Labor Law 2

Part 6

A2010 - 95-

Disini

Union Representation: Establishing Union Majority Status
6.1. PRE-CONDITIONEMPLOYEREMPLOYEE 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)

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. - 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

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 EREE relationship. On Aug.1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the termination of the contract because of the inefficient service rendered by the latter which had adversely affected its business. The termination was to take effect as of Sept.1, 1954. MARITIMA then contracted with the Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre and stevedoring work. The latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and conditions of the contract with AFWU. The new agreement was to be carried out on Sept.1, 1954. - On Aug.26, 1954, AFWU charged MARITIMA of unfair labor practices (ULPs) before the CIR. MARITIMA answered, again denying the ER-EE relationship between the parties. On Sept.9, 1954, MARITIMA filed an action to rescind the contract, enjoin AFWU members from doing arrastre and stevedoring work in connection with its vessels, and for recovery of damages against AFWU and its officers. The CFI ordered the rescission of the contract and permanently enjoined AFWU members from performing work in connection with MARITIMA's vessels. AFWU was later able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the maintenance of the status quo prior to Jan.6, 1961. Thus, after

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 96-

Disini

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 rankand-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. - The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

6.2.

METHODS OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS

1. Purpose PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v LAGUESMA G.R. No. 94929-30 CRUZ, Mar 18, 1992
NATURE: FACTS: - The collective bargaining agreement of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with private respondents Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves. - on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days after the petition. - On April 2, 1990, herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention. - another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days after the filing of the petition. - On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted in part as follows:

In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining agreement and supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%) requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition, otherwise the petition shall be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied.) - the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions. PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal. - ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28, 1990. This was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit. - PWUP claims grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in the application of Article 256 of the Labor Code. The article provides in part as follows: Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. ? In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the MedArbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. . . . - The petitioner argues that under this article, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. - Private respondent ICTSI maintains that the dismissal was based on Article 256 of the Labor Code as implemented by Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted above. Moreover, under Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, decisions of the Secretary in certification election cases shall be final and unappealable. - For its part, APCWU questions PWUP's personality in these proceedings in view of the lack of consent signatures in its petition, and argues as well that the petitioner has no authority to represent SAMADA or PEALU, which had not appealed. The private respondent also invokes Tupas and maintains that the ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that agreement. ISSUE: WON there was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents when they dismissed the petitions for certification election because the consent signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition HELD: YES

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 97-

Disini

- pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right 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." - 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. - 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. - 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. - the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of 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 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. The certification election is the best method of determining the will of the workers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in their negotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreement that will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there be no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous management and a union covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over substantial justice. DISPOSITION Petition GRANTED.

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 METHOD OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS, PURPOSE. The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. Disposition Petition GRANTED

2. Elections-Certification Election; Consent Election; and Run-Off ElectionVoluntary Recognition, Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03 DistinctionsElections Certification and Consent

Distinguish Consent Election and Certification Election A consent election:  Is an agreed one,  Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of bargaining unit

While a certification election  Is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the em collective bargaining.

From the very nature of consent election,  It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import an  Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participan although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose t expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period. (Warren Manufacturing v. BLR

REYES V TRAJANO 209 SCRA 484 NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the TriUnion Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.

CERTIFICATION ELECTION What is the PURPOSE of a certification election? It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of: 1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargaining OR the 2) And if they choose to have a union represent them, they will choose WHICH EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate barg 1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union 2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union.

WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMCANGLO G.R. No. L-76185 PARAS; MARCH 30, 1988
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 98-

Disini

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 Returnto-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 . . .”

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.

-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 CorporationAlliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also filed. -Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30% support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law and the existence of a duly ratified CBA. - August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2. WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union. -Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certification election rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule. ISSUE/S WON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule applies HELD NO -The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August 25, 1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a consent election and not a certification election. -As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent election is an agreed one, its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. - From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to
1 2 3

ALGIRE V DE MESA 237 SCRA 647 ROMERO; October 19, 1994
NATURE Petition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the Secretary of Labor FACTS - Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the holding of an election of union officers with the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa. - DOLE's med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held. - In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed representation officer. - In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices with either a check mark or an ‘X’ mark. There should also be no other markings on the ballot. - De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were 272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots. - Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the voter. - The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s favor and certified the latter’s group to be the unions validly elected officers. - De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted. Another order for a new election of officers was made by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled. - Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit. - Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not within his competence. ISSUE 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

Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun.  same Section 3, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Labor Code

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 99-

Disini

NO Ratio The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election. Reasoning - What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a certification election. - If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity arising from said election. Disposition Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

3. Policy No Direct Certification COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE 163 SCRA 323 PARAS; June 30, 1988
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union. - After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code. - Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in the Union's Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders. - Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent ISSUE WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company's salesmen since the case is not a representation proceeding as described under the Labor Code and the Union did not pray for certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to petitioner-company. HELD YES. - The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining majority representation. - The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice of the employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions

of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes. - When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded. - When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. - Contrary to the respondent Minister's observation, the holding of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case filed by certain "concerned salesmen," who also claim majority status. - Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made does not warrant a direct certification. - More so, when the records of the suit show that the required proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that the basis of the direct certification was the Union's mere allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular salesmen. - Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure provided under the law for representation cases. Disposition Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE

Employer Certification- Voluntary Recognition Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03
RULE VII VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization, the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition, the employer and union shall submit a notice of voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or certificate of creation of a chartered local. Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the following documents: (a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition; (b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining unit where the union seeks to operate;

Labor Law 2
RULE VII VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION (continued)

A2010 - 100-

Disini

(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit, accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the bargaining unit; and (d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit. All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer representative and president of the recognized labor union. Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where there is no other registered labor union operating within the bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form, number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements. Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete the requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory, the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying documents without prejudice to its re-submission. Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. - From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for certification election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration of this one-year period, any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union,unless a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executed and registered with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule XVII of these Rules.

- July 16, 1878: a Petition for Direct Certification was filed by ALU praying that it be certified as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of petitioner corporation, there being no labor union. - Petitioner opposed the petition stating that the Union does not represent the majority of the employees concerned, and that more than 80% of the licensed/ unlicensed crew of its vessels claim they are not members of any union. - August 25, 1978: Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that 80% of the employees denied their membership. Corporation moved that a certification election should be called. - Bureau of Labor Relations Director, upon examination of the documents, opined that there existed a doubt regarding the majority of status of respondent ALU because of the withdrawal of the members, and directed a certification election. - Upon a motion for reconsideration by ALU, the BLR Director reconsidered its Resolution and directly certified ALU as sole bargaining agent. ISSUE 1. WON employees of the corporation are entitled to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative with petitioner thru a certification election; 2. WON petitioner is entitled to file petition for certification election. HELD 1. YES Ratio Employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor organization which it desires to join. The exercise of such right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election. Reasoning The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. - The best forum to determine if there was indeed undue pressure exerted upon the employees to retract their membership is in the certification election itself (in secret ballot where they can freely express their choice). - The fact that there are no competing Unions should not affect the freedom of choice (they can always choose ALU or ‘No Union’). DISPOSITION The Regional Office concerned of MoLE is directed to cause the holding of a certification election.

4. Religion/ Past Non- Participation REYES v. TRAJANO 209 SCRA 484 NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),

Effect One Union Only GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION 134 SCRA 82 MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 17, 1985
NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. FACTS - George and Peter Lines, Inc. (petitioner) is involved in shipping, while Associated Labor Unions (ALU, respondent) is a legitimate labor organization.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 101-

Disini
467 SCRA 107 Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005

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 representative, then right to be represented by a bargaining agent should not be denied to other members of the bargaining unit."

HELD 1. NO. Ratio EFFECT NON-PARTICIPIATION PREVIOUS ELECTION. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections. 2. NO. Ratio RELIGION/PAST NON-PARTICIPATION. Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not.

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-andfile 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-InCharge, 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.

6.3.

CERTIFICATION ELECTIONPROCESS LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. Sec. of Labor [NACUSIP and CAILO] 1. The Union as Initiating Party
ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; Facts Labor and (b)ART. be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in organization dulybargaining with the DepartmentLabor and To 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor Med-Arbiter, sustained by unit for purposes ofofcollective -The an appropriate registered the Secretary of Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof. bargaining; Employment, has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give him (c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annualno other financial statements, including the balance sheet and the audited choice than to conduct a certification election upon the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, afterpetition. has been duly recognized receipt of the corresponding the union by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) "Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the where there is no certified bargaining In any establishment collective bargaining negotiation; (d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor agent, a certification members; organization and its election shall automatically be conducted by (e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor (f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other organization." projects not contrary to law. -National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the income and the properties of legitimatewith the Department Philippines-TUCP ("NACUSIP-TUCP") filed labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations, local for foreign, of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") a petition or direct which are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be or forfrom taxes, duties and other assessments. and certification free certification election to determine the sole The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing bargaining representative of the supervisory exclusive collective this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). employees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation ("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimate national labor organization; that LSC was employing 55

247 SCRA 1 Vitug ; August 1995

San Miguel Corp. v. Mandaue

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 102-

Disini

supervisory employees, the majority of whom were members of the union; that no other labor organization was claiming membership over the supervisory employees; that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to the holding of a certification election. -LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No. 003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter. -LSC appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion, Sec. of Labor denied it. Petition for certiorari was filed. Issue WON the certification election should push through Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate. It was held in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment: "But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof.' Rule 1, Section 1(j), Book V of the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' " Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with the DOLE. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the federation's bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local chapter, as its principal, should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. Accordingly, in Progressive Development, we elucidated: "In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows: "'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.' "Since the 'procedure governing the reporting independently registered unions' refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chapter must likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the formation a local or chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud. "A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: "1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and "2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the

secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president. "Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become legitimate labor organization." The only document extant on record to establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. Disposition WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Secretary of Labor, dated 06 March 1990, affirming that of the Med-Arbiter, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certification election is dismissed. No costs.

DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ) 300 SCRA 120 PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III. - Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-andfile employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. - The mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said that the contention of the respondent that the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed. ISSUE/S WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and file employees HELD NO. Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees.” Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file employees. There is a irreconcilability of their interests which cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings. Disposition Petition is granted.

SAMAHAN v SEC OF LABOR (FILSYSTEMS) 290 SCRA 680 PUNO, J.; June 5, 1998
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution and order of respondent Secretary dismissing petitioner's petition for certification election

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 103-

Disini

FACTS - petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFILNAFLU-KMU) is a registered labor union. It filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent Filsystems, Inc. Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning petitioner's status as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within 30 days from its execution. - the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioner has no legal personality for failure to submit its contract of affiliation on time. Petitioner appealed to respondent Secretary, contending that, as an independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation. - another union, the Filsystems Workers Union, filed a petition for certification election. It was granted, and FWU won. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss appeal as it has become moot & academic. Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss on the ground that the certification election was void for having been held during the pendency of the appeal. ISSUE/S 1. WON petitioner had legal personality to file the petition 2. WON the appeal was rendered moot and academic HELD 1. YES Ratio Petitioner is an independently registered labor union. As a legitimate labor organization, its right to file a petition for certification election cannot be questioned. Reasoning Petitioner's failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU will, at most, result in an ineffective affiliation. Despite affiliation, the local union remains the basic unit free to serve the interests of its members independently of the federation. 2. NO Ratio The certification election and the CBA are void for having occured during the pendency of an unresolved representation case with the Secretary. Reasoning Petitioner seasonably appealed the dismissal of its petition. The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election. Disposition Petition is granted.

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)

A. Organized Establishment

To have a valid election, at least a majority of all elig union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be ce in the unit. When an election which provides for three or mo valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted betwe votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contend votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed by a national names of the local chapter’s officers and members.

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall con bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is
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 sixtyday 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).

Definition CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA 209 SCRA 606 PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter. - CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not contain the requisite number of signatures and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise,

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 104-

Disini

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.

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 LAKASNFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist. The Labor Code provides: "Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duty registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code." Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules end Regulations likewise provides: "If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be

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 rankand-file employees and the project employees are basically similar in nature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner's business. -Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association ("URFA", for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. -Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor ("LAKAS-NFL", for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification election. -Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment. Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic's appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic's project employees at its SMSG site who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and completely paralyzed Atlantic's operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 105-

Disini

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

days before its ratification and that it has been ratified by the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit." ISSUE WON Calleja erred in reversing Trajano’s ruling and ordering the holding of a certification election. HELD NO The CBA in question is defective. - The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1) possession of the status of majority representation by the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Art.256, par. (a) of the Labor Code4 - The standing of ALU as an exclusive bargaining representative is dubious. The recognition by GAWTI appears to have been based on the self-serving claim of ALU that it had the support of the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. - In cases where the then Minister of Labor directly certified the union as the bargaining representative, SC voided such certification where there was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification election at a proper time would not necessarily be a mere formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union - CBA was defective also because of: [a] the failure of GAWTI to post the CBA in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5 days before its ratification, [b] the finding of Calleja that 181 of the 281 workers who "ratified" the same now " strongly and vehemently deny and/or repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of the CBA. - Finally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a petition for certification election had already been filed on May 19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the signatures of 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit, it was enough to initiate certification election. Disposition Public respondent’s order for the conduct of a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of respondent GAW Trading Inc. is AFFIRMED

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 MedArbiter Cumba, without having complied with the subscription requirement for which it was merely considered an intervenor until compliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition as bargaining agent filed on MAy 28, 1986 by southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) - In the meantime, CBA executed by ALU and GAWTI was duly filed with the MOLE, Cebu city. Nevertheless, Med-Arbiter Cumba ruled for the holding of a certification election in all branches of GAWTI in Cebu City, as to which ALU filed MFR, which was treated as an appeal. So the entire record of subject certification case was forwarded for the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), MOLE, Manila. - BLR Director Trajano, granted ALU's appeal (MFR) and set aside the questioned Med-Arbiter, on the ground that the CBA has been effective and valid and the contract bar rule applicable; Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU) and Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) filed MFR, supplemented by the 'Submission of Additional Evidence.’ GAWTI and ALU opposed. Trajano’s decision was reversed by herein public respondent Calleja. ALU filed MFR but was denied. Hence this petition. - Calleja ordered the holding of a certification election ruling that the "contract bar rule" relied upon by her predecessor Trajano does not apply in the present case. Calleja ruled that CBA is defective because it "was not duly submitted in accordance with Sec. I, Rule IX, Book V of the Implementing Rules of BP 130." There’s no proof that CBA has been posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least 5

GENERAL MILLING CORP. V CA 422 SCRA 514 QUISUMBING; February 11, 2004
4

Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60-day period before the expiration of a CBA, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the EEs in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast.

Labor Law 2
NATURE Petition for certiorari

A2010 - 106-

Disini

the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution.... - The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. The relation between labor and management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counterproposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, which provides that: ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: ... (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code; ... - Article 252 of the Labor Code elucidates the meaning of the phrase “duty to bargain collectively,” thus: ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.... We have held that the crucial question whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts.[ The effect of an employer’s or a union’s actions individually is not the test of good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole. Under Article 252 abovecited, both parties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three years from the effectivity of the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union and the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation. GMC’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. - GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to selforganization. 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:

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 counterproposal be submitted within ten days. - As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal. - The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right to self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election be held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers. The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case of GMC-Independent Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993. All other provisions of the CBA are to be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Thus, the NLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining agent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA. Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into negotiation with the union. The NLRC likewise held that the individual letters of withdrawal from the union submitted by 13 of its members from February to June 1993 confirmed the pressure exerted by GMC on its employees to resign from the union. Thus, the NLRC also found GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization. With respect to the union’s claim of discrimination, the NLRC found the claim unsupported by substantial evidence. - On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. It found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the union justified and the allegation of coercion exerted by GMC on the union’s members to resign unfounded. Hence, the union filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA reinstated the January 30, 1998 NLRC decision. A motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed by GMC, but in a resolution dated October 26, 2000, the CA denied it for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition. ISSUE (1) WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization (2) WON the draft CBA proposed by the union for two years to begin from the expiration of the original CBA should be imposed on GMC HELD 1. YES - Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715, states: ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 107-

Disini

ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. – ....It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period [prior to its expiration date] and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they are still in the process of working out their respective proposal and counter proposal. The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is guilty of bad faith. However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is warranted. - It would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on GMC’s employees for the remaining two years of the CBA’s duration. We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union. Disposition Petition dismissed.

2. Form of Petition
Signature Verification and Verification of Pleadings

NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION V. SEC. OF LABOR 227 SCRA 821 QUIASON : November 16, 1993
FACTS: - Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC are local chapters of labor federations duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file workers of respondent QCC, a domestic corporation engaged in the metal industry. - On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent QCC, respondent FFW-SMQCC through Reynito de Pedro filed with the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a list of signatures of company employees, who signified their consent to a certification election among the rank and file employees of QCC. - Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent FFWSMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the certification election of at least 25% of the rank and file employees had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as required by law; and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of petitioner, had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC. - On October 30, 1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed a second petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by De Pedro. - On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election of respondent FFW-SMQCC - Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor. On June 17, 1992, the Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter. ISSUE: WON the petition for certification election was verified as required by law HELD: YES

Reasoning First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected president of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself therefrom and joined respondent FFW-SMQCC before the petition for certification election was filed on September 27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of De Pedro from the company is of no moment, considering that the petition for certification election was filed before his dismissal on August 22, 1992. Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional requisite. Even if verification is lacking and the pleading is formally defective, the courts may dispense with the requirement in the interest of justice and order of correction of the pleading accordingly. Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases; and this rule is specifically applied in certification election proceedings, which are non-litigious but merely investigative and nonadversarial in character. Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in the first petition were cured and corrected in the second petition for certification election. Third, attached to the original petition for certification election was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of the 300 employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFWSMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to delete from the list some 36 signatures which are allegedly forged and falsified. Petitioner, likewise, submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the signatures therein. Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75 i.e., 25% of the total number of company employees required by law to support a petition for certification election. The disclaimer of 13 employees by their respective signatures covers only their own personal participation and cannot in any way be extended to include the rest of those who did not question the same. DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed

TODAY’S KNITTING v NORIEL 75 SCRA 450 FERNANDO CJ; February 28, 1977
FACTS: -Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filing with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for the holding of a certification election. Along with this were 200 signatures of Company’s employees confirming such petition. A petition for intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers Union. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it had already been voluntarily recognized by the management as the bargaining representative. -Today’s Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that intervenor union, now petitioner, had been recognized by management as representing the minority of the workers. Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was no legal bar to the petition for certification. -Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the petition for certification election. The matter was then appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Appeal was deniedl. It ordered a certification election to be conducted by the Bureau within twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari and prohibition petition with this Court

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 108-

Disini

ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate elections inspite of the company’s recognition that another union is the bargaining representative HELD: NO -ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that the petition for certification election should have in its favor "the written consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. The duty then cast on the Detector of Labor Relations is to ascertain whether there has been such a compliance. There is no doubt in this case there was evidence that more than a total of two-hundred signatures were obtained by respondent Union in seeking such a certification election. The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite had been met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the language of the above provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit."

3. Venue
CRUZVALE, INC. V LAGUESMA 238 SCRA 389 QUIASON; November 25, 1994
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, to reverse and set aside the decision of respondent Undersecretary (Laguesma) upholding the order of respondent Med-Arbiter (Tutay) FACTS - Private respondent, Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV, a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner. - Petitioner filed its comment to the petition for certification election. It sought the denial of the petition, among the grounds enumerated is that the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no jurisdiction over the petition since petitioner Company's place of business is located at Cubao, Quezon City, which is outside the jurisdiction of the said Regional Office. Consequently, it is the National Capital Region or NCR of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said petition. - Med-Arbiter found petitioner's claim unmeritorious and rendered a decision in favor of respondent union. ISSUE/S 1. WON petitioners correctly interpreted Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states: “Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.” HELD 1. NO Ratio The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case. Reasoning Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for certification election is filed. The said provision does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different

regional offices. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact that there are many companies with factories located in places different from places where the corporate offices are located. The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience of the worker. Petitioner has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing on the petition for certification election before the Regional Office No. IV, which has its offices in Quezon City, the same city where the principal place of business of petitioner is located. Petitioner is, therefore, being unreasonable in demanding that the petition for certification election be filed with the National Capital Region Office, which holds offices in Manila. Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission prescribes that all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch office which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules defines the workplace as follows: “For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . “ Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the temporary restraining order is LIFTED.

4. Substantial Support
RATIONALE ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) V FERRER-CALLEJA 169 SCRA 490 GANCAYCO; November 6, 1989
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - Several days before the expiration of the CBA between petitioner ALU and the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office in Tacloban city. - Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its petition. ISSUES 1. WON the holding of certification elections in organized establishments is mandated only where a petition is filed questioning the majority status of the incumbent union, and that it is only after establishing that a union has indeed a considerable support that a certification election should be ordered HELD 1. NO Reasoning in cases of organized establishments where there exists a certified bargaining agent, what is essential is whether the petition for certification election wasfiled within the sixty-day

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 109-

Disini

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.

HELD No -CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents. -Compliance with the said requirement need not even be established with absolute certainty -The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining which of the contending labor organizations shall be the exclusive collective bargaining agent. -The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal, ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for certification Disposition The petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

ST. JAMES SCHOOL v. ST. JAMES SCHOOL 476 SCRA 12 (pending) COMPLIANCE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V LAGUESMA 209 SCRA 609 PARAS; June 8, 1992
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order FACTS -On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO) -In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors -FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply -Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted among the supervisory employees of California Manufacturing Corporation -CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment which, however, affirmed the above order -CMC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition. ISSUE WON the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors

MOTION INTERVENTION PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V LAGUESMA 207 SCRA 392 CRUZ; March 18, 1992
FACTS - The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves. - Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the petition. - Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention. - Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition. The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition.This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter. - PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election., DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal. - Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 110SUBMISSION

Disini

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 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.

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 staged a strike. They prevented free ingress and egress of nonstriking employees, and vehicles. NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction. - Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the order of Med-arbiter. - After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for certiorari before SC. ISSUE/S 1. WON the employer can challenge petitions for certification election 2. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election 3. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election because a new CBA has already been ratified. 4. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case HELD 1. NO - Certification elections are exclusively the concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the same. - The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of Labor Code. After filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere bystander. Company’s interference in the certification election below by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union. 2. YES - Since question of right of representation as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining unit is imbued with public interest, law governs the choice of a collective bargaining representative which shall be the duly certified agent of the employees concerned. An official certification becomes necessary where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate and reasonable proof of its majority authorization and where the

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 111-

Disini

employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts the majority representation of several contending bargaining groups. IArticle 255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. - The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a certification election applies only when representation is not in issue. There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the proper government authority. 3. NO - Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for. - Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period. 4. YES - The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating the same. - All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit.

- Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the DOLE. ISSUE/S WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of Art 256 of the Labor Code (On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required) - PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. - PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. HELD: - Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement”. - SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.

PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V LAGUESMA 207 SCRA 392 CRUZ; March 18, 1992
FACTS - The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves. - Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the petition. - Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention. - Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition. The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition. This contention was upheld by the MedArbiter. - 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.

EFFECT WITHDRAWAL
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO

395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003
NATURE Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing CA decision denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998 FACTS - October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 112-

Disini

- November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the signatures in the list of union members were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the petition. THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election. - January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 19981 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. ISSUE WON the withdrawal of some union members from the certification election will affect the result HELD: NO - As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition for certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to intervene in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification election, this Court’s following ruling is instructive: "T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election itself wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees should in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and certification election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a nonadversary, 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.

NATURE Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction FACTS Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development, Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources. All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds — disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of the Order. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied they filed the instant petition for "Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction" with a Prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining public respondents from conducting any further proceedings in the said five cases. ISSUE WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a certification election HELD YES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU (49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the employees, all of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be pooled to determine which labor organization should be its exclusive representative. This Court had made it clear that We should give discretion to the Court of Industrial Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge. Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the 30% requirement (now 20%) makes it mandatory upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive-bargaining agent of the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is supported by less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on the circumstances of the case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures vs. Musicians Guild, et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election, the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees, and having exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot interfere. (Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA 690). Dispositive Petition denied

DISCRETION RULE APPLICATION AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA PARAS; Dec 29, 1989

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 113-

Disini

WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION LOCAL V. TRAJANO G.R. No. 75724 BIDIN; May 6, 1991
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS The Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (PTGWO) instituted a petition for certification election alleging, in substance, that thirty percent (30%) of the rank and file workers of the Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) and its sister companies supported its petition; that almost all of the 2,100 workers of the company belonged to bargaining agent; that the collective bargaining agreement between NALCO and WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 would expire on June 30, 1985; and that there has been no certification election in the company during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the petition's filing. Attached to the petition were the signatures of some 612 purported employees of the company. -This was opposed by the compulsory intervenor WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 on the grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent requirement as the names and signatures appearing in the list submitted by PTGWO had been secured through fraud and that the purported signatures thereon were mere forgeries. -The members of the Local KMU-WAWU adopted a resolution to disaffiliate from ULGWP invoking the law on disaffiliation which limits such actions only within the 60-day freedom period. WAWU contended that as an independently registered union, its disaffiliation from ULGWP did not extinguish its judicial personality; that it was the principal party to the CBA while ULGWP was only its agent from which it could disaffiliate at will; that while it was in favor of the certification election, the federation's name should not be attached to its own in the same ballot; that as the principal party to the CBA, it was the bargaining agent entitled to administer and enforce the agreement with the employer; that the issue of disaffiliation was not a prejudicial question to the settlement of representation proceedings; that, in fact, it could be treated in a separate proceeding. Further, WAWU enjoined NALCO from farther deducting union dues in favor of ULGWP. -On the other hand, ULGWP argued that since it lacks the requisite support from the members of the bargaining unit, the petition should not be granted; that the disaffiliation of WAWU was void as only 429 out of total union membership of 2,149 voted in its favor and since no notice of disaffiliation was given to ULGWP by WAWU as required by the federation's constitution and by-laws; that WAWU had not acquired any legal personality to participate in the representation proceedings as it had not died its intervention within the freedom period; that while it was true that majority of its officers had disaffiliated, ULGWP had reorganized its local and had a new set of officers elected, that the federation had issued a charter to WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 making it a local organization of the federation; that being the true and real compulsory intervenor, WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 should be placed on the ballot as a choice for the workers in the certification election. Moreover, ULGWP stressed to NALCO that WAWU's disaffiliation was void and, hence, it was still entitled to receive the dues checked-off from the members of the bargaining unit. ISSUE 1. WON a certification election should be held at the employer corporations HELD 1. YES. Reasoning From the comment and supplemental comment of respondent WAWU, it appears evident that the issues in this case have become moot and academic. But even assuming such is not the case, it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification

election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. As observed by the Solicitor General, serious doubts exist whether WAWU-ULGWP-Local 101 still represents the majority of the rank-and-file employees at the employer corporations. Thus, while WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 maintains that the work force consists of 2,149 rank-and-file employees, yet PTGWO was able to muster 620 support signatures, not to mention that 429 of its members voted to disaffiliate from WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. Consequently, the sentiments/loyalties of the remaining 1,100 rank-and-file employees is yet to be determined by the best means possible which is through certification election. Disposition Petition DISMISSED for having become moot and academic

6.4.

UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT

ART. 212. Definitions. - (h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.

ART. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining; (c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation; (d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its members; (e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and (f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the income and the properties of legitimate labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 114-

Disini

-UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the bargaining unit sought to be established -PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees. Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-and-file employees which barred the filing of the petition. -UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although they may form their own. -The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that "a certification election . . . (be) conducted among the supervisory personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T)." ISSUE 2. WON there should be a certification election pushed by the UNION HELD 2. YES. Reasoning The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads — "Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization" (emphasis supplied) The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION, which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code. The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees. After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees." Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor Code provides that said election should be automatically conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a certification election. It reads — "Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election . . ." Disposition Petition DENIED

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 MedArbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

RA 9481
Sec. 11. Article 257 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “ART. 257. Petitions in Unorganized Establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the MedArbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor organization, including a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its 1ocal/chapter participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local chapter’s officers and members.”

1. DEFINITION PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION vs. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 101730 BELLOSILLO; June 17, 1993
NATURE -petition for certiorari FACTS -PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity) filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment praying for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity).

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP V LAGUESMA 209 SCRA 606 PARAS; June 8, 1992

Labor Law 2
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari

A2010 - 115-

Disini

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.

Ratio While it may be true that the petition for certification election did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rankand 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:

-

CELINE MARKETING V CA (RUIZ) 205 SCRA 849 GRINO-AQUINO; February 4, 1992
NATURE Petition for certioari FACTS - DOLE Undersecretary Laguesma ordered the holding of a certification election among its rank-and-file employees, as prayed for in a petition filed by the Confederation of Filipino Workers. Such petition was amended to include all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North, etc. comprising more or less 100 employees. - Celine Mktg moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the CFW had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and file employees, and that it failed to submit a copy of the charter certificate issued to the local union. At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, CFW submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union. - The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-production of the original and for lack of proof that the organizational documents of the union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations. - The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those grounds. - The union appealed the order to the DOLE Sec which was granted. - Hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUE WON the private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements in Sec 3, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of LC HELD NO

-

-

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) APSOTEUTUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these employees supported the petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition. On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a certification election on two grounds. First, that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or confidential employees. Second, the Association of Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALU-TUCP was representing the union. The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were not managerial employees but merely supervisory employees. On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied petitioner's motion to dismiss.

-

-

Labor Law 2
-

A2010 - 116-

Disini

-

-

-

SRBI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of merit. The certification election was ordered. On June 16, 1994, the Med-Arbiter scheduled the holding of the certification election for June 29, 1994. On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter an urgent motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter denied the same. SRBI then filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for reconsideration. The Med-Arbiter later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary Petitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DOLE Regional Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's registration. It averred that the APSOTEU-TUCP members were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by law from joining or organizing unions. DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of merit. He ruled that APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEUTUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to represent its members for collective bargaining purposes. SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's decision

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 MedArbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected. CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary, certification election complaints should have been raised before the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters was already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the workers because in the process of choosing the collective bargaining representative, the employer was definitely an intruder Petitioner’s contention: (1)A259, LC5 would allow the staying (suspension) of the holding of certification election, with its appeal of the denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the excluded employees so they could represent these employees and question the validity of the election ISSUE/S 1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE Secretary on the Motion to Include the probationary and Substitute Employees in the list of Qualified Voters 2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the election HELD
5 “Art 259. Appeal from certification election orders.– Any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the grounds that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days.”

Issue: WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election HELD: YES Reasoning One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.

2. THE EMPLOYER AS INITIATING PARTY
ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

RA 9481
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows: “ART. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the MedArbiter act favorably on the petition.”

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 117-

Disini

1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should not stay the holding of the certification election. Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact, "[i]nterlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition." -The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. -This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative. Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to "promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x"; and "to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare." Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the holding of a certification election, the later provision reads: Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable." The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable." -A259 clearly speaks of the "order x x x of the election." Hence, the Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6 and 7 of the implementing rules6. 2. NO. Ratio. Unless it filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, the employer has no standing to question the election, which is the sole concern of the workers. The Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the decision of the medarbiter. 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-ininterest, may question their removal from the voters’ list. -On Claim that NDGM has the support of all the excluded employees, as made known in a letter stating the employees’ desire to participate in the certification election, and citing cases7 wherein allegedly management was allowed to interfere in certification elections: All these cases state precisely the opposite. All employees should be given an opportunity to make known their choice of who shall be their bargaining representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the employer with the personality to question the certification election. -MONARCH INTERNATIONAL CASE: It [petition] was filed by the employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process. Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For [if] it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is partial to one of the contending [choices in the election]. -The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees to determine their own bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice. Disposition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION – FSM v TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 428 SCRA 524 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
FACTS - Petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the MedArbitration 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
7 Monark International v. Noriel, Eastland Manufacturing Company v. Noriel and Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel.

6

"SEC. 6. Procedure." Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election. In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed x x x. "SEC. 7 . Appeal." Any aggrieved party may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary for the conduct of election have been violated.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 118-

Disini

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 .

party was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO each filed MFRs as to the holding of certification elections which were denied, hence this petition. ISSUE/S 1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy 2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election HELD 1. YES. Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence. 2. NO. Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2 unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR, unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. Disposition Order appealed from is affirmed.

4. CERTIFICATION ELECTION- PROCESS AND PROCEDURE
ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. - In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixtyday 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).

3. NATURE OF PROCEEDING Nature
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v CIR

13 SCRA 285 BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.; Feb. 26, 1965
NATURE FACTS - Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with Young Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions bound themselves to undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports at 50-50. YMLUS later sent NALCO a letter demanding the withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the ground that its registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled; VISLU refused as the order of cancellation had not become final. YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried out. - NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due hearing, decide which union gets the job, or comply with the 50-50 arrangement. - After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by YMLUS and retaliation from VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain from preventing VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU, ordering them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and order making such injunctions permanent. - both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the CIR but later submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. Judge Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties to continue observing the 50-50 arrangement until it is decided by certification election, which

ART. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 119-

Disini

appeals in representation cases "within fifteen (15) working days", or twenty working days, according to section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Section 10 further provides that "the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and unappealable." ART. 258. When an employer may file petition. - When 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. DISPOSITION The president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the TUCP is ordered to return to the Director of Labor Relations the original record of the case. The Director is directed to decide the appeal within ten days from the receipt of the record.

PLUM V NORIEL 119 SCRA 299 DE CASTRO; December 15, 1982
NATURE Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. It, likewise, prays for an order directing respondent director to hold a certification election so that the employees in the company can elect a union representative to negotiate an improved collective bargaining agreement to replace the agreement which has expired on February 1, 1976 FACTS - Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a petition, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey Club, Inc. The Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said petition and alleged among other things, that it is the recognized collective bargaining representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement. - Another supplemental MTD was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of Ethics" adopted by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (T.U.C.P.) wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of the President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the Congress for decision. The entire record of the case was re turned by the T.U.C.P. President to the Office of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the same to the Bureau of Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed by the late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress, stating, among other things, the following: 1 "In a National Executive Board meeting of the Katipunang Manggagawang Pilipino (TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army & Navy Club, it was duly approved that the abovecaptioned case be referred back to the BLR and that MJCROELU-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.

a.

Effect of Private Agreement

ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) vs. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS 91 SCRA 482 AQUINO; Jul 16, 1979
NATURE Appeal from an order of the Director of Labor Relations FACTS This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union and a member of Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), filed with the Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election. - Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the record of the case to the TUCP, a federation of labor unions, allegedly by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the said federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be referred to it for possible settlement in accordance with its Code of Ethics. - The TUCP has not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed in this Court the instant petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Relations to decide the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the Director the record of the case. ISSUE WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case. HELD NO. Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in representation cases. Reasoning a. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration." b. Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. " Article 260 of the same Code provides that the Bureau of Labor Relations should decide

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 120-

Disini

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.

records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins, the posting of huge streamers, as well as the alleged escorting of voters by SMJALU have unduly pressured, influenced, vitiated, or in any manner affected the choice of the workers.

c.

Voting List and Voters

Voting List ACOJE WORKERS' UNION v. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS' UNION 7 SCRA 730 CONCEPCION; April 23, 1963
NATURE Appeal by certiorari from an Order of the Court of Industrial Relations FACTS - Pursuant to an Order of the CIR and a Resolution thereof en banc, the Department of Labor, through the Bureau of Labor Relations, conducted a "consent election" among the workers of the Company, in which five labor unions participated, namely, the Acoje United Workers' Union, the Acoje Labor Union (PELTA), the Acoje Labor Union (PLUM), respondent National Mines and Allied Workers' Union (NAMAWU), and petitioner Acoje Workers' Union. - The Department of Labor certified that the result of the election was that National Mines & Allied Workers' Union had 560 votes and Acoje Workers' Union had 278. - Prior thereto, petitioner Union — which had been defeated by respondent Union by a margin of 282 votes — had filed a motion to invalidate said election upon several grounds. - LC issued held that said motion was without merit, and certifying respondent Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers of the Company. A reconsideration of said order having been denied by the Court en banc, petitioner interposed the present appeal by certiorari, and now maintains that the lower court should have invalidated the aforementioned election for the same was "the result of acts of terrorism, force, threat and intimidation employed by" agents of respondent Union. - Petitioner alleges that, "if heard or given its day in Court" it could have proven that: (a) not less than 310 workers of the Company were threatened the night immediately preceding the election by agents of respondent Union individually "to cast their vote for said Union . . . or else;" b) the agents of respondent Union were even aided by the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz, Zambales, and his policemen, and, as a consequence, said Municipal Mayor was suspended from office; c) the acts performed by said agents of respondent Union "resulted into unlawful disorder, damaged belongings, and physical injuries suffered by the workers"; d) many workers were unable to vote for justified causes; and e) many workers, subject of unfair labor practice case actually pending in Court, were not allowed to vote, contrary to law. ISSUE WON the elections should be invalidated. HELD - NO. The last two grounds are untenable. IThe labor unions concerned agreed, not only to the holding of the aforementioned election, but, also, to the use of the Company payroll of March 31, 1961, as the basis for determining who are qualified to vote subject to the approval of the lower court. Said labor unions were given an opportunity to make their comments and observations on the list of workers contained in the payroll and to ask or suggest the inclusion or exclusion of names therein or therefrom. Petitioner's representative then stated that it would abide by whatever ruling the court may make on the matter of inclusion and exclusion of voters. The court issued the corresponding order for the holding of the election and made its ruling on the

b.

Posting Notice

Jisscor Independent Union v. Torres 221 SCRA 699 GRIÑO-AQUINO; May 11, 1993
Nature:Certiorari Facts: - JISSCOR Independent Union (JIU) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the Jacinto Iron and Steel Sheets Corporation (JISSCOR) before the Med- Arbitration Unit of the DOLE. - Upon agreement JIU, the intervenor SMJ-ALU and the JISSCOR management, the Med-Arbiter set the certification election on September 4, 1990. - However, on the appointed date, instead of an election, as previously agreed upon by all the parties, another pre-election conference was held . - Another agreement was entered into by JIU, JISSCOR and SMJ-ALU, providing that the election would be conducted on September 6, 1990 from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., and that "the mandatory five (5) days posting is hereby waived by agreement of the parties" -Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU (SMJ- ALU) won the cert. elec. JIU then registered a protest in the minutes of the election and formally filed a protest in the DOLE. - Med-Arbiter Falconitin declared the cert. election null and void. - SMJ-ALU appealed to the DOLE Secretary - DOLE Sec granted the appeal of SMJ-ALU and certified SMJ-ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file workers of JISSCOR pursuant to the results of the certification election. ISSUE: WON there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in certifying SMJ-ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of JISSCOR. HELD: NO. - Grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. The minutes of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use of emblem, visor, pin. Other protests not so raised are deemed waived. - There is no merit in the argument that the non-posting of the notice of the certification election as prescribed misled and confused the workers regarding the mechanics of the election. - JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. - The doctrine of estoppel is based on grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters, 99 were able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. Nothing in the

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 121-

Disini

question as to who were qualified to vote, and petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of said ruling, although two (2) other labor unions and the Company did so, and their motions for reconsideration were denied by the Court en banc. Hence, petitioner may no longer contest the accuracy of the aforementioned voters' list. - There were only 971 qualified voters. Of these, 904 had voted, so that only 67 qualified voters had failed to cast their votes. It is obvious that this number plus the 19 ballots challenged in the election are insufficient to offset the plurality of 282 votes obtained by respondent Union. - Petitioner did not claim that any voter had been coerced to vote for respondent Union. - "There are many cases where the workers were threatened, coerced and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU." But this general allegation, without anything to indicate the number of workers involved, without the supporting affidavit of any of them, and without an offer to introduce their testimony or the testimony of any of them, was — in the light of the attending circumstances — clearly insufficient to warrant the invalidation of the aforementioned election. - As regards the disorder that had allegedly characterized the election, the minutes thereof suffice to refute petitioner's pretense. We quote from said minutes: "Balloting went on smoothly up to closing time at 7:00 p.m. There was spirit of comraderie among the representative of the contesting unions throughout the proceedings. Peace and order was maintained by the 18th PC Company at Iba, Zambales, graced by the presence of the Provincial Commander in person." Disposition The order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice. Disposition Petition is denied.

ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY V SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY 476 SCRA 12 CARPIO; November 23, 2005
NATURE Petition for review assailing Court of Appeals Resolution sustaining the Decision of DOLE directing the opening of the challenged ballots cast during the certification election FACTS - Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of St. James School of Quezon City - 26 June 1999 > certification election was held at the DOLE office in Manila with 149 eligible voters and 84 casting their votes. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging the 84 votes. St. James alleged that it had 179 rank and file employees, none of whom voted in the certification election. St. James argued that those who voted were not its regular employees but construction workers of an independent contractor, Architect Bacoy - 6 January 2000 > Med-Arbiter Falconitin declared the certification election to be null and void ab initio and ruled that: 1) 84 voters were no longer working at St. James and supported his ruling using the roster of rank and file employees submitted by St. James, which did not include the names of the 84 voters 2) since the construction projects have ceased, some of the workers were no longer entitled to vote in the certification election 3) even if the 84 workers were to be included in the 179 rank and file employees, the total number of voters would be 263. Thus, the 84 votes cast would not be sufficient to constitute a majority of all eligible voters to have a valid certification election. - Samahang Manggagawa appealed to the Secretary of Labor. - 5 May 2000 > DOLE reversed the ruling of Med-Arbiter Falconitin. DOLE ruled that: 1) Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the nonacademic personnel or the rank and file employees from the motor pool, construction and transportation departments, and not all the rank and file employees of St. James. 2) Med-Arbiter Falconitin erred in including all the rank and file employees of St. James, whether teaching or non-teaching personnel, in the computation of the total number of employees. 3) the list submitted by St. James contained only the administrative, teaching and office personnel of the school. - St. James filed MFR. DOLE denied the MFR. St. James filed a special civil action before the CA. - 5 September 2001 > CA dismissed the petition and ruled that DOLE did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of Med-Arbiter Falconitin. ISSUE WON St. James’s list which included administrative, teaching and office personnel is the basis for the quorum in the certification election

Notre Dame of Greater Manila vs Laguesma 433 SCRA 225 Medialdea, J; 2004
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Notre Dame of Greater Manila was questioning the fact that a certification election was held despite the fact that under the rules, the same should have been delayed pending a review by the Secretary of Labor of an appeal with regard the exclusion of the probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters as ordered by the Representation Official. The petitioner claimed that said officer committed grave abuse of discretion. ISSUE/S WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by petitioner’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters. HELD No. The Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the decision of the med-arbiter. Petitioner was not such a party to the proceedings, but a stranger which had no right to interfere therein. In Joya v. PCGG, this Court explained that “‘[l]egal standing’ means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the x x x act that is being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. - The petitioner did not and will not sustain direct injury as a result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification election. Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the voters’ list. -This Court would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees to determine their own

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 122-

Disini

HELD NO - The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in St. James’ five campuses where there is a total of 570 rank and file employees. - Section 2, Rule XII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules provides: Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings. – All employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the certification or consent election shall be qualified to vote. A dismissed employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall be allowed to vote in the election. In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the eligibility of voters, all contested voters shall be allowed to vote. However, their votes shall be segregated and sealed in individual envelopes in accordance with Section 9 of these Rules. - The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the certification election. - St. James further alleges that the names of the 84 voters are not on the list of its rank and file employees. On this score, we sustain the factual finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists of its administrative, teaching and office personnel. These administrative, teaching and office personnel are not members of Samahang Manggagawa. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list submitted by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of Samahang Manggagawa. Disposition Petition DENIED.

the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.” Reasoning Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank-and-file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to “all” the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit”. - Thus, the contention of the employers that the very fact that probationary employees have not earned regular status, they are not the bargaining unit is untenable. - Petitioners argue that more than a majority of the signatories to the petitions for certification election “have disaffiliated from the two respondent unions and have joined another union.” Petitioners then contend that, with the mass disaffiliation the petition for certification would fall short of the 20% consent required by the LC. However, this will not defeat the petition for certification election. On the contrary, it becomes more imperative to conduct one. The alleged disaffiliation from the petitioning unions in favor of another union raised a genuine representation issue which can best be tested in a certification election. - employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor organization which they desire to join. The exercise of such right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election, which is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character, the bargaining unit to represent them Disposition Petition is denied

BARRERA V CIR (PAWO) GRN L-32853 FERNANDO; September 25, 1981
Facts: Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike. Issue WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with respondent-unions Held No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays) If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a company dominated union, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place. However, In this case the situation is exactly the reverse. It is management that would have an unfair labor practice case filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some of its employees concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a certification election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way, the result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. The difficulties and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the personnel, who had not as yet made up their minds one way or the other. This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should

Voters ALL Employees

AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC V DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA 180 SCRA 749 PARAS; December 29, 1989
NATURE Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction FACTS - Unions filed with the MOLE petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees (there are a total of 5 petitions) - the employers filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that some signatories were ineligible as they had less than 1 year of service, while others were probationary employees, resulting in non-compliance with the 30% requirement. - the arbiter issued an order for the a certification election among the rank-and-file employees. MFR of the employers was denied, so they filed this petition in the SC ISSUE 1. WON probationary employees and employees with less than 1 year of service are qualified participants in a certification election HELD 1. YES Ratio In a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote. Art.255: “labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 123-

Disini

not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved, in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim, lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays). Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks of the labor organizations 'designated or selected for the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law clearly contemplates all the employees, not only some of them. As much as possible then, there is to be no unwarranted reduction in the number of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that in the meanwhile, which may take some time, some of those who are employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair labor practice case." Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their jobs. Disposition Petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed

Nature: Certiorari Facts: Eastland Manufacturing had 275 people in its labor force of whom 175 were members of respondent labor union. They signed a petition for the holding of a certification election. That fact in itself would more than justify the granting of such a plea, the 30% mandatory requirement being met. It was alleged, however, that there were 43 employees with less than 6 months service and 6 who had left their employment. Even then there would still be more than 30% of the employees whose votes certainly should be counted. However, Eastland was adamant. Issue: WON the reliance of Noriel (director of BLR) under A257 on the requirement of the law of 30 % of all the employees suffices Held: As noted earlier, for purposes of membership in any labor union, the one year period is required. That is one thing. Who can vote in a certification election is another. The plain language of the law certainly is controlling. All employees can participate. The later article is, therefore, lacking in any relevance. It is not a limitation to the right of an those in a collective bargaining unit to cast their vote. -Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions v. Noriel: "From United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, a 1975 decision, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that for the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be maintained and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification election. The latest decision in point, promulgated barely a year ago, is United Lumber and General Workers v. Noriel. This Court has resolutely set its face against any attempt that may frustrate the above statutory policy. The success of this petition would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a principle that has been firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. We are not inclined to take that step." - It is only worth recalling that even under the Industrial Peace Act that was the ruling consistently followed. - Federation of the United Workers Organization v. Court of Industrial Relations categorically stated: "The slightest doubt cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses significance in a petition for certification is that through such a device the employees are given the opportunity to make known who shall have the right to represent them. What is equally important is that not only some but all of them should have the right to do so." Dispositive: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS vs. NORIEL 98 SCRA 474 Fernando; June 30, 1980
FACTS After the order calling for certification election at Pacific Mills, Inc. (the First Order) became final, the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) a motion to participate in said election. BLR allowed said motion for intervention. BLR explained that PAFLU’s motion was filed before the scheduled election; and that even before the Supreme Court issued a TRO on the matter, a certification election among the rank and file (RNF) employees resulted in PAFLU receiving about 63% of the total votes cast. Hence the present petition, which invokes the finality of the First Order and, thus, seeks to exclude PAFLU from the election. ISSUE WON PAFLU’s motion will prosper HELD: YES RATIO: For the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be maintained and, thus, manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification election. The success of this petition [i.e. the exclusion of PAFLU from the election] would, therefore, be an unwarranted departure from a principle that has been firmly embedded in jurisprudence. We are not inclined to take that step.8

R. TRANSPORT CORP. VS LAGUESMA 227 SCRA 827 Quiason; November 16, 1993
Petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside the Resolutions of the Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for the conduct of the certification election, and another one denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. FACTS -Respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines (CLOP), filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of the petitioner.Med-Arbiter A. Dizon dismissed the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent did not include all the eligible employees of petitioner but only the drivers, conductors and conductresses to the exclusion of the inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers, mechanics and washerboys.

EASTLAND MANUFACTURING CO. INC. v. NORIEL 111 SCRA 674 FERNANDO; February 10, 1982
8

What SC seems to be driving at is that about 63% of the company’s RNFs participated in the scheduled election by voting for PAFLU. If SC allows the present petition to exclude PAFLU from the election, then about 63% of the voters in said election would be effectively disenfranchised.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 124-

Disini

So subsequently, respondent. CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a second petition for certification election,which included all the rank and file employees of the company, who hold non-managerial. and nonsupervisorial positions.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the second petition and contended that the dismissal of the first petition constituted res judicata. Petitioner argued that respondent CLOP should have interposed an appeal to the dismissal of the first petition and its failure to do so barred it from filing another petition for certification election. MedArbiter R. Parungo rendered a decision, which ordered that a certification election among the regular rank and file workers of petitioner company be conducted. The Associated Labor Unions (ALUTUCP) filed a motion for intervention and alleged that it has members in the proposed bargaining unit. Subsequently, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a separate petition for certification election) and a motion to consolidate related cases to avoid confusion. Dissatisfied with the Decision dated July 3, 1991 rendered by MedArbiter R. Parungo, petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who, through Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, affirmed the MedArbiter in its Resolution dated July 22, 1992 calling for the conduct of the certification election. The Resolution, in pertinent part, reads as follows: “With regard however, to the question on propriety of consolidation, there is merit in the argument of respondent-appellant on the need to consolidate the separate petitions for certification election because they involve the same bargaining unit. Case No. NCR-OD-M-91-10-058 should be consolidated with that of Case No. NCR- OD-M-91-05-062, where the petition of NAFLU should be treated as an intervention and resolved by the Med-Arbiter together with the intervention of ALU-TUCP. -Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, again stressing the principle of res judicata. Petitioner further argued that the second petition for a certification election by respondent CLOP, NAFLU and ALU-TUCP were barred at least for a period of one year from the time the first petition of CLOP was dismissed pursuant to Section Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended. Undersecretary Laguesma denied the motion for reconsideration. - Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial Questions as an Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 31, 1992. Petitioner argued that the present case must be indefinitely suspended until the following cases are resolved by the NLRC and the Supreme Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-0470891 entitled "R". Transport Corporation v. Jose S. Torregaza, et. al., wherein Labor Arbiter de Castro declared the strike staged by respondent CLOP illegal and ordered the strikers to pay petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; b) NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-03415092 filed by respondent CLOP and its members for illegal dismissal; and NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92 filed by respondent CLOP in behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal (Rollo, pp. 139-145). Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied the motion to suspend the conduct of the certification election. ISSUE/S WON the second petition for certification election should have been filed after one year from the dismissal of the first petition certification election WON the employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who joined the strike must first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted. HELD Petition dismissed RATIO: 1. NO. Under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended. Said section provides as follows: When to file: In the absence of collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year from the date of the issuance of a final certification election result. Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of law. The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of votes. In this case, there was no certification election conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a

defective petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit. 2. NO. As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. v. Torres, 211 SCRA 95 (1992): At any rate, it is now well-settled that employees who have been improperly laidoff but who have a present, unabandoned right to or expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification elections. Thus, and to repeat, if the dismissal is under question, as in the case now at bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or unfair labor practices was filed, the employees concerned could still qualify to vote in the elections. Therefore, the employees of petitioner who participated in the strike, legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare their employment status legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC. It should be noted that it is the petitioner, the employer, which has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election. This must not be so for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The employer has no right to interfere in the election and is merely regarded as a bystander (Divine Word University of Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]).

Effect of Non-Participation Previous Election REYES v. TRAJANO 209 SCRA 484 NARVASA; June 2, 1992
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS -The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK. The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO UNION." The final tally of the votes showed the following results: TUPAS 1 TUEU-OLALIA 95 NO UNION 1 SPOILED 1 CHALLENGED 141 Held: Furthermore, failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to the right to participate in future elections. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past cases.

Voting Day

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 125-

Disini

ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION VS CALLEJA 174 SCRA 477 MEDIALDEA; June 29, 1989
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari FACTS - Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) is a corporation that operates a rattan furniture factory at Mandaue City, Cebu. - Upon petition of Buklod ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), one of several labor unions at ADMACOR'S factory, the Labor Relations Division ordered a certification election to be conducted on May 21, 1986, a regular business day. - On May 19,1986, several factory workers of ADMACOR held a strike. No previous notice of strike was filed by the factory workers with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office. On May 20,1986, ADMACOR filed a petition for the indefinite resetting of the scheduled certification election, which petition was not acted upon by the Labor Relations Division. - On May 21, 1986, the scheduled certification election was conducted, despite the strike. Of the 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as their exclusive bargaining agent. On the same day, ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike and for illegal picketing. - On May 23, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification election conducted on May 21, 1986 as null and void on the ground that there being a strike by some workers in the premises of the factory on the day of the certification election, such day cannot be considered a regular business day, pursuant to Section 2, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, to wit: Section 2. Election conducted during regular business day. – The election shall be set during the regular business day of the company unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. - On August 5, 1986, the Med-Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR's complaint and certified SPFL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of ADMACOR. This dismissal was appealed by ADMACOR to the Bureau of Labor Relations. - public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja acting as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed the appeal of ADMACOR and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The motion for intervention filed by the Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR was denied for having been filed after the actual certification election had already been conducted. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution was also denied. These two resolutions are assailed in this petition for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. - Meanwhile, on January 26,1987, a decision on the twin complaints for illegal strike and illegal picketing was rendered by Labor Arbiter Tumamak declaring the strike as illegal - In this petition, ADMACOR questions the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations to resolve or determine the factual and legal basis of a strike in relation to the question of representation of employees. It said: What is directly in issue is the jurisdiction of the Bureau to rule, as it did, on the protest filed after the election by the petitioner. Petitioner's protest involves the regularity of the election, due to the contemporaneous, in fact, even antecedent conduct of an illegal strike. Instead of holding in abeyance the election protest so that the Labor-Arbiter could properly resolve the pending complaints, the Bureau rendered its assailed Resolutions in excess of its jurisdiction. The Bureau had assumed on its own an implied determination of the legality or illegality of the complaints. ISSUE WON the BLR had no jurisdiction in dismissing its protest against the certification election during the pendency of the case before the Labor Arbiter on the validity of the strike HELD NO.

Reasoning The question involving the legality of the strike which was conducted against ADMACOR is an independent issue, the resolution of which pertains to the Labor Arbiter. On the other hand, the issue of the validity of the certification election pertains solely to the Bureau of Labor Relations, originally, the MedArbiter and by way of appeal, to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. There was no overlapping by the Bureau of the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter on the question of legality, or illegality of the complained strike. The allegation that the Bureau assumed on its own an implied determination of said issue is belied by the fact that the assailed resolutions of respondent Director confined itself to the issue of the validity of the certification election. There was nothing in the assailed resolutions which contain any conclusion or ruling by the Bureau that the alleged strike was legal or illegal. What was resolved was whether or not there was compliance with the procedural requirement set by Section 2, Rule VI, Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election shall be set during a regular business day. - In answer to petition's contention that there being a strike on May 21, 1986, the day the certification election was held, said day cannot be considered a regular business day, the respondent Director ruled: Furthermore, anent complainant's contention that the certification election was conducted not on regular business day, the same is devoid of merit. The records further show that during the pre-election conference the contending parties agreed that the election should be conducted on May 21, 1986 which was, on that time, a determined regular business day of the company. This was in accordance with Section 2, Rule VI Book V, of the IRR of the Labor Code which explicitly provides that “The election shall be set during the regular business day of the company unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.” The alleged strike and/or picketing of some employees at the company's premises which coincided with the actual conduct of certification election might, perhaps have affected the actual performance of works by some employees, but did not necessarily make said date an irregular business day of the company to go against the aforesaid Rule. - In the first place, since petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Bureau when it filed its election protest before the Med-Arbiter, it cannot now be allowed to repudiate the same jurisdiction after failing to obtain affirmative relief. Moreover, it can not be denied that an actual election was conducted on said date where, of the 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for SPFL as its exclusive bargaining agent. In the "Minutes of the Certification Election among the Rank and File Employees of Asian Design Manufacturing Corp.", the representatives of the contending unions, and of the Ministry of Labor even attested that the election was peaceful and orderly and none of the parties registered any protest on any matter concerning the election proceedings. There is thus, no valid reason to annul the certification election. - also, a certification election is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. Thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. The pronouncement of this Court concerning management interference in certification elections is well worth repeating: On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the choice of a collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to say the least, deserves no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair of labor. Disposition ACCORDINGLY the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 126-

Disini

1. YES, valid. Reasoning Art.256 of the LC provides that in order to have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The CE results show that more than a majority (62 out of 98 eligible voters) cast their votes. Hence, the legal requirement was met.

d.

Validity

SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC v LAGUESMA (MNMPP) 267 SCRA 303 MENDOZA; JAN.31, 1997
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari FACTS - Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN) and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC). MNMPP filed a petition for CE (certification election) alleging that there were more or less 130 rank and file employees at the PPC whom it was seeking to represent. The petition for CE was initially dismissed by the Med-Arbiter but was approved on appeal to the Sec. of Labor (SoL). - In the subsequent pre-election conferences ordered by the DOLE, PPP repeatedly failed to appear despite being given sufficient notice and warning that should it fail to appear, the list of employees submitted by MNMPP would instead be used as basis for determining the eligible voters. - On Sept. 23, 1991, SAMAHAN and MNMPP agreed to hold the CE on Oct. 21, 1991 on the basis of the list of employees submitted by MNMPP without prejudice to the submission by petitioner SAMAHAN of its own list but both later agreed to postpone election to await the list of employees requested from the SSS. - On Sept. 10, 1992, upon motion of MNMPP, the CE was set for Oct.6, 1992, but SAMAHAN objected despite having earlier agreed to hold the election using the list furnished by the SSS, it also objected to the participation of a 3rd labor union, KAMAPI, which had field a motion for intervention. Thereafter, SAMAHAN filed a Manifestation/Motion that it was not participating in the CE and asked that the CE held on the same day be nullified. - The CE was finally held on Oct.6, 1992 and the results were: No. of Eligible Voters ................................98 Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (MNMPPP)...............................................56 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN)...........................................2 Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino.(KAMAPI)………….................... 0 No Union ...............................................1 No. of Spoiled Ballots cast ....................3 Total no of Votes Cast………………........62 - On Oct. 9, 1992 petitioner SAMAHAN protested the result alleging among others that there were discrepancies in the list of voters submitted by the SSS. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the election protest of SAMAHAN and upheld the result of the CE. After the SoL denied its appeal and affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision, SAMAHAN moved for a reconsideration which was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUES 1. WON the CE held on Oct. 6, 1982 was valid 2. WON it was proper to use the list of EEs furnished by the SSS as basis for determining the total no. of eligible voters in the bargaining unit.

2. YES. Ratio Whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union represents the majority of the rank and file employees, in the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification election is the most democratic method of determining the employees' choice of their bargaining representative. It is the appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the employees themselves. Reasoning Ideally, it should be the payroll which should have been used for the purpose of the election. However, the unjustified refusal of the company to submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts to make it produce it, compelled resort to the SSS list as the next best source of information. After all, the SSS list is a public record whose regularity is presumed. Moreover, as announced in UE Automotive Employees v Noriel, where it concerns the weight to be accorded to the wishes of the majority as expressed in an election conducted fairly and honestly, certain provisions that may be considered mandatory before the voting takes place become thereafter merely directory in order that the wishes of the electorate prevail - At all events petitioner must be deemed to have waived the objection based on this ground, considering that this objection was raised for the first time in petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's protest. At the latest, petitioner's objection to the use of the SSS should have been raised during the elections and formalized in its election protest. Disposition Petition for certiorari DENIED for lack of merit.

e. Period

Protest

TIMBUNGCO v CASTRO 183 SCRA 140 NARVASA; Mar 14 1990
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - Emmanuel Timbungco was the president of Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation composed of employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation. The union had a three-year collective bargaining agreement with AAATC, to expire August 24, 1984. - On July 15, 1984, a general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was convoked by Timbungco, where the disaffiliation of the Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and the amendment of its constitution and by-laws was unanimously approved. A new set of officers was also elected which included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without opposition. - On July 23, 1984 Timbungco submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the following documents: 1) a certified copy of the Kapisanan's amended constitution and by-laws; 2) an affidavit jointly executed by him and the union secretary declaring that the Kapisanan was the sole collective bargaining agent in AAATC; 3) a copy of the minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1984;

HELD

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 127-

Disini
G.R. No. 152094 PANGANIBAN; JULY 22, 2004

4) a copy of the Kapasiyahan (Resolution) of the rank and file members to disaffiliate from the Federacion FOITAF. - A new registration certificate was issued in due course to the Kapisanan, indicating its independence of Federacion FOITAF. - Then in the first week of September, 1985, Timbungco commenced negotiations for a new CBA with AAATC, which lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in the execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year CBA. - on April 8, 1986 Leodegario L. Zapanta, 1st National President of the Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO), sent a letter to the Bureau of Labor Relations advising it that the majority of the members of the Kapisanan had affiliated with ADLO. - on April 10, 1986, ADLO's Executive National Vice-President Tayo, wrote AAATC to the same effect and requested in view of the consequent loss by the Kapisanan of its status as recognized representative of the bargaining unit that AAATC stop deduction of union dues and thenceforth ignore and otherwise refuse to deal with Timbungco and his group. Another letter, also asking AAATC to stop deducting union dues, or hold such dues in trust pending resolution of the representation issue, was sent on April 12, 1986 by Delicano Pajares, a member of the Kapisanan. - AAATC replied and stated that it could not accede to the request to stop deduction of union dues since it had been dealing over many years with the Kapisanan as its workers' authorized bargaining representative. - On April 23, 1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan, alleging that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union officers. He also adverted to the existing collective bargaining agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC. - the Med-Arbiter issued an Order declaring invalid the election of union officers which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another election of union officers to be conducted in the premises of AAATC under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This was affirmed in toto by Bureau of Labor Relations Director Trajano. Timbungco's motion for reconsideration was denied. ISSUE WON the election of officers on July 15, 1984 it appearing that there is no record of the number of members who attended the meeting, the number of those who actually voted, and the number of votes obtained by each candidate, and that a COMELEC (committee on elections) had not been formed to supervise the election is valid. HELD Ratio Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election proceedings and must be decided by the latter within twenty (20) working days. Reasoning - private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same. In this case, the protest against the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of almost two (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the election. There was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results thereof. - It does not appear that the dispensing by the membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers. Disposition Petition is granted

NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45, seeking to annul the Decision, and the Resolution of the CA (w/c set aside decision of Usec of Labor) FACTS -Nov 25, 1997. A certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees of DHL Phils Corp. The choices were petitioner and “no union.” -Dec 19, 1997. Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE a Petition for the nullification of the certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by misrepresenting to the voteremployees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). -This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their selection of petitioner in the certification election. Supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an independent union (BUKLOD). -Dec 23, 1997. BUKLOD was issued a Certificate of Registration by DOLE. -Jan 19, 1998. The election officer issued certification order to DHL-URFA-FFW (on the basis of the results of the certification election, where petitioner got 546 votes and “no union” got 348 votes) -May 18, 1998. Med-Arbiter nullified the Nov 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the holding of another one with the following contending choices: DHL-URFA-FFF, BUKLOD, and “no choice.” -DOLE Usec Dimapilis-Baldoz set aside Med-Aribiter’s deicision. Said that the issue of representation had already been settled with finality in favor of petitioner, and that no petitions for certification election would be entertained within one year from the time the election officer had issued the Certification Order. -CA annulled and set aside Usec’s decision. CA: election officer’s issuance of a Certification Order on Jan 19, 1998 was precipitate because, prior thereto, respondent had filed with the med-arbiter a Petition for nullification of the election. Furthermore, the Certification was not in accordance with Dept Order No. 9 (1997). The charges of fraud and deceit, lodged immediately after the election by petitioner’s former members against their officers, should have been treated as protests or issues of eligibility within the meaning of Sec 13 of DO 9. ISSUE WON the Certification Election was valid HELD NO (Period of Protest) -The late filing of the Petition for a new election can be excused under the peculiar facts of this case, considering that the employees concerned did not sleep on their rights, but promptly acted to protect their prerogatives. Petitioner should not be permitted to use legal technicalities to perpetrate the betrayal foisted by its officers upon the majority of the employees.

DHL PHILS CORP UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOCFEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW) V BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILS CORP

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 128-

Disini

Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to suppress the welfare of labor. -Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, as amended, the election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings. Petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in rendering its assailed Decision, considering that no protest or challenge had been formalized within five days, or raised during the election proceedings and entered in the minutes thereof. Petitioner adds that respondent did not file any protest, either, against the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the former’s officers during the election. We disagree. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondent’s Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case. Respondent’s contention is that a number of employees were lured by their officers into believing that petitioner was an independent union. Since the employees had long desired to have an independent union that would represent them in collective bargaining, they voted “yes” in favor of petitioner. Having been misled, a majority of them eventually disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an independent union, which thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having been formed just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest within five days from the close of the election proceedings. (Notably, after it had applied for registration with the BLR, respondent filed its Petition to nullify the certification election. Petitioner opposed the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration at the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of the latter four days after the filing of the Petition, the misgivings of the former were brushed aside by the med-arbiter. Indeed, the fact that respondent was not yet a duly registered labor organization when the Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in its application for registration.) The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioner’s officers in the present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent and independent choice. Disposition Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED

Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Said order directed the holding of a certification election among the regular and seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc. - A series of pre-election conferences were held to discuss all issues relative to the conduct of the certification election, except that which pertains to the voting qualifications of the 194 workers enumerated in the lists of qualified voters submitted by TUPAS. - After a late submission of the parties of their respective position papers, Mod-Arbiter Base issued an Order (dated December 9, 1988) which allowed 184 of the 194 questioned workers to vote, subject to challenge, in the certification election to be held on December 16, 1989. Parties were furnished copies of the order. - December 12, 1988 - The notice of certification election was duly posted. 168 of the questioned workers actually voted on election day. - In the scheduled certification election, petitioner PFVI objected to the proceeding, through a Manifestation filed with the Representation Officer before the close of the election proceedings. The Manifestation outlined the following allegations: - The posting of the list of eligible voters authorized to participate in the certification election was short of the 5 day requirement provided by law. It was posted only on December 12, 1988 and the election was held on December 16, 1988, only four days prior to the scheduled certification election. - By agreement of PFVI and TUPAS, workers whose names were inadvertently omitted in the list of qualified voters were allowed to vote subject to challenge. Thirty eight of them voted on election day. - The ‘yes’ votes failed to obtain the majority of the votes cast in said certification election. Hence it was necessary that the 168 challenged votes be opened to determine the true will of the employees. - January 20, 1989 – PFVI filed a position paper arguing against the opening of said votes mainly because said voters were neither regular employees nor seasonal workers because they allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days. - TUPAS, on the other hand, argued that the employment status of said employees has been resolved when Labor Arbiter Martinez declared that said employees were illegally dismissed. - In an Order dated February 2, 1989 Med-Arbiter Base ordered the opening of said 168 challenged votes upon his observation that said employees were illegally dismissed in accordance with the foregoing Decision of Labor Arbiter Martinez. ‘Yes’ votes amounted to 165. - February 23, 1989 - PFVI formally filed a Protest, claiming that the required 5-day posting of notice was not allegedly complied with and that the list of qualified voters so posted failed to include 55 regular workers agreed upon by the parties as qualified to vote. The Protest further alleged that those ineligible to vote were allowed to vote. ISSUE WON the DOLE secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the certification of TUPAS as the sole bargaining agent mainly on an erroneous ruling that the protest against the canvassing of the votes cast by 168 dismissed workers was filed beyond the reglementary period HELD NO Ratio The phrase “close of election proceeding” as used in Sections 3 and 4 of the pertinent Implementing Rules (Rule 6, Book 5) refers to that period from the closing of the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes as it could not have been the intention of the Implementing Rules to include in the term “close of the election proceedings” the period for the final determination of the challenged votes and the canvassing since it may take a very long period of time. Reasoning

f.

Appeal

PHIL. FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES V TORRES 211 SCRA 95 PARAS; July 3, 1992
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment FACTS - October 13, 1988 - Med-Arbiter Base issued an order which granted the petition for certification election filed by the Trade Union of the

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 129-

Disini

- Section 3 of the Implementing Rules state: “The Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protest shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.” - Section 4 reads: “Where the protest is formalized before the medarbiter within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings, the med-arbiter shall decide same the within 20 working days from the date of formal action. If not formalized within the prescribed period, the protest shall be deemed dropped. The decision may be appealed to the Bureau in the same manner and on the same grounds as provided under Rule 5.” - Rule 5 provides that “the following requirements in order that a protest filed thereunder would prosper, to wit: (1) The protest must be filed with the representation officer and made of record in the minutes of the proceedings before the close of election proceedings, and (2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within 5 days after the close of the election proceedings.” - PFVI, after filing a manifestation of protest on election day on December 16, 1988, only formalized the same on February 20, 1989, or more than two months after the close of election proceedings. - PFVI’s arguments that election proceedings include not only casting of votes but necessarily includes canvassing and appreciation of votes cast do not hold water. If the argument were to be entertained that canvassing and appreciation of all the votes cast were terminated only on February 16, 1989 and it was only then that the election proceedings were deemed closed, it can still be said that when the formal protest was filed on February 20, 1989, the five-day period within which to file the formal protest still subsisted and its protest was therefore formalized within the reglementary period. - With regard to the argument that the notice of holding a certification election was posted only 4 days before the actual election, the Court held that a substantial number of voters turned up. Viewed thus in the light of the substantial participation in the elections by voter-employees, and further in the light of the rule a liberal approach be taken in interpreting the Constitution's protection to labor and social justice provisions and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Court ruled that the lack of one day in the posting of notices was insignificant and not compelling enough to nullify the elections. Disposition Dismissed for lack of merit

- Meanwhile, another union, the Filsystem Workers Union (FWU), filed a Petition for Certification Election in the same bargaining unit. - The Med-Arbitration - NCR Branch granted the petition. - The certification election held on April 19, 1996, was won by FWU. The FWU was certified on April 29, 1996, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of private respondent. Eventually, FWU and the private respondent negotiated a CBA. - Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of petitioner as it has become moot and academic. - In opposing the Motion to Dismiss Appeal, petitioner contended that its appeal is not moot as the certification election held on April 19, 1996, was void for violating Section 10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, viz:
SEC. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. - The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.

- Petitioner further argued that the CBA executed between the FWU and the private respondent could not affect its pending representation case following Section 4, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code which states:
SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements. - The representation case shall not, however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.

- Respondent Secretary dismissed the appeal interposed by petitioner on the ground that it has been rendered moot by the certification of FWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of respondent company. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. ISSUE 1. WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when he affirmed the Resolution of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for certification election for failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. 2. WON the appeal filed by the petitioner was rendered moot and academic by the subsequent certification election ordered by the Med-Arbiter, won by the FWU and which culminated in a CBA with private respondent. HELD 1. YES. - Firstly, it must be underscored that petitioner is an independently registered labor union as evidenced by a Certificate of Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate labor organization, petitioner’s right to file a petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. - Secondly, the failure of petitioner to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file said petition for certification election as an independent union. At the most, petitioner's failure will result in an ineffective affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. Still, however, it can pursue its petition for certification election as an independent union. Despite affiliation, the local union remains the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members and pursue its own interests independently of the federation. 2. NO. - The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for certification election was seasonably appealed. The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election. Section 10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code is crystal clear and hardly needs any interpretation. - Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was entered between FWU and private respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will not prejudice petitioner's pending representation case or render the same moot. - The Court bewail private respondent's tenacious opposition to petitioner's certification election petition. Such a stance is not

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FILSYSTEMS V SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (FILSYSTEMS, INC.) 290 SCRA 680 PUNO; June 5, 1998
FACTS - Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFILNAFLU-KMU), a registered labor union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent FILSYSTEMS, Inc. before the DOLE - NCR - Respondent opposed the petition. It questioned the status of petitioner as a legitimate labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) within thirty (30) days from its execution. - Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap dismissed the petition for certification election. He ruled that petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no legal personality. - Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. It reiterated its contention that as an independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. - Respondent opposed the appeal. It argued that petitioner should have filed its petition for certification election as an independently registered union and not as a union affiliated with NAFLU-KMU.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 130-

Disini

conducive to industrial peace. When a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy for the employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it. An employer that involves itself in a certification election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company union. Disposition Petition GRANTED.

NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA v LAGUESMA 433 SCRA 224 PANGANIBAN; June 29, 2004
NATURE -Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court FACTS -October 14, 1991: Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers & Employees Union (NGMTEU), a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and registered with the DOLE, filed with the Med-Arbitration Branch a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file employees of NDGM. -November 18, 1991: Med-Arbiter issued an order granting the petition for certification election and directing the representation officer to undertake a pre-election conference, taking into account two choices: NDGMTEU or no union. -January 8, 1992: pre-election conference was conducted wherein parties agreed, among others, that the certification election shall be conducted on January 18, 1992 from 10:00am to 2:00pm and that the eligible voters shall be ‘those employees appearing in the list submitted by management as agreed upon by the parties by affixing their signatures on said list.’ -January 13, 1992: NDGM registered a motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters. On the same day, Med-Arbiter Falconitin denied said motion by handwritten notation on the motion itself. -January 17, 1992: NDGM filed an appeal from the said handwritten ‘order’ excluding probationary and substitute employees from the list of voters. -January 18, 1992: certification election results: YES-56 and NO-23 with 4 segregated ballots and 1 spoiled ballot. Against this conduct of elections and its results, NDGM filed a written notice of protest. -January 27, 1992: a motion seeking the certification of NDGMTEU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of NDGM was filed. This was approved by Med-Arbiter on March 16, 1992. -March 30, 1992: NDGM lodged an appeal from the order of certification. USec Laguesma dismissed it for lack of merit, and rejected MFR. -CA dismissed petition for certiorari, denied MFR. It ruled 1. that Med-Arbiter Falconitin’s notation on petitioner’s "Motion to Include Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters" was not an order that could be the subject of an appeal to the SOLE. 2. that NDGM was deemed to have abandoned its appeal of the notation when it filed another one on March 30, 1992, also with the labor secretary. Thus, the holding of the certification election was unnecessary. 3. that complaints regarding the conduct of the certification election should have been raised with the registration officer before the close of the proceedings. 4. that NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the workers who should be included in the list of voters because, in the process of choosing their collective bargaining representative, the employer was definitely an intruder. ISSUES WON the holding of the certification election was stayed by NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation on the Motion to Include the Probationary and Substitute Employees in the List of Qualified Voters.

HELD Unless it has filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, an employer has no standing to question such election or to interfere therein. Being the sole concern of the workers, the election must be free from the influence or reach of the company. -Art. 259, LC pertains not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification election. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. Interlocutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any issue arising therefrom may be raised in the appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition. -The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the issuance of Dept Order No. 40: Under the new rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. -This new rule decreases or limits the appeals that may impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative. Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policymaking processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare. -Joya v. PCGG: Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act that is being challenged. The term ‘interest’ is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. -Clearly, NDGM did not and will not sustain direct injury as a result of the non-inclusion of some of its employees in the certification election. Hence, it does not have any material interest in this case. Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the voters’ list. -To buttress its locus standi to question the certification election, petitioner argues that it has the support of all the excluded employees. This support was made known to the representation officer in a letter stating the employees’ desire to participate in the certification election. True, all employees should be given an opportunity to make known their choice of who shall be their bargaining representative. Such provision, however, does not clothe the employer with the personality to question the certification election. -The employer is the adversary in the collective bargaining process. Precisely, the institution of collective bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For if it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is partial to one of the contending [choices in the election]. -SC would be the last agency to support an attempt to interfere with a purely internal affair of labor. The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of certification elections were enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 131-

Disini

to determine their own bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees’ rights under the law. They should not in any way affect, much less stay, the holding of a certification election by the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice. Disposition Petition denied. CA affirmed. Costs against NDGM.

DISPOSITION The petition is granted. Resolution of the Office of the DOLE Secretary is affirmed.

g.

Annulment

Allegations/Grounds

SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION-FEBRUARY SIX MOVEMENT V TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 428 SCRA 524 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 19, 2004
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the CA. FACTS - The controversy arose from a petition for certification election filed with the Med-Arbitration Section, DOLE, Calamba, Laguna by petitioner SMC. The petitioner alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization that seeks to represent the regular rank-and-file workers at Titan Megabags (respondent). - Respondent opposed the petition, saying that members of petitioner union are not its employees but of Stitchers Multipurpose Cooperative (SMC), an independent contractor. SMC was contracted to sew the industrial bags. - The Med-Arbiter held that the respondent corporation is the employer of the members, and directed that a certification election be conducted by its rank-and-file. - On appeal, DOLE Secretary affirmed in toto Med-Arbiter’s Order re: pushing through with the certification election. - Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by office of DOLE Secretary for being late by seven days. - Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with CA, alleging that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that an employer-employee relation existed between respondent and member of petitioner union. The CA set aside the resolutions of the Office of the DOLE secretary, and disallowed the certification election. ISSUE 1. HOW an appeal is made for certification election proceedings. HELD Procedure Ratio The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of Secretary of DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under RULE 65 of the Rules. Without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed, the resolution becomes final and executory. Art. 259, LC: any party to a certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Artbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within 15 calendar days. Sec. 15, Rule XI, Book V, LC IRR: the Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory. Upon finality of the Decision, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation, unless restrained by appropriate court. - Even if there was no procedural flaw, still the CA should have denied respondent’s petition for certiorari. In certification elections, the employer is a bystander. It has no right or material interest to assail the certification election. When a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative.

UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION v NORIEL (EDUVALA, GATCORD) 67 SCRA 267 FERNANDO, J.; October 3, 1975
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside a certification election FACTS - petitioner United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines (UEUGIP) alleged that in a pre-election conference held by the BLR, it was agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot as UEUGIP. However, it was deleted in the notice of the certification election and in the sample ballot and replaced with a non-contending party. Petitioner did not file a complaint regarding this, but it filed a grievance referring to alleged electioneering of nuns as observers or inspectors in behalf of respondent GATCORD. - GATCORD won the certification election with 63% of the votes while UEUGIP got 4.5%. Even if all the votes of the 7 losing unions were added, they would still be 1,823 votes short of GATCORD's votes. - There was some confusion as to the leadership of UEUGIP as a faction of UEUGIP, represented by a Mr. Diaz, clashed with Mr. Escreza, UEUGIP's duly elected president. Mr. Diaz then claimed to have joined another union but later claimed once again to represent UEUGIP. ISSUE/S 1. WON the certification election should be set aside 2. WON the presence of nuns and a priest is electioneering HELD 1. NO Ratio What is significant in a certification election is that employees are given the opportunity to know who shall represent them. Reasoning The grievance complained of is more fancied than real. UEUGIP has little support & could not match GATCORD. The majority must rule in a certification election. 2. NO Ratio The wide latitude accorded religious groups in the exercise of their freedom cautions against reliance on such a ground to invalidate a certification election. Reasoning That petitioner chose not to press this point is understandable. Contractual rights, even labor matters, must yield to religious freedom. Disposition Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR V SECRETARY 287 SCRA 599 MENDOZA; March 19, 1998
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 132-

Disini

- A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file employees of the Hijo Plantation. The resulting choice was “ no union”. However, the results were nullified because of allegations that the company intervened in the elections. - A new election was held. National Federation of Labor (NFL) won. - The Trust Union Society and Trade Workers-KILUSAN (TRUSTKilusan), the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP), the Hijo Labor Union and the Hijo Plantation, Inc (HPI) sought the nullification of the results of the certification election on the ground that it was conducted despite the pendency of the appeals filed by Hijo Labor Union and ULGWP from the order, dated August 17, 1989, of the Med-Arbiter denying their motion for intervention. They claim that only 54% of the workers voted. HPI claimed that it was not informed or properly represented at the pre-election conference. - Acting Labor Secretary dela Serna directed Arbiter Pura to investigate. The latter found irregularities. - The Arbiter summoned the unions for a hearing. - The DOLE then upheld the election. It did no give weight to the investigation of the Arbiter. Accordingly, the Labor Secretary denied the petition to annul the election filed by the ULGWP, TRUST-KILUSAN, HLU and the HPI. However, on motion of HPI, the Secretary of Labor, on reversed his resolution. ISSUE/S 1. WON respondent company can file a petition to nullify the elections. 2. WON protests concerning the election should be registered and entered into the minutes of the election proceedings before it can be considered and it should be formalized within 5 days 3. WON the contending unions are estopped from questioning the election 4. WON the letter appeals were credible HELD 1. Yes. Reasoning What the DOLE Secretary considered in reversing its earlier rulings was not the petition of the employer but the letter-appeals that the employees sent to his office denouncing the irregularities committed during the certification election. The petition of private respondent was simply the occasion for the employees to voice their protests against the election. Nor is it improper for private respondent to show interest in the conduct of the election. Private respondent is the employer. The manner in which the election was held could make the difference between industrial strife and industrial harmony in the company. What an employer is prohibited from doing is to interfere with the conduct of the certification election for the purpose of influencing its outcome. 2. No. Reasoning The complaint in this case was that a number of employees were not able to cast their votes because they were not properly notified of the date. They could not therefore have filed their protests within five (5) days. At all events, the Solicitor General states, that the protests were not filed within five (5) days, is a mere technicality which should not be allowed to prevail over the workers' welfare

4. YES Reasoning The records shows that as early as August 22 and 30, 1989, employees already wrote letters/affidavits alleging irregularities in the elections and disfranchisement of workers. These were attached to respondent’s petition just 16 days after the election. It is not true therefore that the employees slept on their rights. As to the claim that letters dated May 7, 1991 and June 14, 1991 bear these same dates because they were prepared by private respondent HPI and employees were merely asked to sign them, suffice it to say that this is plain speculation which petitioner has not proven by competent evidence. As to the letters not being verified, suffice it to say that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Disposition Petition is denied.

DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File Association-Federation of Free Workers v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phil. Corp. 434 SCRA 670 Panganiban; July 22, 2004
Nature Petition for review on certiorari Facts -A certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees in the main office and the regional branches of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were DHL Phil. Corp. United Rank and File Association-Federation of Free Workers (DHL) and “no union.” Election officer certified DHL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of the corporation. Later, Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for the nullification of the certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly by misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their selection of DHL in the certification election. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled allegedly withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an independent union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of Registration by DOLE. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the November 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the holding of another one with the following contending choices: DHL, Buklod, and “no choice.” DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz held on appeal that the issue of representation had already been settled with finality in favor of DHL, and that no petitions for certification election would be entertained within one year from the time the election officer had issued the Certification Order. -CA held that the withdrawal of a great majority of the members of petitioner -- 704 out of 894 of them -- provided a compelling reason to conduct a certification election anew in order to determine, once and for all, which union reflected their choice. A new certification election is called for. Issue WON the certification election is valid Held Yes, it is valid. Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V (Labor Relations) of the Labor Code, as amended, the election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings. Further, Section 14 of the same

3. No. Reasoning

In its comment, ATU-TUCP states, that “the representative of the Association of Trade Unions really attest to the fact that we cannot really identify all the voters who voted on that election except some workers who were our supporters in the absence of Hijo Plantation representatives. We also attest that the polling precinct were not conducive to secrecy of the voters since it was conducted outside of the Company premises. The precincts where the election was held were located in a passenger waiting shed infront of the canteen across the road; on the yellow pick-up; at the back of a car; a waiting shed near the Guard House and a waiting shed infront of the Guard House across the road. Herein private respondents also observed during the election that there were voters who dictated some voters the phrase "number 3" to those who were casting their votes and those who were about to vote. Number 3 refers to the National Federation of Labor in the official ballot. - ATU-TUCP explains that it did not file any protest because it expected workers who had been aggrieved by the conduct of the election would file their protest since it was in their interests that they do so.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 133-

Disini

Rules provides that when a protest has been perfected, only the medarbiter can proclaim and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is based on the election officer’s function, which is merely to conduct and supervise certification elections. It is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents occurring during the campaign is within the med-arbiter’s discretion. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondent’s Petition for nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have deferred issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case. Employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioner’s officers in the present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent and independent choice. The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the free choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the campaign, where 1) a material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an opportunity for reply has been lacking; and 3) the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in the election. A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on their free choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, especially when the employees are unable to evaluate the truth or the falsity of the assertions. -The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, misrepresented it to the voting employees as an independent union constituted a substantial misrepresentation of material facts of vital concern to those employees. The materiality of such misrepresentation is self-evident. The employees wanted an independent union to represent them in collective bargaining, free from outside interference. Thus, upon knowing that petitioner was in fact an affiliate of the FFW, the members disaffiliated from petitioner and organized themselves into an independent union. Additionally, the misrepresentation came from petitioner’s recognized representative, who was clearly in a position to hold himself out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an authoritative position to know the true facts. Although petitioner won in the election, it is now clear that it does not represent the majority of the bargaining employees, owing to the affiliation of its members with respondent. The present uncertainty as to which union has their support to represent them for collective bargaining purposes is a salient factor that this Court has seriously considered. The bargaining agent must be truly representative of the employees. At the time of the filing by respondent of the Petition for nullification, allegiances and loyalties of the employees were like shifting sands that radically affected their choice of an appropriate bargaining representative. The polarization of a good number of them followed their discovery of the fraud committed by the officers of petitioner. The purpose of a certification election is precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an appropriate bargaining unit -- to be or not to be represented by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which one. Once disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which union should be the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. Disposition Petition denied

NATURE Special civil action of certiorari and prohibition FACTS - Confederation of Labor Unions (CCLU) was 1 of 4 unions wanting to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation (RTMC) with place of business in Pasig, MM. Its copetitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association, (RELA) is a CCLU local in the said corporation. The other unions were the National Union of Garments Textile and General Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) the National Trade Union (NATU) and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU). - On Aug. 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the premises of the corporation. As no union obtained a majority vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the2 largest number of votes, agreed that a run-off election would be held on Nov. 6, 1980. - On Nov. 6, 1980, 3 election supervisors from the MOLE arrived but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain. Said election supervisors decided to hold the certification election "outside the premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex building" They used as ballot box "an improvised carton box." The union representatives did not object to the improvised polling place and ballot box. - Just before election was closed at 6:30PM, the ALU representative, Taneo, executed a written protest or manifestation, alleging that the management of Redson Textile did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises; that the company prevented 50% of workers from voting by not allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing them to work OT; that its security guards "manhandled" the ALU VP and that their "active intervention" caused "chaos and confusion" for around 30mins; that the company refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot box and that the election supervisors declared the election closed in spite of ALU's objection. - ALU nevertheless won, and because of this, Taneo withdrew his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn "before the close of the proceedings". CCLU representatives refused to sign the minutes of the election. - Fresnoza, CCLU representative, filed protest with BLR and alleged that the certification election was irregular and disorderly because, among others, (a) no booths were provided for by the company; (b) the election started much later than the hour agreed upon by the parties, and prayed that the certification election be annulled. - Noriel, OIC of BLR, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit. He also denied CCLU's MFR, certified ALU as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. Hence this petition. ISSUE WON the certification election was valid HELD NO - The certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift (10p.m. to 6a.m.) and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote; (2) the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded; (3) the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently "intimidated" by a union representative and (4) the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts. - The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer" That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to

Irregularities CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNION V NORIEL 116 SCRA 694 AQUINO; September 21, 1982

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 134-

Disini

vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election. Disposition Petition GRANTED. The resolutions of the Officer-inCharge of the Bureau of Labor Relations are hereby set aside.

TIMBUNGCO V CASTRO 183 SCRA 140 NARVASA; March 14, 1990
NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - The petitioner, Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of Kapisanan, composed of employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation. The union had a three-year collective bargaining agreement with said Corporation. The stipulated expiration date was August 24, 1984. - On July 15, 1984 or within the so-called "freedom period" of sixty (60) days - a general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was convoked by Timbungco. At that meeting the body unanimously approved, among others, the disaffiliation of the Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and the amendment of its constitution and by-laws. A new set of officers was also elected which included Timbungco, who was re-elected president without opposition. These events are set forth in the minutes drawn up by the Kapisanan's Secretary, which also recorded that the body had agreed to dispense with the formation of a COMELEC and the preparation of a tally sheet showing the number of votes received by each candidate, the members simply having entered individual nominations to the different positions and listed their choices therefor. Timbungco thereafter submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the necessary documents. In the first week of September, 1985, Timbungco commenced negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement with the representatives of AAATC. The negotiations lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in the execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year collective bargaining agreement. - On April 23,1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan. He alleged that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union officers. He also adverted to the existing collective bargaining agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC. - After appropriate proceedings, Med-Arbiter L. Reynante issued an Order dated July 3, 1986 declaring invalid the election of union officers which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another election of union officers to be conducted in the premises of AAATC under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This Order was, on appeal, affirmed in toto in a Resolution rendered by Bureau of Labor Relations. Timbungco's motion for reconsideration was denied. ISSUE WON the election of officers of July 15, 1984 is valid, although there is no record of the number of members who attended the meeting, the number of those who actually voted, and the number of votes obtained by each candidate, and that a COMELEC had not been formed to supervise the election. HELD YES - In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers. In the second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points out, the private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must be deemed

in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election proceedings and must be decided by the latter within (20) working days. In this case, the protest against the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of almost (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the election. Indeed, there was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results thereof, for during that period of almost (2) years, certain significant events took place without demur or objection of any sort on the part of private respondents and the rest of the members of the Kapisanan: Timbungco officially made known to the Bureau of Labor Relations the Kapisanan's disaffiliation from the Federacion FOITAF and obtained a new certificate of registration for the union after complying with the requisites prescribed therefor; he and the other officers of the Kapisanan negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded in bringing about the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement which was afterwards filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations in accordance with pertinent regulations; and Timbungco and the entire membership of the Kapisanan accepted benefits granted and assumed the obligations set out in said collective bargaining agreement. Disposition Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations are nullified and set side.

6.5.

ART. workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. - The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decisionmaking processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

CERTIFICATION OF DESIGNATED MAJORITY UNION bargaining representation and 255. Exclusive

ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. - In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 135-

Disini

Majority Union
(A256 continued) no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.vir At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION 494 SCRA 195 CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
FACTS -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees. This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements. -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification election was denied. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’ refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union however suddenly went on strike -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll. -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages of union members. ISSUE 1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and not for all the employees of the Hotel. HELD 1) No. -As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. -The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner, hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf -Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code. -the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and conditions of work”

ILO Convention No. 135 Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971
Article 1 Workers' representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers' representative or on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. Article 2 1. Such facilities in the undertaking shall be afforded to workers' representatives as may be appropriate in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. 2. In this connection account shall be taken of the characteristics of the industrial relations system of the country and the needs, size and capabilities of the undertaking concerned. 3. The granting of such facilities shall not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned. Article 3 For the purpose of this Convention the term workers' representatives means persons who are recognised as such under national law or practice, whether they are-(a) trade union representatives, namely, representatives designated or elected by trade unions or by members of such unions; or (b) elected representatives, namely, representatives who are freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance with provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective agreements and whose functions do not include activities which are recognised as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in the country concerned. Article 4 National laws or regulations, collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions may determine the type or types of workers' representatives which shall be entitled to the protection and facilities provided for in this Convention. Article 5 Where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures shall be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives and to encourage co-operation on all relevant matters between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and their representatives. Article 6 Effect may be given to this Convention through national laws or regulations or collective agreements, or in any other manner consistent with national practice.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 136-

Disini
Meanwhile, the Labor Arbiter which was filed by Abuana ruled that the retrenchment effected by MMC on 07 May 1996 and 07 October 1996 were valid and legal. Dissatisfied by the Quisumbing and Trajano orders, petitioner MMC filed a petition for certiorari before this Court In a resolution dated 06 July 1998 (Resolution), this Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the then Secretary of DOLE Quisumbing did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing his order dated 30 July 1997. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the Resolution. On 11 September 1998, NAMAWU filed a Motion for Partial Execution with the DOLE which was not acted upon due to the pendency of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. During the pendency of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the decision in St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission was promulgated. Following the ruling in said case, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of our resolution dated 06 July 1998 was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. On 14 June 1999, the appellate court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. On 10 February 2000, NAMAWU filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Second Motion for Execution with the Secretary of DOLE. The motion also sought assistance from the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) in the computation of the awards/benefits due NAMAWU’s members under the Quisumbing order. On 25 July 2000, the BWC submitted to the DOLE its findings and observation, coming up with a computation in the aggregate amount of One Hundred Fifty-Nine Million, Fifty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-One and 30/100 (P159,054,971.30) Pesos for loss of time, benefits, rice subsidy, health insurance bonus and backwages of union members who were illegally dismissed. Petitioner filed a comment to the BWC findings on 08 September 2000, stating that the BWC computation was erroneous for the following reasons: (1) there is no legal basis for the computation of backwages because the Trajano order deleted the award of backwages made in the Quisumbing order; (2) the entitlement to backwages of the employees retrenched in May and October 1996 would be dependent on the resolution of the cases for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice; and (3) the wage increase awarded by the Secretary cannot be availed of by the other employees who were not retrenched in May and October 1996. On 18 November 2000, 149 employees of petitioner who claimed were part of the 215 members of NAMAWU filed a Motion for Intervention With Prior Leave before the Office of the Secretary of DOLE. In an order dated 09 May 2001, DOLE Acting Secretary Arturo D. Brion granted NAMAWU’s motion for execution, approved BWC’s computation of the benefits due to the laid-off employees and denied the motion for intervention Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On 11 May 2001, then DOLE Acting Secretary Brion issued a Partial Writ of Execution, directing to proceed to the MMC premises for the execution of the same. In an order dated o6 June 2001, Acting Secretary Brion denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. With the denial of petitioner’s motion, Carlos G. Nerja, Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras, who claimed to represent the 342 employees of petitioner at that time and who

- Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike. TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union

-

MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION V. BRION 482 SCRA 87 CHICO-NAZARIO: January 9, 2006
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court FACTS: Petitioner Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC) is a domestic corporation engaged in mining business and operation, while private respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of petitioner. On 29 January 1996, NAMAWU submitted its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposals to petitioner. Due to petitioner’s inaction to the proposals submitted by NAMAWU, the latter filed on 19 March 1996, its first Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Bacolod City, for refusal to bargain and Unfair Labor Practice. Eventually, petitioner presented its counter-proposals and started the CBA negotiations. While the negotiations were going on, petitioner dismissed some workers effective 06 May 1996. NAMAWU filed a second Notice of Strike for Unfair Labor Practice against petitioner. While the NCMB Bacolod City was conducting conciliation meetings, petitioner issued Notices of Temporary Lay-off to its selected rank and file employees effective 07 October 1996. One of the employees, Abuana, filed an individual case of illegal dismissal. After the NCMB failed to conciliate the labor dispute between NAMAWU and petitioner, then Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing, on 03 October 1996, assumed jurisdiction over the case In an order dated 30 July 1997 (Quisumbing order), Secretary Quisumbing resolved the labor dispute in favor of NAMAWU: (1) directing the reinstatement with backwages of the workers laid-off in May and October 1996; (2) finding petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice; (3) directing the parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement incorporating all the terms and conditions of the previous bargaining agreement; and (4) providing for across-the-board increase of all rank-and-file workers. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by succeeding DOLE Secretary Cresenciano Trajano in an order dated 17 April 1998 (Trajano order). The Trajano order modified the Quisumbing order as follows: (1) setting aside the finding of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice and remanding these issues to the arbitration level of the NLRC for a hearing on the merits; and (2) deleting the award of backwages for the workers to be reinstated. Pending resolution of the issue of unfair labor practice and illegal termination, the Company is directed to physically reinstate all workers, whether union members or not who were laid-off on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996. The Executive Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, National Labor Relations Commission, is hereby deputized as Hearing Officer and is directed to conduct hearing/s and receive evidence as expeditiously as possible on the issues of unfair labor practice and terminations effected by the Company on May 7, 1996 and October 7, 1996, and to submit his Report and Recommendation to this Office within ten (10) days from termination of the hearing.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 137-

Disini

-

allegedly stand to be adversely affected by the enforcement of the Partial Writ of Execution, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals NAMAWU filed a motion for consolidation of the two petitions which was granted by the appellate court in its order dated 12 November 2001. The Court of Appeals dispose of the two petitions by dismissing them in a Decision dated 24 January 2002. Motions for reconsiderations were filed, which the Court of Appeals denied in an order dated 18 March 2003. Carlos G. Nerja, Jr. and Eugenio D. Caras filed a petition for review before this Court which was dismissed on 09 June 2003.

- At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. - According to the foregoing provision, for a union to become an exclusive bargaining representative of a particular establishment, it must emerge as winner in a certification election. In the case at bar, there was no certification election held challenging the majority status of NAMAWU as the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner’s employees. NAMAWU, therefore, remains the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner’s employees and possesses legal standing to represent them. Dispositive: Petition denied

ISSUE/S: 1. WON the CA erred in not ruling that the Trajano order modified the Quisumbing order and thus, Brion abused his discretion in ordering and issuing a writ of execution based on the Quisumbing order 2. WON the CA erred in not ruling that NAMAWU had no legal standing to seek the implementation of the assailed orders given that majority of its total membership has chosen to disaffiliate HELD: 1. NO Reasoning It must be noted that the Trajano order omitted the findings of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal and the award of backwages which were embodied in the Quisumbing order. Since we upheld entirely the findings in the Quisumbing order, i.e., illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, award of backwages, reinstatement and wage increase in our Resolution, as a result the Trajano order is necessarily vacated. Furthermore, the dispositive portion could not have been clearer as it categorically declares that the Secretary of Labor, i.e., Leonardo Quisumbing, did not commit grave abuse in his order dated 30 July 1997, thus: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of showing that the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion in his order of July 30, 1997. The order that we sustained in the foregoing fallo is the Quisumbing order which is dated 30 July 1997, and definitely not the Trajano order which is dated 17 April 1998. Even if we did not explicitly annul the Trajano order, nevertheless the tenor of the Resolution’s dispositive portion indubitably decreed that we sustained the order dated 30 July 1997 or the Quisumbing order. Indeed, it is the dispositive part of the judgment that actually settles and declares the rights and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, authoritatively, notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent statements in the body that may tend to confuse. It is the dispositive part that controls, for purposes of execution. Hence, there is no doubt that it was the Quisumbing order, not the Trajano order, that we upheld in our Resolution and which should be the basis of the writ of execution. 2. NO Reasoning Article 256 of the Labor Code partly provides: REPRESENTATION ISSUE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS. In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. xxxx

TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v LAGUESMA 236 SCRA 586 PUNO; September 21, 1994
FACTS - Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election with the Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a bargaining representative for the rank-and-file employees of the Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able to secure a Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor organization. - It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition, Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by DOLE as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rankand-file employees of Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged between Transunion and ILO-Phils covering the company's rankand-file employees. The CBA was ratified. When the President of ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union conflict followed and the subject CBA was filed with DOLE, for registration purposes, only 3 months from its execution. The Certification of Registration was issued by DOLE. - ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the existing CBA between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed that the petition for certification election should be entertained only during the freedom period, or sixty days before the expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground of prematurity. - TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the Labor Code, the prohibition against certification election under Article 232 of the same Code should not apply to third parties such as petitioner. - The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter. The MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied. ISSUE 1. WON a certification election may be conducted 2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30day period prescribed under Article 231 HELD 1. NO It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILOPHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS. "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification election be conducted, outside of the sixty-day freedom period immediately before the expiry date of the five-year term of the CBA.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 138-

Disini

2.YES Articles 231 and 232 of the Labor Code read: "Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements. ---- . . . . "Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment for registration accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from its submission. "xxx xxx xxx" "Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. ---- The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code." Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads: "Art. 253-A. Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . ." It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the CBA within 30 days from date of execution under Article 231 was not met. The subject CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It was ratified on December 8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for registration purposes on March 14, 1990. Be that as it may, the delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently explained, i.e., there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed to the presidency of ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE only on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume, as what petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only on April 30, 1990, as 5 days before its registration, on the unsupported surmise that it was done to suit the law that enjoins Regional Offices of DOLE to act upon an application for registration of a CBA within five 5 days from its receipt thereof. In the absence of any substantial evidence that DOLE officials or personnel, in collusion with private respondent, had antedated the filing date of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance of official functions holds. More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural requirement should not adversely affect the substantive validity of the CBA between ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corp. covering the company's rank and file employees. A collective bargaining agreement is more than a contract. It is highly impressed with public interest for it is an essential instrument to promote industrial peace. Hence, it bears the blessings not only of the employer and employees concerned but even the Department of Labor and Employment. To set it aside on technical grounds is not conducive to the public good. ART. 255. EXCLUSIVE 6.6. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ BARGAINING participation in policy and decision-making. - The labor organization REPRESENTATIVE the majority of AND designated or selected by the employees inINDIVIDUAL WORKER unit shall be the an appropriate collective bargaining exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Effect of Certification National v. San Miguel (pending)

6.7.

BARS TO ELECTION

CERTIFICATION

1. One Year Bar Rule Period Covered R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION V LAGUESMA 227 SCRA 827 QUIASON; November 16, 1993
NATURE Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 RoC, seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Undersecretary of the DOLE affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for the conduct of the certification election, and denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration FACTS - January 4, 1991- respondent Christian Labor Organization of the pHilippines (CLOP) filed with Med-Arbitration Unit of DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of petitioner. - April 8, 1991- Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent did not include all the eligible employees of petitioner, but only the drivers, conductors and conductresses, excluding inspectors, dispatchers, mechanics, washerboys. - May 10, 1991- respondent CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a second petition for certification election, which included all the rank and file employees of the company who hold nonmanagerial and non –supervisorial positions. ISSUE/S WON the second petition for certification election should have been filed after one year from the dismissal of the first petition certification election under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the LC as amended, which says: When to file: In the absence of collective bargain agreement duly registered in accordance with A231 of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election resul.t HELD NO Reasoning Petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision. “Final certification election result” means that there was an actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of votes. In this case, there was no certification election

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 139-

Disini

conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a defective petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit. Disposition Petition is dismissed

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Trajano 201 SCRA 453 (pending) 2. Deadlock Bar Rule Requirements National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry v. Trajano 208 SCRA 18 (pending)

- On May 5, 1989 the DWUEUALU filed a second notice of strike charging the University with violation of the return-to-work order and unfair labor practices such as dismissal of union officers, coercion of employees and illegal suspension. The Office of the Secretary called for a series of conciliation and mediation conferences between the parties. At the July 5, 1989 conference, the University agreed to submit its proposals on how to settle amicably the labor dispute on or before July 17, 1989. DWU failed to appear. Instead, its representative phoned in a request for the resetting of the conference. Hence, the conference was rescheduled for July 19, 1989. DWU once again failed to appear. - DWUEU-ALU pursued its second notice of strike on November 24, 1989. The Secretary of Labor received a Resolution passed by the students urging his assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute and the earliest resolution of the case. Consequently, Secretary Drilon again ordered all striking workers to return to work within 24 hours and the University to accept them back under the same terms and conditions of employment. - The Secretary concluded that for reneging on the agreement of May 10, 1988 and for its reluctance and subscription to legal delay, DWU should be declared in default. He also maintained that since the University cannot claim deprivation of due process, the Office of the Secretary of Labor may rightfully impose the Union's May 19, 1988 collective bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio. ISSUES WON in the absence of a certified CBA and there having been no certification election held for more than 5 years, a certification election is mandatory HELD NO. Ratio In the absence of a CBA, an employer who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election any time except upon a clear showing that one of these two instances exists: (a) the petition is filed within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election result or (b) when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. Reasoning While there is no question that the petition for certification election was filed by DWU after almost 4 years from the time of the certification election and, therefore, there is no question as to the timeliness of the petition, the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Secretary of Labor had found that a bargaining deadlock exists. - A "deadlock" is defined as the "counteraction of things producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization caused by the opposition of persons or of factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill." There is a deadlock when there is a “complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces; as, the deadlock of a jury or legislature.” The word is synonymous with the word impasse which "presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, does not conclude in agreement between the parties." - In this case, there was no reasonable effort at good faith bargaining specially on the part of the DWU. Its indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement. As it was evident that unilateral moves were being undertaken only by the DWUEU-ALU, there was no "counteraction" of forces or an impasse to speak of. - DWUEU was not entirely blameless in the matter of the delay in the bargaining process. While it is true that as early as March 7, 1985, it had submitted its collective bargaining proposals and that, its subsequent withdrawal by the DWUEU vice-president being unauthorized and therefore ineffective, the same proposals could be considered as subsisting, the fact remains that it remained passive for 3 years. The records do not show

No Deadlock DIVINE WORD UNIV. OF TACLOBAN V SEC OF LABOR 213 SCRA 759 ROMERO; September 11, 1992
NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the orders of the Secretary of Labor FACTS - September 6, 1984, Med-Arbiter certified the Divine Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the Divine Word University (DWU). On March 7, 1985, DWUEU submitted its collective bargaining proposals. On March 26, 1985, the University replied and requested a preliminary conference to be held on May 28, 1985. However, two days before the scheduled conference, DWUEU's resigned vice-president unilaterally withdrew the CBA proposals. Consequently, the preliminary conference was cancelled. - After almost three years, DWUEU, which had by then affiliated with the Associated Labor Union, requested a conference with the University to continue the collective bargaining negotiations. Not having heard from the University, DWUEU-ALU sent a follow-up letter. Despite the letter, the University persisted in maintaining silence. - DWUEU-ALU filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice acts, specifically, refusal to bargain, discrimination and coercion of employees. The conferences which were held after led to the conclusion of an agreement on May 10, 1988. However, an hour before the agreement was concluded, the University filed a petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter ordered the conduct of a certification election. DWUEU-ALU filed an urgent motion seeking to enjoin the Med-Arbiter from further acting on the matter of the certification election. The Labor Secretary granted said motion. - On the other hand, DWUEU-ALU, consonant with the agreement, submitted its collective bargaining proposals on May 19, 1988. These were ignored by the University. Thereafter, marathon conciliation conferences were conducted but to no avail. Hence, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute directing all striking workers to report back to work within 24 hours and the management to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage. The Secretary also designated the NCMB to hear the case and to submit its report thereon.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 140-

Disini

that during this 3-year period, it exerted any effort to pursue collective bargaining as a means of attaining better terms of employment. It was only after its affiliation with the ALU that it requested an initial conference for the purpose of collective bargaining. That the DWUEU abandoned its collective bargaining proposals prior to its affiliation with ALU is further confirmed by the fact that in the May 10, 1988 agreement, it bound itself to submit a new set of proposals. Under the circumstances, the agreement of May 10, 1988 may as well be considered the written notice to bargain referred to in Art. 250(a) of the LC, which thereby set into motion the machinery for collective bargaining, as in fact, on May 19,1988, DWUEU-ALU submitted its collective bargaining proposals. - Be that as it may, while the Court recognizes that technically, DWU has the right to file the petition for certification election as there was no bargaining deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer that the assailed Orders be annulled would put an unjustified premium on bad faith bargaining. - Bad faith on the part of the University is further exemplified by the fact that an hour before the start of the May 10, 1988 conference, it surreptitiously filed the petition for certification election. And yet during said conference, it committed itself to "sit down" with the Union. Obviously, the University tried to preempt the conference which would have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition far certification election. In so doing, the University failed to act in accordance with Art. 252 of the Labor Code which defines the meaning of the duty to bargain collectively as "the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith." Moreover, by filing the petition for certification election while agreeing to confer with the DWUEU-ALU, the University violated the mandate of Art 19 of the Civil Code that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.

- The Shipping Line and USUP entered into a CBA, which provided that the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for 2 years from its taking effect and thereafter for another period 2 years, unless either party shall notify the other in writing of its intention or election to terminate the agreement as of the end of the current term. GMSU insists that this CBA was but a renewal of an agreement between the USUP and Shipping Line entered into sometime in 1955. - More than 2 years after the holding of the last certification election, GMSU filed with the CIR a petition for certification election alleging that there were 2 labor unions to which were affiliated unlicensed crew members; that as members of the GMSU petitioners constituted 10% of all the unlicensed crew members; and that there had not been a certification election within 12 months before the filing of the petition. This was in accordance with Section 12 (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875. - USUP intervened and filed a motion for dismissal claiming that there was an existing CBA between itself and the Shipping Line entered for a period of 2 years, which period was reasonable, and which agreement contained reasonable conditions of employment, and that the existence of such agreement barred another certification election. - CIR, invoking the "contract-bar rule", granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the then existing contract between the Shipping Line and the USUP, which was for a period of two years contained provisions regarding wages, closed shops, check off, grievances, machinery and other conditions regarding employment relationships. According to the CIR, these circumstances plus the fact that there was no showing that the contracting union was company dominated support the validity and reasonableness of the agreement between the Shipping Line and the USUP, the duly certified bargaining representative, and that the existence of such contract barred the holding of a certification election. ISSUES WON there should be a certification election HELD YES Ratio When there is a bargaining contract for more than a year, it is too early to hold a certification election within a year from the effectivity of said bargaining agreement; also that a 2 year bargaining contract is not too long for the purpose of barring a certification election. For this purpose, a bargaining agreement may run for 3, even 4 years, but in such case, it is equally advisable that to decide whether or not within those 3 or 4 years, a certification election should not be held, may well be left to the sound discretion of the CIR, considering the conditions involved in the case, particularly, the terms and conditions of the bargaining contract. Where the bargaining contract is to run for more than 2 years, the principle of substitution may well be adopted and enforced by the CIR. Reasoning - When ever a substantial number of employees in an appropriate bargaining agreement desires to be represented by a union or organization other than that which had negotiated a collective bargaining contract with the management, the CIR is faced with the dilemma of the right of contract or the right of representation: - As a solution to this problem, there are three possibilities: (1) hold that a CBA valid when made is a bar to a new certification throughout its existence, regardless of the length of its term (contract-bar) (2) hold that employees may shift their allegiance during the term of the agreement but that the contract continues in force with the new union. (3) refuse to proceed to an election, in the presence of a collective bargaining contract where the contract granted exclusive recognition is to be effective only for a reasonable period and was negotiated by a union representing at the time a

3. Contract Bar Rule
ART. 232. Prohibition on certification election. - The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code. (As amended by Section 15, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

History GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES' UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES V SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE 108 PHIL 1112 MONTEMAYOR; July 26, 1960
NATURE Petition for certiorari to review an order of the Court of Industrial Relations FACTS - The CIR directed that an election between the United Seamen's Union of the Philippines (USUP) and GSMU be held among the unlicensed members and crew of the respondent South Sea Shipping Lines. USUP was thereafter certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 141-

Disini

majority of the employees (in an appropriate unit) prior to any claim by a rival labor organization'. - The National Labor-Relations Board, which is the counterpart of our CIR, regards the conflict as one which requires it to strike a balance between the desirability of achieving stability in industrial relations secured through bargaining, on the one hand, and the benefits flowing from the grant of employee full freedom in their choice of representative, on the other. - The Board initially took the unqualified view that the existence of agreements was no bar to certification of bargaining representatives. This gave support to the doctrine of substitution whereby a change of representatives would alter an existing contract only by "substituting the new union for the old under its substantive terms" - The Board subsequently held that a CBA of reasonable duration is "in the interest of the stability of industrial relations", a bar to certification elections. In adopting the "contract-bar policy", the Board was careful in refusing to announce an inflexible rule as to its authority, and whenever possible, it avoided a determination of the contract's effect on its power of certification election. - In 1947, the Board held that it would regard a 2 year contract as a bar to an election until its expiration, because collective bargaining had: "So emerged from a stage of trial and error (that) the time has come when stability of industrial relations can better be served, without unreasonably restricting employees in their right to change representatives, by refusing to interfere with bargaining relations secured by collective agreements for 2 years' duration." - In 1953, the same Board announced that: "The time has arrived when stability of labor relations can be better served, without unreasonably restricting employees in their right to change representatives, by holding as a bar collective bargaining agreements even for 5 years' duration (when) a substantial part of the industry concerned is covered by contracts with a similar term." - From all this, it may be seen that the National Labor Relations Board has not adopted an iron-clad policy, rigid and fixed, but rather one to be applied according to the changing conditions and industrial practices. Dispositive CIR order dismissing the petition for certification election and refusing to allow the selection of a new bargaining agent was valid under the circumstances obtaining at the time. However, inasmuch as there has been a renewal of the bargaining agreement for another 2 years and because it seems that the present agreement is but a renewal of the one entered into way back in 1955, so that until the expiration of the present agreement, it is advisable that a new certification election be held. Remanded to CIR.

- CELA-CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed motion to dismiss petitions for certification election. - NLRC granted petitions and directed BLR to conduct certification elections. - This petition prays for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction enjoining NLRC from taking any action. - SC Second Division allowed holding of certification election but issued a restraining order enjoining respondents from opening the ballot boxes, canvassing and announcing the results. ISSUE WON CBA has to be certified before it can constitute a bar to petition for certification elections HELD YES - Contract bar rule is a principle in labor law that a CBA of reasonable duration is, in the interest of the stability of industrial relations, a bar to certification elections. - Assuming arguendo that a non-certified CBA may serve as a bar to certification election, petitioners would still be bereft of cause to complain. When petition was filed by FFW at CMC, the CBA had not yet been filed. - Petition for certification election at Redson was filed on a date when no CBA had been entered into between Redson and RELA. - Law says that after 12 months, a certification election may be requested either by the employer or a requisite number of employees. The petitions allege that there has been no certification election in company for the last 12 mos which allegation was not denied by CMC and Redson. - Law also says that it’s mandatory on SC to order election to determine representative of employees where a petition is filed by at least 10% of the employees Disposition Petition is dismissed FERNANDO, J., CONCURRING: - The new Labor Code is scheduled to be operative 1st day of next month - this case should not be the vehicle where doctrines impressed with certain degree of novelty should be announced. - In this case, the contract bar rule hardly poses any obstacle. - LVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians Guild: Unless actuation of CIR, here the NLRC, could be shown to deviate from basic norm, a plea for reversal of order complained of would be marked by futility. - Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Benguet Consolidated Inc.: SC has recognized a latitude of discretion in CIR, the agency which is in a better position to see to it that the certification election is property conducted. - Federation of United Workers Organization v. CIR: Through petition for certification, employees are given the opportunity to make known who has right to represent them. What is equally important is that not only some but all of them should have the right to do so. - While the right to free and unfettered choice by employees of their exclusive bargaining representative should be respected, there are circumstances which in the interest of stability of labor relations, call for a relaxation in its observance. - The contract bar rule in the US: Two competing values clashed. Statute guarantees right to bargain through representatives of their own choosing. Also, statute aims to achieve stability. So the Board declared that the existence of a CBA will not bar an election but the winning union was subject to the existing agreement. - The pragmatic approach has been followed, due note taken of varied as well as changing conditions to make it truly responsive. It’s going too far to affix to the contract bar rule the element of inflexibility.

CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS (CCLU) V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 60 SCRA 451 FERNANDEZ; Oct 31, 1974
NATURE Original petition in SC – certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction FACTS - CMC renewed CBA with CELA, an affiliate of petitioner CCLU, a legitimate labor organization. - FFW, another organization, filed with NLRC a Petition for Certification Election. - A copy of CMC-CELA CBA was filed with BLR for certification; it was certified. - CMC filed answer to petition praying for dismissal of petition on ground of contract-bar rule. - CBA was also signed by Redson and RELA. It was filed with NLRC and certified. FFW, however, had already filed Petition for Certification Election - Redson prayed for dismissal of petition on ground that petition was barred by CBA which it had with RELA.

Rule Statement

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 142-

Disini

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN (AEFL) and ELEONOR AMBAS 340 SCRA 587 KAPUNAN; September 18, 2000
Nature: Certiorari FACTS: - Salvador Abtria (AEFL President) initiated the renegotiation of its CBA w/ Letran for the last 2 years of the CBA's 5 year lifetime from 19891994. On the same year, the union elected a new set of officers Ambas emerged as the newly elected President. - Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but Letran, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing by the parties. The parties submitted the disputed CBA to a referendum by the union members, who eventually rejected the said CBA. - Letran accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC. LA Madriaga decided in favor of Letran. However, the LA's decision was reversed on appeal before the NLRC. - January 1996, the union notified the NCMB of its intention to strike on the grounds of Letran’ s: non-compliance with the NLRC (1) order to delete the name of Atty. Federico Leynes as the union's legal counsel; and (2) refusal to bargain. - January 18, 1996, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and to start negotiation on a new five-year CBA starting 1994-1999. - February 7, 1996, the union submitted its proposals to petitioner, which notified the union six days later or on February 13, 1996 that the same had been submitted to its Board of Trustees. In the meantime, Ambas was informed through a letter dated February 15, 1996 from her superior that her work schedule was being changed from Monday to Friday to Tuesday to Saturday. Ambas protested and requested management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery under the old CBA. - Due to Letran's inaction, the union filed a notice of strike on March 13, 1996. The parties met on March 27, 1996 before the NCMB to discuss the ground rules for the negotiation. The union received Letran's letter dismissing Ambas for alleged insubordination. Hence, the union amended its notice of strike to include Ambas' dismissal. - April 20, 1996, both parties again discussed the ground rules for the CBA renegotiation. However, petitioner stopped the negotiations after it purportedly received information that a new group of employees had filed a petition for certification election. - June 18, 1996, the union finally struck. On July 2, 1996, public respondent the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction and ordered all striking employees including the union president to return to work and for petitioner to accept them back under the same terms and conditions before the actual strike. Letran readmitted the striking members except Ambas. The parties then submitted their pleadings including their position papers which were filed on July 17, 1996. - Sec of Labor gave an order declaring Letran guilty of unfair labor practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of Ambas with backwages. Letran filed a MR which was denied. - CA: dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. ISSUES: (1) WON LETRAN is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new CBA upon mere information that a petition for certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization HELD: 1. NO.

to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. - Noteworthy in the above definition is the requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. Undoubtedly, AEFL lived up to this requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to LETRAN. On the other hand, petitioner devised ways and means in order to prevent the negotiation. - Letran's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to file its reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, to wit: Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: (a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. x x x - Kiok Loy vs. NLRC: the company's refusal to make counterproposal to the union's proposed CBA 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. In the case at bar, petitioner's actuation show a lack of sincere desire to negotiate rendering it guilty of unfair labor practice. - Moreover, the series of events that transpired after the filing of the first notice of strike in January 1996 show petitioner's resort to delaying tactics to ensure that negotiation would not push through. Thus, on February 15, 1996, or barely a few days after the union proposals for the new CBA were submitted, the union president was informed by her superior that her work schedule was being changed from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to Saturdays. A request from the union president that the issue be submitted to a grievance machinery was subsequently denied. Thereafter, the petitioner and the union met on March 27, 1996 to discuss the ground rules for negotiation. However, just two days later, or on March 29, 1996, petitioner dismissed the union president for alleged insubordination. In its final attempt to thwart the bargaining process, petitioner suspended the negotiation on the ground that it allegedly received information that a new group of employees called the Association of Concerned Employees of Colegio (ACEC) had filed a petition for certification election. Clearly, petitioner tried to evade its duty to bargain collectively. Petitioner, however, argues that since it has already submitted the union's proposals to the Board of Trustees and that a series of conferences had already been undertaken to discuss the ground rules for negotiation such should already be considered as acts indicative of its intention to bargain. As pointed out earlier, the evidence on record belie the assertions of petitioner. Petitioner, likewise, claims that the suspension of negotiation was proper since by the filing of the petition for certification election the issue on majority representation of the employees has arose. According to petitioner, the authority of the union to negotiate on behalf of the employees was challenged when a rival union filed a petition for certification election. Citing the case

REASONING: 1. A252 of the LC defines the meaning of the phrase "duty to bargain collectively," as follows: Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. - The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 143-

Disini

of Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises, petitioner asserts that in view of the pendency of the petition for certification election, it had no duty to bargain collectively with the union. Ratio: In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process there must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period. The "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides that: " .… If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement." -The rule is based on A 232, in relation to A253, 253-A and 256 of the LC. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. -The petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a legitimate labor organization, was filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue and, as such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation. Reliance, therefore, by petitioner of the ruling in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced since that case involved a legitimate representation issue which is not present in the case at bar. - Significantly, the same petition for certification election was dismissed by the Secretary of Labor on October 25, 1996. The dismissal was upheld by this Court in a Resolution, dated April 21, 1997. - In view of the above, there is no doubt that petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by its stern refusal to bargain in good faith with respondent union. Dispositive: The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

- While the CBA was still in force, several employees organized themselves into the Nagkakaisang Supervisors Ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees Ng Barbizon, Philippines, Inc. (NEMPEBPI) allegedly because they were excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA between petitioner and BUKLOD. - NSBPI and NEMPEBPI each filed petitions for certification elections. Both were dismissed by the arbiter. They appealed to the SOLE. The SOLE ordered that a certification election be conducted. 2 MFRs were denied. Thus this petition. - Petitioner maintains its stance that the petition for certification election filed by the NSBPI must necessarily fail because the employees designated as "supervisors" cannot legally form a supervisors' union by virtue of the BLR's final decision declaring the abovementioned employees mere rank and file workers. Being part of the rank and file, petitioner avers that said employees belong to the "employer wide unit," which is the appropriate bargaining unit of all its rank and file employees and which is represented by the BUKLOD as the sole certified bargaining agent. - Petitioner further asserts that the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in granting NSBPI's petition for certification election as this was tantamount to an unjustifiable reversal of the BLR's final ruling that the subject employees are not supervisory employees, but merely rank and file, due to the nature of their duties and functions. ISSUE 1. WON the excluded employees (the “supervisors”) can form a union for collective bargaining, when they were declared as mere rank and file and there is already a union for rank and file employees. 2. WON the existing CBA is a bar to the certification election. HELD 1. YES - Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, proceeding as it does from the wrong premise. Petitioner obstinately believes that NSBPI's petition for certification election was granted because the employees carrying the appellation "supervisor" were deemed supervisory employees. The status of the subject employees however, is not the issue in the case at bar. Their status as "supervisors" is not in dispute. The decision that settled with finality that said employees are merely rank and file and this fact has been accepted by the petitioning union NSBPI. NSBPI's petition for certification election was granted because the subject employees, including petitioner's monthly paid employees, were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit and from the coverage of the CBA executed between petitioner and BUKLOD, as clearly stated therein. This is the real reason behind the certification election in question. This was not successfully debunked by petitioner. - The exclusion of petitioner's "supervisors" from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees indiscriminately curtailed the right of these employees to self-organization and representation for purposes of collective bargaining, a right explicitly mandated by our labor laws and "accorded the highest consideration." - BUKLOD cannot successfully act as the bargaining agent of and duly represent petitioner's "supervisor" employees since the latter were expressly excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. - The "one union-one company" rule is not without exception. The exclusion of the subject employees from the rank-and-file bargaining unit and the CBA is definitely a "compelling reason" for it completely deprived them of the chance to bargain collectively with petitioner and are thus left with no recourse but to group themselves into a separate and distinct bargaining unit and form their own organization. - The receipt by petitioner's "supervisor" employees of certain benefits under the CBA between BUKLOD and petitioner is not sufficient to deny the petition for certification election filed by the

SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PREMEX v. SEC OF LABOR (PENDING) BARBIZON PHILS. v. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR 261 SCRA 738 KAPUNAN; September 16, 1996
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule65 ROC FACTS - BUKLOD won the certification election as the sole bargaining representative of the rank and file employees. A CBA was negotiated.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 144-

Disini

labor organization formed by the excluded employees. It is not equivalent to and does not compensate for the denial of the right of the excluded employees to self-organization and collective bargaining. 2. NO - The petition for certification election cannot be deterred by the "contract-bar rule," which finds no application in the present case. The petitioning union NSBPI is not questioning the majority status of Buklod as the incumbent bargaining agent of petitioner's rank and file employees. The petition for certification election is addressed to a separate bargaining unit — the excluded employees of petitioner. - A contract bar applies in a situation where the petition is directed towards one and the same bargaining unit. This does not appear to be so in the case considering the built-in-limitation in the CBA excluding the workers sought to be represented by herein petitioner from its coverage, albeit, their being admittedly rank and file employees. - The certification election as ordered would only affect those rank and file employees who are excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA. Disposition Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.

Incomplete Contract BUKLOD NG SAULOG TRANSIT v. CASALLA 99 PHIL 16 PADILLA; May 9, 1956
NATURE Petition for review FACTS -The respondents, 65 in number, employees of the Saulog Transit, Inc., filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for a certification election, alleging that the total number of employees in the Saulog Transit, Inc. was 583; that there were two labor organizations which represented the employees in the Saulog Transit, Inc., to wit: the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit and the Saulog Transit Employees Union; and that the certification election prayed for was for the purpose of determining the sole bargaining representative of the employees in the Saulog Transit, Inc. -The president of the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit filed its answer stating that a collective bargaining agreement had been entered into by and between the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit, a duly registered union with the Department of Labor, on the one hand, and the Saulog Transit, Inc., on the other; -An election was held peacefully and orderly, the result thereof having been forwarded to the Department of Labor, against which election and the result thereof no protest as regards the legality thereof was lodged; that having acquired a juridical personality from the time of its registration, the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit entered into a collective bargaining contract already referred to covering the well-being of the members of which the respondents were still members. -The Saulog Transit, Inc. filed a pleading entitled "Appearance and Manifestation" averring that the allegation that the respondents constituted 10 per cent of the total number of employees of the Saulog Transit, Inc. was for the Court to determine; and that it had dealt and had been dealing with the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between them, the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit representing the employees of the Saulog Transit, Inc. as an industrial unit. the Court rendered judgment directing . . . that a certification election be held ISSUE WON an order of certification election shall issue on the basis of the evidence established

HELD YES. The trial court found that the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the Saulog Transit, Inc. and the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit "does not touch in substantial terms the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment of all the employees in the company but seeks to establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers, conductors and inspectors who are members of the Buklod ñg Saulog." And even in the supplementary agreement, there is no clear-cut stipulation as to "rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions or employment." In their reply the respondents claim that such an agreement and the supplementary agreement have not been identified and offered in evidence and should not be taken into consideration. The trial court took, however, into consideration both agreements and found that the first agreement being incomplete does not bar a certification election; and as to the supplementary agreement the Court held that it having been entered into after the filing of the petition for a certification election the same cannot and does not bar a certification election. The affidavit filed by the President of the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit is not mentioned in the order and resolution appealed from. It is clearly an effort on the part of the petitioner to supply what was lacking in the two agreements already mentioned. The contention that as section, Republic Act No. 875, does not require that the agreement be in writing unless either party request that it be reduced to writing, thereby insinuating that there had been a verbal understanding before the written agreement was entered into, has no bearing and effect in a case where there is a written agreement which the Court of Industrial Relations found incomplete. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the collective bargaining agreement entered is no bar to a certification election at the instance of at least 10 per cent of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, pursuant to section 12, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), Republic Act No. 875. Disposition order and resolution AFFIRMED

Premature Contract SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC V LAGUESMA 267 SCRA 307 MENDOZA; January 31, 1997
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari FACTS -Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN) and respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic (MNMPP) are labor unions of rank and file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC). -MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election -SAMAHAN countered by seeking the cancellation of MNMPP's union registration, as a result, MNMPP's petition to be certified as the bargaining agent was dismissed. -MNMPP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter and ordered the holding of a certification election -The PPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration but its motion was denied. - Accordingly, the pre-election conference was held -Petitioner SAMAHAN moved to defer the conference, alleging that there existed a collective bargaining agreement between PPC and SAMAHAN which was a bar to the certification election. -MNMPP opposed the motion, contending that the execution of the subject CBA during the pendency of the representation case did not bar the holding of a certification election.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 145-

Disini

-On September 10, 1992, upon motion of MNMPP, the certification election was finally set for October 6, 1992. -On said date, the certification election was held, and MNMPP won. -On October 9, 1992, SAMAHAN protested the result of the certification election -Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin, dismissed the election protest --SAMAHAN appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It argued that the contract-bar rule should be applied. -Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma denied the appeal of SAMAHAN and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. -SAMAHAN moved for a reconsideration, but its motion was denied on July 29, 1993. Hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUE WON the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for certification election bars the holding of a certification election HELD No. -Petitioner's contention in its Motion for Deferment of Pre-election Conference was that the CBA between it and the PPC signed during the pendency of the representation proceedings, rendered the certification election moot and academic. -Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, §4 provides: The representation case shall not, however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or during last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. -This rule was applied in the case of ALU-TUCP v. Trajano where the Court held that the representation case will not be adversely affected by a CBA registered before or during the freedom period or during the pendency of the representation case. -In ALU v. Calleja, it was also held that a CBA, which was prematurely renewed, is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. -Hence, the CBA entered into between petitioner and PPC during the pendency of the representation case and after the filing of the petition for certification election on August 24, 1990, cannot possibly prejudice the certification election nor render it moot. Disposition The petition for certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit

employees and laborers of the ESSO. The CIR certified the MME as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. ISSUE Which union should be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the ESSO employees at the Pandacan Terminal unit? HELD The record is barren of evidence upon which this Court may properly reach a definitive determination. Reasoning It would seem then that the burden of coming forward with proof of majority status is upon the union asserting it. The CLU claims that it is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent on the strength of its prior collective bargaining history; the MME claims that it is the one that should be recognized on the basis of the will of the employees. - Against the claim of the MME that it represents the will of the majority of the rank and file employees at the Pandacan Terminal unit, is the manifestation, advanced with vehemence, of both the CLU and the ESSO that after the secret ballot election, the employee composition has substantially changed because a great number of the employees and laborers in the Pandacan Terminal unit have left their employment, retired, or been compulsorily laid off with the approval of the CIR. - Against the presumption of continued majority status is the rule that such majority status does not continue forever --(1) "especially in face of an assertion and offer of proof to the contrary" (2) "in view of altered circumstances which have likely occurred in the interim" (3) "by a change in the conditions which demonstrates that a shift in sentiment actually exists among the employees, and is caused by other factors than the employer's refusal to bargain collectively" Disposition This Court is constrained to remand this case to the CIR, with instructions that it exert and exercise, without delay, the powers conferred upon it by law, and take such actions and issue such orders as the environmental circumstances will accordingly warrant.

CITIZEN’S LABOR UNION-CCLU V CIR 18 SCRA 624 CASTRO; November 12, 1966
NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction FACTS - The Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) filed a petition for certification election with the CIR, alleging that it is a labor union organized among the employees of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO) Pandacan Terminal, Manila; that it represents the majority of the nonsupervisory employees of the said terminal unit; that there exists a collective bargaining agreement between the Citizen’s Labor Union (CLU) and the ESSO, of a duration of three (3) years and three (3) months; and that its aim in asking for a certification election is merely to determine which union will administer the contract during the remainder of the term thereof. MME claims that the CLU can no longer be considered as the representative of the rank and file of the employees and laborers of ESSO at its Pandacan Terminal unit, because it has lost its majority status inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of its members have given up their membership therein. - CLU and the ESSO filed motions to dismiss the petition on the ground that an existing CBA is a bar to the holding of a certification election. CIR denied such MD. - The DOLE proceeded with the election and the result thereof shows that the MME obtained votes of more than one-half of the rank and file

Exception PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS. (PWUP) VS. LAGUESMA, INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES (ICTS) 00 SCRA 00 CRUZ, March 18, 1992
NATURE PETITION for review of the Undersecretary of Labor and Employment order of the

FACTS -International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI) had a CBA with the incumbent union, Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) which was due to expire. The other unions in ICTSI, Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA), Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP), and Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU). SAMADA first filed a petition for certification election with the consent of at least 25% of the employees (consent signatures) in the bargaining unit submitted 11 days after the petition. PEALU filed another petition for certification election with the consent signatures 35 days after the filing of the petition. PWUP filed a petition for intervention. The petitions of SAMADA and PEULU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated petition for certification election on the ground that the said unions DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN SECTION 6, RULE V, BOOK V OF THE

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 146-

Disini

IMPLEMENTING RULES9, specifically for non-compliance with the requirement that the consent signatures should be filed also at the time of filing. – motion to dismiss the consolidated petition upheld by medarbiter -PWUP (intervenor) appealed to SEC OF LABOR: A26, LC did not acquire the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. SAMADA and PEULU did not appeal. Sec of labor dismissed PWUP’s appeal. -ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for new CBA which was subsequently ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit and subsequently registered with DOLE. PWUP’s contention: Sec. Laguesma committed grave abuse of discretion in the application of A256 of LC; Under A256, Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit (consent signatures). SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the requirements of submitting consent signatures, even if they submitted it several days after. The dismissal of the consolidated petitions for certification election, and its petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. ICTSI’s contention: dismissal was based on A256, LC as implemented by IR; Sec10, Rule V, Book V of IR states that decisions of SEC in certification election cases shall be final and unappealable; Tupas vs. Inciong cited where it was held that there would be no need for holding a certification election when the incumbent union’s CBA with the employer was ratified by majority of workers, and the majority affirmed their membership in the incumbent union. APCWU’s contention: PWUP had no personality to represent SAMADA or PEALU, the principal parties in the case which had not appealed. Invoked TUPAS case; claims that the ratification of the new CBA by the majority of the workers was an affirmation of their membership in the union that negotiated that agreement. SOLGEN’s contention: agreed with petitioner that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. A256 should be liberally interpreted pursuant to A4, LC. ISSUES 1. WON a certification election should be held 2. WON the consent signatures should be submitted together with the petition [in relation to the 1st issue] 3. WON PWUP had legal standing to contest the decision on the petition for certification election HELD 1. YES Reasoning. Pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, "the constant and unwavering policy of this Court" has been "to require a certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor organization should be the collective bargaining representative." -The certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where they are working. -Belyca Corporation vs. Ferrer-Ca1leja: the holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented -Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: x x x it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. (Scout Ramon
9

V. Albano Memorial College v. Noriel, 85 SCRA 494 [1978]; Vicmico Industrial Workers Asso. v. Noriel, 13 1 SCRA 569 [1984]) - The certification election is the best method of determining the will of the workers on the crucial question of who shall represent them in their negotiations with the management for a collective bargaining agreement that will best protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there be no collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous management and a union covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor, or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and support. It is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt procedure over substantial justice. 2. NO Reasoning. The administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing, -PAFLU v. BLR: “even conceding that the statutory requirement of 30% of the labor force asking for a certification election had not been strictly complied with, respondent Director is still empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining which (of the contending labor organizations) shall be the exclusive collective bargaining representative. (National Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Luna, et al., 83 SCRA 607)” 3. YES. The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was filed because the principal petitions had complied with the requirement for the consent signatures as specified by Article 256. Its intervention should not be disallowed simply because of the withdrawal or failure to appeal of SAMADA and PEALU. Ratio. Reasoning. PAFLU v. Ferrer-Calleja: xxx the requisite written consent of at least 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit applies to petitioners for certification election only and not to motions for intervention. x x x As long as the motion for intervention has been properly and timely filed and the intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this is so even if the eventual purpose of the Motion For Intervention is to participate in the Certification Election. After all, the original applicant had already met the 20% requirement. - As a matter of strict procedure, a petition for intervention should be deemed automatically dismissed where the principal petition itself failed. However, that technical rule should not be allowed to prevent a correct determination of the real representative of the workers in line with their constitutional rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. -The certification election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of a non adversary character where the rules of procedure are riot strictly applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support or confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their dealings with management. Obiter: TUPAS VS. INCIONG

In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining agreement and supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent (25%) requirement shall be satisfied upon the filling of the petition, otherwise the petition shall be dismissed.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 147-

Disini

-SC modified Tupas in Associated Labor Unions vs. Calleja: even if CBA was ratified, certification election not yet moot and academic. There is no contract-bar rule (where the law prohibits the holding of certification elections during the lifetime of the collective bargaining agreement). -Tupas did not say that the mere ratification of the CBA by the majority of the workers signified their affirmation of membership in the negotiating union. -requirements: (1) ratification of the CBA, (2) affirmation of membership in the negotiating union. The second requirement has not been established in the case at bar as the record does not show that the majority of the workers, besides ratifying the new CBA, have also formally affiliated with APCWU. -Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code: representation case shall not be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation case was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final agreement between the ICTSI and its workers. DECISIONS OF SEC OF LABOR FINAL AND INAPPEALABLE San Miguel Corp. v. Secretary of Labor: It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. Judicial review is proper in caw of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion Disposition. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged order dated August 21, 1990, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the public respondent is DIRECTED to schedule and bold certification election among the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc., this to be done with all possible dispatch. No costs.

Not Registered CBA TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES v LAGUESMA 236 SCRA 586 PUNO; September 21, 1994
FACTS - Petitiner TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election with the Regional Office of DOLE for the purpose of choosing a bargaining representative for the rank-and-file employees of the Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner was able to secure a Certification that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor organization. - It appears, however, that before the filing of said petition, Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-Phils.) was duly certified by DOLE as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Transunion Corp. A CBA was then forged between Transunion and ILO-Phils covering the company's rank-and-file employees. The CBA was ratified. When the President of ILO-PHILS died, an inter-union conflict followed and the subject CBA was filed with DOLE, for registration purposes, only 3 months from its execution. The Certification of Registration was issued by DOLE. - ILO-Phils., intervened in the certification election proceedings initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the existing CBA between ILO and the Transunion Corp. It stressed that the petition for certification election should be entertained only during the freedom period, or sixty days before the expiration of the CBA. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground of prematurity. - TUPAS-FSM appealed contending that since the CBA was filed outside the 30-day period specified under Article 231 of the Labor Code, the prohibition against certification election under Article 232 of the same Code should not apply to third parties such as petitioner. - The Secretary of DOLE affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter. The MFR filed by TUPAS-FSM was denied. ISSUE 1. WON a certification election may be conducted

2. WON the CBA was valid, even if it was filed beyond the 30day period prescribed under Article 231 HELD 1. NO It is crystal clear from the records that the rank-and-file employees of Transunion are, at present, represented by ILOPHILS. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the Certification issued by Director Bautista, Jr. (that Transunion Corp. has no existing CBA with any labor organization) is misplaced. The existence and filing of their CBA was confirmed in a Certification issued by the director of DOLE- Region IV. The certification of ILO-PHILS. "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Transunion-Glassware Division," means it shall remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion of other labor organizations, including petitioner, and no petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification election be conducted, outside of the sixty-day freedom period immediately before the expiry date of the five-year term of the CBA. 2.YES Articles 231 and 232 of the Labor Code read: "Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements. ---- . . . . "Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment for registration accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from its submission. "xxx xxx xxx" "Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. ---- The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code." Corollary thereto, Article 253-A of the same Code reads: "Art. 253-A. Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . ." It appears that the procedural requirement of filing the CBA within 30 days from date of execution under Article 231 was not met. The subject CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It was ratified on December 8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for registration purposes on March 14, 1990. Be that as it may, the delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently explained, i.e., there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed to the presidency of ILO-PHILS. The CBA was registered by the DOLE only on May 4, 1990. It would be injudicious for us to assume, as what petitioner did, that the said CBA was filed only on April 30, 1990, as 5 days before its registration, on the unsupported surmise that it was done to suit the law that enjoins Regional Offices of DOLE to act upon an application for registration of a CBA within five 5 days from its receipt thereof. In the absence of any substantial evidence that DOLE officials or personnel, in collusion with private respondent, had antedated the filing date of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance of official functions holds. More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural requirement should not adversely affect the substantive validity of the CBA between ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corp.

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 148-

Disini

covering the company's rank and file employees. A collective bargaining agreement is more than a contract. It is highly impressed with public interest for it is an essential instrument to promote industrial peace. Hence, it bears the blessings not only of the employer and employees concerned but even the Department of Labor and Employment. To set it aside on technical grounds is not conducive to the public good.

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN vs. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN and ELEONOR AMBAS 340 SCRA 587 KAPUNAN; Sep 18, 2000
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS The Court found the petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran guilty of unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the newly-elected representative of the Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran in the person of Eleanor Ambas. It filed the present petition seeking reversal of the decision of the CA and posed the argument that the reason why it suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new CBA was because a petition for certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization. ISSUE WON petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere information that a petition for

REGISTERED CBA ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE PHILS V NLRC (CENAPRO) 305 SCRA 219 PURISMA, J.; March 25, 1999
NATURE - petition for review on certiorari FACTS - petitioners were casual EEs of private respondent CENAPRO Chemicals Corp. (CCC) of which the collective bargaining representative of all rank and file EEs was CENAPRO Employees Assn (CCEA). Their CBA excluded casual EEs from membership. The casual EEs who had rendered at least 1-6 years of service sought regularization but were denied, thus forming themselves into an organization affiliated with the Association of Independent Unions in the Phils (AIUP). AIUP filed a petition for certification election which CCEA opposed based on the contract bar rule. AIUP filed a notice of strike on the grounds of systematic union busting. -While on strike, the union perpetrated illegal acts such as the padlocking of the company’s gate and preventing non-striking EEs from reporting to work. CCC filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC which granted a TRO. Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practices and illegal lockout while CCC filed a complaint for illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. 5 union officers lost employment status, 15 union members were not reinstated due to quitclaims, 4 workers were ordered reinstated (petitioners herein). -both parties appealed. Pending the appeals, the 4 workers were reinstated upon motion of AUIP; CCC prayed that separation pay be given instead. CCC argued that reinstatement was inappropriate due to strained relations but the Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution directing reinstatement. CCC appealed again; NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision. CCC filed an MFR; NLRC modified its decision, ordering instead the payment of separation pay. Hence this petition. ISSUE/S 1. WON respondent company was guilty of the unfair labor practice of systematic union busting HELD 1. NO. Reasoning The strike staged by petitioner was in the nature of a unionrecognition-strike. Such a strike is meant to compel the employer to recognize one’s union as the bargaining representative to work out a CBA despite its doubtful majority status. At the time AIUP filed the petition for certification election, there was an existing CBA between CCC and CCEA, the incumbent bargaining representative. -As such, this petition should not have been entertained because of the contract bar rule (A232 LC). When a CBA has been duly registered, a petition for certification election or motion for intervention may only be entertained within 60 days prior to the expiry of said agreement. Hence, CCC acted accordingly and did not commit union busting. Disposition Petition Granted.

certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization HELD YES.
Ratio In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process there must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period. The Contract Bar Rule under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides that: . If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement. The rule is based on Article 232,[8] in relation to Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of the Labor Code. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old CBA is extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. Reasoning In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. The petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a legitimate labor organization, was filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue and, as such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.

EXPIRED CBA

DISPOSITION Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Labor Law 2
6.8. SUSPENSION ELECTION OF

A2010 - 149-

Disini

30% requirement for holding a certification elections has been met.

CERTIFICATION

Prejudicial Question Rule
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters;

BF Goodrich Phils. v. B.F. Goodrich Confidential and Salaried Employees Union (pending) UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION VS BLR (JULY CONVENTION) 128 SCRA 316 MELENCIO- HERRERA ; March 22, 1984
FACTS: United CMC Textile Workers Union is the incumbent collective bargaining representative of all rank and file workers of CENTEX. Respondent PAFLU is also a legitimate labor organization seeking representation as the bargaining agent of the rank and file workers of CENTEX. On August 31, 1978, CMC filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP Case) against CENTEX and PAFLU alleging that CENTEX had helped and cooperated in the organization of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. Local PAFLU by allowing the organizing members of the PAFLU to solicit signatures of employees of the company who are members of the complainant union to disaffiliate front complainant union and join the respondent PAFLU, during company time and inside the company premises on August 21, 1978 and the following days thereafter. While the ULP Case was pending, PAFLU filed a Petition for Certification Election (the Certification Case, for short) among the rank and file workers of CENTEX CMC intervened in the Certification Case and filed a Motion to Dismiss. It then filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations for deadlock in the CBA negotiations with CENTEX. The parties having failed to effect a conciliation, the Labor Minister assumed jurisdiction on the Deadlock Case. In the Certification Case the Med-Arbiter issued an Order for the holding of a certification election among CENTEX rank and file workers, whereby qualified voters could choose either PAFLU or petitioner as the collective bargaining representative or No Union at all. On appeal, this was affirmed by respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Hence this petition. ISSUE WON public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter calling for a certification election despite: (a) the pendency of an unfair labor practice case filed by petitioner charging respondent PAFLU as being company-dominated: (b) the existence of a deadlock in negotiations for renewal of the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and the Central Textile Mills, Inc. (CENTEX, for short); and (c) a reasonable doubt as to whether the

HELD YES The case can be resolved on the basis of the first issue alone which must be answered in the affirmative. Under settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that, until decided, bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason being that the votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free. The ULP Case was filed anterior to the Certification Case. There is no assertion that such complaint was flimsy, or made in bad faith or filed purposely to forestall the certification election. So no reason existed for the Industrial Court to depart from its established practice of suspending the election proceeding. If there is a union dominated by the company, to which some of the workers belong, an election among workers and employees of the company would not reflect the true sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees because the votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free. And we have held, through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes. that such diarge of company domination is a prejudicial question that unid decided, shall suspend or bar proceedings for certification election. The rationale for the suspension of the election proceedings has been further amplified as follows: Only a formal charge of company domination may serve as a bar to and stop a certification election, the reason being that if there is a union dominated by the Company, to which some of the workers belong, an election among the workers and employees of the company would riot reflect the true sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees from the standpoint of their welfare and interest, because as to the members of the company dominated union, the vote of the said members in the election would not be free. It is equally true, however, that the opposition to the holding of a certification election due to a charge of company domination can only be filed and maintained by the labor organization which made the charge of company domination because it is the entity that stands to lose and suffer prejudice by the certification election,' the reason being that its members might be overwhlemed in the voting by the other members controlled and dominated by the Company. There would be an impairment of the integrity of the collective bargaining process if a company-dominated union were allowed to participate in a certification election. The timid the timorous, and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of management.

Party and Issue BARRERA V CIR (PAWO) GRN L-32853 FERNANDO; September 25, 1981
Facts: Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name of Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), alleged an unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.The unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of failure to bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike. Issue WON a certification election may be stayed at the instance of the employer, pending the determination of an unfair labor practice case filed by it against certain employees affiliated with respondent-unions

Labor Law 2
Held No. lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays)

A2010 - 150-

Disini

certification election. Hence this petition alleging error in the interpretation of the law by the said Director. ISSUE/S WON the pendency of the ULP Case charging a participating union in the certification election proceedings as company dominated is a prejudicial question to the conduct of the election HELD Yes. Under settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that, until decided, bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason being that the votes of [be members of the dominated union would not be free. The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31, 1978, or anterior to the Certification Case, which was presented on September 5, 1978, The pendency of the charge was known to respondent public official by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner as intervenor in the Certification Case. No allegation has been made that said ULP Case was instituted in bad faith to forestall the Certification Case. - "What is settled law, dating from the case of Standard Cigarette Workers' Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations (101 Phil. 126), decided in 1957, is that if it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a companydominated union, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against tire employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place.” Disposition The resolution of the director is reversed and set aside.

If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a company dominated union, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place. However, In this case the situation is exactly the reverse. It is management that would have an unfair labor practice case filed by it for illegal strike engaged in by some of its employees concluded, before it would agree to the holding of a certification election. Thus, if management is allowed to have its way, the result might be to dilute or fritter away the strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. The difficulties and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the personnel, who had not as yet made up their minds one way or the other. This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization that will represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved, in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of respondent-unions, but also the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with things as they are. There is no valid reason then for the postponement sought. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim, lex dilationes semper exhorret (The law abhors delays). Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks of the labor organizations 'designated or selected for the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law clearly contemplates all the employees, not only some of them. As much as possible then, there is to be no unwarranted reduction in the number of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that in the meanwhile, which may take some time, some of those who are employees could possibly lose such status, by virtue of a pending unfair labor practice case." Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike and the picketing were attended by violence, it does not automatically follow that thereby the strikers in question are no longer entitled to participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their jobs. Disposition petition is dismissed and the appealed order affirmed

6.9.

EFFECT, PENDING PETITION, CANCELLATION TRADE UNION REGISTRATION

ART. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The
following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of members who took part in the ratification; (b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; (c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election;cvirtual law library (d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself; (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law; (f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law; (g) Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from employers; (h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members; (i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or whenever required by the Bureau; and (j) Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237 and 238.

United CMC Textile Workers Union vs Bureau of Labor Relations (PAFLU) 128 SCRA 316 Melencio-Herrera, J; 1984
NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - This is a dispute between two unions, the petitioner and the private respondent, vying to be the collective bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of Central Textile Mills (CENTEX). - Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice alleging that private respondent is a company union in that CENTEX had "helped and cooperated in the organization of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. – Local PAFLU. - Thereafter, PAFLU filed a petition for a certification which was approved by the public respondent. - Petitioner then filed a notice of strike which was prevented when the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction of the case. - The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations approved the

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 151-

Disini

ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES V FERRER-CALLEJA 203 SCRA 596 GUTIERREZ JR; November 15, 1991
NATURE Petition to ascertain the power, if any, of DOLE, more specifically the BLR, to supervise the activities of government employees - in this case, unions of judiciary personnel who serve in the CA FACTS - April 4, 1990 > Union of Concerned Employees of the Court of Appeals (UCECA), a registered union filed a petition for accreditation and/or certification election with the BLR alleging that the Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) which is the incumbent bargaining representative, no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the rankand-file employees. The UCECA alleged that there was a mass resignation of ACAE members on April 14, 1989. - May 10, 1990 > ACAE filed its Comment and/or Opposition. It stated that the listing by the ACAE of its membership at three hundred three (303) employees was a product of fraud. It charged the UCECA with misrepresentation, forgery and perjury in attaching to its petition, a copy of the names of members some of which were twice listed, written without consent or unsigned, and some of the signatures of which were forged. In addition, the petitioner alleged that some of the UCECA members, upon learning of the fraudulent act, resigned from the union. - In its reply, the UCECA stated that its registry book was not smeared with fraud and claimed that any mistakes were only clerical errors. - June 18, 1990 > ACAE filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the UCECA in BLR on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation by UCECA in obtaining its Registration Certificate and in preparing its Registry Book of members - July 16, 1990 > UCECA filed a motion to dismiss for being dilatory, to which ACAE replied that the maxim of res ipsa loquitur should be applied as the "fraudulent documents submitted by UCECA speak for themselves." - July 30, 1990 > BLR ruled that the cancellation proceedings is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. It granted the UCECA's prayer for a certification election. BLR found that UCECA was supported by three hundred three (303) or forty (40%) percent of the seven hundred sixty two (762) rank-and-file employees of the court. ACAE's motion for reconsideration was denied. - August 21, 1990 > BLR conducted a pre-election conference. - Feeling that it was being stampeded into participating in a certification election, ACAE filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. We issued a temporary restraining order effective August 29, 1990. ISSUES 1. WON BLR acted with grave abuse of discretion when it granted the petition for certification election to determine the certified bargaining agent to represent the rank-and-file employees of the CA 2. WON a petition for cancellation of registration of the union requesting for a certification election is a bar to the resolution of a prior petition for certification election HELD 1. NO - It is the function of this Court to regulate all activities of Judges and court personnel, the Supreme Court included, to the end that the independence, effectiveness, and integrity of the judiciary as mandated

by the Constitution are not impaired or compromised. It is axiomatic that any demands of court employees for higher compensation or improved facilities must be viewed in the context of the fiscal autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution to the Judiciary. (Constitution, Article VIII, Section 3). Neither DOLE, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), nor any other agency would have jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. And since unresolved legal questions commenced elsewhere are ultimately decided by us, the final decision on all such questions would still be with this Court. - All this does not mean that the separation of powers doctrine requires us to supervise the details of self-organization activities in the courts. In the same way that CSC validly conducts competitive examinations to grant requisite eligibilities to court employees, we see no constitutional objection to DOLE handling the certification process in the Court of Appeals, considering its expertise, machinery, and experience in this particular activity. Executive Order No. 180 requires organizations of government employees to register with both CSC and DOLE. This ambivalence notwithstanding, the CSC has no facilities, personnel, or experience in the conduct of certification elections. The BLR has to do the job. - ACAE cannot persuasively challenge the validity of Executive Order No. 180 because its very personality to bring this suit is premised on its having organized under the same executive order. The first paragraph of the petition reads: Petitioner ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES, ACAE for brevity, is an association of government employees duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Executive Order No. 180, duly accredited as the exclusive representative of the rank-and-file employees of the Court of Appeals… 2. NO Ratio The established rule is correctly followed by the public respondent that an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing a cancellation. Reasoning - It is the policy of the State in protecting the rights of labor to ensure and maintain industrial peace. For this reason, all employees of an appropriate bargaining unit shall be given an opportunity to organize and to determine which labor organization should be their exclusive bargaining representative. Hence, a petition for certification election filed by an interested labor organization shall be dealt with accordingly, with a view to attaining this objective. This is especially true when it involves the ultimate respect for and protection of the rights of government employees. In granting to employees in the civil service the right to organize, a procedure has been enacted to allow them to select what union shall be the recognized representative for all those in one agency, i.e., a certification election. (Sections 5, 6 and 12; Executive Order No. 180; Sections 3 and 4, Rule V and Rule VI, Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Government Employees to SelfOrganization) Disposition Petitioner having failed to show grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed orders of the public respondent are AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on August 29, 1990 is LIFTED.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V LAGUESMA (Nagkakaisang-Lakas ng Manggagawa) 271 SCRA 593 KAPUNAN; April 18, 1997

Labor Law 2

A2010 - 152-

Disini

NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - July 9, 1993: Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut). - August 20, 1993: Progressive (petitioner) filed a verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent Union's registration making it void and invalid. Among the bases of fraud was the fact that while the application for registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organizational meeting held on June 27, 1993, the charter certification issued by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, and that the Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition were not properly acknowledged and notarized. - August 30, 1993: Progressive filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsificatio. Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with the Med-Arbiter requesting suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration. - In an Order dated September 29, 1993, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah directed the holding of a certification election among petitioner's rank and file employees. - On appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor, Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma in a Resolution dated December 29, 1993 denied the same. ISSUE WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes a ministerial function. (Action and Denial of Application and Remedy) HELD NO Ratio Registration requirements specifically afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected. EFFECT, PENDING PETITION, CANCELLATION TRADE UNION REGISTRATION (P.24) - Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate labor organization it begins to possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law to such organizations. - Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no rights, particularly the right to ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election. Disposition Petition is granted and remanded to Med-Arbiter.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful