiction. The Bureau had assumed on its choice of a collective bargaining representative, the employer is
own an implied determination of the legality or illegality of the definitely an intruder. His participation, to say the least, deserves
complaints. no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency to lend
support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal
ISSUE affair of labor.
WON the BLR had no jurisdiction in dismissing its protest against the
certification election during the pendency of the case before the Labor Disposition ACCORDINGLY the petition is DISMISSED for lack
Arbiter on the validity of the strike of merit.

HELD NO.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 126- 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.
d. Validity Ratio Whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union
represents the majority of the rank and file employees, in the
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification
v LAGUESMA (MNMPP) election is the most democratic method of determining the
employees' choice of their bargaining representative. It is the
267 SCRA 303 appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on
MENDOZA; JAN.31, 1997 representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the
employees themselves.
NATURE Reasoning Ideally, it should be the payroll which should have
Special civil action for certiorari been used for the purpose of the election. However, the
unjustified refusal of the company to submit the payroll in its
FACTS custody, despite efforts to make it produce it, compelled resort to
- Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN) the SSS list as the next best source of information. After all, the
and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific SSS list is a public record whose regularity is presumed.
Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and file employees at the Moreover, as announced in UE Automotive Employees v Noriel,
Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC). MNMPP filed a petition for CE where it concerns the weight to be accorded to the wishes of the
(certification election) alleging that there were more or less 130 rank and majority as expressed in an election conducted fairly and
file employees at the PPC whom it was seeking to represent. The honestly, certain provisions that may be considered mandatory
petition for CE was initially dismissed by the Med-Arbiter but was before the voting takes place become thereafter merely directory
approved on appeal to the Sec. of Labor (SoL). in order that the wishes of the electorate prevail
- In the subsequent pre-election conferences ordered by the DOLE, PPP - At all events petitioner must be deemed to have waived the
repeatedly failed to appear despite being given sufficient notice and objection based on this ground, considering that this objection
warning that should it fail to appear, the list of employees submitted by was raised for the first time in petitioner's appeal from the
MNMPP would instead be used as basis for determining the eligible decision of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's protest. At the
voters. latest, petitioner's objection to the use of the SSS should have
- On Sept. 23, 1991, SAMAHAN and MNMPP agreed to hold the CE on been raised during the elections and formalized in its election
Oct. 21, 1991 on the basis of the list of employees submitted by MNMPP protest.
without prejudice to the submission by petitioner SAMAHAN of its own Disposition Petition for certiorari DENIED for lack of merit.
list but both later agreed to postpone election to await the list of
employees requested from the SSS. e. Protest
- 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 Period
participation of a 3rd labor union, KAMAPI, which had field a motion for TIMBUNGCO v CASTRO
intervention. Thereafter, SAMAHAN filed a Manifestation/Motion that it 183 SCRA 140
was not participating in the CE and asked that the CE held on the same NARVASA; Mar 14 1990
day be nullified.
- The CE was finally held on Oct.6, 1992 and the results were: NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
No. of Eligible Voters ................................98
Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic FACTS
(MNMPPP)...............................................56 - Emmanuel Timbungco was the president of Kapisanan ng
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco
(SAMAHAN)...........................................2 Corporation composed of employees of Associated Anglo
Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino.(KAMAPI)………….................... 0 American Tobacco Corporation. The union had a three-year
No Union ...............................................1 collective bargaining agreement with AAATC, to expire August
No. of Spoiled Ballots cast ....................3 24, 1984.
Total no of Votes Cast………………........62 - On July 15, 1984, a general meeting of all the members of the
Kapisanan was convoked by Timbungco, where the disaffiliation
- On Oct. 9, 1992 petitioner SAMAHAN protested the result alleging of the Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF,
among others that there were discrepancies in the list of voters and the amendment of its constitution and by-laws was
submitted by the SSS. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the election protest of unanimously approved. A new set of officers was also elected
SAMAHAN and upheld the result of the CE. After the SoL denied its which included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without
appeal and affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision, SAMAHAN moved for a opposition.
reconsideration which was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari. - On July 23, 1984 Timbungco submitted to the Bureau of Labor
Relations the following documents:
ISSUES 1) a certified copy of the Kapisanan's amended constitution
1. WON the CE held on Oct. 6, 1982 was valid and by-laws;
2. WON it was proper to use the list of EEs furnished by the SSS as 2) an affidavit jointly executed by him and the union
basis for determining the total no. of eligible voters in the bargaining unit. 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;
HELD
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- Disini
Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to suppress the welfare Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Said order directed the
of labor. holding of a certification election among the regular and
seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc.
-Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, - A series of pre-election conferences were held to discuss all
as amended, the election officer’s authority to certify the results of the issues relative to the conduct of the certification election, except
election is limited to situations in which there has been no protest filed; that which pertains to the voting qualifications of the 194 workers
or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within enumerated in the lists of qualified voters submitted by TUPAS.
five days from the close of the election proceedings. - After a late submission of the parties of their respective position
papers, Mod-Arbiter Base issued an Order (dated December 9,
Petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in rendering its assailed 1988) which allowed 184 of the 194 questioned workers to vote,
Decision, considering that no protest or challenge had been formalized subject to challenge, in the certification election to be held on
within five days, or raised during the election proceedings and entered in December 16, 1989. Parties were furnished copies of the order.
the minutes thereof. Petitioner adds that respondent did not file any - December 12, 1988 - The notice of certification election was
protest, either, against the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the duly posted. 168 of the questioned workers actually voted on
former’s officers during the election. election day.
- In the scheduled certification election, petitioner PFVI objected
We disagree. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to to the proceeding, through a Manifestation filed with the
respondent’s Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the Representation Officer before the close of the election
election officer should have deferred issuing the Certification of the proceedings. The Manifestation outlined the following
results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be allegations:
applied to the present case. - The posting of the list of eligible voters authorized to
participate in the certification election was short of the
Respondent’s contention is that a number of employees were lured by 5 day requirement provided by law. It was posted only
their officers into believing that petitioner was an independent union. on December 12, 1988 and the election was held on
Since the employees had long desired to have an independent union December 16, 1988, only four days prior to the
that would represent them in collective bargaining, they voted “yes” in scheduled certification election.
favor of petitioner. Having been misled, a majority of them eventually - By agreement of PFVI and TUPAS, workers whose
disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an independent union, which names were inadvertently omitted in the list of qualified
thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having been formed voters were allowed to vote subject to challenge.
just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former Thirty eight of them voted on election day.
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its - The ‘yes’ votes failed to obtain the majority of the votes cast in
protest within five days from the close of the election proceedings. said certification election. Hence it was necessary that the 168
challenged votes be opened to determine the true will of the
(Notably, after it had applied for registration with the BLR, respondent employees.
filed its Petition to nullify the certification election. Petitioner opposed - January 20, 1989 – PFVI filed a position paper arguing against
the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of the opening of said votes mainly because said voters were
registration at the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of neither regular employees nor seasonal workers because they
the latter four days after the filing of the Petition, the misgivings of the allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days.
former were brushed aside by the med-arbiter. Indeed, the fact that - TUPAS, on the other hand, argued that the employment status
respondent was not yet a duly registered labor organization when the of said employees has been resolved when Labor Arbiter
Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in its Martinez declared that said employees were illegally dismissed.
application for registration.) - In an Order dated February 2, 1989 Med-Arbiter Base ordered
the opening of said 168 challenged votes upon his observation
The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not that said employees were illegally dismissed in accordance with
sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural the foregoing Decision of Labor Arbiter Martinez. ‘Yes’ votes
technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be amounted to 165.
taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail - February 23, 1989 - PFVI formally filed a Protest, claiming that
over the welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be the required 5-day posting of notice was not allegedly complied
accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor with and that the list of qualified voters so posted failed to
organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this include 55 regular workers agreed upon by the parties as
opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioner’s officers in the qualified to vote. The Protest further alleged that those ineligible
present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent to vote were allowed to vote.
and independent choice.
ISSUE
WON the DOLE secretary committed grave abuse of discretion
Disposition Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the certification of
TUPAS as the sole bargaining agent mainly on an erroneous
f. Appeal ruling that the protest against the canvassing of the votes cast by
168 dismissed workers was filed beyond the reglementary period
PHIL. FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES V HELD
TORRES NO
211 SCRA 95 Ratio The phrase “close of election proceeding” as used
PARAS; July 3, 1992 in Sections 3 and 4 of the pertinent Implementing Rules
(Rule 6, Book 5) refers to that period from the closing of
NATURE the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes as it
Petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Secretary of could not have been the intention of the Implementing
Labor and Employment Rules to include in the term “close of the election
proceedings” the period for the final determination of the
FACTS challenged votes and the canvassing since it may take a
- October 13, 1988 - Med-Arbiter Base issued an order which granted very long period of time.
the petition for certification election filed by the Trade Union of the Reasoning
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 129- Disini
- Section 3 of the Implementing Rules state: “The Representation officer - Meanwhile, another union, the Filsystem Workers Union
may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the (FWU), filed a Petition for Certification Election in the same
election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the bargaining unit.
representation officer before the close of the proceedings. Protests not - The Med-Arbitration - NCR Branch granted the petition.
so raised are deemed waived. Such protest shall be contained in the - The certification election held on April 19, 1996, was won by
minutes of the proceedings.” FWU. The FWU was certified on April 29, 1996, as the exclusive
- Section 4 reads: “Where the protest is formalized before the med- bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of private
arbiter within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings, the respondent. Eventually, FWU and the private respondent
med-arbiter shall decide same the within 20 working days from the date negotiated a CBA.
of formal action. If not formalized within the prescribed period, the - Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of petitioner as it
protest shall be deemed dropped. The decision may be appealed to the has become moot and academic.
Bureau in the same manner and on the same grounds as provided - In opposing the Motion to Dismiss Appeal, petitioner contended
under Rule 5.” that its appeal is not moot as the certification election held on
- Rule 5 provides that “the following requirements in order that a protest April 19, 1996, was void for violating Section 10, Rule V of the
filed thereunder would prosper, to wit: Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, viz:
(1) The protest must be filed with the representation officer SEC. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. - The Secretary
shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from
and made of record in the minutes of the proceedings before receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of
the close of election proceedings, and the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of
(2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.
within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings.” - Petitioner further argued that the CBA executed between the
- PFVI, after filing a manifestation of protest on election day on FWU and the private respondent could not affect its pending
December 16, 1988, only formalized the same on February 20, 1989, or representation case following Section 4, Rule V of the
more than two months after the close of election proceedings. Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code which states:
SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements. - The representation case shall not,
- PFVI’s arguments that election proceedings include not only casting of however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered
votes but necessarily includes canvassing and appreciation of votes cast before or during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the
do not hold water. If the argument were to be entertained that pendency of the representation case.
canvassing and appreciation of all the votes cast were terminated only - Respondent Secretary dismissed the appeal interposed by
on February 16, 1989 and it was only then that the election proceedings petitioner on the ground that it has been rendered moot by the
were deemed closed, it can still be said that when the formal protest was certification of FWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
filed on February 20, 1989, the five-day period within which to file the of the rank-and-file workers of respondent company. Petitioner's
formal protest still subsisted and its protest was therefore formalized Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
within the reglementary period.
- With regard to the argument that the notice of holding a certification ISSUE
election was posted only 4 days before the actual election, the Court 1. WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when
held that a substantial number of voters turned up. Viewed thus in the he affirmed the Resolution of the Med-Arbiter dismissing
light of the substantial participation in the elections by voter-employees, petitioner's petition for certification election for failure to prove its
and further in the light of the rule a liberal approach be taken in affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.
interpreting the Constitution's protection to labor and social justice 2. WON the appeal filed by the petitioner was rendered moot
provisions and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing and academic by the subsequent certification election ordered
the constitutional mandate, the Court ruled that the lack of one day in by the Med-Arbiter, won by the FWU and which culminated in a
the posting of notices was insignificant and not compelling enough to CBA with private respondent.
nullify the elections.
Disposition Dismissed for lack of merit HELD
1. YES.
- Firstly, it must be underscored that petitioner is an
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FILSYSTEMS independently registered labor union as evidenced by a
V SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Certificate of Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate
(FILSYSTEMS, INC.) labor organization, petitioner’s right to file a petition for
290 SCRA 680 certification election on its own is beyond question.
- Secondly, the failure of petitioner to prove its affiliation with
PUNO; June 5, 1998 NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file said petition for
certification election as an independent union. At the most,
FACTS
petitioner's failure will result in an ineffective affiliation with
- Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-
NAFLU-KMU. Still, however, it can pursue its petition for
NAFLU-KMU), a registered labor union filed a Petition for Certification
certification election as an independent union. Despite affiliation,
Election among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent
the local union remains the basic unit free to serve the common
FILSYSTEMS, Inc. before the DOLE - NCR
interest of all its members and pursue its own interests
- Respondent opposed the petition. It questioned the status of petitioner
independently of the federation.
as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its
2. NO.
contract of affiliation with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the
- The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) within thirty (30) days from its
certification election was seasonably appealed. The appeal
execution.
stopped the holding of any certification election. Section 10,
- Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap dismissed the petition for certification
Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code
election. He ruled that petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no
is crystal clear and hardly needs any interpretation.
legal personality.
- Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at
- Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
the time the CBA was entered between FWU and private
Employment. It reiterated its contention that as an independently
respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the Implementing
registered union, it has the right to file a petition for certification election
Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will
regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.
not prejudice petitioner's pending representation case or render
- Respondent opposed the appeal. It argued that petitioner should have
the same moot.
filed its petition for certification election as an independently registered
- The Court bewail private respondent's tenacious opposition to
union and not as a union affiliated with NAFLU-KMU.
petitioner's certification election petition. Such a stance is not
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 130- Disini
conducive to industrial peace. When a petition for certification election
is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy for the HELD
employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice Unless it has filed a petition for a certification election
of the bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, an employer has
notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, no standing to question such election or to interfere therein.
however, be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to Being the sole concern of the workers, the election must be
oppose it. An employer that involves itself in a certification election free from the influence or reach of the company.
lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company union. -Art. 259, LC pertains not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders
Disposition Petition GRANTED. 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
NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA v LAGUESMA granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for
433 SCRA 224 a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any
PANGANIBAN; June 29, 2004 issue arising therefrom may be raised in the appeal on the
decision granting or denying the petition.
NATURE -The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that
-Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is
manifested by the issuance of Dept Order No. 40: Under the new
FACTS rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification
-October 14, 1991: Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers & election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer
Employees Union (NGMTEU), a legitimate labor organization duly company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union
accredited and registered with the DOLE, filed with the Med-Arbitration has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining
Branch a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive representative.
bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file -This new rule decreases or limits the appeals that may impede
employees of NDGM. the selection by employees of their bargaining representative.
-November 18, 1991: Med-Arbiter issued an order granting the petition Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free
for certification election and directing the representation officer to collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to
undertake a pre-election conference, taking into account two choices: promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining
NDGMTEU or no union. and to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-
-January 8, 1992: pre-election conference was conducted wherein making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
parties agreed, among others, that the certification election shall be -Joya v. PCGG: Legal standing means a personal and
conducted on January 18, 1992 from 10:00am to 2:00pm and that the substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained
eligible voters shall be ‘those employees appearing in the list submitted or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act that is being
by management as agreed upon by the parties by affixing their challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in
signatures on said list.’ issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from
-January 13, 1992: NDGM registered a motion to include probationary mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters. On the same day, interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be
Med-Arbiter Falconitin denied said motion by handwritten notation on the personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the
motion itself. constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.
-January 17, 1992: NDGM filed an appeal from the said handwritten -Clearly, NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a
‘order’ excluding probationary and substitute employees from the list of result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the
voters. certification election. Hence, it does not have any material
-January 18, 1992: certification election results: YES-56 and NO-23 with interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the
4 segregated ballots and 1 spoiled ballot. Against this conduct of real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the
elections and its results, NDGM filed a written notice of protest. voters’ list.
-January 27, 1992: a motion seeking the certification of NDGMTEU as -To buttress its locus standi to question the certification election,
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file petitioner argues that it has the support of all the excluded
employees of NDGM was filed. This was approved by Med-Arbiter on employees. This support was made known to the representation
March 16, 1992. officer in a letter stating the employees’ desire to participate in
-March 30, 1992: NDGM lodged an appeal from the order of certification. the certification election. True, all employees should be given an
USec Laguesma dismissed it for lack of merit, and rejected MFR. opportunity to make known their choice of who shall be their
-CA dismissed petition for certiorari, denied MFR. It ruled bargaining representative. Such provision, however, does not
1. that Med-Arbiter Falconitin’s notation on petitioner’s "Motion to Include clothe the employer with the personality to question the
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters" certification election.
was not an order that could be the subject of an appeal to the SOLE. -The employer is the adversary in the collective bargaining
2. that NDGM was deemed to have abandoned its appeal of the notation process. Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is
when it filed another one on March 30, 1992, also with the labor designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose
secretary. Thus, the holding of the certification election was its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter,
unnecessary. certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of
3. that complaints regarding the conduct of the certification election ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances
should have been raised with the registration officer before the close of where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the
the proceedings. matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle
4. that NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not
workers who should be included in the list of voters because, in the fall within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as
process of choosing their collective bargaining representative, the possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy.
employer was definitely an intruder. 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].
ISSUES -SC would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere
WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by NDGM’s with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor
appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were
Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters. enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 131- Disini
to determine their own bargaining representative. Employers are
strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or DISPOSITION
hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any The petition is granted. Resolution of the Office of the DOLE
way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the Secretary is affirmed.
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. g. Annulment
Disposition Petition denied. CA affirmed. Costs against NDGM.
Allegations/Grounds
SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION-FEBRUARY SIX
UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION v NORIEL
MOVEMENT V TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL
(EDUVALA, GATCORD)
CORPORATION
67 SCRA 267
428 SCRA 524
FERNANDO, J.; October 3, 1975
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
NATURE
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside a
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the CA. certification election

FACTS FACTS
- The controversy arose from a petition for certification election filed with - petitioner United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries
the Med-Arbitration Section, DOLE, Calamba, Laguna by petitioner Philippines (UEUGIP) alleged that in a pre-election conference
SMC. The petitioner alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization that held by the BLR, it was agreed that petitioner would be listed in
seeks to represent the regular rank-and-file workers at Titan Megabags the ballot as UEUGIP. However, it was deleted in the notice of
(respondent). the certification election and in the sample ballot and replaced
- Respondent opposed the petition, saying that members of petitioner with a non-contending party. Petitioner did not file a complaint
union are not its employees but of Stitchers Multipurpose Cooperative regarding this, but it filed a grievance referring to alleged
(SMC), an independent contractor. SMC was contracted to sew the electioneering of nuns as observers or inspectors in behalf of
industrial bags. respondent GATCORD.
- The Med-Arbiter held that the respondent corporation is the employer - GATCORD won the certification election with 63% of the votes
of the members, and directed that a certification election be conducted while UEUGIP got 4.5%. Even if all the votes of the 7 losing
by its rank-and-file. unions were added, they would still be 1,823 votes short of
- On appeal, DOLE Secretary affirmed in toto Med-Arbiter’s Order re: GATCORD's votes.
pushing through with the certification election. - There was some confusion as to the leadership of UEUGIP as
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by office a faction of UEUGIP, represented by a Mr. Diaz, clashed with
of DOLE Secretary for being late by seven days. Mr. Escreza, UEUGIP's duly elected president. Mr. Diaz then
- Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with CA, alleging that the claimed to have joined another union but later claimed once
Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that an again to represent UEUGIP.
employer-employee relation existed between respondent and member of
petitioner union. The CA set aside the resolutions of the Office of the ISSUE/S
DOLE secretary, and disallowed the certification election. 1. WON the certification election should be set aside
2. WON the presence of nuns and a priest is electioneering
ISSUE
1. HOW an appeal is made for certification election proceedings. HELD
1. NO
HELD Ratio What is significant in a certification election is that
Procedure employees are given the opportunity to know who shall
Ratio The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of represent them.
Secretary of DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a Reasoning The grievance complained of is more fancied than
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably real. UEUGIP has little support & could not match GATCORD.
file a special civil action for certiorari under RULE 65 of the Rules. The majority must rule in a certification election.
Without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed, the resolution 2. NO
becomes final and executory. Ratio The wide latitude accorded religious groups in the
exercise of their freedom cautions against reliance on such a
Art. 259, LC: any party to a certification election may appeal the order of ground to invalidate a certification election.
the Med-Artbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the Reasoning That petitioner chose not to press this point is
same within 15 calendar days. understandable. Contractual rights, even labor matters, must
Sec. 15, Rule XI, Book V, LC IRR: the Decision or Resolution of the yield to religious freedom.
Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory. Upon Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
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. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR V
SECRETARY
- Even if there was no procedural flaw, still the CA should have denied 287 SCRA 599
respondent’s petition for certiorari. In certification elections, the employer
is a bystander. It has no right or material interest to assail the
MENDOZA; March 19, 1998
certification election. When a petition for certification election is filed by a
NATURE
legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to
Petition for certiorari
have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining
representative.
FACTS
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 132- Disini
- A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file 4. YES
employees of the Hijo Plantation. The resulting choice was “ no union”. Reasoning The records shows that as early as August 22 and
However, the results were nullified because of allegations that the 30, 1989, employees already wrote letters/affidavits alleging
company intervened in the elections. irregularities in the elections and disfranchisement of workers.
- A new election was held. National Federation of Labor (NFL) won. These were attached to respondent’s petition just 16 days after
- The Trust Union Society and Trade Workers-KILUSAN (TRUST- the election. It is not true therefore that the employees slept on
Kilusan), the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines their rights.
(ULGWP), the Hijo Labor Union and the Hijo Plantation, Inc (HPI) sought As to the claim that letters dated May 7, 1991 and June 14, 1991
the nullification of the results of the certification election on the ground bear these same dates because they were prepared by private
that it was conducted despite the pendency of the appeals filed by Hijo respondent HPI and employees were merely asked to sign them,
Labor Union and ULGWP from the order, dated August 17, 1989, of the suffice it to say that this is plain speculation which petitioner has
Med-Arbiter denying their motion for intervention. They claim that only not proven by competent evidence.
54% of the workers voted. HPI claimed that it was not informed or As to the letters not being verified, suffice it to say that technical
properly represented at the pre-election conference. rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.
- Acting Labor Secretary dela Serna directed Arbiter Pura to investigate.
The latter found irregularities. Disposition Petition is denied.
- The Arbiter summoned the unions for a hearing.
- The DOLE then upheld the election. It did no give weight to the DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File
investigation of the Arbiter. Accordingly, the Labor Secretary denied the
Association-Federation of Free Workers v.
petition to annul the election filed by the ULGWP, TRUST-KILUSAN,
HLU and the HPI. However, on motion of HPI, the Secretary of Labor, Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phil. Corp.
on reversed his resolution. 434 SCRA 670
Panganiban; July 22, 2004
ISSUE/S
1. WON respondent company can file a petition to nullify the elections. Nature
2. WON protests concerning the election should be registered and Petition for review on certiorari
entered into the minutes of the election proceedings before it can be
considered and it should be formalized within 5 days Facts
3. WON the contending unions are estopped from questioning the -A certification election was conducted among the regular rank
election and file employees in the main office and the regional branches
4. WON the letter appeals were credible of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were
DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File Association-Federation of
HELD Free Workers (DHL) and “no union.” Election officer certified
1. Yes. DHL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and
Reasoning What the DOLE Secretary considered in reversing its earlier file employees of the corporation. Later, Buklod ng Manggagawa
rulings was not the petition of the employer but the letter-appeals that ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the
the employees sent to his office denouncing the irregularities committed Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and
during the certification election. The petition of private respondent was Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the nullification of the
simply the occasion for the employees to voice their protests against the certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with
election. Nor is it improper for private respondent to show interest in the committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings,
conduct of the election. Private respondent is the employer. The manner particularly by misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was
in which the election was held could make the difference between an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the
industrial strife and industrial harmony in the company. What an Federation of Free Workers (FFW). This misrepresentation was
employer is prohibited from doing is to interfere with the conduct of the supposedly the basis for their selection of DHL in the certification
certification election for the purpose of influencing its outcome. election. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those
2. No. whom it had misled allegedly withdrew their membership from it
Reasoning The complaint in this case was that a number of employees and subsequently formed themselves into an independent
were not able to cast their votes because they were not properly notified union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of
of the date. They could not therefore have filed their protests within five Registration by DOLE. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified
(5) days. At all events, the Solicitor General states, that the protests the November 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the
were not filed within five (5) days, is a mere technicality which should not holding of another one with the following contending choices:
be allowed to prevail over the workers' welfare DHL, Buklod, and “no choice.” DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda
3. No. Dimapilis-Baldoz held on appeal that the issue of representation
had already been settled with finality in favor of DHL, and that no
Reasoning In its comment, ATU-TUCP states, that “the petitions for certification election would be entertained within one
representative of the Association of Trade Unions really attest to the fact year from the time the election officer had issued the
that we cannot really identify all the voters who voted on that election Certification Order.
except some workers who were our supporters in the absence of Hijo -CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the members
Plantation representatives. We also attest that the polling precinct were of petitioner -- 704 out of 894 of them -- provided a compelling
not conducive to secrecy of the voters since it was conducted outside of reason to conduct a certification election anew in order to
the Company premises. The precincts where the election was held were determine, once and for all, which union reflected their choice. A
located in a passenger waiting shed infront of the canteen across the new certification election is called for.
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 Issue WON the certification election is valid
road. Herein private respondents also observed during the election that
there were voters who dictated some voters the phrase "number 3" to Held Yes, it is valid.
those who were casting their votes and those who were about to vote. Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V (Labor Relations)
Number 3 refers to the National Federation of Labor in the official ballot. of the Labor Code, as amended, the election officer’s authority to
- ATU-TUCP explains that it did not file any protest because it expected certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which
workers who had been aggrieved by the conduct of the election would there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has
file their protest since it was in their interests that they do so. 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- Disini
Rules provides that when a protest has been perfected, only the med- NATURE
arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is based on Special civil action of certiorari and prohibition
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 FACTS
decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to - Confederation of Labor Unions (CCLU) was 1 of 4 unions
certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents wanting to be certified as the collective bargaining representative
occurring during the campaign is within the med-arbiter’s discretion. of the employees in the Redson Textile Manufacturing
When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondent’s Corporation (RTMC) with place of business in Pasig, MM. Its co-
Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association,
should have deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof. (RELA) is a CCLU local in the said corporation. The other unions
Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be applied to the were the National Union of Garments Textile and General
present case. Employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) the National Trade
failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period Union (NATU) and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU).
for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere - On Aug. 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the
technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the premises of the corporation. As no union obtained a majority
workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the2 largest number of votes,
determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on agreed that a run-off election would be held on Nov. 6, 1980.
their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal - On Nov. 6, 1980, 3 election supervisors from the MOLE arrived
committed by petitioner’s officers in the present case, the employees but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the
were prevented from making an intelligent and independent choice. The company premises in spite of the heavy rain. Said election
making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the supervisors decided to hold the certification election "outside the
free choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex
election may be set aside for misstatements made during the campaign, building" They used as ballot box "an improvised carton box."
where 1) a material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) The union representatives did not object to the improvised
an opportunity for reply has been lacking; and 3) the misrepresentation polling place and ballot box.
has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in - Just before election was closed at 6:30PM, the ALU
the election. A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on their free representative, Taneo, executed a written protest or
choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an manifestation, alleging that the management of Redson Textile
authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises;
especially when the employees are unable to evaluate the truth or the that the company prevented 50% of workers from voting by not
falsity of the assertions. allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing
-The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, them to work OT; that its security guards "manhandled" the ALU
misrepresented it to the voting employees as an independent union VP and that their "active intervention" caused "chaos and
constituted a substantial misrepresentation of material facts of vital confusion" for around 30mins; that the company refused to
concern to those employees. The materiality of such misrepresentation furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot
is self-evident. The employees wanted an independent union to box and that the election supervisors declared the election
represent them in collective bargaining, free from outside interference. closed in spite of ALU's objection.
Thus, upon knowing that petitioner was in fact an affiliate of the FFW, - ALU nevertheless won, and because of this, Taneo withdrew
the members disaffiliated from petitioner and organized themselves into his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the
an independent union. Additionally, the misrepresentation came from proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn
petitioner’s recognized representative, who was clearly in a position to "before the close of the proceedings". CCLU representatives
hold himself out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an refused to sign the minutes of the election.
authoritative position to know the true facts. Although petitioner won in - Fresnoza, CCLU representative, filed protest with BLR and
the election, it is now clear that it does not represent the majority of the alleged that the certification election was irregular and disorderly
bargaining employees, owing to the affiliation of its members with because, among others, (a) no booths were provided for by the
respondent. The present uncertainty as to which union has their support company; (b) the election started much later than the hour
to represent them for collective bargaining purposes is a salient factor agreed upon by the parties, and prayed that the certification
that this Court has seriously considered. The bargaining agent must be election be annulled.
truly representative of the employees. At the time of the filing by - Noriel, OIC of BLR, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit.
respondent of the Petition for nullification, allegiances and loyalties of He also denied CCLU's MFR, certified ALU as the exclusive
the employees were like shifting sands that radically affected their bargaining representative of the employees in Redson Textile
choice of an appropriate bargaining representative. The polarization of Manufacturing Corporation. Hence this petition.
a good number of them followed their discovery of the fraud committed
by the officers of petitioner. The purpose of a certification election is ISSUE
precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an WON the certification election was valid
appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be represented by a labor
organization and, in the affirmative case, by which one. Once HELD
disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification NO
election is the most expeditious way of determining which union should - The certification election is invalid because of certain
be the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. 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
Disposition Petition denied 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
Irregularities 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
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNION V in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to
NORIEL such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts.
116 SCRA 694 - The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees
"true representation in their collective bargaining with an
AQUINO; September 21, 1982 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- Disini
vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same.
render assistance in the holding of the election. Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against
elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5)
Disposition Petition GRANTED. The resolutions of the Officer-in- days from the close of the election proceedings and must be
Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations are hereby set aside. 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
TIMBUNGCO V CASTRO that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever
183 SCRA 140 presented against the election. Indeed, there was tacit
NARVASA; March 14, 1990 acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results
thereof, for during that period of almost (2) years, certain
NATURE significant events took place without demur or objection of any
Special civil action of certiorari sort on the part of private respondents and the rest of the
members of the Kapisanan: Timbungco officially made known to
FACTS the Bureau of Labor Relations the Kapisanan's disaffiliation from
- The petitioner, Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of Kapisanan, the Federacion FOITAF and obtained a new certificate of
composed of employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco registration for the union after complying with the requisites
Corporation. The union had a three-year collective bargaining prescribed therefor; he and the other officers of the Kapisanan
agreement with said Corporation. The stipulated expiration date was negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded in
August 24, 1984. bringing about the execution of a new collective bargaining
- On July 15, 1984 or within the so-called "freedom period" of sixty (60) agreement which was afterwards filed with the Bureau of Labor
days - a general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was Relations in accordance with pertinent regulations; and
convoked by Timbungco. At that meeting the body unanimously Timbungco and the entire membership of the Kapisanan
approved, among others, the disaffiliation of the Kapisanan from the accepted benefits granted and assumed the obligations set out
mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and the amendment of its in said collective bargaining agreement.
constitution and by-laws. A new set of officers was also elected which
included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without opposition. Disposition Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations are
These events are set forth in the minutes drawn up by the Kapisanan's nullified and set side.
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
6.5. CERTIFICATION OF
and listed their choices therefor. Timbungco thereafter submitted to the DESIGNATED MAJORITY
Bureau of Labor Relations the necessary documents. In the first week of
September, 1985, Timbungco commenced negotiations for a new ART.
UNION
255. Exclusive bargaining representation and
collective bargaining agreement with the representatives of AAATC. The workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. - The
negotiations lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of
execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year collective the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
bargaining agreement. shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
- On April 23,1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan. He alleged However, an individual employee or group of employees
that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, their employer.
and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union
officers. He also adverted to the existing collective bargaining
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC.
workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
- After appropriate proceedings, Med-Arbiter L. Reynante issued an
regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
Order dated July 3, 1986 declaring invalid the election of union officers
may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-
which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another election of union
making processes of the establishment where they are
officers to be conducted in the premises of AAATC under the
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This Order was, on
rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and
appeal, affirmed in toto in a Resolution rendered by Bureau of Labor
employers may form labor-management councils:
Relations. Timbungco's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such
labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the
ISSUE
majority of all employees in said establishment. (As
WON the election of officers of July 15, 1984 is valid, although there is
amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
no record of the number of members who attended the meeting, the
1989).
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. ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
HELD verified petition questioning the majority status of the
YES incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department
- In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period
membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or before the expiration of the collective bargaining
formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an
deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five
importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to
will in the choice of officers. In the second place, as the Office of the ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate
Solicitor General points out, the private respondents' objections to the bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority
elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must be deemed 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- Disini

Majority Union

(A256 continued) PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT


no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number 494 SCRA 195
of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
of the number of votes cast.vir
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
FACTS
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees.
filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715,
This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
March 21, 1989).
requirements.
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
ILO Convention No. 135 desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
Article 1 employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification
Workers' representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective election was denied.
protection against any act prejudicial to them, including -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’
dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers' refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
representative or on union membership or participation in union summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or however suddenly went on strike
collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
Article 2 compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
1. Such facilities in the undertaking shall be afforded to workers' members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
representatives as may be appropriate in order to enable them them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
2. In this connection account shall be taken of the reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
characteristics of the industrial relations system of the country -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
and the needs, size and capabilities of the undertaking was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll
concerned. reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
3. The granting of such facilities shall not impair the efficient modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
operation of the undertaking concerned. of union members.
Article 3
For the purpose of this Convention the term workers' ISSUE
representatives means persons who are recognised as such 1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and
under national law or practice, whether they are-- not for all the employees of the Hotel.
(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives
designated or elected by trade unions or by members of such HELD
unions; or 1) No.
(b) elected representatives, namely, representatives who are -As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization
freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
with provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
agreements and whose functions do not include activities which representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
are recognised as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in collective bargaining.
the country concerned. -The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the
Article 4 DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive
National laws or regulations, collective agreements, arbitration representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner,
awards or court decisions may determine the type or types of hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain
workers' representatives which shall be entitled to the protection collectively in their behalf
and facilities provided for in this Convention. -Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in
Article 5 behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
Where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union -the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to
representatives and elected representatives, appropriate divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file
measures shall be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not
the existence of elected representatives is not used to members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same
undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
representatives and to encourage co-operation on all relevant economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their
matters between the elected representatives and the trade terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
unions concerned and their representatives. and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
Article 6 safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
Effect may be given to this Convention through national laws or conditions of work”
regulations or collective agreements, or in any other manner
consistent with national practice.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 136- Disini
- Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be - Meanwhile, the Labor Arbiter which was filed by
considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike. Abuana ruled that the retrenchment effected by MMC
TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union 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
MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION V. BRION - In a resolution dated 06 July 1998 (Resolution), this
482 SCRA 87 Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the
CHICO-NAZARIO: January 9, 2006 then Secretary of DOLE Quisumbing did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing his order dated 30
July 1997.
NATURE: - Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Resolution.
- On 11 September 1998, NAMAWU filed a Motion for
FACTS: Partial Execution with the DOLE which was not acted
- Petitioner Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC) is a domestic upon due to the pendency of petitioner’s motion for
corporation engaged in mining business and operation, while reconsideration.
private respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union - During the pendency of petitioner’s motion for
Local 103 (NAMAWU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of the reconsideration, the decision in St. Martin’s Funeral
rank and file employees of petitioner. Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission was
- On 29 January 1996, NAMAWU submitted its Collective promulgated. Following the ruling in said case,
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposals to petitioner. Due to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of our resolution
petitioner’s inaction to the proposals submitted by NAMAWU, dated 06 July 1998 was remanded to the Court of
the latter filed on 19 March 1996, its first Notice of Strike with Appeals for proper disposition.
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), - On 14 June 1999, the appellate court denied
Bacolod City, for refusal to bargain and Unfair Labor Practice. petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Eventually, petitioner presented its counter-proposals and - On 10 February 2000, NAMAWU filed an Ex-Parte
started the CBA negotiations. While the negotiations were Manifestation and Second Motion for Execution with
going on, petitioner dismissed some workers effective 06 May the Secretary of DOLE. The motion also sought
1996. assistance from the Bureau of Working Conditions
- NAMAWU filed a second Notice of Strike for Unfair Labor (BWC) in the computation of the awards/benefits due
Practice against petitioner. NAMAWU’s members under the Quisumbing order.
- While the NCMB Bacolod City was conducting conciliation
- On 25 July 2000, the BWC submitted to the DOLE its
meetings, petitioner issued Notices of Temporary Lay-off to its
findings and observation, coming up with a
selected rank and file employees effective 07 October 1996.
computation in the aggregate amount of One Hundred
- One of the employees, Abuana, filed an individual case of
Fifty-Nine Million, Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred
illegal dismissal.
Seventy-One and 30/100 (P159,054,971.30) Pesos for
- After the NCMB failed to conciliate the labor dispute between loss of time, benefits, rice subsidy, health insurance
NAMAWU and petitioner, then Department of Labor and bonus and backwages of union members who were
Employment (DOLE) Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing, on 03 illegally dismissed.
October 1996, assumed jurisdiction over the case - Petitioner filed a comment to the BWC findings on 08
- In an order dated 30 July 1997 (Quisumbing order), Secretary September 2000, stating that the BWC computation
Quisumbing resolved the labor dispute in favor of NAMAWU: was erroneous for the following reasons: (1) there is
(1) directing the reinstatement with backwages of the workers no legal basis for the computation of backwages
laid-off in May and October 1996; (2) finding petitioner guilty of because the Trajano order deleted the award of
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice; (3) directing the backwages made in the Quisumbing order; (2) the
parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement entitlement to backwages of the employees retrenched
incorporating all the terms and conditions of the previous in May and October 1996 would be dependent on the
bargaining agreement; and (4) providing for across-the-board resolution of the cases for illegal dismissal and unfair
increase of all rank-and-file workers. labor practice; and (3) the wage increase awarded by
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted the Secretary cannot be availed of by the other
by succeeding DOLE Secretary Cresenciano Trajano in an employees who were not retrenched in May and
order dated 17 April 1998 (Trajano order). The Trajano order October 1996.
modified the Quisumbing order as follows: (1) setting aside
- On 18 November 2000, 149 employees of petitioner
the finding of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice and
who claimed were part of the 215 members of
remanding these issues to the arbitration level of the NLRC for
NAMAWU filed a Motion for Intervention With Prior
a hearing on the merits; and (2) deleting the award of
Leave before the Office of the Secretary of DOLE.
backwages for the workers to be reinstated.
- In an order dated 09 May 2001, DOLE Acting
- Pending resolution of the issue of unfair labor practice and
Secretary Arturo D. Brion granted NAMAWU’s motion
illegal termination, the Company is directed to physically
for execution, approved BWC’s computation of the
reinstate all workers, whether union members or not who were
benefits due to the laid-off employees and denied the
laid-off on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996.
motion for intervention
- The Executive Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch No.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On 11
VI, National Labor Relations Commission, is hereby deputized
May 2001, then DOLE Acting Secretary Brion issued a
as Hearing Officer and is directed to conduct hearing/s and
Partial Writ of Execution, directing to proceed to the
receive evidence as expeditiously as possible on the issues of
MMC premises for the execution of the same. In an
unfair labor practice and terminations effected by the
order dated o6 June 2001, Acting Secretary Brion
Company on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996, and to submit
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
his Report and Recommendation to this Office within ten (10)
- With the denial of petitioner’s motion, Carlos G. Nerja,
days from termination of the hearing.
Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras, who claimed to represent
the 342 employees of petitioner at that time and who
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 137- Disini
allegedly stand to be adversely affected by the enforcement of - At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
the Partial Writ of Execution, filed a petition for certiorari continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
before the Court of Appeals bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
- Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of filed.
Appeals - According to the foregoing provision, for a union to become an
- NAMAWU filed a motion for consolidation of the two petitions exclusive bargaining representative of a particular establishment,
which was granted by the appellate court in its order dated 12 it must emerge as winner in a certification election. In the case at
November 2001. bar, there was no certification election held challenging the
- The Court of Appeals dispose of the two petitions by majority status of NAMAWU as the exclusive bargaining
dismissing them in a Decision dated 24 January 2002. representative of petitioner’s employees. NAMAWU, therefore,
- Motions for reconsiderations were filed, which the Court of remains the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner’s
Appeals denied in an order dated 18 March 2003. employees and possesses legal standing to represent them.
- Carlos G. Nerja, Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras filed a petition for
review before this Court which was dismissed on 09 June Dispositive: Petition denied
2003.

ISSUE/S:
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v
1. WON the CA erred in not ruling that the Trajano order modified LAGUESMA
the Quisumbing order and thus, Brion abused his discretion in 236 SCRA 586
ordering and issuing a writ of execution based on the PUNO; September 21, 1994
Quisumbing order FACTS
2. WON the CA erred in not ruling that NAMAWU had no legal - Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election
standing to seek the implementation of the assailed orders given with the Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a
that majority of its total membership has chosen to disaffiliate bargaining representative for the rank-and-file employees of the
Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able
HELD: to secure a Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing
1. NO CBA with any labor organization.
Reasoning - It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition,
- It must be noted that the Trajano order omitted the findings of Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by
unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal and the award of DOLE as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-
backwages which were embodied in the Quisumbing order. and-file employees of Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged
Since we upheld entirely the findings in the Quisumbing order, between Transunion and ILO-Phils covering the company's rank-
i.e., illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, award of and-file employees. The CBA was ratified. When the President of
backwages, reinstatement and wage increase in our ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union conflict followed and the subject
Resolution, as a result the Trajano order is necessarily CBA was filed with DOLE, for registration purposes, only 3
vacated. months from its execution. The Certification of Registration was
- Furthermore, the dispositive portion could not have been issued by DOLE.
clearer as it categorically declares that the Secretary of Labor, - ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings
i.e., Leonardo Quisumbing, did not commit grave abuse in his initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the
order dated 30 July 1997, thus: existing CBA between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of that the petition for certification election should be entertained
showing that the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave only during the freedom period, or sixty days before the
abuse of discretion in his order of July 30, 1997. expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the
- The order that we sustained in the foregoing fallo is the ground of prematurity.
Quisumbing order which is dated 30 July 1997, and definitely - TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed
not the Trajano order which is dated 17 April 1998. Even if we outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the
did not explicitly annul the Trajano order, nevertheless the Labor Code, the prohibition against certification election under
tenor of the Resolution’s dispositive portion indubitably Article 232 of the same Code should not apply to third parties
decreed that we sustained the order dated 30 July 1997 or the such as petitioner.
Quisumbing order. Indeed, it is the dispositive part of the - The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter.
judgment that actually settles and declares the rights and The MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied.
obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, authoritatively, ISSUE
notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent statements in 1. WON a certification election may be conducted
the body that may tend to confuse. It is the dispositive part 2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30-
that controls, for purposes of execution. Hence, there is no day period prescribed under Article 231
doubt that it was the Quisumbing order, not the Trajano order, HELD
that we upheld in our Resolution and which should be the 1. NO
basis of the writ of execution. It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file
2. NO employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILO-
Reasoning PHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by
- Article 256 of the Labor Code partly provides: Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA
REPRESENTATION ISSUE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS. In with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and
organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS.
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall
shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion
petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition
percent of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
xxxx 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- Disini
that during this 3-year period, it exerted any effort to pursue collective - The Shipping Line and USUP entered into a CBA, which
bargaining as a means of attaining better terms of employment. It was provided that the Agreement shall continue in full force and
only after its affiliation with the ALU that it requested an initial effect for 2 years from its taking effect and thereafter for another
conference for the purpose of collective bargaining. That the DWUEU period 2 years, unless either party shall notify the other in writing
abandoned its collective bargaining proposals prior to its affiliation with of its intention or election to terminate the agreement as of the
ALU is further confirmed by the fact that in the May 10, 1988 agreement, end of the current term. GMSU insists that this CBA was but a
it bound itself to submit a new set of proposals. Under the renewal of an agreement between the USUP and Shipping Line
circumstances, the agreement of May 10, 1988 may as well be entered into sometime in 1955.
considered the written notice to bargain referred to in Art. 250(a) of the - More than 2 years after the holding of the last certification
LC, which thereby set into motion the machinery for collective election, GMSU filed with the CIR a petition for certification
bargaining, as in fact, on May 19,1988, DWUEU-ALU submitted its election alleging that there were 2 labor unions to which were
collective bargaining proposals. affiliated unlicensed crew members; that as members of the
- Be that as it may, while the Court recognizes that technically, DWU has GMSU petitioners constituted 10% of all the unlicensed crew
the right to file the petition for certification election as there was no members; and that there had not been a certification election
bargaining deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer that the assailed within 12 months before the filing of the petition. This was in
Orders be annulled would put an unjustified premium on bad faith accordance with Section 12 (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875.
bargaining. - USUP intervened and filed a motion for dismissal claiming that
- Bad faith on the part of the University is further exemplified by the fact there was an existing CBA between itself and the Shipping Line
that an hour before the start of the May 10, 1988 conference, it entered for a period of 2 years, which period was reasonable,
surreptitiously filed the petition for certification election. And yet during and which agreement contained reasonable conditions of
said conference, it committed itself to "sit down" with the Union. employment, and that the existence of such agreement barred
Obviously, the University tried to preempt the conference which would another certification election.
have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition far certification - CIR, invoking the "contract-bar rule", granted the motion to
election. In so doing, the University failed to act in accordance with Art. dismiss. It held that the then existing contract between the
252 of the Labor Code which defines the meaning of the duty to bargain Shipping Line and the USUP, which was for a period of two
collectively as "the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and years contained provisions regarding wages, closed shops,
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith." Moreover, by filing check off, grievances, machinery and other conditions regarding
the petition for certification election while agreeing to confer with the employment relationships. According to the CIR, these
DWUEU-ALU, the University violated the mandate of Art 19 of the Civil circumstances plus the fact that there was no showing that the
Code that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the contracting union was company dominated support the validity
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and and reasonableness of the agreement between the Shipping
observe honesty and good faith. Line and the USUP, the duly certified bargaining representative,
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. and that the existence of such contract barred the holding of a
certification election.

ISSUES
WON there should be a certification election
3. Contract Bar Rule
HELD
YES
ART. 232. Prohibition on certification Ratio When there is a bargaining contract for more than a year,
election. - The Bureau shall not entertain any it is too early to hold a certification election within a year from the
petition for certification election or any other effectivity of said bargaining agreement; also that a 2 year
action which may disturb the administration of bargaining contract is not too long for the purpose of barring a
duly registered existing collective bargaining certification election. For this purpose, a bargaining agreement
agreements affecting the parties except 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,
under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
a certification election should not be held, may well be left to the
Code. (As amended by Section 15, Republic sound discretion of the CIR, considering the conditions involved
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). 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
History - When ever a substantial number of employees in an
appropriate bargaining agreement desires to be represented by
GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES' UNION OF THE a union or organization other than that which had negotiated a
PHILIPPINES V SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE collective bargaining contract with the management, the CIR is
faced with the dilemma of the right of contract or the right of
108 PHIL 1112 representation:
MONTEMAYOR; July 26, 1960 - As a solution to this problem, there are three possibilities:
(1) hold that a CBA valid when made is a bar to a new
NATURE certification throughout its existence, regardless of the length of
Petition for certiorari to review an order of the Court of Industrial its term (contract-bar)
Relations (2) hold that employees may shift their allegiance during the term
of the agreement but that the contract continues in force with the
FACTS new union.
- The CIR directed that an election between the United Seamen's Union (3) refuse to proceed to an election, in the presence of a
of the Philippines (USUP) and GSMU be held among the unlicensed collective bargaining contract where the contract granted
members and crew of the respondent South Sea Shipping Lines. USUP exclusive recognition is to be effective only for a reasonable
was thereafter certified as the exclusive bargaining representative. period and was negotiated by a union representing at the time a
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 141- Disini
majority of the employees (in an appropriate unit) prior to any claim by a - CELA-CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed motion to dismiss petitions
rival labor organization'. for certification election.
- The National Labor-Relations Board, which is the counterpart of our - NLRC granted petitions and directed BLR to conduct
CIR, regards the conflict as one which requires it to strike a balance certification elections.
between the desirability of achieving stability in industrial relations - This petition prays for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
secured through bargaining, on the one hand, and the benefits flowing enjoining NLRC from taking any action.
from the grant of employee full freedom in their choice of representative, - SC Second Division allowed holding of certification election but
on the other. issued a restraining order enjoining respondents from opening
- The Board initially took the unqualified view that the existence of the ballot boxes, canvassing and announcing the results.
agreements was no bar to certification of bargaining representatives.
This gave support to the doctrine of substitution whereby a change of ISSUE
representatives would alter an existing contract only by "substituting the WON CBA has to be certified before it can constitute a bar to
new union for the old under its substantive terms" petition for certification elections
- The Board subsequently held that a CBA of reasonable duration is "in
the interest of the stability of industrial relations", a bar to certification HELD
elections. In adopting the "contract-bar policy", the Board was careful in YES
refusing to announce an inflexible rule as to its authority, and whenever - Contract bar rule is a principle in labor law that a CBA of
possible, it avoided a determination of the contract's effect on its power reasonable duration is, in the interest of the stability of industrial
of certification election. relations, a bar to certification elections.
- In 1947, the Board held that it would regard a 2 year contract as a bar - Assuming arguendo that a non-certified CBA may serve as a
to an election until its expiration, because collective bargaining had: "So bar to certification election, petitioners would still be bereft of
emerged from a stage of trial and error (that) the time has come when cause to complain. When petition was filed by FFW at CMC, the
stability of industrial relations can better be served, without CBA had not yet been filed.
unreasonably restricting employees in their right to change - Petition for certification election at Redson was filed on a date
representatives, by refusing to interfere with bargaining relations when no CBA had been entered into between Redson and
secured by collective agreements for 2 years' duration." RELA.
- In 1953, the same Board announced that: "The time has arrived when - Law says that after 12 months, a certification election may be
stability of labor relations can be better served, without unreasonably requested either by the employer or a requisite number of
restricting employees in their right to change representatives, by holding employees. The petitions allege that there has been no
as a bar collective bargaining agreements even for 5 years' duration certification election in company for the last 12 mos which
(when) a substantial part of the industry concerned is covered by allegation was not denied by CMC and Redson.
contracts with a similar term." - Law also says that it’s mandatory on SC to order election to
- From all this, it may be seen that the National Labor Relations Board determine representative of employees where a petition is filed
has not adopted an iron-clad policy, rigid and fixed, but rather one to be by at least 10% of the employees
applied according to the changing conditions and industrial practices.
Disposition Petition is dismissed
Dispositive CIR order dismissing the petition for certification election
and refusing to allow the selection of a new bargaining agent was valid FERNANDO, J., CONCURRING:
under the circumstances obtaining at the time. However, inasmuch as - The new Labor Code is scheduled to be operative 1st day of
there has been a renewal of the bargaining agreement for another 2 next month - this case should not be the vehicle where doctrines
years and because it seems that the present agreement is but a renewal impressed with certain degree of novelty should be announced.
of the one entered into way back in 1955, so that until the expiration of - In this case, the contract bar rule hardly poses any obstacle.
the present agreement, it is advisable that a new certification election be - LVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians Guild: Unless actuation of
held. Remanded to CIR. 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
CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS Inc.: SC has recognized a latitude of discretion in CIR, the
(CCLU) V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS agency which is in a better position to see to it that the
COMMISSION certification election is property conducted.
- Federation of United Workers Organization v. CIR: Through
60 SCRA 451 petition for certification, employees are given the opportunity to
FERNANDEZ; Oct 31, 1974 make known who has right to represent them. What is equally
important is that not only some but all of them should have the
NATURE right to do so.
Original petition in SC – certiorari and prohibition with preliminary - While the right to free and unfettered choice by employees of
injunction their exclusive bargaining representative should be respected,
there are circumstances which in the interest of stability of labor
FACTS relations, call for a relaxation in its observance.
- CMC renewed CBA with CELA, an affiliate of petitioner CCLU, a - The contract bar rule in the US: Two competing values
legitimate labor organization. clashed. Statute guarantees right to bargain through
- FFW, another organization, filed with NLRC a Petition for Certification representatives of their own choosing. Also, statute aims to
Election. achieve stability. So the Board declared that the existence of a
- A copy of CMC-CELA CBA was filed with BLR for certification; it was CBA will not bar an election but the winning union was subject to
certified. the existing agreement.
- CMC filed answer to petition praying for dismissal of petition on ground - The pragmatic approach has been followed, due note taken of
of contract-bar rule. varied as well as changing conditions to make it truly responsive.
- CBA was also signed by Redson and RELA. It was filed with NLRC It’s going too far to affix to the contract bar rule the element of
and certified. FFW, however, had already filed Petition for Certification inflexibility.
Election
- Redson prayed for dismissal of petition on ground that petition was
barred by CBA which it had with RELA. 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- Disini
of Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises, - While the CBA was still in force, several employees organized
petitioner asserts that in view of the pendency of the petition for themselves into the Nagkakaisang Supervisors Ng Barbizon
certification election, it had no duty to bargain collectively with the union. Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the Nagkakaisang Excluded
Monthly Paid Employees Ng Barbizon, Philippines, Inc.
Ratio: (NEMPEBPI) allegedly because they were excluded from the
In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining coverage of the existing CBA between petitioner and BUKLOD.
process there must be a valid petition for certification election - NSBPI and NEMPEBPI each filed petitions for certification
raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a elections. Both were dismissed by the arbiter. They appealed to
petition for certification election does not ipso facto justify the the SOLE. The SOLE ordered that a certification election be
suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must first conducted. 2 MFRs were denied. Thus this petition.
comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing - Petitioner maintains its stance that the petition for certification
Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be election filed by the NSBPI must necessarily fail because the
filed during the sixty-day freedom period. The "Contract Bar Rule" employees designated as "supervisors" cannot legally form a
under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules supervisors' union by virtue of the BLR's final decision declaring
Implementing the Labor Code, provides that: " .… If a collective the abovementioned employees mere rank and file workers.
bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Being part of the rank and file, petitioner avers that said
Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a employees belong to the "employer wide unit," which is the
motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) appropriate bargaining unit of all its rank and file employees and
days prior to the expiry date of such agreement." which is represented by the BUKLOD as the sole certified
bargaining agent.
-The rule is based on A 232, in relation to A253, 253-A and 256 of the - Petitioner further asserts that the Undersecretary of Labor
LC. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may committed grave abuse of discretion in granting NSBPI's petition
be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is for certification election as this was tantamount to an
extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse of unjustifiable reversal of the BLR's final ruling that the subject
the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as employees are not supervisory employees, but merely rank and
continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly file, due to the nature of their duties and functions.
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 ISSUE
them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. 1. WON the excluded employees (the “supervisors”) can form a
In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. union for collective bargaining, when they were declared as
mere rank and file and there is already a union for rank and file
-The petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a legitimate employees.
labor organization, was filed with the Department of Labor and 2. WON the existing CBA is a bar to the certification election.
Employment (DOLE) only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was
filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was HELD
barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining 1. YES
agreement. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue - Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, proceeding as it does from the
and, as such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not wrong premise. Petitioner obstinately believes that NSBPI's
constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation. Reliance, therefore, by petition for certification election was granted because the
petitioner of the ruling in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. employees carrying the appellation "supervisor" were deemed
Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced since that case involved a legitimate supervisory employees. The status of the subject employees
representation issue which is not present in the case at bar. however, is not the issue in the case at bar. Their status as
- Significantly, the same petition for certification election was dismissed "supervisors" is not in dispute. The decision that settled with
by the Secretary of Labor on October 25, 1996. The dismissal was finality that said employees are merely rank and file and this fact
upheld by this Court in a Resolution, dated April 21, 1997. has been accepted by the petitioning union NSBPI. NSBPI's
- In view of the above, there is no doubt that petitioner is guilty of unfair petition for certification election was granted because the subject
labor practice by its stern refusal to bargain in good faith with employees, including petitioner's monthly paid employees, were
respondent union. 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
Dispositive: The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 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
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PREMEX v. SEC right of these employees to self-organization and representation
OF LABOR for purposes of collective bargaining, a right explicitly mandated
(PENDING) 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
BARBIZON PHILS. v. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR unit.
261 SCRA 738 - The "one union-one company" rule is not without exception.
The exclusion of the subject employees from the rank-and-file
KAPUNAN; September 16, 1996 bargaining unit and the CBA is definitely a "compelling reason"
for it completely deprived them of the chance to bargain
NATURE
collectively with petitioner and are thus left with no recourse but
Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule65 ROC
to group themselves into a separate and distinct bargaining unit
and form their own organization.
FACTS
- The receipt by petitioner's "supervisor" employees of certain
- BUKLOD won the certification election as the sole bargaining
benefits under the CBA between BUKLOD and petitioner is not
representative of the rank and file employees. A CBA was negotiated.
sufficient to deny the petition for certification election filed by the
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 144- Disini
labor organization formed by the excluded employees. It is not HELD
equivalent to and does not compensate for the denial of the right of the YES. The trial court found that the collective bargaining
excluded employees to self-organization and collective bargaining. agreement entered into by and between the Saulog Transit, Inc.
and the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit "does not touch in substantial
2. NO terms the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
- The petition for certification election cannot be deterred by the conditions of employment of all the employees in the company
"contract-bar rule," which finds no application in the present case. The but seeks to establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers,
petitioning union NSBPI is not questioning the majority status of Buklod conductors and inspectors who are members of the Buklod ñg
as the incumbent bargaining agent of petitioner's rank and file Saulog." And even in the supplementary agreement, there is no
employees. The petition for certification election is addressed to a clear-cut stipulation as to "rates of pay, wages, hours of
separate bargaining unit — the excluded employees of petitioner. employment, or other conditions or employment." In their reply
- A contract bar applies in a situation where the petition is directed the respondents claim that such an agreement and the
towards one and the same bargaining unit. This does not appear to supplementary agreement have not been identified and offered
be so in the case considering the built-in-limitation in the CBA excluding in evidence and should not be taken into consideration. The trial
the workers sought to be represented by herein petitioner from its court took, however, into consideration both agreements and
coverage, albeit, their being admittedly rank and file employees. found that the first agreement being incomplete does not bar a
- The certification election as ordered would only affect those rank and certification election; and as to the supplementary agreement the
file employees who are excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA. Court held that it having been entered into after the filing of the
petition for a certification election the same cannot and does not
Disposition Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. 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
Incomplete Contract 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
BUKLOD NG SAULOG TRANSIT v. CASALLA effect in a case where there is a written agreement which the
99 PHIL 16 Court of Industrial Relations found incomplete. In these
PADILLA; May 9, 1956 circumstances we are of the opinion that the collective
bargaining agreement entered is no bar to a certification election
NATURE at the instance of at least 10 per cent of the employees in an
Petition for review appropriate collective bargaining unit, pursuant to section 12,
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875.
FACTS
-The respondents, 65 in number, employees of the Saulog Transit, Inc., Disposition order and resolution AFFIRMED
filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for a certification
election, alleging that the total number of employees in the Saulog Premature Contract
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 SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC
certification election prayed for was for the purpose of determining the PLASTIC V LAGUESMA
sole bargaining representative of the employees in the Saulog Transit, 267 SCRA 307
Inc.
-The president of the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit filed its answer stating MENDOZA; January 31, 1997
that a collective bargaining agreement had been entered into by and
between the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit, a duly registered union with the NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
Department of Labor, on the one hand, and the Saulog Transit, Inc., on
the other; FACTS
-An election was held peacefully and orderly, the result thereof having -Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic
been forwarded to the Department of Labor, against which election and (SAMAHAN) and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang
the result thereof no protest as regards the legality thereof was lodged; Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of
that having acquired a juridical personality from the time of its rank and file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC).
registration, the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit entered into a collective -MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election
bargaining contract already referred to covering the well-being of the -SAMAHAN countered by seeking the cancellation of MNMPP's
members of which the respondents were still members. union registration, as a result, MNMPP's petition to be certified
-The Saulog Transit, Inc. filed a pleading entitled "Appearance and as the bargaining agent was dismissed.
Manifestation" averring that the allegation that the respondents -MNMPP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who reversed the
constituted 10 per cent of the total number of employees of the Saulog decision of the Med-Arbiter and ordered the holding of a
Transit, Inc. was for the Court to determine; and that it had dealt and certification election
had been dealing with the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit in accordance with -The PPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration but its motion was
a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between them, denied.
the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit representing the employees of the Saulog - Accordingly, the pre-election conference was held
Transit, Inc. as an industrial unit. the Court rendered judgment -Petitioner SAMAHAN moved to defer the conference,
directing . . . that a certification election be held alleging that there existed a collective bargaining agreement
between PPC and SAMAHAN which was a bar to the
ISSUE certification election.
WON an order of certification election shall issue on the basis of the -MNMPP opposed the motion, contending that the execution of
evidence established the subject CBA during the pendency of the representation case
did not bar the holding of a certification election.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 145- Disini
-On September 10, 1992, upon motion of MNMPP, the certification employees and laborers of the ESSO. The CIR certified the
election was finally set for October 6, 1992. MME as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
-On said date, the certification election was held, and MNMPP won.
-On October 9, 1992, SAMAHAN protested the result of the certification ISSUE
election Which union should be recognized as the sole and exclusive
-Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin, dismissed the election protest bargaining agent of all the ESSO employees at the Pandacan
--SAMAHAN appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It argued that the Terminal unit?
contract-bar rule should be applied.
-Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma denied the appeal of SAMAHAN HELD
and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The record is barren of evidence upon which this Court may
-SAMAHAN moved for a reconsideration, but its motion was denied on properly reach a definitive determination.
July 29, 1993. Hence, this petition for certiorari. Reasoning It would seem then that the burden of coming
forward with proof of majority status is upon the union asserting
ISSUE it. The CLU claims that it is the sole and exclusive bargaining
WON the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the agent on the strength of its prior collective bargaining history; the
pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for MME claims that it is the one that should be recognized on the
certification election bars the holding of a certification election basis of the will of the employees.
- Against the claim of the MME that it represents the will of the
HELD majority of the rank and file employees at the Pandacan
No. Terminal unit, is the manifestation, advanced with vehemence, of
-Petitioner's contention in its Motion for Deferment of Pre-election both the CLU and the ESSO that after the secret ballot election,
Conference was that the CBA between it and the PPC signed during the the employee composition has substantially changed because a
pendency of the representation proceedings, rendered the certification great number of the employees and laborers in the Pandacan
election moot and academic. Terminal unit have left their employment, retired, or been
-Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, §4 compulsorily laid off with the approval of the CIR.
provides: The representation case shall not, however, be adversely - Against the presumption of continued majority status is the
affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or rule that such majority status does not continue forever ---
during last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the (1) "especially in face of an assertion and offer of proof to the
pendency of the representation case. contrary"
-This rule was applied in the case of ALU-TUCP v. Trajano where (2) "in view of altered circumstances which have likely occurred
the Court held that the representation case will not be adversely in the interim"
affected by a CBA registered before or during the freedom period (3) "by a change in the conditions which demonstrates that a
or during the pendency of the representation case. shift in sentiment actually exists among the employees, and is
-In ALU v. Calleja, it was also held that a CBA, which was prematurely caused by other factors than the employer's refusal to bargain
renewed, is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. collectively"
-Hence, the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the Disposition This Court is constrained to remand this case to the
pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for CIR, with instructions that it exert and exercise, without delay,
certification election on August 24, 1990, cannot possibly prejudice the the powers conferred upon it by law, and take such actions and
certification election nor render it moot. issue such orders as the environmental circumstances will
accordingly warrant.
Disposition The petition for certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit

Exception
CITIZEN’S LABOR UNION-CCLU V CIR
18 SCRA 624 PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS.
CASTRO; November 12, 1966 (PWUP) VS. LAGUESMA, INTERNATIONAL
NATURE CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES (ICTS)
Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction 00 SCRA 00
CRUZ, March 18, 1992
FACTS
- The Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) filed a petition for
NATURE PETITION for review of the order of the
certification election with the CIR, alleging that it is a labor union
Undersecretary of Labor and Employment
organized among the employees of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO)
Pandacan Terminal, Manila; that it represents the majority of the non-
FACTS
supervisory employees of the said terminal unit; that there exists a
-International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI) had a CBA
collective bargaining agreement between the Citizen’s Labor Union
with the incumbent union, Associate Port Checkers and Workers
(CLU) and the ESSO, of a duration of three (3) years and three (3)
Union (APCWU) which was due to expire. The other unions in
months; and that its aim in asking for a certification election is merely to
ICTSI, Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA), Port
determine which union will administer the contract during the remainder
Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP), and Port Employees
of the term thereof. MME claims that the CLU can no longer be
Association and Labor Union (PEALU). SAMADA first filed a
considered as the representative of the rank and file of the employees
petition for certification election with the consent of at least 25%
and laborers of ESSO at its Pandacan Terminal unit, because it has lost
of the employees (consent signatures) in the bargaining unit
its majority status inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of its
submitted 11 days after the petition. PEALU filed another petition
members have given up their membership therein.
for certification election with the consent signatures 35 days after
- CLU and the ESSO filed motions to dismiss the petition on the ground
the filing of the petition. PWUP filed a petition for intervention.
that an existing CBA is a bar to the holding of a certification election.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEULU were consolidated for joint
CIR denied such MD.
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
- The DOLE proceeded with the election and the result thereof shows
petition for certification election on the ground that the said
that the MME obtained votes of more than one-half of the rank and file
unions DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT SET
FORTH IN SECTION 6, RULE V, BOOK V OF THE
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 146- Disini
IMPLEMENTING RULES9, specifically for non-compliance with the V. Albano Memorial College v. Noriel, 85 SCRA 494 [1978];
requirement that the consent signatures should be filed also at the time Vicmico Industrial Workers Asso. v. Noriel, 13 1 SCRA 569
of filing. – motion to dismiss the consolidated petition upheld by med- [1984])
arbiter - The certification election is the best method of determining the
-PWUP (intervenor) appealed to SEC OF LABOR: A26, LC did not will of the workers on the crucial question of who shall represent
acquire the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the them in their negotiations with the management for a collective
petition for certification election. SAMADA and PEULU did not appeal. bargaining agreement that will best protect and promote their
Sec of labor dismissed PWUP’s appeal. interests. It is essential that there be no collusion against this
-ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for new CBA which was objective between an unscrupulous management and a union
subsequently ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor, or at
and subsequently registered with DOLE. least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its
PWUP’s contention: Sec. Laguesma committed grave abuse of representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and
discretion in the application of A256 of LC; Under A256, Med-Arbiter support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the
should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the
supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the
(consent signatures). SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy
the requirements of submitting consent signatures, even if they observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over
submitted it several days after. The dismissal of the consolidated substantial justice.
petitions for certification election, and its petition for intervention, had the
effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive 2. NO
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. Reasoning. The administrative rule requiring the simultaneous
ICTSI’s contention: dismissal was based on A256, LC as implemented submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of
by IR; Sec10, Rule V, Book V of IR states that decisions of SEC in petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to
certification election cases shall be final and unappealable; Tupas vs. frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the
Inciong cited where it was held that there would be no need for holding a workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in
certification election when the incumbent union’s CBA with the employer Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more
was ratified by majority of workers, and the majority affirmed their reason why the regulation should at best be given only a
membership in the incumbent union. directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a
APCWU’s contention: PWUP had no personality to represent petition for certification election within the freedom period is
SAMADA or PEALU, the principal parties in the case which had not sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a
appealed. Invoked TUPAS case; claims that the ratification of the new certification election, subject to the submission of the consent
CBA by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of their signatures within a reasonable period from such filing,
membership in the union that negotiated that agreement. -PAFLU v. BLR: “even conceding that the statutory requirement
SOLGEN’s contention: agreed with petitioner that there has been of 30% of the labor force asking for a certification election had
substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. A256 should be not been strictly complied with, respondent Director is still
liberally interpreted pursuant to A4, LC. empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of
ascertaining which (of the contending labor organizations) shall
ISSUES be the exclusive collective bargaining representative. (National
1. WON a certification election should be held Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Luna, et al., 83 SCRA 607)”
2. WON the consent signatures should be submitted together with the
petition [in relation to the 1st issue] 3. YES. The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was
3. WON PWUP had legal standing to contest the decision on the petition filed because the principal petitions had complied with the
for certification election requirement for the consent signatures as specified by Article
256. Its intervention should not be disallowed simply because of
HELD the withdrawal or failure to appeal of SAMADA and PEALU.
1. YES Ratio.
Reasoning. Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing Reasoning. PAFLU v. Ferrer-Calleja: xxx the requisite written
workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the consent of at least 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit
constant and unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a applies to petitioners for certification election only and not to
certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor motions for intervention. x x x As long as the motion for
organization should be the collective bargaining representative." intervention has been properly and timely filed and the
-The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall not be denied and this is so even if the eventual purpose of the
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where Motion For Intervention is to participate in the Certification
they are working. Election. After all, the original applicant had already met the 20%
-Belyca Corporation vs. Ferrer-Ca1leja: the holding of a certification requirement.
election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented - As a matter of strict procedure, a petition for intervention should
-Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and be deemed automatically dismissed where the principal petition
General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: x x x it has long been itself failed. However, that technical rule should not be allowed to
settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the prevent a correct determination of the real representative of the
holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive workers in line with their constitutional rights to self-organization
and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent and collective bargaining.
the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic -The certification election is not a litigation but a mere
concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the investigation of a non adversary character where the rules of
exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election procedure are riot strictly applied. Technical rules and objections
notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. (Scout Ramon 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
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 Obiter:
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 TUPAS VS. INCIONG
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.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 147- Disini
-SC modified Tupas in Associated Labor Unions vs. Calleja: even if CBA 2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30-
was ratified, certification election not yet moot and academic. There is day period prescribed under Article 231
no contract-bar rule (where the law prohibits the holding of HELD
certification elections during the lifetime of the collective 1. NO
bargaining agreement). It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file
-Tupas did not say that the mere ratification of the CBA by the majority employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILO-
of the workers signified their affirmation of membership in the PHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by
negotiating union. Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA
-requirements: (1) ratification of the CBA, (2) affirmation of membership with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and
in the negotiating union. The second requirement has not been filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the
established in the case at bar as the record does not show that the director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS.
majority of the workers, besides ratifying the new CBA, have also "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
formally affiliated with APCWU. workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall
-Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion
Labor Code: representation case shall not be adversely affected by a of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition
collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification election be
As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation conducted, outside of the sixty-day freedom period immediately
case was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final before the expiry date of the five-year term of the CBA.
agreement between the ICTSI and its workers. 2.YES
DECISIONS OF SEC OF LABOR FINAL AND INAPPEALABLE Articles 231 and 232 of the Labor Code read:
San Miguel Corp. v. Secretary of Labor: It is generally understood that "Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements.
as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative ---- . . . .
power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of "Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the Collective
such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the
of review is given by statute. Judicial review is proper in caw of lack of same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Office of the
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion Department of Labor and Employment for registration
accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the
order dated August 21, 1990, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
public respondent is DIRECTED to schedule and bold certification Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of
election among the workers of the International Container Terminal such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from
Services, Inc., this to be done with all possible dispatch. No costs. receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau
with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five
(5) days from its submission.
Not Registered CBA "xxx xxx xxx"
"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. ---- The Bureau
TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v LAGUESMA shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duly
236 SCRA 586 registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting
PUNO; September 21, 1994 the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
FACTS Code."
- Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election with the Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads:
Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a bargaining "Art. 253-A. Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the
representative for the rank-and-file employees of the Transunion parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect
Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able to secure a is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
organization. agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
- It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition, Integrated conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside
Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by DOLE as the sole the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . ."
Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged between Transunion and It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the CBA
ILO-Phils covering the company's rank-and-file employees. The CBA within 30 days from date of execution under Article 231 was not
was ratified. When the President of ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union met. The subject CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It
conflict followed and the subject CBA was filed with DOLE, for was ratified on December 8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for
registration purposes, only 3 months from its execution. The Certification registration purposes on March 14, 1990. Be that as it may, the
of Registration was issued by DOLE. delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently explained, i.e.,
- ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings initiated there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed to the
by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the existing CBA presidency of ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE
between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed that the petition for only on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume, as
certification election should be entertained only during the freedom what petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only on April 30,
period, or sixty days before the expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter 1990, as 5 days before its registration, on the unsupported
dismissed the petition on the ground of prematurity. surmise that it was done to suit the law that enjoins Regional
- TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed Offices of DOLE to act upon an application for registration of a
outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the Labor Code, CBA within five 5 days from its receipt thereof. In the absence of
the prohibition against certification election under Article 232 of the any substantial evidence that DOLE officials or personnel, in
same Code should not apply to third parties such as petitioner. collusion with private respondent, had antedated the filing date
- The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter. The of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance of
MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied. official functions holds.
ISSUE More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural
1. WON a certification election may be conducted requirement should not adversely affect the substantive validity
of the CBA between ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corp.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 148- Disini
covering the company's rank and file employees. A collective bargaining COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN vs.
agreement is more than a contract. It is highly impressed with public
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY
interest for it is an essential instrument to promote industrial peace.
Hence, it bears the blessings not only of the employer and employees OF LETRAN and ELEONOR AMBAS
concerned but even the Department of Labor and Employment. To set it 340 SCRA 587
aside on technical grounds is not conducive to the public good. KAPUNAN; Sep 18, 2000

REGISTERED CBA NATURE Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE The Court found the petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran
PHILS V NLRC (CENAPRO) guilty of unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the
305 SCRA 219 newly-elected representative of the Association of Employees
PURISMA, J.; March 25, 1999 and Faculty of Letran in the person of Eleanor Ambas. It filed
the present petition seeking reversal of the decision of the CA
NATURE and posed the argument that the reason why it suspended the
- petition for review on certiorari ongoing negotiations for a new CBA was because a petition for
certification has been filed by another legitimate labor
FACTS organization.
- petitioners were casual EEs of private respondent CENAPRO
Chemicals Corp. (CCC) of which the collective bargaining representative ISSUE
of all rank and file EEs was CENAPRO Employees Assn (CCEA). Their WON petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to
CBA excluded casual EEs from membership. The casual EEs who had bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the
rendered at least 1-6 years of service sought regularization but were ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
denied, thus forming themselves into an organization affiliated with the (CBA) upon mere information that a petition for
Association of Independent Unions in the Phils (AIUP). AIUP filed a certification has been filed by another legitimate
petition for certification election which CCEA opposed based on the labor organization
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 HELD YES.
padlocking of the company’s gate and preventing non-striking EEs from Ratio In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the
reporting to work. CCC filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC which bargaining process there must be a valid petition for certification
granted a TRO. Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practices election raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the
and illegal lockout while CCC filed a complaint for illegal strike. The mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso
Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and dismissed petitioner’s facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The
complaint. 5 union officers lost employment status, 15 union members petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code
were not reinstated due to quitclaims, 4 workers were ordered reinstated and its Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for
(petitioners herein). certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom
-both parties appealed. Pending the appeals, the 4 workers were period. The Contract Bar Rule under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V,
reinstated upon motion of AUIP; CCC prayed that separation pay be of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides
given instead. CCC argued that reinstatement was inappropriate due to that: . If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly
strained relations but the Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition
directing reinstatement. CCC appealed again; NLRC affirmed in toto the for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
Labor Arbiter’s decision. CCC filed an MFR; NLRC modified its decision, entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
ordering instead the payment of separation pay. Hence this petition. 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
ISSUE/S certification election for any representation issue may be filed
1. WON respondent company was guilty of the unfair labor practice of after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is
systematic union busting extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite
the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still
HELD considers the same as continuing in force and effect until a
1. NO. new CBA shall have been validly executed. Hence, the
Reasoning The strike staged by petitioner was in the nature of a union- contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to ensure
recognition-strike. Such a strike is meant to compel the employer to stability in the relationship of the workers and the company
recognize one’s union as the bargaining representative to work out a by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier
CBA despite its doubtful majority status. At the time AIUP filed the entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated
petition for certification election, there was an existing CBA between original period.
CCC and CCEA, the incumbent bargaining representative. Reasoning In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA
-As such, this petition should not have been entertained because of the was from 1989-1994. The petition for certification election by
contract bar rule (A232 LC). When a CBA has been duly registered, a ACEC, allegedly a legitimate labor organization, was filed with
petition for certification election or motion for intervention may only be the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May
entertained within 60 days prior to the expiry of said agreement. Hence, 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day
CCC acted accordingly and did not commit union busting. freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the
Disposition Petition Granted. 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
EXPIRED CBA election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.

DISPOSITION
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 149- Disini
30% requirement for holding a certification elections has been
met.

6.8. SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATION HELD YES


ELECTION The case can be resolved on the basis of the first
issue alone which must be answered in the affirmative. Under
Prejudicial Question Rule 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
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It shall that the votes of the members of the dominated union would not
be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the be free.
following unfair labor practice: The ULP Case was filed anterior to the Certification
Case. There is no assertion that such complaint was flimsy, or
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere made in bad faith or filed purposely to forestall the certification
with the formation or administration of any labor election. So no reason existed for the Industrial Court to depart
organization, including the giving of financial or other from its established practice of suspending the election
support to it or its organizers or supporters; 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
BF Goodrich Phils. v. B.F. Goodrich Confidential and sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees
because the votes of the members of the dominated union would
Salaried Employees Union not be free. And we have held, through Mr. Justice J.B.L.
(pending) 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
UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION VS BLR been further amplified as follows:
(JULY CONVENTION) Only a formal charge of company domination may serve as a
128 SCRA 316 bar to and stop a certification election, the reason being that if
MELENCIO- HERRERA ; March 22, 1984 there is a union dominated by the Company, to which some of
the workers belong, an election among the workers and
FACTS: employees of the company would riot reflect the true sentiment
- United CMC Textile Workers Union is the incumbent collective and wishes of the said workers and employees from the
bargaining representative of all rank and file workers of standpoint of their welfare and interest, because as to the
CENTEX. Respondent PAFLU is also a legitimate labor members of the company dominated union, the vote of the said
organization seeking representation as the bargaining agent members in the election would not be free. It is equally true,
of the rank and file workers of CENTEX. however, that the opposition to the holding of a certification
- On August 31, 1978, CMC filed a complaint for Unfair Labor election due to a charge of company domination can only be
filed and maintained by the labor organization which made the
Practice (ULP Case) against CENTEX and PAFLU alleging
charge of company domination because it is the entity that
that CENTEX had helped and cooperated in the organization
stands to lose and suffer prejudice by the certification election,'
of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. Local PAFLU by allowing the
the reason being that its members might be overwhlemed in the
organizing members of the PAFLU to solicit signatures of
voting by the other members controlled and dominated by the
employees of the company who are members of the
Company.
complainant union to disaffiliate front complainant union and
There would be an impairment of the integrity of the
join the respondent PAFLU, during company time and inside
collective bargaining process if a company-dominated union
the company premises on August 21, 1978 and the following
were allowed to participate in a certification election. The timid
days thereafter.
the timorous, and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could
- While the ULP Case was pending, PAFLU filed a Petition for
easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of
Certification Election (the Certification Case, for short) among
management.
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 Party and Issue
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
BARRERA V CIR (PAWO)
the holding of a certification election among CENTEX rank GRN L-32853
and file workers, whereby qualified voters could choose either FERNANDO; September 25, 1981
PAFLU or petitioner as the collective bargaining
representative or No Union at all. On appeal, this was affirmed Facts:
by respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name
Hence this petition. of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged
an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The
ISSUE unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of
WON public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike.
the Order of the Med-Arbiter calling for a certification election despite:
(a) the pendency of an unfair labor practice case filed by petitioner Issue
charging respondent PAFLU as being company-dominated: (b) the WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the
existence of a deadlock in negotiations for renewal of the collective employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice
bargaining agreement between petitioner and the Central Textile Mills, case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with
Inc. (CENTEX, for short); and (c) a reasonable doubt as to whether the respondent-unions
Labor Law 2 A2010 - 150- Disini
certification election. Hence this petition alleging error in
Held the interpretation of the law by the said Director.
No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays)
ISSUE/S
If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a WON the pendency of the ULP Case charging a participating
certification election of a company dominated union, as a result of which union in the certification election proceedings as company
a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was dominated is a prejudicial question to the conduct of the election
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 HELD
the situation is exactly the reverse. It is management that would have an Yes. Under settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal
unfair labor practice case filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that, until
of its employees concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a decided, bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason
certification election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way, being that the votes of [be members of the dominated union
the result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an organization would not be free. The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31,
bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. The difficulties 1978, or anterior to the Certification Case, which was presented
and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of on September 5, 1978, The pendency of the charge was known
the personnel, who had not as yet made up their minds one way or the to respondent public official by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss
other. This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing filed by petitioner as intervenor in the Certification Case. No
an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit allegation has been made that said ULP Case was instituted in
should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, bad faith to forestall the Certification Case.
to prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the - "What is settled law, dating from the case of Standard Cigarette
organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved, Workers' Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations (101 Phil. 126),
in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also decided in 1957, is that if it were a labor organization objecting to
the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that the participation in a certification election of a company-
management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of dominated union, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair
its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with labor practice case against tire employer was filed, the status of
things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before
sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim, such voting could take place.”
lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays).
Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention Disposition
of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks The resolution of the director is reversed and set aside.
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
6.9. EFFECT, PENDING PETITION,
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law CANCELLATION TRADE
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
UNION REGISTRATION
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 ART. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The
employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
labor practice case." registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with
Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the
follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to list of members who took part in the ratification;
participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their
jobs. (b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the
preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption
Disposition petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto;
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
United CMC Textile Workers Union vs Bureau of connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit
Labor Relations (PAFLU) these documents together with the list of the newly
128 SCRA 316 elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses
Melencio-Herrera, J; 1984 within thirty (30) days from election;cvirtual law library
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the
NATURE Petition for certiorari Bureau within thirty (30) days after the closing of every
FACTS fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in
- This is a dispute between two unions, the petitioner and the the preparation of the financial report itself;
private respondent, vying to be the collective bargaining (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo"
representative of the rank and file employees of Central Textile system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by
Mills (CENTEX). law;
- Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice alleging that (f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which
private respondent is a company union in that CENTEX had provide terms and conditions of employment below
"helped and cooperated in the organization of the Central Textile minimum standards established by law;
Mills, Inc. – Local PAFLU. (g) Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation
- Thereafter, PAFLU filed a petition for a certification which was fees from employers;
approved by the public respondent. (h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code,
- Petitioner then filed a notice of strike which was prevented when checking off special assessments or any other fees without
the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction of the case. duly signed individual written authorizations of the
- The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations approved 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.