Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction
6. Union Representation:
Establishing Union Majority Status
6.1. PRE-CONDITION-EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
ELECTION- Pre-requisite
Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION
before a petition for certification election can be entertained?
An employer employee relationship is a precondition since without
such relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part of
either the employer or employee.
Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election to
choose their bargaining representative when there is no duty to
collectively bargain anyway. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Cia
Maritima, 19 SCRA 258, 1967)
ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION V C. MARITIMA et
al.
19 SCRA 258
BENGZON; JAN.31, 1967
NATURE
Petitions for review by certiorari of CIR decision
FACTS
- This is a consolidation of 3 cases involving both parties
- Respondent Compania Maritima (MARITIMA), a local corp. engaged in
shipping entered into a contract for lease of services with petitioner
Allied Free Workers’ Union (AFWU), a duly registered legitimate labor
union. In the contract, it was stipulated that AFWU will do and perform
all the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all vessels or boats
of MARITIMA in Iligan City; that the contract is good and valid for 1
month starting Aug.12, 1952, but may be renewed by agreement of the
parties with the reservation that MARITIMA has the right to revoke said
contract even before the expiration of the term, if and when AFWU fails
to render good service.
- Towards the end of 1953, MARITIMA complained to AFWU of
unsatisfactory and inefficient service. To remedy the situation,
MARITIMA was forced to hire extra laborers from among “stand-by”
workers not affiliated to any union.
- On July 1954, AFWU sent a written proposal to MARITIMA for a CBA,
but the latter did not reply. Thereafter, AFWU instituted an action in the
CIR praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit
composed of all the laborers doing arrastre and stevedoring work for
MARITIMA, to which action MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER-
EE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the
termination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered by
the latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination was
to take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with the
Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The
latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and
conditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to be
carried out on Sept.1, 1954.
- On Aug.26, 1954, AFWU charged MARITIMA of unfair labor practices
(ULPs) before the CIR. MARITIMA answered, again denying the ER-EE
relationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed an
action to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doing
arrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and for
recovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI ordered
the rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWU
members from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels.
Disini
ordering the maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961.
Thus, after Jan.18, 1961, AFWU laborers were again back doing
the same work as before.
- On Nov.4, 1963, after almost 10 years, the CFI finally rendered
its decision: In pursuance of the provisions of Sec.12 of R.A.
875 and the Rules of this court on certification election, the
Honorable Secretary of Labor or any of his authorized
representative is hereby requested to conduct certification
election among all the workers and/or stevedores working in the
wharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastre
service aboard Compania Maritima vessels docking at Iligan City
port in order to determine their representative for collective
bargaining with the employer, whether these desire to be
represented by the petitioner Allied Free Workers Union or
neither; and upon termination of the said election, the result
thereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for further
consideration. From this ruling, both parties appealed, AFWU
claiming that it should be declared outright as the majority union
while MARITIMA contends that said court could not even have
correctly ordered a certification election considering that there
was an absence of ER-EE relationship between it and said
laborers.
ISSUE
WON the order of a certification election by the CIR was proper.
(WON there was an ER-EE relationship between AFWU and
MARITIMA)
HELD
NO. Before a certification election can be held, there must exist
an ER-EE relationship between the ER and the petitioner union.
Ratio The duty to bargain collectively exists only between the
“employer” and its “employees.” Where there is no duty to
bargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification elections
in connection therewith.
Reasoning In its findings, the CIR observed that after the
rescission, the AFWU laborers continued working in accordance
with the “cabo system,” which was the prevailing custom in the
place. Under this system, the union was an independent
contractor. The CIR also made a finding that prior to the contract
between MARITIMA and AFWU, the former had an oral arrastre
and stevedoring agreement with another union, the Iligan
Laborers Union (ILU), which agreement was also based on the
“cabo” system. After unsatisfactory service, MARITIMA cancelled
this oral contract and entered into a new contract with AFWU,
the terms and conditions of which were similar to the oral
contract with ILU. The written contract between AFWU and
MARITIMA was signed under the assurance by AFWU that the
same arrangement previously had with the former union
regarding performance and execution of arrastre and
stevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the custom
of such kind of work in Iligan. Thus, petitioner union operated as
a labor contractor under the so-called “cabo” system.
- From these findings, Insofar as the working agreement was
concerned, there was no real difference between the contract
and the prior oral agreement. Both were based on the “cabo”
system. Hence, since the parties observed the "cabo" system
after the rescission of the contract, and since the characteristics
of said system show that the contracting union was an
independent contractor, it is reasonable to assume that AFWU
continued being an independent contractor of MARITIMA. And,
being an independent contractor, it could not qualify as an
"employee". With more reason would this be true with respect to
the laborers. Moreover, there is no evidence at all regarding the
characteristics of the working arrangement between AFWU and
MARITIMA after the termination of the CONTRACT. All we have
to go on is the court a quo's finding that the “cabo” system was
observed-a system that negatives employment relationship.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
- Since the only function of a certification election is to determine, with
judicial sanction, which union shall be the official representative or
spokesman of the “employees” will be, there being no ER-EE
relationship between the parties disputants, it follows that there is
neither a duty to bargain collectively. Thus, the order for certification
election in question cannot be sustained.
Disposition appealed decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED insofar as it
dismissed the charge of ULP, but REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar
as it ordered the holding of a certification election. The petition for
certification election should be DISMISSED.
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)
300 SCRA 120
PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election
among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the
petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that
the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the
proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be
conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file
employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal
standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.
- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory
employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of
accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization.
- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said
that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is
composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is
not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the
exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who
are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the
list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.
HELD:
The petition is meritorious. We agree with the public respondent
that supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. This is in
accord with our repeated ruling that "[a]n appropriate bargaining
unit is a group of employees of a given employer, composed of
all or less than the entire body of employees, which the
collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to
the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of law. Otherwise stated, it is a legal collectivity for
collective bargaining purposes whose members have
substantially mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions
of employment as will assure to all employees their collective
bargaining rights. A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping
of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages,
hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective
bargaining."
The critical issue, however, is whether or not the respondent
union can file a petition for certification election to represent the
supervisory employees of the petitioner company. The
resolution of this issue depends on whether the respondent
Disini
union is composed solely of supervisory employees or of
both supervisory and rank-and-file employees. Article 245
of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank-and-file employees . . . ."
To determine who are supervisory and rank-and-file
employees reference has to be made to Article 212 (m) of
the Labor Code, as amended, as well as Section 1 (t),
Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, as amended, viz:
Managerial employee is one who is
vested with powers or prerogatives to
lay down and execute management
policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees.
Supervisory employees are those who,
in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial
actions if the exercise of such authority
is not merely routinary or clerical in
nature but requires the use of
independent judgment. All employees
not falling within any of the above
definitions are considered rank-and-file
employees for purposes of this Book
[these Rules].
Determining the status of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees is not a hard row to hoe in labor law. The test
of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is
whether an employee possesses authority to act in the
interest of his employer, which authority should not be
merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use
of independent judgment. Corrollarily, what determines
the nature of employment is not the employee's title, but
his job description.
In the instant case, the list of monthly paid employees
submitted by the petitioner company contains the names
of about twenty seven (27) supervisory employees, six (6)
managerial employees, one (1) confidential employee
and twenty six (26) office and technical employees
holding various positions. The list reveals that the
positions occupied by the twenty six (26) office and
technical employees are in fact rank-and-file positions.
We also do not agree with the ruling of the respondent
Secretary of Labor that the infirmity in the membership of
the respondent union can be remedied in "the pre-
election conference thru the exclusion-inclusion
proceedings wherein those employees who are
occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from
the list of eligible voters." Public respondent gravely
misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest
of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file
employees. Due to the irreconcilability of their interests
we held in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motors
Philippines Corporation Labor Union viz:
xxx xxx xxx
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245,
Labor Code], a labor organization composed
of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees is no labor organization at all. It
cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a
legitimate labor organization. Not being one,
an organization which carries a mixture of
rank-and-file and supervisory employees
cannot possess any of the rights of a
legitimate labor organization, including the
right to file apetition for certification election for
the purpose of collective bargaining. It
becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the
granting of an order allowing a certification
election, to inquire into the composition of any
labor organization whenever the status of the
labor organization is challenged on the basis
of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
Needless to stress, the respondent union has no legal
right to file a certification election to represent a
bargaining unit composed of supervisors for so long as
it counts rank-and-file employees among its members.
6.2. METHODS OF ESTABLISHING
MAJORITY STATUS
1. Purpose
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v
LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 94929-30
CRUZ, Mar 18, 1992
NATURE:
FACTS:
- The collective bargaining agreement of the International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate Port
Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due
to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the
laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting
their moves.
- on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan
(SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent
signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were
submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition.
- On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the
Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.
- another petition for certification election was filed by the Port
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The
consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days
after the filing of the petition.
- On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the
ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows:
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise
where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining
union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor
organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the
certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the
last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining agreement and
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent
(25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed
Disini
before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be
dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%)
requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition,
otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasis
supplied.)
- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUP
appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
election. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order of
the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
- ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28,
1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in the
bargaining unit.
- PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the Labor
Code. The article provides in part as follows:
Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.
? In organized establishments, when a verified petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed before the Department of Labor and
Employment within the sixty-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-
Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
when the verified petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . . .
- The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbiter
should automatically order election by secret ballot when the
petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the
bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied
with the law when they submitted the required consent
signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner
complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification
election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect
of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
- Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was
based on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by
Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted
above. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certification
election cases shall be final and unappealable.
- For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in these
proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its
petition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to
represent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The
private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that the
ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an
affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that
agreement.
ISSUE:
WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents
when they dismissed the petitions for certification election
because the consent signatures had not been submitted
simultaneously with the petition
HELD:
YES
- pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers
the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the
constant and unwavering policy of the Court" has been "to
require a certification election as the best means of ascertaining
which labor organization should be the collective bargaining
representative."
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where UNION."
they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
policy that should not be circumvented. TUPAS 1
- the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the TUEU-OLALIA 95
25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification NO UNION 1
election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of SPOILED 1
the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the CHALLENGED 141
requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to
implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best METHOD OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS,
be given only a directory effect. PURPOSE. The purpose of a certification election is precisely
- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees
carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented
applicable to a petition in intervention. by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which
- the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a particular labor organization.
non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly
applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct Disposition Petition GRANTED
ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of
the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their
dealings with management.
- Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for
2. Elections-Certification Election; Consent
industrial stability is clearly shown to be imperative. Subject to this Election; and Run-Off Election- Voluntary
singular exception, contracts where the identity of the authorized Recognition, Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03
representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a
more certain indication of the will of the workers.
The certification election is the best method of determining the will of the
Distinctions- Certification and Consent
workers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in their Elections
negotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreement
that will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there
Distinguish Consent Election and Certification
be no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous
Election
management and a union covertly supporting it while professing its
A consent election:
loyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated
 Is an agreed one,
because of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval
 Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of
and support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the
majority representation of all the workers in the
real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of
appropriate collective
the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the
bargaining unit
voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules
that will exalt procedure over substantial justice.
While a certification election
 Is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive
DISPOSITION Petition GRANTED.
bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

REYES V TRAJANO From the very nature of consent election,

209 SCRA 484  It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing
to do with the import and effect of a certification
NARVASA; June 2, 1992 election.
 Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA
NATURE nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately
Special civil action of certiorari renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not
preclude the workers from exercising their right to
FACTS choose their sole and exclusive bargaining
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the freedom period. (Warren Manufacturing v. BLR)
right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni
Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification
election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to
be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau
of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries
Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-
Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries
and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and
Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be
qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted
under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240
employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be
cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations,
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
What is the PURPOSE of a certification election?
It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of:
1) Whether the want a union to represent them for
collective bargaining OR they want NO union to represent
them at all.
2) And if they choose to have a union represent them, they
will choose WHICH among the contending union will be the
SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union
2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union.
WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU OF
LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-ANGLO
G.R. No. L-76185
PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary injunction
and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to set aside the Order
of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of the resolution of the
Bureau of Labor
FACTS
-June 13, 1985. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial
Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition for certification election
-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2 and
the Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and to
expire on July 31, 1986.
-PACIWU filed a Notice of Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Return-
to-Work Agreement was signed stipulating: “To resolve the issue of union
representation at Warren Mfg. Corp. parties have agreed to the holding of a
consent election among the rank and file on August 25, 1985 at the premises of
the company to be supervised by MOLE . . .”
-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWU
filed an Election Protest. Election Protest was dismissed.
-June 5, 1986. PACIWU filed a petition for certification election.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation-
Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also
filed.
-Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30%
support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law
and the existence of a duly ratified CBA.
- August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted
to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and
file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2.
WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union.
-Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor
Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on
certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining
1 Code
Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent
sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun. 
2
same
Disini
unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no
certification election rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar
Rule.
ISSUE/S
WON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of
the Contract Bar Rule applies
HELD
NO
-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on
August 25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became
the root of this controversy, was a consent election and not a
certification election.
-As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent
election is an agreed one, its purpose being merely to
determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers
in the appropriate collective bargaining unit, while a certification
election is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
- From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and
distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect
of a certification election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an
existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately
renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the
workers from exercising their right to choose their sole and
exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of the
sixty (60) day freedom period.
- It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said
projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA
at the company until its expiry date on July 31, 1986. It is,
therefore, unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25,
1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union
should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a
collective contract, there being an existing collective bargaining
agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determine
which labor union shall administer the said existing contract.
Disposition Petition dismissed.
ALGIRE V DE MESA
237 SCRA 647
ROMERO; October 19, 1994
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the
Secretary of Labor
FACTS
- Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition
for the holding of an election of union officers with the
Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
- DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an
Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an
election be held.
- In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the
3
Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990
between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa,
et al. (respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its
duly appointed representation officer.
- In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices
with either a check mark or an ‘X’ mark. There should also be no
other markings on the ballot.
- De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast
were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
- Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had
two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot.
The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by
the voter.
- The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s favor
and certified the latter’s group to be the unions validly elected
officers.
- De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted.
Another order for a new election of officers was made by the Med-
Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.
- Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied for lack of merit.
- Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a
person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-
the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE
WON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algire’s motion was in
excess of its authority since the case is an intra-union activity
HELD
NO
Ratio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being
merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the
workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and
distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a
certification election.
Reasoning
- What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a
certification election.
- If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representation
officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have
done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to
assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or
irregularity arising from said election.
Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby
AFFIRMED.
3. Policy
No Direct Certification
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE
163 SCRA 323
PARAS; June 30, 1988
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged
refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing
Disini
employees to retract their membership with the union and
restraining non-union members from joining the union.
- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the
Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the
Labor Code.
- Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in
the Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly
committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of
petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution
of survey sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism and
at the same time respondent Minister directly certified the
respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales
force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the
three salesmen to the company on the ground that the
employees were first offenders.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied
by respondent
ISSUE
WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified
respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
company's salesmen since the case is not a representation
proceeding as described under the Labor Code and the Union
did not pray for certification but merely for a finding of unfair
labor practice imputed to petitioner-company.
HELD
YES.
- The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts.
257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on
cancellation of a Union registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof,
the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining majority
representation.
- The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6
of Rule V, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code
are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining
representative is the true choice of the employees against all
contenders. The Constitutional mandate that the State shall
"assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of
work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the
aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.
- When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext
of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of
the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.
- When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact
disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There
was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether
the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.
- Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding
of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a
mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to
directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is
precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case
filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority
status.
- Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for
certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made
does not warrant a direct certification.
- More so, when the records of the suit show that the required
proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that
the basis of the direct certification was the Union's mere
allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular
salesmen.
- Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion
of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the
majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to
the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the assailed
RULE VII
orders was to make a mockery of the procedure provided under the law
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
for representation cases.
(continued)
Disposition Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining
Employer Certification- Voluntary Recognition unit, accompanied by the names of those who support the
Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03 voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the
members of the bargaining unit; and

RULE VII
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized
establishments with only one legitimate labor organization,
the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation
status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such
recognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice of
voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued
the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or
certificate of creation of a chartered local.
Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. -
The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied by
the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the
following documents:
(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition
attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition;
(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate
labor organization operating within the bargaining unit.
All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary
recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer
representative and president of the recognized labor union.
Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of
voluntary recognition is sufficient in form, number and
substance and where there is no other registered labor
union operating within the bargaining unit concerned, the
Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division shall,
within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice, record the
fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor
unions and notify the labor union concerned.
Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in
form, number and substance, the Regional Office shall,
within the same period, notify the labor union of its findings
and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements.

(b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary
recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining
unit where the union seeks to operate;
Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to
complete the requirements for voluntary recognition under
Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of
the advisory, the Regional Office shall return the notice for
voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying
documents without prejudice to its re-submission.

Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary

recognition. - From the time of recording of voluntary
recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the
rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining
agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit.

Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition

for certification election by any labor organization for a
period of one (1) year from the date of entry of voluntary
recognition. Upon expiration of this one-year period, any
legitimate labor organization may file a petition for
certification election in the same bargaining unit represented
by the voluntarily recognized union,unless a collective
bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily
recognized labor union was executed and registered with
the Regional Office in accordance with Rule XVII of these
Rules.

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX VS

SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 107792 March 2, 1998
A certification election was conducted among employees
of respondent Permex Producer and Exporter
Corporation with 'No Union' winning [NFL lost]. Later
however, some employees of Permex Producer formed a
labor organization known as the Samahang Manggagawa
sa Permex (SMP) which they registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment and then affiliated
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU).
(SMP-PIILU) wrote the respondent company requesting
recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of employees at the Permex Producer and was granted. They
then entered into a CBA. A year later, NFL filed gain for a
petition for certification election but was dismissed.
Two arguments are put forth in support of the petition. First, it is
contended that petitioner has been recognized by the majority of
the employees at Permex Producer as their sole collective
bargaining agent. Petitioner argues that when a group of
employees constituting themselves into an organization and
claiming to represent a majority of the work force requests the
employer to bargain collectively, the employer may do one of
two things. First, if the employer is satisfied with the employees'
claim the employer may voluntarily recognize the union by
merely bargaining collectively with it. The formal written
confirmation is ordinarily stated in the collective bargaining
agreement. Second, if on the other hand, the employer refuses
to recognize the union voluntarily, it may petition the Bureau of
Labor Relations to conduct a certification election. If the
employer does not submit a petition for certification election, the
union claiming to represent the employees may submit the
petition so that it may be directly certified as the employees'
representative or a certification election may be held.
HELD: Challenged decision AFFIRMED.
The case of Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja is
particularly apropos: “. . . Ordinarily, in an unorganized
establishment like the Calasiao Beer Region, it is the union that
files a petition for a certification election if there is no certified
bargaining agent for the workers in the establishment. If a union
asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining
agent of the employees, as the petitioner did, it in effect asks
the employer to certify it as the bargaining representative of the
employees — A CERTIFICATION WHICH THE EMPLOYER
HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the employees'
prerogative (not the employer's) to determine whether they want
a union to represent them, and, if so, which one it should be.” In
accordance with this ruling, Permex Producer should not have
given its voluntary recognition to SMP-PIILU-TUCP when the
latter asked for recognition as exclusive collective bargaining
agent of the employees of the company. The company did not
have the power to declare the union the exclusive
representative of the workers for the purpose of collective
bargaining. It is not enough that a union has the support of the
majority of the employees. It is equally important that everyone
in the bargaining unit be given the opportunity to express
himself.
Effect One Union Only
GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED
LABOR UNION
134 SCRA 82
MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations.
FACTS
Disini
- George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping,
while Associated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate
labor organization.
- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed by
ALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE
bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of
petitioner corporation, there being no labor union.
- Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does not
represent the majority of the employees concerned, and that
more than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vessels
claim they are not members of any union.
- August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying
ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employees
denied their membership. Corporation moved that a certification
election should be called.
- Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of the
documents, opined that there existed a doubt regarding the
majority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawal
of the members, and directed a certification election.
- Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Director
reconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as sole
bargaining agent.
ISSUE
1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose
their sole and exclusive bargaining representative with
petitioner thru a certification election;
2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certification
election.
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Employees have the constitutional right to choose the
labor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of such
right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be
denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election.
Reasoning The holding of a certification election is a statutory
policy that should not be circumvented.
- The best forum to determine if there was indeed undue
pressure exerted upon the employees to retract their
membership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballot
where they can freely express their choice).
- The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affect
the freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or ‘No
Union’).
DISPOSITION
The Regional Office concerned of MoLE is directed to cause the
holding of a certification election.
4. Purpose
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, ETC.
VS SECRETARY OF DOLE
G.R. No. 181531 July 31, 2009
ISSUE: Whether employees on probationary status at the
time of the certification elections should be allowed to
vote
HELD: YES. The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was
proper not because it was not questioned but because
probationary employees have the right to vote in a
certification election. 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
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
Code which states that the "labor organization designated or
selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the
employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining."
Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment
relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union
binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and
file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial
interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. The
Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as
basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification
election. The 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." The significance of an
employee’s 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.
Compare Policy on Certification Election, 256, 257, 258
sand Voluntary Recognition – BV, RI (bbb); BV, IR, R VII;
BV; IR, RVIII, Sec. 23
Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.
In organized establishments, when a verified petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment
within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order
an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent
(25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain
the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To
have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in
the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving
the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When
an election which provides for three or more choices results in
no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving
the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number
of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%)
of the number of votes cast.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)
Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the
Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
Disini
organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. When
requested to bargain collectively, an employer may
petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing
certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the
Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20)
working days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within
twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
BV, RI(bb) "Organized Establishment" refers to a firm
or company where there is a recognized or certified
exclusive bargaining agent.
RULE VII
Challenges and Run-Offs
SECTION 1. Challenging of votes. — (a) Any vote may
be challenged for a valid cause by any observer before
the voter has deposited his vote in the ballot box. (b) If a
ballot is challenged on valid grounds, the Representation
Officer shall segregate it from the unchallenged ballots
and seal it in an envelope. The Representation Officer
shall indicate on the envelope the name of the challenger
and the ground of the challenge.
SECTION 2. Run-off election. — When an election which
provides for three (3) or more choices results in no choice
receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, and no
objections or challenges have been presented which if
sustained might change the results, the representation
officer shall motu proprio conduct a run-off election within
five (5) calendar days from the close of the election
between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes; Provided, that the total number of votes
for all contending unions is at least fifty (50%) percent of
the number of votes cast.
The ballots in the run-off election shall provide for two
choices receiving the
highest and the second highest number of the votes cast.
RULE VIII
Internal Union-Disputes
SECTION 1. Complaint. — A complaint for any violation
of the constitution and by-laws and the rights and
conditions of membership under Article 242 may filed in
the Regional Office where the union is domiciled.
SECTION 2. Who may file. — If the issue involves the
entire membership of the union, the complaint shall be
signed by at least 30 percent of the membership of the
union.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
In addition to the above requirement, the petition must show on
its face that the administrative remedies provided for in the
constitution and by-laws have been exhausted or such remedies
are not readily available to the complaining members through no
fault of their own. However, if the issue affects a single member
only, such member may alone file his complaint.
SECTION 3. Contents of complaint. — The complaint must,
among other things, contain the following:
(a) The person or persons charged;
(b) The specific violation/s committed;
(c) The relief/s prayed for; and
(d) Other relevant matters.
Such complaint must be in writing and under oath, and a copy
thereof served on the respondent.
SECTION 4. Procedure. — Upon receipt of the complaint, the
Regional Director shall immediately assign the case to a Med-
Arbiter. The Med-Arbiter shall have twenty (20) working days
within which to settle or decide the case. The decision of the
Med-Arbiter shall state the facts and the reliefs granted, if any. If
the conflicts involve a violation of the rights and conditions of the
membership enumerated under Article 242 of the Code, the
Med-Arbiter shall order the cancellation of the registration
certificate of the erring union or the expulsion of the guilty party
from the union, whichever is appropriate.
SECTION 5. Appeal. — The aggrieved party may, within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the decision of the Med-
Arbiter, appeal the same to the Secretary on any of the following
grounds:
(a) Grave abuse of discretion; and
(b) Gross incompetence.
The appeal shall consist of a position paper specifically stating
the grounds relied upon by the appellant and supporting
arguments under oath.
SECTION 6. Where to file appeal. — The appellant shall file his
appeal, which shall be under oath and copy furnished the
appellee in the Regional Office where the case originated.
SECTION 7. Period to answer. — The appellee shall file his
answer thereto within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the
appeal. The Regional Director shall, within five (5) calendar
days, forward the entire records of the case to the Office of the
Secretary.
SECTION 8. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. —
The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which
to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The
decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.
SECTION 9. Execution pending appeal. — The execution of the
order of the Med-Arbiter shall be stayed pending appeal.
RULE VIII-A
Visitorial Power
SECTION 1. Exercise of visitorial power. — The Secretary of
Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative
Disini
shall inquire into the financial activities of any legitimate
labor organization and examine their books of accounts
and other records to determine compliance with the law
and the organization, constitution and by-laws, upon filing
of a complaint under oath and duly supported by the
written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of the
total membership of the labor organization concerned.
SECTION 2. Period of inquiry or examination. — No
inquiry or examination of the financial activities and books
of accounts as well as other records of any legitimate
labor organization mentioned in the preceding section
shall be conducted during the sixty (60) days freedom
period nor within thirty (30) days immediately preceding
the date of election of union officials.
5. Religion/ Past Non- Participation
REYES v. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484
NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of
the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
"Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a
certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were
contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union
Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),
and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS).
Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only
240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240
employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.
The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for
votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending
labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,
conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third
choice: "NO UNION."
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
TUPAS 1
TUEU-OLALIA 95
NO UNION 1
SPOILED 1
CHALLENGED 141
ISSUE/S
1. WON the members of the INC should not be allowed
to vote “because they refused to participate in the
previous certification elections."
2. WON the NLRC was correct in saying that "if the
workers who are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in
the exercise of their religious belief opted not to join
any labor organization as a consequence of which
they themselves can not have a bargaining
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
representative, then right to be represented by a bargaining
ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A
agent should not be denied to other members of the
legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
bargaining unit."
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the
purpose of collective bargaining;
HELD
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
1. NO.
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes
Ratio EFFECT NON-PARTICIPIATION PREVIOUS ELECTION. No
of collective bargaining;
law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request,
vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification
with its annual audited financial statements, including the
elections.
balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the
2. NO.
request, after the union has been duly recognized by the
Ratio RELIGION/PAST NON-PARTICIPATION. Neither law,
employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or
affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification
within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the
election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is
existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the
to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining
collective bargaining negotiation;
unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not.
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and
benefit of the labor organization and its members;
(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the
organization and its members, including cooperative,
6.3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
PROCESS Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law
to the contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate
1. The Union as Initiating Party labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts,
donations and contributions they may receive from
ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor organization" means fraternal and similar organizations, local or foreign, which
any labor organization duly registered with the Department of are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful
Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof. purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and other
assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be
withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this
provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989).

San Miguel Corp. v. Mandaue

467 SCRA 107
Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005
Facts
-CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary for Labor Relations,
Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a
certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file
employees.
- Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition
for certification election with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. It
sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-
file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following
documents were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificate
certifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a
local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of
respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and
attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of
respondent’s officers and their respective addresses, again
prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification
signifying that respondent had just been organized and no
amount had yet been collected from its members, signed by
respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by
Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid
employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and
Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by
Sagun.
-SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for
certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is
not listed or included in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations based on the certification issued by the Officer-In-
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty.
Jesus B. Gabor.
-Respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the same
documents earlier attached to its petition for certification. The
accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated
that such documents were submitted in compliance with the
requirements for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor
Code and its Implementing Rules; and it was hoped that the
submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster of
legitimate labor organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of
DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of
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.
LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. Sec. of Labor
[NACUSIP and CAILO]
247 SCRA 1
Vitug ; August 1995
Facts
-The Med-Arbiter, sustained by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give him no other choice than
to conduct a certification election upon the receipt of the corresponding
petition.
"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification
election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the
filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization."
-National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines-
TUCP ("NACUSIP-TUCP") filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment ("DOLE") a petition for direct certification or for certification
election to determine the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the supervisory employees of herein petitioner, Lopez
Sugar Corporation ("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a
legitimate national labor organization; that LSC was employing 55
supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of the
union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over
the supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective
bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no
legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to
the holding of a certification election.
-LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No.
003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar
Central Supervisory Chapter.
-LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a
patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of
discretion, Sec. of Labor denied it. Petition for certiorari was filed.
Issue WON the certification election should push through
Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate.
It was held in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment:
"But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic
conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it
also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor
organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE
and includes any branch or local thereof.' Rule 1, Section 1(j), Book V of
the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization
as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes
any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' "
Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton
which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a
Disini
petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy
himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among
the legal requirements is that the petitioning union must be
a legitimate labor organization in good standing.
The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was
filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly
registered with the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-
TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for
the local organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central
Supervisory Chapter), the federation's bona fide status alone
would not suffice. The local chapter, as its principal, should
also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.
Accordingly, in Progressive Development, we elucidated:
"In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the
documentary requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e),
Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as
follows:
"'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union
shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers
and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure
governing the reporting of independently registered unions,
federations or national unions shall be observed.'
"Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently
registered unions' refers to the certification and attestation
requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows
that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of
accounts submitted by the local and chapter must likewise
comply with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring
the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union
registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there
is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and
attestation requirements because, as previously mentioned,
several requirements applicable to independent union
registration are no longer required in the case of the formation a
local or chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater
bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the
policy of providing preventive measures against the commission
of fraud.
"A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor
organization only upon submission of the following to the
BLR:
"1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the
labor federation or national union, and
"2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of
officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified
under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of
such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.
"Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the
local or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization."
The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy
of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory
Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the
Secretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the
Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
certification election is dismissed. No costs.
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ)
300 SCRA 120
PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS

Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based
- Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the
supervisory, office and technical employees of the petitioner company
before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III.
- Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the
respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2)
that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among
supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent
union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts.
- Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees
and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a
legitimate labor organization.
- The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said that the
contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is composed of
both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss
the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings
wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will
be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor
affirmed.
ISSUE/S
WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and file
employees
HELD
NO.
Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees.”
Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic
antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-
and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of their interests which
cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings.
Disposition Petition is granted.
SAMAHAN v SEC OF LABOR (FILSYSTEMS)
290 SCRA 680
PUNO, J.; June 5, 1998
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution and order of
respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition for certification
election
FACTS
- petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-
NAFLU-KMU) is a registered labor union. It filed a petition for
certification election among the rank-and-file employees of private
respondent Filsystems, Inc. Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning
petitioner's status as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of
lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been
submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within 30 days from its
execution.
- the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner has no
legal personality for failure to submit its contract of affiliation on time.
Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as an
independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for
certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation.
- another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition for
certification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondent
filed a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic.
Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that the
certification election was void for having been held during the pendency
of the appeal.
ISSUE/S
1. WON petitioner had legal personality to file the petition
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
onincumbent
2010-2011 syllabus]
bargaining Disini
agent is filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the
two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law
library
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
2. WON the appeal was rendered moot and academic
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Petitioner is an independently registered labor union. As a
legitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for
certification election cannot be questioned.
Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with
NAFLU-KMU will, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation.
Despite affiliation, the local union remains the basic unit free to
serve the interests of its members independently of the
federation.
2. NO
Ratio The certification election and the CBA are void for having
occured during the pendency of an unresolved representation
case with the Secretary.
Reasoning Petitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its
petition. The appeal stopped the holding of any certification
election.
Disposition Petition is granted.
A. Organized Establishment
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
RA 9481 Sec. 10. Article 256 of the Labor Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“ART. 256. Representation Issue in
Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization
including a national union or federation which has
already issued a charter certificate to its local
chapter participating in the certification election or a
local chapter which has been issued a charter
certificate by the national union or federation before
the Department of Labor and Employment within the
sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the
collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter
shall automatically order an election by secret ballot
when the verified petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all
the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the
will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit.
(RA 9481 continued)
To have a valid election, at least a majority
of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their
votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the
valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When
an election which provides for three or more choices
results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid
votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted
between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of
votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases
where the petition was filed by a national union or
federation, it shall not be required to disclose the
names of the local chapter’s officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the
employer shall continue to recognize the majority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no
petition for certification election is filed
Definition
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA
209 SCRA 606
PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California
Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter
(CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation
Disini
while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter.
- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does
not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big
number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not
actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise,
nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law
would classify them as supervisors.
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the
law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining
unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25%
rule on the signatories does not apply.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies
HELD
1. No.
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized
labor organizations and not to establishments where there exists
a certified bargaining agent which had previously entered into a
collective bargaining agreement with the management
Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the
supervisors of CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate
and distinct from that of the rank-and-file, have no such agent.
Thus they correctly filed a petition for certification election thru
union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise indubitably a legitimate labor
organization. CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription
requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly
deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently
prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those
with existing bargaining agents.
Freedom Period
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v.
Laguesma
212 SCRA 281
Nocon ; Aug. 6, 1992
Nature Petition for Certiorari
Facts
-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in
the construction and fabrication business and conducts its
construction business in different construction sites here and
abroad while its fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel
and Marine Structures Group at its Batangas Marine and
Fabrication Yard.
-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees
when existing fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job
orders for steel structures and other heavy construction works.
Said project employees are covered by the Project
Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements which indicate the
specific projects to which they are assigned and the duration of
their employment. Upon the expiration of their
contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees is
automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are
assigned have not yet been completed, in which case, they are
rehired for the remainder of the project. The positions occupied
by the regular rank-and-file employees and the project
employees are basically similar in nature and are directly related
to the main line of petitioner's business.
-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File
Association ("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the
petitioner.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
-Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor
("LAKAS-NFL", for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with
the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the
Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification
election.
-Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment.
Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private
respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment
appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic's
appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG site
who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and
completely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike
was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by
the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner
agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project
employees with at least one year of service pending the final outcome of
the certification election case.
Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees were regularized
effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said Agreement.
-On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFA informing
the former about the admission into URFA of the membership of 410
regular project employees who were formally regularized by the
petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlantic filed MFR alleging that
the employees sought to be represented by the private respondent
LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of the petitioner and are deemed
included in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement of the regular
rank-and-file employees of Atlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.
Issue
WON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BAR rule and
failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged regular workers
has ceased to exist by virtue of the regularization of all said workers
Held
Yes, he committed grave abuse of discretion.
Section 1 of Article II of petitioner's Collective Bargaining Agreement
with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as follows:
ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The appropriate
bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists of those regular
rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY who have remained as such
up to the date of execution of this Agreement, as well as those who may
hereafter acquire the same status. It is hereby understood and agreed
that the following are not within the appropriate bargaining unit and,
therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:
a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff members,
managerial employees, and executive secretaries;
b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as
contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular employees
who are sent abroad are not covered by this Contract. Provided,
however, that regular employees who are assigned as relievers shall
continue to be covered by this Contract, and provided further that
relievers who are assigned to regular positions which may become
vacant shall be duly considered for such regular positions after attaining
the six months probationary period.
c. Security personnel."
Although the aforementioned definition does not include petitioner's
regular project employees in the coverage of the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the URFA, the
regularization of all the regular project employees with at least one year
of service and the subsequent membership of said employees with the
URFA mean that the alleged regular project employees whom
respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular
employees by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate
bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement
consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent LAKAS-NFL
seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.
The Labor Code provides:
Disini
"Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau
shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duty
registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the
parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code."
Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing
Rules end Regulations likewise provides:
"If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in
accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
agreement."
-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA,
which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner
including the regular project employees with more than one
year of service, bars any other labor organization from filing
a petition for certification election except within the 60-day
period prior to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the
enactment of Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed
to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its
employees during the existence of the collective bargaining
agreement.
Disposition Petition Granted
When Applied
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION V CALLEJA
179 SCRA 127
REGALADO; May 5, 1989
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
- The associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading,
Inc. (GAWTI) that majority of the latter's employees have
authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining
representative, and requested GAW Trading Inc., for a
conference for the execution of an initial CBA. GAWTI
recognized ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
the majority of its employees and for which it set the time for
conference and/or negotiation at 4PM on May 12, 1986 at the
Pillsbury Office, Aboitiz Building Juan Luna Street, Cebu City. On
May 15, 1986, ALU in behalf of the majority of the employees of
GAW Trading Inc. and GAWTI signed and executed the CBA.
- In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor
(SPFL) together with Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW
(NAMGAW) undertook a Strike after it failed to get the
management of GAWTI to sit for a conference respecting its
demands in an effort to pressure GAWTI to make a turnabout of
its standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees, as to which strike
GAWTI filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary
Injunction, and which strike Labor Arbiter Tumamak held as
illegal.
- On May 19, 1986, GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU)
Federation filed a Certification Election petition but as found by
Med-Arbiter Cumba, without having complied with the
subscription requirement for which it was merely considered an
intervenor until compliance thereof in the other petition for direct
recognition as bargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by
southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL)
- In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly
filed with the MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
Cumba ruled for the holding of a certification election in all branches of
GAWTI in Cebu City, as to which ALU filed MFR, which was treated as
an appeal. So the entire record of subject certification case was
forwarded for the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), MOLE,
Manila.
- BLR Director Trajano, granted ALU's appeal (MFR) and set aside the
questioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effective
and valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social Security
Labor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor
(SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of Additional
Evidence.’ GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajano’s decision was reversed
by herein public respondent Calleja. ALU filed MFR but was denied.
Hence this petition.
- Calleja ordered the holding of a certification election ruling that the
"contract bar rule" relied upon by her predecessor Trajano does not
apply in the present case. Calleja ruled that CBA is defective because it
"was not duly submitted in accordance with Sec. I, Rule IX, Book V of
the Implementing Rules of BP 130." There’s no proof that CBA has been
posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5
days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by the majority of
the employees in the bargaining unit."
ISSUE
WON Calleja erred in reversing Trajano’s ruling and ordering the holding
of a certification election.
HELD
NO
The CBA in question is defective.
- The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the
following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1) possession of the
status of majority representation by the employees' representative in
accordance with any of the means of selection and/or designation
provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and
(3) a demand to bargain under Art.256, par. (a) of the Labor Code4
- The standing of ALU as an exclusive bargaining representative is
dubious. The recognition by GAWTI appears to have been based on the
self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support of the majority of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
- In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified the union as
the bargaining representative, SC voided such certification where there
was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty whether the union
enjoyed a majority representation. In such a case, the holding of a
certification election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere
formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and
unilaterally certify a union
- CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI to post
the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5
days before its ratification, [b] the finding of Calleja that 181 of the 281
4 December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993. All other provisions of
Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.
In organized establishments, when a verified petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60-day period before
the expiration of a CBA, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically
order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at
least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast
their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid
votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent
of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides
for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be
conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for
all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes
cast.
Disini
workers who "ratified" the same now " strongly and vehemently
deny and/or repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of
the CBA.
- Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further
underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was
filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a
petition for certification election had already been filed on May
19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the
signatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it was
enough to initiate certification election.
Disposition Public respondent’s order for the conduct of a
certification election among the rank-and-file workers of
respondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED
GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA
422 SCRA 514
QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA
with General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union
(union) on April 28, 1989, which included the issue of
representation effective for a term of three years. The CBA was
effective for three years retroactive to December 1, 1988. Hence,
it would expire on November 30, 1991.
- On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the
CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a
counter-proposal be submitted within ten days.
- As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received
collective and individual letters from workers who stated that they
had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of
religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the
union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not
send any counter-proposal.
- The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with
the NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on
the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2)
interference with the right to self-organization; and (3)
discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed the case with the
recommendation that a petition for certification election be held
to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers.
The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the labor
arbiter’s decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon
the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA,
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, is five years
which, in the case of GMC-Independent Labor Union was from
the CBA are to be renegotiated not later than three (3) years
after its execution. Thus, the NLRC held that respondent union
remained as the exclusive bargaining agent with the right to
renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA. Consequently,
it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into negotiation
with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individual letters
of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members
from February to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by
GMC on its employees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC
also found GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with
the right of its employees to self-organization. With respect to the
union’s claim of discrimination, the NLRC found the claim
unsupported by substantial evidence.
- On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its
decision of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated
October 6, 1998. It found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the
union justified and the allegation of coercion exerted by GMC on
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
the union’s members to resign unfounded. Hence, the union filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA reinstated the
January 30, 1998 NLRC decision. A motion for reconsideration was
seasonably filed by GMC, but in a resolution dated October 26, 2000,
the CA denied it for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE
(1) WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the
duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its
employees to self-organization
(2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years to
begin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposed
on GMC
HELD
1. YES
- Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715,
states:
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall,
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five
(5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall
be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of
the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five
year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than
three (3) years after its execution....
- The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should
last for five years. The relation between labor and management should
be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is
indisputable that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the
economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the
certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was
seeking said renegotiation within five years from the date of effectivity of
the CBA on December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also
submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity
of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was obvious
that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with
the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to
bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA, the company
committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code,
which provides that:
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for
an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
...
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
...
- Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the phrase
“duty to bargain collectively,” thus:
ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to bargain
collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement....
We have held that the crucial question whether or not a party has met
his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of
the individual case. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining.
Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts.[ The
effect of an employer’s or a union’s actions individually is not the test of
good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions,
considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, both parties are
required to perform their mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
Disini
an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation when it
presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three years
from the effectivity of the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty
under Article 252. What it did was to devise a flimsy excuse, by
questioning the existence of the union and the status of its
membership to prevent any negotiation. GMC’s refusal to make
a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is
an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even
bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the
union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.
- GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to self-
organization. The CA found that the letters 13 union members
signifying their resignation from the union clearly indicated that
GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records show that
GMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longer
enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact that the
resignations of the union members occurred during the
pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s
desperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the
union.
2. NO
- The Code provides:
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a
collective bargaining agreement. – ....It shall be the duty of both
parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during
the 60-day period [prior to its expiration date] and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties.
The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while
they are still in the process of working out their respective
proposal and counter proposal. The general rule is that when a
CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to govern the
relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon.
The rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal.
That is, that neither party is guilty of bad faith. However, when
one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely
delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general
rule is warranted.
- It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and
conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be
imposed on GMC’s employees for the remaining two years of the
CBA’s duration. We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an
extended term of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics
to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the
duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its statutory right to
negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft
CBA proposed by the union.
Disposition Petition dismissed.
2. Form of Petition
Signature Verification and Verification of Pleadings
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION V. SEC. OF LABOR
227 SCRA 821
QUIASON : November 16, 1993
FACTS:
- Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local
chapters of labor federations duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is
the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file workers
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
of respondent QCC, a domestic corporation engaged in the metal 75 SCRA 450
industry.
FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977
- On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent
FACTS:
QCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed with
-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing with
the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a
the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of a
petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a
certification election. Along with this were 200 signatures of
list of signatures of company employees, who signified their consent
Company’s employees confirming such petition. A petition for
to a certification election among the rank and file employees of QCC.
intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers
- Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent
Union. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it
FFW-SMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the
had already been voluntarily recognized by the management as
certification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employees
the bargaining representative.
had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as required by law;
-Today’s Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that
and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of petitioner,
intervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized by
had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC.
management as representing the minority of the workers.
- On October 30, 1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed a second
Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was
petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by De
no legal bar to the petition for certification.
Pedro.
-Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the
- On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for
petition for certification election. The matter was then appealed
certification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC
to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordered
- Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. On
a certification election to be conducted by the Bureau within
June 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying
twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari
the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter.
and prohibition petition with this Court
ISSUE:
ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate
WON the petition for certification election was verified as required by law
elections inspite of the company’s recognition that another union
is the bargaining representative
HELD:
YES
HELD: NO
Reasoning
-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required
- First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected
is that the petition for certification election should have in its
president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself therefrom
favor "the written consent of at least 30% of all the employees in
and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC before the petition for
the bargaining unit. The duty then cast on the Detector of Labor
certification election was filed on September 27, 1991. The
Relations is to ascertain whether there has been such a
eventual dismissal of De Pedro from the company is of no
compliance. There is no doubt in this case there was evidence
moment, considering that the petition for certification election
that more than a total of two-hundred signatures were obtained
was filed before his dismissal on August 22, 1992.
by respondent Union in seeking such a certification election. The
- Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional
respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal
requisite. Even if verification is lacking and the pleading is
requisite had been met, he had no choice but to order such
formally defective, the courts may dispense with the
certification. In the language of the above provision, "it shall be
requirement in the interest of justice and order of correction of
mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for
the pleading accordingly. Generally, technical and rigid rules
the purpose of determining the representative of the employees
of procedure are not binding in labor cases; and this rule is
in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the
specifically applied in certification election proceedings, which
exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the
are non-litigious but merely investigative and non-adversarial
employees in the unit."
in character. Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in
the first petition were cured and corrected in the second

-
petition for certification election.
Third, attached to the original petition for certification election
3. Venue
was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of the 300
employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be CRUZVALE, INC. V LAGUESMA
represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC. Respondent QCC 238 SCRA 389
sought to delete from the list some 36 signatures which are
allegedly forged and falsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a
QUIASON; November 25, 1994
joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the
NATURE
signatures therein.
Special civil action of certiorari, with prayer for a writ of
- Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, to reverse
disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is
and set aside the decision of respondent Undersecretary
definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the total number of
(Laguesma) upholding the order of respondent Med-Arbiter
company employees required by law to support a petition for
(Tutay)
certification election. The disclaimer of 13 employees by their
respective signatures covers only their own personal
FACTS
participation and cannot in any way be extended to include the
- Private respondent, Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), filed with
rest of those who did not question the same.
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional
Office No. IV, a petition for certification election among the
DISPOSITIVE:
regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner.
Petition dismissed
- Petitioner filed its comment to the petition for certification
election. It sought the denial of the petition, among the grounds
TODAY’S KNITTING v NORIEL
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
enumerated is that the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no
jurisdiction over the petition since petitioner Company's place of
business is located at Cubao, Quezon City, which is outside the
jurisdiction of the said Regional Office. Consequently, it is the National
Capital Region or NCR of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said
petition.
- Med-Arbiter found petitioner's claim unmeritorious and rendered a
decision in favor of respondent union.
ISSUE/S
1. WON petitioners correctly interpreted Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:
“Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the
Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the
Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.”
HELD
1. NO
Ratio The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the
venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike
jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue
merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue
touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance
of the case.
Reasoning Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code refers only to cases where the place of
work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the
employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office
where the petition for certification election is filed. The said provision
does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the
place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the
employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different
regional offices. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact
that there are many companies with factories located in places different
from places where the corporate offices are located.
The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether
as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the
nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be
placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case
be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in
another place to the inconvenience of the worker.
Petitioner has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing on the
petition for certification election before the Regional Office No. IV, which
has its offices in Quezon City, the same city where the principal place of
business of petitioner is located. Petitioner is, therefore, being
unreasonable in demanding that the petition for certification election be
filed with the National Capital Region Office, which holds offices in
Manila.
Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the
New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission
prescribes that all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should
be filed in the branch office which has territorial jurisdiction over the
"workplace of the complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC
Rules defines the workplace as follows:
“For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the
place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when
the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the
employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail,
assignment or travel. . . “
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the
temporary restraining order is LIFTED.
4. Substantial Support
RATIONALE AND COMPUTATION
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) V FERRER-
Disini
CALLEJA
169 SCRA 490
GANCAYCO; November 6, 1989
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari
FACTS
- Several days before the expiration of the CBA between
petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and
Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National
Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for
certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional
Office in Tacloban city.
- Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support
of its petition.
ISSUES
1. WON the holding of certification elections in organized
establishments is mandated only where a petition is filed
questioning the majority status of the incumbent union, and that
it is only after establishing that a union has indeed a
considerable support that a certification election should be
ordered
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning in cases of organized establishments where there
exists a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether
the petition for certification election wasfiled within the sixty-day
freedom period. Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Executive Order No. 111, provides:
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. In organized establishments, when a
petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent is filed before the Department within the
sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically
order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the will of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a
valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving
the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit.
When an election which provides for three or more choices
results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes
cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the
choices receiving the two highest number of votes.
Article 256 is clear. The mere filing of a petition for certification
election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the
respondent Director to order the holding of a certification
election.
Was the petition filed by NAFLU instituted within the freedom
period? The record speaks for itself. The previous CBA entered
into by petitioner ALU was due to expire on April 1, 1987. The
petition for certification was filed by NAFLU on March 23, 1987,
well within the freedom period.
Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
ST. JAMES SCHOOL v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA
SA ST. JAMES SCHOOL
G.R. No. 151326 November 23, 2005
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
The Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon
City (Samahang Manggagawa') filed a petition for certification
election to determine the collective bargaining representative of
the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of St.
James School of Quezon City. St. James filed a certification
election protest challenging 84 votes on the ground that they were not
its regular employees but construction workers of an independent
contractor, Architect Bacoy. The DOLE ruled that Samahang
Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-academic personnel or the
rank and file employees from the motor pool, construction and
transportation departments, and not all the rank and file employees of
St. James. According to the DOLE, Med-Arbiter Falconitin erred in
including all the rank and file employees of St. James, whether
teaching or non-teaching personnel, in the computation of the total
number of employees. The DOLE ruled that the list submitted by St.
James contained only the administrative, teaching and office personnel
of the school. St. James questions the validity of the formation of the
labor union and the validity of the certification election on the ground
that there was no quorum.
HELD: The petition has no merit. St. James may no longer question
the validity of the formation of the labor union. The records show that
prior to the holding of the certification election, St. James filed a
petition for cancellation of Samahang Manggagawa's union
registration. The Court of Appeals had already ruled that the
construction workers are actually St. James' regular employees in its
motor pool, construction and transportation departments.
St. James has five campuses ' the Philamlife and Scout Alcaraz,
Quezon City campuses which are pre-schools; the Paraaque City and
Calamba, Laguna campuses which offer elementary, secondary and
college education; and the Tandang Sora, Quezon City campus which
offers elementary and secondary education
The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the
Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang
Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the
computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor
pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora
campus and not on all the employees in St. James' five campuses.
The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the
Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the
certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to
determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the
149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the
certification election.
St. James further alleges that the names of the 84 voters are not on the
list of its rank and file employees. On this score, we sustain the factual mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other
finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists of its
administrative, teaching and office personnel. These administrative,
teaching and office personnel are not members of Samahang
Manggagawa. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that Disposition
Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list submitted The petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of
Samahang Manggagawa.
COMPLIANCE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V
LAGUESMA
Disini
209 SCRA 609
PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order
FACTS
-On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the
supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was
filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California
Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter
(CALMASUCO)
-In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a
certification election should be denied as it is not supported by
the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and
that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are
not actually supervisors
-FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that
under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular
bargaining unit at the time a petition for certification election is
filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply
-Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted
among the supervisory employees of California Manufacturing
Corporation
-CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment
which, however, affirmed the above order
-CMC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WON the petition for the holding of a certification election should
be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five
percent (25%) of all its supervisors
HELD
No
-CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is
clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by
Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed
only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing
bargaining agents.
-Compliance with the said requirement need not even be
established with absolute certainty
-The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the
statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force
asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied
with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to
order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining
which of the contending labor organizations shall be the
exclusive collective bargaining agent.
-The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes
instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal,
ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for
certification
MOTION INTERVENTION
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V
LAGUESMA
207 SCRA 392
CRUZ; March 18, 1992
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
FACTS
- The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union
(APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent
the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting
their moves.
- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for
certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the
employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the
petition.
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for
intervention.
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port
Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The
consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they
did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book
V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be
submitted upon filing of petition.This contention was upheld by the Med-
Arbiter.
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of
the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted
simultaneously with the petition for certification election., DOLE
Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-
Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the
workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the
DOLE.
ISSUE/S
WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of
Art 256 of the Labor Code
HELD
YES
- Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right
to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and
unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a certification
election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization
should be the collective bargaining representative."
- The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious
method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall
act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where
they are working. The holding of a certification election is a statutory
policy that should not be circumvented.
- In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the
simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing
of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to
frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the
workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article
256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the
regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly,
we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within
the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the
holding of a certification election, 8 subject to the submission of the
consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
- It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not
carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not
applicable to a petition in intervention. As long as the motion for
intervention has been properly and timely filed and the intervention
would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this
is so even if the eventual purpose of the Motion for Intervention is to
participate in the Certification Election.
- The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was filed because
the principal petitions had complied with the requirement for the consent
signatures as specified by Article 256. Hence, its intervention should not
Disini
be disallowed simply because of the withdrawal or failure to
appeal of SAMADA and PEALU.
- It is correct to say that as a matter of strict procedure, a petition
for intervention should be deemed automatically dismissed
where the principal petition itself fails. However, that technical
rule should be allowed to prevent a correct determination of the
real representative of the workers in line with their constitutional
rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.
- 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 representative of the workers is in doubt must be
rejected in favor of a more certain indication of the will of the
workers.
- Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing
the Labor Code provides that the representation case shall not
be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted
before or during the last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or
during the pendency of the representation case. As the new CBA
was entered into at the time when the representation case was
still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final
agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.
- There was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when
they dismissed the petitions for certification election because the
consent signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with
the petition. The issue of majority representation thus remains
open and awaits settlement. Following the rulings above-quoted,
we hereby declare that the newly-concluded CBA cannot
constitute a bar to the holding of a certification election.
- Any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers
must be resolved in favor of the holding of the certification
election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of the
workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will
exalt procedure over substantial justice.
Disposition Petition GRANTED.
SUBMISSION
ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION V.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
294 SCRA 640
ROMERO; August 28, 1998
FACTS
- Company entered into CBA with OTCLU (Oriental Tin Can
Labor Union). - 248 rank and file workers FFW to file a petition
for certification election. However, this petition was repudiated
by waiver of 115 signatories who ratified the new CBA.
- OTCWU-FFW filed petition for certification election,
accompanied by “authentic signatures” of 25% of employees.
- OTCLU filed motion for dismissal of the petition for certification
election. It said the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% as
some of the employees allegedly withdrew their support.
- Company filed comment alleging that the new CBA was already
ratified.
- OTCWU-FFW filed a reply, alleging that the employer has no
legal personality to oppose petition for certification election.
- DOLE issued certificate of registration of the CBA. It showed
that the CBA between the OTCLU and the company has the
force and effect of law.
- OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed
notice of strike with NCMB.grounded on alleged dismissal of
union members/officers. Company directed the officers to return
to work. None of them did.
- Med-arbiter dismissed petition for certification election.
- OTCWU-FFW appealed to Sec of Labor. Pending appeal, they
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
staged a strike. They prevented free ingress and egress of non-striking organization can truly represent the working force in the
employees, and vehicles. NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction. appropriate bargaining unit.
- Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the
order of Med-arbiter.
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V
- After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for
certiorari before SC. LAGUESMA
207 SCRA 392
ISSUE/S CRUZ; March 18, 1992
1. WON the employer can challenge petitions for certification election
2. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election
FACTS
3. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election
- The CBA between the workers of the International Container
because a new CBA has already been ratified.
Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and
4. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case
Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions
were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the
HELD
next CBA and were already plotting their moves.
1. NO
- Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a
- Certification elections are exclusively the concern of employees;
petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at
hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the same.
least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were
- The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee
submitted 11 days after the petition.
representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification
- Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition
election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was
for intervention.
requested to bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of Labor Code.
- Still another petition for certification election was filed by the
After filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a
Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April
mere bystander. Company’s interference in the certification election
6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after
below by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and
the filing of the petition.
unduly creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union.
The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint
2. YES
decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground
- Since question of right of representation as between competing labor
that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section
organizations in a bargaining unit is imbued with public interest, law
6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that
governs the choice of a collective bargaining representative which shall
the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition. This
be the duly certified agent of the employees concerned. An official
contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.
certification becomes necessary where the bargaining agent fails to
- PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article
present adequate and reasonable proof of its majority authorization and
256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be
where the employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts
submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification
the majority representation of several contending bargaining groups.
election.
IArticle 255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an
-DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order
appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor
of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the
- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new
purpose of collective bargaining.
collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority
- The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without,
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently
however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a
registered with the DOLE.
certification election applies only when representation is not in issue.
There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of
ISSUE/S
the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of
WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a
application of Art 256 of the Labor Code
bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be
resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the
(On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required)
proper government authority.
- PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should
3. NO
automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is
- Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of
supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining
existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for.
unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law
- Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period
when they submitted the required consent signatures several
gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a
days after filing the petition.
new CBA has been entered into within that period. This is clearly
- PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for
provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the
certification election, including its own petition for intervention,
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this
had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and
rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary
exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.
where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the
bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the
HELD:
legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a
- Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the
bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period.
United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs.
4. YES
Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor
- The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be
Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating
election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain
the same.
concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the
- All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the
workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic
holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going
concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor
through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election
Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a
is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30%
requirement”.
- SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule
requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent
signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election
should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the
legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the
requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to
implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best
be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere
filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom
period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the
holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the
consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
EFFECT WITHDRAWAL
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC
v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO
395 SCRA 699
CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing CA decision
denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998
FACTS
- October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU),
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO),
Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent
majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for
certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit,
Regional Branch No. IV
- November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election
because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and
fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors,
resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as
well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and
separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition,
only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of
the signatures in the list of union members were secured through
fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten
denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the
petition.
-
THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid
affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account
of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on
October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order
provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to
collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation,
it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor
Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09,
automatically order the conduct of a certification election.
- January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the
holding of a certification election
- DOLE Resolution of November 12, 19981 > setting aside the June 4,
1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR
denied
- CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE
Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for
certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule,
hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the
basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well
Disini
as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed
to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations.
ISSUE
WON the withdrawal of some union members from the
certification election will affect the result
HELD:
NO
- As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the
petition for certification election were obtained through fraud,
false statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is,
as reflected above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the
certificate of registration, and not to intervene in a petition for
certification election. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union
members from participating in the certification election, this
Court’s following ruling is instructive:
"T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed
retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification
election itself wherein the workers can freely express their
choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the
rank-and-file employees should in every possible instance be
determined by secret ballot rather than by administrative or
quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and certification
election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations for
suits but as mere investigations of a non-adversary, fact-
finding character as to which of the competing unions
represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole
and exclusive collective bargaining representative with their
employer."
Disposition Petition is DENIED. Let the records of the case be
remanded to the office of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit,
Regional Branch No. IV, for the immediate conduct of a
certification election subject to the usual pre-election conference.
DISCRETION RULE APPLICATION
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF
LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA
PARAS; Dec 29, 1989
NATURE
Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
FACTS
Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW
Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital
Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate
petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on
behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners
Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other
respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW
Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the
same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank
and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development,
Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources.
All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their
position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds —
disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some
signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service
resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The
Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to
be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime
Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth
Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of the
Order.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied they filed the
instant petition for "Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction"
with a Prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining
public respondents from conducting any further proceedings in the said
five cases.
ISSUE
WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a
certification election
HELD
YES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs. B.F.
Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU (49 SCRA
532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act would be sooner
attained if at the earliest opportunity the employees, all of them, in an
appropriate bargaining unit be pooled to determine which labor
organization should be its exclusive representative. This Court had
made it clear that We should give discretion to the Court of Industrial
Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding
whether or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the
facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge. Moreover, a
perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the 30% requirement (now
20%) makes it mandatory upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to order
the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive-
bargaining agent of the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with
such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of
certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is supported by
less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion
whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on
the circumstances of the case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures
vs. Musicians Guild, et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with
certification election, the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide
discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure a fair and
free choice of bargaining representatives by employees, and having
exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot interfere. (Arguelles v.
Young, 153 SCRA 690).
Dispositive Petition denied
WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION LOCAL V.
TRAJANO
G.R. No. 75724
BIDIN; May 6, 1991
NATURE Petition for certiorari
FACTS
The Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (PTGWO)
instituted a petition for certification election alleging, in substance, that
thirty percent (30%) of the rank and file workers of the Nasipit Lumber
Company (NALCO) and its sister companies supported its petition; that
almost all of the 2,100 workers of the company belonged to bargaining
agent; that the collective bargaining agreement between NALCO and
WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 would expire on June 30, 1985; and that
there has been no certification election in the company during the twelve
(12) months immediately preceding the petition's filing. Attached to the
petition were the signatures of some 612 purported employees of the
company.
-This was opposed by the compulsory intervenor WAWU-ULGWP Local
101 on the grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent
requirement as the names and signatures appearing in the list submitted
by PTGWO had been secured through fraud and that the purported
signatures thereon were mere forgeries.
Disini
-The members of the Local KMU-WAWU adopted a resolution to
disaffiliate from ULGWP invoking the law on disaffiliation which
limits such actions only within the 60-day freedom period.
WAWU contended that as an independently registered union, its
disaffiliation from ULGWP did not extinguish its judicial
personality; that it was the principal party to the CBA while
ULGWP was only its agent from which it could disaffiliate at will;
that while it was in favor of the certification election, the
federation's name should not be attached to its own in the same
ballot; that as the principal party to the CBA, it was the
bargaining agent entitled to administer and enforce the
agreement with the employer; that the issue of disaffiliation was
not a prejudicial question to the settlement of representation
proceedings; that, in fact, it could be treated in a separate
proceeding. Further, WAWU enjoined NALCO from farther
deducting union dues in favor of ULGWP.
-On the other hand, ULGWP argued that since it lacks the
requisite support from the members of the bargaining unit, the
petition should not be granted; that the disaffiliation of WAWU
was void as only 429 out of total union membership of 2,149
voted in its favor and since no notice of disaffiliation was given to
ULGWP by WAWU as required by the federation's constitution
and by-laws; that WAWU had not acquired any legal personality
to participate in the representation proceedings as it had not died
its intervention within the freedom period; that while it was true
that majority of its officers had disaffiliated, ULGWP had
reorganized its local and had a new set of officers elected, that
the federation had issued a charter to WAWU-ULGWP Local 101
making it a local organization of the federation; that being the
true and real compulsory intervenor, WAWU-ULGWP Local 101
should be placed on the ballot as a choice for the workers in the
certification election. Moreover, ULGWP stressed to NALCO that
WAWU's disaffiliation was void and, hence, it was still entitled to
receive the dues checked-off from the members of the
bargaining unit.
ISSUE
1. WON a certification election should be held at the employer
corporations
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning From the comment and supplemental comment of
respondent WAWU, it appears evident that the issues in this
case have become moot and academic. But even assuming
such is not the case, it has long been settled that the policy of
the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a
certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and
certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to
represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit.
Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that
the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound
discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the
failure to meet the 30% requirement. As observed by the
Solicitor General, serious doubts exist whether WAWU-ULGWP-
Local 101 still represents the majority of the rank-and-file
employees at the employer corporations. Thus, while WAWU-
ULGWP Local 101 maintains that the work force consists of
2,149 rank-and-file employees, yet PTGWO was able to muster
620 support signatures, not to mention that 429 of its members
voted to disaffiliate from WAWU-ULGWP Local 101.
Consequently, the sentiments/loyalties of the remaining 1,100
rank-and-file employees is yet to be determined by the best
means possible which is through certification election.
Disposition Petition DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
6.4. UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT
ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor
organization" means any labor organization duly
registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment, and includes any branch or local
thereof.
ART. 257. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. -
In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining
agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted
by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate
labor organization, including a national union or federation
which has already issued a charter certificate to its
1ocal/chapter participating in the certification election or a
local/chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the
national union or federation. In cases where the petition was
filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter’s officers and
members.
ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate
labor organization shall have the right:
xxx
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining;
xxx
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP VS
SECRETARY OF DOLE
G.R. No. 162355 August 14, 2009, SUPRA
The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation
status of a union in unorganized establishments. SLECC
was not an unorganized establishment when it voluntarily
recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive bargaining
representative on 20 July 2001. CLUP-SLECC and its
Affiliates Workers Union filed a petition for certification
election on 27 February 2001 and this petition remained
pending as of 20 July 2001. Thus, SLECC’s voluntary
recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the subsequent
negotiations and resulting registration of a CBA executed by
SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot bar CLUP-
SLECCWA’s present petition for certification election.
1. DEFINITION
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
CORPORATION vs. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 101730
BELLOSILLO; June 17, 1993
Disini
NATURE
-petition for certiorari
FACTS
-PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for
brevity) filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of
the Department of Labor and Employment praying for the
holding of a certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone
Corporation (PT&T, for brevity).
-UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T
was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100
supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the
bargaining unit sought to be established
-PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on
the ground that UNION members were performing managerial
functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees.
Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already
existed among its rank-and-file employees which barred the filing
of the petition.
-UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under
the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join
the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although
they may form their own.
-The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that "a
certification election . . . (be) conducted among the supervisory
personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation
(PT&T)."
ISSUE
2. WON there should be a certification election pushed by the
UNION
HELD
2. YES.
Reasoning The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is
Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads —
"Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the
Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization" (emphasis supplied)
The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified
bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION,
which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for
certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent
represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed
an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of
the Labor Code.
The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already
represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T
an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees.
After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees."
Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public
respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting
the petition for certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor
Code provides that said election should be automatically
conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V,
Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it
mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a
certification election. It reads —
"Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional
Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate
action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition,
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case for
resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized
establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a
certification election . . ."
Disposition Petition DENIED
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA
209 SCRA 606
PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California
Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter
(CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation
while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter.
- CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not
contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the
supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they
have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and
functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors.
- FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when
there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a
petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories
does not apply.
- Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies
HELD
1. No.
Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor
organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified
bargaining agent which had previously entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the management
Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of
CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that
of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a
petition for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise
indubitably a legitimate labor organization. CMC's insistence on the 25%
subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been
expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is
presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those
with existing bargaining agents.
CELINE MARKETING V CA (RUIZ)
205 SCRA 849
GRINO-AQUINO; February 4, 1992
NATURE
Petition for certioari
FACTS
- DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma ordered the holding of a certification
election among its rank-and-file employees, as prayed for in a petition
filed by the Confederation of Filipino Workers. Such petition was
amended to include all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its
outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North, etc.
comprising more or less 100 employees.
- Celine Mktg moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the
CFW had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and file
Disini
employees, and that it failed to submit a copy of the charter
certificate issued to the local union. At the hearing before the
Labor Arbiter, CFW submitted a xerox copy of the charter
certificate issued to its local union.
- The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-
production of the original and for lack of proof that the
organizational documents of the union had been filed with the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
- The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those grounds.
- The union appealed the order to the DOLE Sec which was
granted.
- Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements in Sec 3, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of
LC
HELD
NO
Ratio While it may be true that the petition for certification
election did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rank-
and file employees of the petitioner, their consent is not
necessary when the bargaining unit that the union seeks to
represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification
election may be filed by any union, not by the employees.
Reasoning Thus, Art 257 of the Labor Code, as amended by
R.A. 6715, provides: “In any establishment where there is no
certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of
a petition by a legitimate labor organization.”
- The law assumes that the union is the real party in interest in a
petition for certification election. Anyway, the certification election
itself is the appropriate forum for the employees to express their
choice of a bargaining representative or none at all.
Disposition Finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
Undersecretary's resolution, the petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED.
MANDATORY ELECTION
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. VS
LAGUESMA
325 SCRA 425
QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000
NATURE: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS:
- Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for
brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with
principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue
City. Private respondent SRBI Association of
Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical
Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor
organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress
of the Philippines (TUCP).
- On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in
Cebu City granted Certificate of Registration to
APSOTEU-TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.
- On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for
certification election of the supervisory employees of
SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-
TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with
the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these employees ART. 212 (e) "Employer" includes any person acting in
supported the petition: (4) there was no existing collective
the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term
bargaining agreement (CBA) between any union and SRBI;
and (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during shall not include any labor organization or any of its
the past 12 months prior to the petition. officers or agents except when acting as employer.
- On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When
union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition
certification election on two grounds. First, that the members ART.
the 258-A.
Bureau forEmployer as IfBystander.
an election. there is no-existing
In all cases, whether the
certified
of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or confidential petition for
collective certification
bargaining election
agreement is filed
in the by Bureau
unit, the an employer or a
employees. Second, the Association of Labor Unions-Trade legitimate
shall, labor organization,
after hearing, the election.
order a certification employer shall not be
Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALU-TUCP was considered a party thereto with a concomitant
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty right(20)
to oppose a
representing the union. petition days.
working for certification election. The employer’s participation in
- The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on suchBureau
The proceedings shall bealimited
shall conduct to: (1)election
certification being notified
within or informed
December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were not of petitions
twenty of insuch
(20) days nature; with
accordance andthe(2) submitting
rules and the list of
managerial employees but merely supervisory employees. employees prescribed
regulations during thebypre-election
the Secretary conference
of Labor. should the Med-
- On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied petitioner's Arbiter act favorably on the petition.
motion to dismiss.
- SRBI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of
merit. The certification election was ordered.
- On June 16, 1994, the Med-Arbiter scheduled the holding of
the certification election for June 29, 1994.
- On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter an urgent
motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter denied the
same. SRBI then filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days
later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election
scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for
reconsideration.
- The Med-Arbiter later denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP VS
- SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary SECRETARY OF DOLE
- Petitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DOLE Regional G.R. No. 162355 August 14, 2009,
Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's SUPRA
registration. It averred that the APSOTEU-TUCP members
were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by
law from joining or organizing unions. We find it strange that the employer itself, SLECC, filed a
- DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of merit. motion to oppose CLUP-SLECCWA’s petition for
He ruled that APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor certification election. In petitions for certification election,
organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges the employer is a mere bystander and cannot oppose the
granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter’s decision. The
right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that exception to this rule, which happens when the employer
until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU-
TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to
is requested to bargain collectively, is not present in the
represent its members for collective bargaining purposes. case before us.
- SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's
decision REPUBLIC VS KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG,
PHIL.
Issue: G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008
WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification
election
The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed the
HELD: YES present petition to seek closure on two issues:
Reasoning First, whether a mixed membership of rank-
One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) and-file and supervisory employees in a
of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive union is a ground for the dismissal of a
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for petition for certification election in view of
purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the
the amendment brought about by D.O. 9,
requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a series of 1997, which deleted the
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter phraseology in the old rule that "[t]he
upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employee shall not include the
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed. supervisory employees and/or security
guards;" and
2. THE EMPLOYER AS INITIATING PARTY
Second, whether the legitimacy of a duly
registered labor organization can be
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification
election through a motion to dismiss filed by an
employer such as Kawashima Textile
Manufacturing Phils., Inc.
The petition is imbued with merit. The key to the closure that
petitioner seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481.
XXX
[U]nder Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no
personality to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification
election filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby
inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:
"Art. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all
cases, whether the petition for certification
election is filed by an employer or a legitimate
labor organization, the employer shall not be
considered a party thereto with a concomitant
right to oppose a petition for certification
election. The employer's participation in such
proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being
notified or informed of petitions of such nature;
and (2) submitting the list of employees during
the pre-election conference should the Med-
Arbiter act favorably on the petition."
However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14,
2007; hence, it applies only to labor representation cases
filed on or after said date. As the petition for certification
election subject matter of the present petition was filed by
KFWU on January 24, 2000, R.A. No. 9481 cannot apply
to it. There may have been curative labor legislations that
were given retrospective effect, but not the aforecited
provisions of R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive
rights and interests already vested would be impaired in
the process.
Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing
by KFWU of the petition for certification election on
January 24, 2000 are R.A. No. 6715.XXX
In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay
Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO in which the core issue
was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor
organization and its right to file a petition for certification
election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its
pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against
the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one
labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the
effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor
organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights
and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling
between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its
membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the
grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling
Disini
was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement
or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. XXX
Now to the second issue of whether an employer like
respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a
labor organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter's
petition for certification election.
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an
employer is a mere bystander to any petition for
certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial
and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to
determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer. The choice of their representative is the
exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot
have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with,
much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to
dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation
that some employees participating in a petition for
certification election are actually managerial employees
will lend an employer legal personality to block the
certification election. The employer's only right in the
proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
Petition for certification election granted.
NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM) V
LAGUESMA
433 SCRA 244
PANGANIBAN, June 28, 2004
NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
-Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union
(NDGMTEU) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and
registered with DOLE filed with Med-Arbitration Branch a
petition for direct certification as sole and exclusive
bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and
file employees of NDGM. Med Arbiter issued an order granting
the certification election (in accordance with A257 of LC,
considering that NDGM was an unorganized establishment, to
give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining
agent) and ordering Representation officer Francisco to
undertake a pre-election conference.
-during the pre-election conference, the parties agreed that the
certification election shall be conducted and that the eligible
voters shall be those employees appearing in the list submitted
by management (who were regular employees). NDGM
registered a motion to include probationary and substitute
employees in the list of qualified voters, but was denied by Med-
Arbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor
Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a
certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did
not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against
the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was
opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their
union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was
granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was
dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for
lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected.
CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary,
certification election complaints should have been raised before
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters was
already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the qualification
of the workers because in the process of choosing the collective
bargaining representative, the employer was definitely an intruder
Petitioner’s contention: (1)A259, LC5 would allow the staying
(suspension) of the holding of certification election, with its appeal of the
denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the excluded employees
so they could represent these employees and question the validity of the
election
ISSUE/S
1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the NDGM’s
appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE Secretary on the
Motion to Include the probationary and Substitute Employees in the list
of Qualified Voters
2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the election
HELD
1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten
notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should
not stay the holding of the certification election.
Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact,
"[i]nterlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or
denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention
issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be
appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the
appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition."
-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay
the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the
issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal
of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay
the holding thereof where the employer company is an
unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly
recognized or certified as a bargaining representative.
-This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may
impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative.
Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free
collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to "promote
and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x"; and "to
ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making
processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare."
Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by
Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the
holding of a certification election, the later provision reads:
Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable." The
Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide
the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the
appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any
certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and
inappealable."
-A259 clearly speaks of the "order x x x of the election." Hence, the
Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the
subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification
election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6
and 7 of the implementing rules6.
5
“Art 259. Appeal from certification election orders.– Any party to an election may
appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly
to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the grounds that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided
within fifteen (15) calendar days.”
6 ballot if the petition is filed x x x.
"SEC. 6. Procedure." Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall
assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon
receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from
submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized
establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a
certification election.
Disini
2. NO.
Ratio. Unless it filed a petition for a certification election
pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, the employer has no
standing to question the election, which is the sole concern of
the workers. The Labor Code states that any party to an election
may appeal the decision of the med-arbiter. Petitioner was not
such a party to the proceedings, but a stranger which had no
right to interfere therein.
Reasoning. JOYA V. PCGG (DEFINITION OF LEGAL STANDING): Legal
standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the x x x act that is being challenged. The term
‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in issue and to be
affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the
interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based
on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party. NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury
as a result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the
certification election. Hence, it does not have any material
interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the
real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the
voters’ list.
-On Claim that NDGM has the support of all the excluded
employees, as made known in a letter stating the employees’
desire to participate in the certification election, and citing cases7
wherein allegedly management was allowed to interfere in
certification elections: All these cases state precisely the
opposite. All employees should be given an opportunity to make
known their choice of who shall be their bargaining
representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the
employer with the personality to question the certification
election.
-MONARCH INTERNATIONAL CASE: It [petition] was filed by the
employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process.
Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to
assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its
representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification
election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining
its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the
interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter.
An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed
by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within
the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible,
management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For [if] it
does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is
partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].
-The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of
certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of
the right of the employees to determine their own bargaining
representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings.
They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the
employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way
affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by
the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise
where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is
questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization,
the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification election by secret
"SEC. 7 . Appeal." Any aggrieved party may appeal the order
of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary on the ground that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary for the conduct of
election have been violated.
7
Monark International v. Noriel, Eastland Manufacturing Company v.
Noriel and Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel.
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote
social justice.
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed
Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION – FSM v TITAN
MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
428 SCRA 524
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
FACTS
- Petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the Med-
Arbitration Section OF DOLE. Respondent opposed the petition,
contending that members of petitioner union are not its employees but of
Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an independent contractor.
Respondent claimed that it engaged SMC to manufacture and sew its
multi-purpose industrial bags.
- The Med-Arbiter held that respondent is the employer of the members
of petitioner union and directed that a certification election be conducted
by its regular rank and file workers. On appeal, the DOLE Sec affirmed
the decision.
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the
DOLE Sec. for being late by 7 days. Upon appeal, the CA set aside the
resolutions of the DOLE and disallowed the conduct of a certification
election.
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in setting aside the Resolutions of the DOLE Sec.
HELD YES
Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a
certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to
the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within 15 calendar
days.
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution
of the Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory.
Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary, the entire records of the
case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation of the
Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court.
In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, it was ruled that the
remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the
Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably
file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. And without a motion for reconsideration seasonably
filed within the 10-day reglementary period, the questioned Decision or
Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory. Consequently,
the merits of the case can no longer be reviewed to determine if the
Secretary could be faulted for grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably is
jurisdictional and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered final and
executory resolutions of the Secretary of the DOLE.
Even if there was no procedural flaw on the part of respondent, still the
CA should have denied respondents petition for certiorari. It has been
held that "in certification elections, the employer is a bystander, it has no
right or material interest to assail the certification election."
Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate
labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any
participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining
representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of
petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered
parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it
.
3. NATURE OF PROCEEDING
Disini
Nature
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v CIR
13 SCRA 285
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.; Feb. 26, 1965
NATURE
FACTS
- Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with
Young Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory
Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions
bound themselves to undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports
at 50-50. YMLUS later sent NALCO a letter demanding the
withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the ground that its
registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled; VISLU
refused as the order of cancellation had not become final.
YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried
out.
- NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final
determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and,
after due hearing, decide which union gets the job, or comply
with the 50-50 arrangement.
- After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by
YMLUS and retaliation from VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with
the CIR praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain
from preventing VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a
similar TRO to VISLU, ordering them to desist from retaliating (3)
after hearing, to issue and order making such injunctions
permanent.
- both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction of the CIR but later submitted to the CIR’s
jurisdiction. Judge Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties
to continue observing the 50-50 arrangement until it is decided
by certification election, which party was to become the
bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO each filed MFRs as to the
holding of certification elections which were denied, hence this
petition.
ISSUE/S
1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy
2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining
to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the
jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from
questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily
submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence.
2. NO.
Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and
is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2
unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision
of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of
rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining
unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and
this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR,
unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.
Disposition Order appealed from is affirmed.
4. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS
AND PROCEDURE
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus]
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized
establishments. - In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
day period before the expiration of the collective
bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the
verified petition is supported by the written consent of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit. When an election which provides for
three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the
two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty
percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.virtual law
library
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In
any establishment where there is no certified bargaining
agent, a certification election shall automatically be
conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended
by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When
requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition
the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified
collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau
shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20)
working days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within
twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
a. Effect of Private Agreement
ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) vs.
DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS
91 SCRA 482
AQUINO; Jul 16, 1979
NATURE
Disini
Appeal from an order of the Director of Labor Relations
FACTS
- This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union and a member of
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), filed with the
Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election.
- Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned
over the record of the case to the TUCP, a federation of labor
unions, allegedly by virtue of an arrangement between the
Ministry of Labor and the said federation that cases involving its
member-unions must first be referred to it for possible settlement
in accordance with its Code of Ethics.
- The TUCP has not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed
in this Court the instant petition for mandamus to compel the
Director of Labor Relations to decide the case, or, in the
alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the Director the
record of the case.
ISSUE
WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations
to refer to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions
in a certification election case.
HELD
NO.
Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor
Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his
arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or
to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of official
functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable
renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in
representation cases.
Reasoning
a. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms
that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations
divisions in the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor "shall
have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative
or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and
intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems
arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all
workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those
arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective
bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration."
b. Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification
cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. " Article
260 of the same Code provides that the Bureau of Labor
Relations should decide appeals in representation cases "within
fifteen (15) working days", or twenty working days, according to
section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code. Section 10 further provides that
"the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and
unappealable."
DISPOSITION
The president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the TUCP
is ordered to return to the Director of Labor Relations the original
record of the case. The Director is directed to decide the appeal
within ten days from the receipt of the record.
PLUM V NORIEL
119 SCRA 299
DE CASTRO; December 15, 1982
NATURE
Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the
Bureau of Labor Relations for having been issued in excess of
 Labor Law 2 A2010 [revised based on 2010-2011 syllabus] Disini
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It, likewise, prays for an
order directing respondent director to hold a certification election so that
the employees in the company can elect a union representative to
negotiate an improved collective bargaining agreement to replace the
agreement which has expired on February 1, 1976

FACTS
- Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a petition,
praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey Club, Inc.
The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-
PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said petition and
alleged among other things, that it is the recognized collective
bargaining representative of all the employees of the company and that
it is in the process of negotiating a modification of the collective
bargaining agreement.
- Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time
invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of Ethics" adopted
by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
(T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members, and
claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law.
The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of the
President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the
Congress for decision.
The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P. President to
the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the same
to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed
by the late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress,
stating, among other things, the following: 1
"In a National Executive Board meeting of the Katipunang
Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army &
Navy Club, it was duly approved that the above-captioned case be
referred back to the BLR and that MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of
PLUM."
The BLR endorsed the case to Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leodegardo,
Jr., of Region IV for appropriate action.
On May 5, 1977, Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter Section of
Region IV, Department of Labor, promulgated an order 2 dismissing the
case pursuant to the letter of the President of the T.U.C.P.
Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations
predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to grant or
deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the secret ballot to
elect the true union representative.
On September 17, 1977, the Bureau Director issued a resolution 3
dismissing the appeal.

HELD
Employees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA because management
refused to bargain with the union. A certification of election is warranted.
Workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process.
Certification of election is the fairest and most effective way f
determining which labor organization can truly represent the working
force. The will of the majority is controlling. The director is still
empowered to call for a certification election. Instead of ordering an
election, Director dismissed the appleal of PLUM based on the decision
of TUCP. This is frowned upon by the Court.

Disposition Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions are

nullified and set aside. Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold a
certification election forthwith. This decision is immediately executory.
No costs.