NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS,

RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA FACTS

PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER, A certification election was conducted among the rank-
Petitioner, and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila with the following
results:
- versus -
EMPLOYEES IN
353
VOTERS LIST =
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346
OF LABOR RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA
PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151
PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION, HIMPHLU = 169
Respondents.
NO UNION = 1
G.R. No. 181531 SPOILED = 3
July 31, 2009
SEGREGATED = 22
In view of the significant number of segregated votes,
contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and
CARPIO MORALES, J.: respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide
which among those votes would be opened and tallied. Eleven
votes were initially segregated because they were cast by
BRIEF
dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still
National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were
segregated because the employees who cast them were already
Industries Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-
occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still
MPHC), herein petitioner, seeks the reversal of the Court of five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast
by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing
Appeals November 8, 2007 Decision[1] and of the Secretary Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot
of Labor and Employments January 25, 2008 vote. It bears noting early on, however, that the vote of one Jose
Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was counted.
Resolution[2] in OS-A-9-52-05 which affirmed the Med- Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of
Arbiters Resolutions dated January 22, 2007[3] and March the 22 segregated votes.
22, 2007.[4]
 Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the
votes of the probationary employees should have been opened
considering that probationary employee Gatbontons vote was
tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which
garnered 169 votes, should not be immediately certified as the
bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17 segregated ballots
would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 +
17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be
one vote short of the majority which would then become 169.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), affirmed
the Med-Arbiters Order. In fine, the SOLE concluded that the
certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was
proper.
Petitioners MR was denied. CA affirmed the dismissal of the
MR.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the employees on probationary status at the time of
the certification elections should be allowed to vote. YES
2. MAIN ISSUE- WON HIMPHLU was able to obtain the
required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent.
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter : declared that HIMPHLU is the exclusive
bargaining agent
Secretary of Labor and Employment : Affirmed Med-
Arbiter's decision
SC: HIMPHLU not the exclusive bargaining agent
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
1.FIRST ISSUE
The inclusion of Gatbontons vote was proper not because it was
not questioned but because probationary employees have the right
to vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other
probationary employees should thus also have been counted. In a
certification election, all rank and file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent
are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of
the Labor Code. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the
certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence,
all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a
substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their
employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition
for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in
the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the
petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit."
For purposes of this section Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department
Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, which amended Rule XI of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, any employee,
whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on
the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any
labor organization.
The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary
employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-
protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the
provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on
certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.
Prescinding from the principle that all employees are, from
the first day of their employment, eligible for membership in a
labor organization, it is evident that the period of reckoning in
determining who shall be included in the list of eligible voters is,
in cases where a timely appeal has been filed from the Order of
the Med-Arbiter, the date when the Order of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, whether affirming or denying the appeal,
becomes final and executory.
 During the pendency of the appeal, the employer may hire
additional employees. To exclude the employees hired after the
issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order but before the appeal has
been resolved would violate the guarantee that every employee
has the right to be part of a labor organization from the first day of
their service.
In the present case, records show that the probationary
employees, including Gatbonton, were included in the list of
employees in the bargaining unit submitted by the Hotel on
May 25, 2006 in compliance with the directive of the Med-
Arbiter after the appeal and subsequent motion for
reconsideration have been denied by the SOLE, rendering the
Med-Arbiters August 22, 2005 Order final and executory 10
days after the March 22, 2007 Resolution (denying the motion
for reconsideration of the January 22 Order denying the
appeal), and rightly so. Because, for purposes of self-
organization, those employees are, in light of the discussion
above, deemed eligible to vote.
A certification election is the process of determining the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining, refers to the negotiated contract between a
legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages,
hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
in a bargaining unit.
The significance of an employees right to vote in a
certification election cannot thus be overemphasized. For he
has considerable interest in the determination of who shall
represent him in negotiating the terms and conditions of his
employment.
But while the Court rules that the votes of all the probationary
employees should be included, under the particular
circumstances of this case and the period of time which it took
for the appeal to be decided, the votes of the six supervisory
employees must be excluded because at the time the
certification elections was conducted, they had ceased to be
part of the rank and file, their promotion having taken effect
two months before the election.
2. SECOND ISSUE (MAIN ISSUE)
As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent, the Court rules in the negative. It is
well-settled that under the so-called "double majority rule," for
there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining
unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered
majority of the valid votes cast.
Prescinding from the Courts ruling that all the
probationary employees votes should be deemed valid votes
while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded, it
follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase from
321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining
the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% +
1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151
votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority vote.
The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the
opening of the 17 segregated ballots will not materially affect the
outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even
if such member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU
would win, is thus untenable.
It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining
the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for
computing the required majority, and not just to determine which
union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but valid
votes has thus become material. To be sure, the conduct of a
certification election has a two-fold objective: to determine the
appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority
representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees
desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the
determination of who between two or more contending unions The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members
of the bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off
and which union they want to represent them. election between petitioner, National Union of Workers in
Having declared that no choice in the certification election
conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion
election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday
petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees.
A run-off election refers to an election between the labor Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a SO ORDERED.
certification or consent election with three (3) or more choices,
where such a certified or consent election results in none of the
three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid
votes cast; provided that the total number of votes for all
contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number
of votes cast. With 346 votes cast, 337 of which are now
deemed valid and HIMPHLU having only garnered 169 and
petitioner having obtained 151 and the choice "NO UNION"
receiving 1 vote, then the holding of a run-off election between
HIMPHLU and petitioner is in order.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22,
2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05
are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
 Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the
UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED holding of an election of union officers with
EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners, the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
vs. Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF
DOLEs med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated
LABOR, respondents.
October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held.
G.R. No. 97622 In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the 3 Section 3,
October 19, 1994 Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, election by secret
ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino
ROMERO, J.: Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al.
(respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly
NATURE OF THE CASE appointed representation officer.
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the -In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor with either a checkmark or an X mark. There should also be no
other markings on the ballot.
BRIEF
De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor -Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had
two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot.
which reversed on appeal the Order dated December 20, The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the
1990 issued by Med-arbiter Rolando S. dela Cruz declaring voter.
petitioners as the duly-elected officers of the Universal The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algires favor and
certified the latters group to be the unions validly elected officers.
Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees union
-De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted.
(URTMSEU) as well as the order dated March 5, 1991 Another order for a new election of officers was made by the
denying petitioner Catalino Algire's motion for Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.

reconsideration. -Algires group filed a motion for reconsideration which was

denied for lack of merit.
-Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a
FACTS person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-
the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the Secretary of Labor erred in applying Sections 1 and 8
(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing
the Labor Code to the herein case, considering that the case is an
intra-union activity, which act constitutes a grave abuse in the
exercise of authority amounting to lack of jurisdiction. NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter: In favor of Algire
DOLE: Reveresed, called for another election of officers
SC: DOLE is correct
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
The contention of the petitioner is that a representation
officer (referring to a person duly authorized to conduct
and supervise certification elections in accordance with
Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot
questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot
is not within his competence. Therefore, any ruling
made by the representation officer concerning the
validity of the ballot is deemed an absolute nullity
because such is the allegation it was done without
or in excess of his functions amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the
company's premises and which became the root of this
controversy, was a consent election, not a certification
election.
It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an
agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate
collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process
and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a
certification election. 5
The ruling of DOLE's representative in that election that the
questioned ballot is spoiled is not based on any legal
provision or rule justifying or requiring such action by such
officer but simply in pursuance of the intent of the parties,
expressed in the written instructions contained in the ballot,
which is to prohibit unauthorized markings thereon other
than a check or a cross, obviously intended to identify the
votes in order to preserve the sanctity of the ballot, which is
in fact the objective of the contending parties.
If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the
representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was
spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the
canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's
validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or
irregularity arising from said election. Moreover, petitioners
even question at this stage the clear instruction to mark a
check or cross opposite the same of the candidate's group,
arguing that such instruction was not clear, as two checks
"may be interpreted that a voter may vote for Lino Algire but
not with (sic) his officers or vice-versa,"6 notwithstanding the
fact that a pre-election conference had already been held
where no such question was raised.
In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the union
officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming
collective bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the
democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the true
will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined.
The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once
and for all in a determination where anything is open to their CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF
sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED
is minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners,
and/or maneuvering. vs.
REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, respondents.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated G.R. No. 97622
October 19, 1994
November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22, ROMERO, J.:
2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor NATURE OF THE CASE
and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05 certiorari and prohibition proceeding
are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
BRIEF
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the
The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor
Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off
which reversed on appeal the Order dated December 20,
election between petitioner, National Union of Workers in
1990 issued by Med-arbiter Rolando S. dela Cruz declaring
Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion
petitioners as the duly-elected officers of the Universal
Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday
Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees union
Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
SO ORDERED. (URTMSEU) as well as the order dated March 5, 1991
denying petitioner Catalino Algire's motion for
reconsideration.

FACTS
Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the
holding of an election of union officers with
the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
DOLEs med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated
October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held.
In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the 3 Section 3,
Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, election by secret
ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino
Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al.
(respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly
appointed representation officer.
-In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices
with either a checkmark or an X mark. There should also be no
other markings on the ballot.
De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were
272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
-Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had
two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot.
The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the
voter.
The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algires favor and
certified the latters group to be the unions validly elected officers.
-De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted.
Another order for a new election of officers was made by the
Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.
-Algires group filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied for lack of merit.
-Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a
person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-
the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the Secretary of Labor erred in applying Sections 1 and 8
(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing
the Labor Code to the herein case, considering that the case is an
intra-union activity, which act constitutes a grave abuse in the
exercise of authority amounting to lack of jurisdiction. NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter: In favor of Algire
DOLE: Reveresed, called for another election of officers
SC: DOLE is correct
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
The contention of the petitioner is that a representation
officer (referring to a person duly authorized to conduct
and supervise certification elections in accordance with
Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot
questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot
is not within his competence. Therefore, any ruling
made by the representation officer concerning the
validity of the ballot is deemed an absolute nullity
because such is the allegation it was done without
or in excess of his functions amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the
company's premises and which became the root of this
controversy, was a consent election, not a certification
election.
It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an
agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate
collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process
and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a
certification election. 5
The ruling of DOLE's representative in that election that the
questioned ballot is spoiled is not based on any legal
provision or rule justifying or requiring such action by such
officer but simply in pursuance of the intent of the parties,
expressed in the written instructions contained in the ballot,
which is to prohibit unauthorized markings thereon other
than a check or a cross, obviously intended to identify the
votes in order to preserve the sanctity of the ballot, which is
in fact the objective of the contending parties.
If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the
representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was
spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the
canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's
validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or
irregularity arising from said election. Moreover, petitioners
even question at this stage the clear instruction to mark a
check or cross opposite the same of the candidate's group,
arguing that such instruction was not clear, as two checks
"may be interpreted that a voter may vote for Lino Algire but
not with (sic) his officers or vice-versa,"6 notwithstanding the
fact that a pre-election conference had already been held
where no such question was raised.
In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the union
officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming
collective bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the
democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the true
will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined.
The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once
and for all in a determination where anything is open to their
sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation
is minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay
and/or maneuvering.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22,
2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05
are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off
election between petitioner, National Union of Workers in
Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion
Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot as United
Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU). Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines
SO ORDERED.
(UEUGIP).

FACTS
A pre-election conference conducted by the Bureau of
UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION OF GELMART Labor Relations agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot
INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES (UEUGIP), petitioner, as United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines
vs. (UEUGIP) but In the notice of the certification election, however,
HON. CARMELO NORIEL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF it was wilfully deleted and replaced by "a non-contending party,
LABOR RELATIONS; GEORGE A. EDUVALA, namely, Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), which,
REPRESENTATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF LABOR although an existing labor federation * * * has nothing to do and
RELATIONS; and NATIONAL UNION OF GARMENTS, has no interest or right of participation. As a result, there was
TEXTILE, CORDAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS OF THE confusion in the minds of independent voters and demoralization
PHILIPPINES (GATCORD), respondents. in the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner.
A protest was conducted on the ground of the alleged
G.R. No. L-40810 electioneering of nuns and a priest as observers or inspectors on
October 3, 1975 behalf of private respondent.
The above notwithstanding, the certification election took
place "on the scheduled date, May 24, 1975 and respondent
FERNANDO, J.: GATCORD garnered the highest number of votes .
NATURE OF THE CASE It was then set forth that despite such defect in the mode of
conducting the election which for petitioner sufficed to cause "the
certiorari and prohibition proceeding nullity of the election in question," respondent Director Carmelo
Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations "[was] about to certify
BRIEF respondent (National Union of Garments, Textile, Cordage and
Allied Workers of the Philippines) GATCORD as the sole and
This petition seeking to declare certification election
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the rank and file
declared null and void ab initio and thus unenforceable, employees [and] workers of Gelmart Industries Philippines,
Inc."[8] Hence this petition with its overtones as indicated of an
alleging that the contending parties in a pre-election alleged violation of procedural due process.
conference conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations It was alleged that the petitioner-union was included, but
under another name, in the list of contending unions in the
election, where the winning party had 63% of the votes, while the
petitioner only had 4.5% (thus, the winner won by a landslide,
even if the votes of all the other 7 contending unions were
combined. Therefore, the mistake didnt really affect the outcome
of the election)
ISSUE/s of the CASE
WON the certification election is void NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC: Dismissed petition
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
As noted at the outset, we find for Respondents. The
petition lacks merit.
Considering what transpired, it is apparent that the grievance
spoken of is more fancied than real, the assertion of confusion and
demoralization based on conjecture rather than reality. At most, it
was an honest mistake
Reasoning The institution of collective bargaining is a prime
manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to
the relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by
coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that
really count. As labor, however, is composed of a number of
individuals, it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor
organization of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial a
certification election is.
There must be an opportunity to determine which
labor organization shall act on their behalf.It is precisely
because respect must be accorded to the will of labor
thus ascertained that a general allegation of duress is
not sufficient to invalidate a certification election; it
must be shown by competent and credible proof. That
is to give substance to the principle of majority rule,
one of the basic concepts of a democratic polity.
Nor need this Court pass upon the ground of protest based on the
alleged participation by nuns and a priest who presumably aided
the cause of private Respondent.
In the leading case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,
this court left no doubt as to the privacy of religious freedom, to
which contractual rights, even on labor matters, must yield, thus
removing any taint of nullity from the amendment to the Industrial
Peace Act, 26 which would allow exemption from a closed shop
on the part of employees, members of a given religious sect
prohibiting its devotees from affiliating with any labor
organization. This was reaffrimed in Basa v. Federacion Obrera
de la Industria Tabaquera.
Certainly, the wide latitude accorded religious groups in the
exercise of their, constitutional freedom would caution against
reliance on such a ground to invalidate a certification election. It
thus appears that such an approach is reflected in the attitude
adopted by petitioner, which in effect amounts to an abandonment
of such a possible ground of protest, not at all lodged with this
Court but merely mentioned in its recital of background facts.
During the hearing of this case, reference was made to the
registration of private respondent allegedly having been revoked.
As the pleadings do not touch upon the matter at all, this Court is
not in a position to rule on such a question. The decision therefore
leaves that particular aspect of the litigation open.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is
dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order issued by this
Court is lifted. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.