DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY v.

DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA) and

BUENAVENTURA MAGSALIN
G.R. No. 109002, April 12, 2000

FACTS:
Dela Salle University and DLSUEA-NAFTEU entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a
life span of 3 years. During the freedom period, negotiations with the University for a new CBA
were unsuccessful. Identifying the unresolved issues, the matter was submitted for arbitration.
One of the issues was the scope of the bargaining unit. Magsalin, as arbitrator decided that the
Computer Operators assigned at the Computer Services Center just like any other Computer
Operators in other units, should be included as members of the bargaining unit, the discipline
officers belong to the rank-and-file on the basis of the nature of their job and that the employees
of the College of St. Benilde, the College having a personality separate and distinct from the
University, such employees are outside the bargaining unit of said University. Both parties filed
for reconsideration with the Magsalin but were not entertained by him. The University then filed
for certiorari with the Court.

ISSUE: Whether CSB employees may be included in the new CBA since they were not previously
included in the CBA between the University and the Union.

HELD:
The University's arguments on the first issue fail to impress us. The Court agrees with the Solicitor
General that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not
bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. During
the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement
but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto.

With regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees' functions, after a careful
consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court, we rule that the said computer operators
and discipline officers are not confidential employees. As carefully examined by the Solicitor
General, the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical
and non-confidential in nature. As to the discipline officers, we agree with the voluntary arbitrator
that based on the nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should
therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. The Court also affirms
the findings of the voluntary arbitrator that the employees of the College of St. Benilde should be
excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University,
because the two educational institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no
sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION (SLECC) v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009

FACTS:
On February 2001, Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP) instituted a petition for
certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of petitioner and its affiliates.
The Med Arbiter ordered the dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the bargaining
unit. In the meantime, CLUP-Sta. Lucia, reorganized itself and re-registered itself as CLUP- Sta.
Lucia East Commercial Workers Association (CLUP-SLECCAWA), limiting its membership to the
rank and file employees, and filed a petition. It was issued a Certificate of Creation of a Local
Chapter No. RO400-0110-CC-004. CLUP-SLECCSA alleged that SLECC employs about 115
employees and that more than 20% of employees belonging to the rank-and-file category are its
members. CLUP-SLECCWA claimed that no certification election has been held among them
within the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition, and while there is another union
registered with DOLE-Regional Office No. IV on 22 June 2001 covering the same employees,
namely the Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial (SMSLEC), it has not been
recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of SLECC’s employees.

SLECC filed a motion to dismiss and averred that it recognized the the Samahang Manggagawa
sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial (SMSLEC) as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-
and-file employees and that the collective bargaining negotiation already commenced. On
November 2001, a CBA was ratified between the company and the SMSLEC. CLUP-SLECCAWA
opposed the execution of CBA as the same is tainted with malice, collusion and conspiracy. Med-
Arbiter dismissed CLUP-SLECCAWA’s petition for direct certification on the ground of contract bar
rule. On appeal, Secretary of Labor (SOLE) reversed and set aside Med Arbiter’s decision. The
company filed a petition before the CA; the CA affirmed the ruling of SOLE. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with
SMSLEC could bar CLUP-SLECCWA’s petition for certification election.

RULING:
NO. Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as "any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing
with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment." Upon compliance with all the
documentary requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant
labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon
issuance of the certificate of registration. The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate
collective bargaining unit are: (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity
of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective
bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status.

SLECC cannot ignore that CLUP-SLECCAWWA was a legitimate labor organization at the time of
SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC. SLECC and SMSLEC cannot, by themselves, decide
whether CLUP-SLECCAWWA represented an appropriate bargaining unit. The employer may
voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union in unorganized establishments. SLECC
was not an unorganized establishment when it voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive
bargaining representative on 20 July 2001. CLUP-SLECCAWWA filed a petition for certification
election on 27 February 2001 and this petition remained pending as of 20 July 2001. Thus,
SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the subsequent negotiations and
resulting registration of a CBA executed by SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot bar CLUP-
SLECCWA’s present petition for certification election.
PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PWUP) v. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, et al.
G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992

FACTS:
There was muffled excitement among the workers of the International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. (ICTSI) because its collective bargaining agreement 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. The first challenge to APCWU was hurled 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. 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
on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days after the filing of the petition. The petitions of SAMADA and
PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. 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. Specifically, APCWU faulted both petitions for non-compliance
with the requirement for the 25% consent signatures at the time of filing. This contention was
upheld by the Med-Arbiter in an order dated June 5, 1990, dismissing the consolidated petitions

ISSUE: Whether certification election should be conducted.

HELD:
Yes. The Court has deliberated on the arguments of the parties in their respective pleadings and
finds for the petitioner.

We have held that 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. As we stressed in Belyca Corporation vs. Ferrer-Calleja,
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, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from
such filing.
ALEXANDER REYES, et al. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, et al.
G.R. No. 84433, June 2, 1992

FACTS:
There were two competing unions, Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in
Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied
Services (TUPAS). 348 workers were deemed to be qualified voters for the certification election.

Of the 348 qualified voters, only 240 voted, 141 of these are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo
(INK). The INK employees promptly made known their protest to the exclusion of their votes. They
filed a petition to cancel the election alleging that it "was not fair" and the result thereof did "not
reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees." TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition.
The Med Arbiter saw no merit in the INK employees’ petition which prompted the petitioners to
appeal before BLR which also denied the appeal.

ISSUE: Are the members of INK being guaranteed of the right to self-organization?

HELD:
YES. The right not to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a
labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes
the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should
be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise
such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union
does not preclude his subsequently opting to renounce such membership.

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. If the results of
the election should disclose that the majority of the workers do not wish to be represented by any
union, then their wishes must be respected, and no union may properly be certified as the
exclusive representative of the workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et al.
G.R. No. L-20307, February 26, 1965

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 Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) praying that pending final
determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due hearing, decide which
union gets the job, or comply with the 50-50 arrangement.

After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by YMLUS and retaliation from
VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain
from preventing VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU, ordering
them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and order making such injunctions
permanent.

Both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the CIR but
later submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. Judge Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties to
continue observing the 50-50 arrangement until it is decided by certification election, which party
was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO each filed MFRs as to the holding of
certification elections which were denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy
2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election

HELD:
1. YES.
Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining to certification election involving
2 or more unions fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from
questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction to
present evidence.

2. NO.
Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and is the only expedient way to
resolve the friction between the 2 unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision
of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of rights but is merely the
determination of the proper bargaining unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature
and this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR, unless grave abuse of discretion
is shown.
SAMAHANG MANGGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP) v. SEC OF LABOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR,
PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER CORPORATION (PPEC)
G.R. No. 107792 March 2, 1998

FACTS:
On Jan. 15, 1991, a certification election was conducted among employees of PPEC which
resulted to a no union. However, some employees of said company formed a labor organization
known as the Samahang Manggagawa sa PERMEX (SMP) which was registered with DOLE. The
union affiliated itself with Philippine Industries Labor Union (PIILU). On Aug. 16, 1991, SMP- PIILU
requested PPEC to recognize the former as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees.

PECC recognized SMP-PIILU and both entered into a collective bargaining agreement Dec. 1,
1991) which was later on ratified by the majority of the rank and file employees (Dec. 9 & 10,
1991) which was subsequently certified by DOLE (Dec. 13, 1991). On Feb. 25, 1992, National
Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a PCE which was dismissed by the Med- Arbiter but granted by
Sec of Labor on appeal. SMP-PIILU questioned the resolution of the Sec of Labor. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE: Whether PECC's voluntary recognition of SMP-PIILU as the exclusive bargaining agent
within 12 months after the last certification election is valid.

RULING:
As pointed out by the respondent Sec of Labor in his decision, there can be no determination of a
bargaining representative within a year of the proclamation of the results of the certification
election. Here the results, which showed that 61% of the employees voted for "no union, during
the first PCE were certified on Feb. 22, 1991 but on Dec. 1, 1991 PECC already recognized SMP-
PIILU and entered a CBA with it. The Court said that there is something dubious about the fact
that just 10 months after the employees had voted that they did not want any union to represent
them; they would be expressing support for SMP-PIILU.

Excepted from the contract bar rule are certain types of contracts which do not forester industrial
stability, such as contracts where the identity of the representative is in doubt. Any stability
derived from such contracts must be subordinated to the employees' freedom of choice because
it does not establish the kind of industrial peace contemplated by law. Moreso, in the case at bar,
the sworn affidavits f some employees showed that there existed coercion and intimidation when
they supported SMP- PIILU.
BELYCA CORPORATION v. DIR. CALLEJA, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 77395, November 29, 1988

FACTS:
On June 3, 1986, private respondent Associated Labor Union (ALU)-TUCP, a legitimate labor
organization, filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
all the rank and file employees/workers of Belyca Corporation, a duly organized, registered and
existing corporation, employing approximately 205 rank and file employees/workers.

Respondent employer, on the other hand, alleged in its position paper, among others, (1) that of
the total 138 rank-and-file employees who authorized, signed and supported the filing of the
petition (a) 14 were no longer working as of June 3, 1986 (b) 4 resigned after June, 1986 (c) 6
withdrew their membership from petitioner union (d) 5 were retrenched on June 23, 1986 (e) 12
were dismissed due to malicious insubordination and destruction of property and (f) 100 simply
abandoned their work or stopped working; and (2) that the statutory requirement for holding a
certification election has not been complied with by the union.

The Labor Arbiter granted the certification election sought for by petitioner union in his order
dated August 18, 1986.

ISSUE: Whether or not the statutory requirement of 30% (now 20%) of the employees in the
proposed bargaining unit, asking for a certification election had been strictly complied with.

RULING:
Yes. It is undisputed that petitioner Belyca Corporation (Livestock and Agro Division) employs
more or less two hundred five (205) rank-and-file employees and workers. It is significant to note
that 124 employees out of such number have expressed their written consent to the certification
election; much more than the required 30% and over and above the present requirement of 20%
by Executive Order No. 111.

More than that, any doubt cast on the authenticity of signatures to the petition for holding a
certification election cannot be a bar to its being granted. In fact, once the required percentage
requirement has been reached, even the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking
place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect said petition. Also, until
a decision, final in character, has been issued declaring the strike illegal and the mass dismissal
or retrenchment valid, the strikers cannot be denied participation in the certification election.
GEORGE AND PETER LINES, INC. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION
G.R. No. L-51602, January 17, 1985

Facts:
ALU filed for a petition for Direct Certification, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of all rank and file employees of G&PL.

G&PL opposed the petition stating that ALU does not represent the majority of the employees
concerned, especially in the light of the claim of more than 80% of the licensed and unlicensed
crew of its vessels that they are not members of any union and have no desire to join any.
The Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of G&PL employees.

G&PL moved for reconsideration alleging that a certification election (CE) should be called for the
interest of fairness and justice.

Issue:
Whether a direct certification would suffice to prove the alleged majority representation status of
a union

Held:
No, it would not suffice.

Certification election is the best and most appropriate means of ascertaining the will of the
employees as to their choice of an exclusive bargaining representative. The fact that there are no
competing unions involved should not alter that principle, the freedom of choice by the
employees being the primordial consideration besides the fact that the employees can still
choose between ALU and No Union. Even if the withdrawals of the employees concerned were
submitted after the Petition for direct certification had been filed, the doubt as to the majority
representation of the Union has arisen and it is best to determine the true sentiment of the
employees through a certification election.
PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS v. DIRECTOR CARMELO C.
NORIEL, et al.
G.R. No. L-48007, December 15, 1982

FACTS:
Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers (PLUM) 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. Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion
to intervene and opposition to said petition and alleged 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 motion to dismiss 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 (TUCP) 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 TUCP for the purpose of submitting
the matter to the Congress for decision. TUCP’s decision is that MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM

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. BLR Director dismissed PLUM’s the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not TUCP (here both PLU and PTGWO) has the authority to supersede or impair
the holding of a certification election or deny the majority employees of their right to elect their
own union

RULING:
NO. Certification election is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the win of
the majority if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to
make their choice, is controlling. Protection to labor and freedom of peaceful assembly and
association are guaranteed by the Constitution. A letter from the president of respondent union
reveals the present state of affairs of the employees wherein they are deprived of the benefits of
a collective bargaining agreement, for management refused to bargain with the union. If this
situation continues, the employees would stand to lose a long-line of cases that the workers'
welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process.

As to the issue of whether or not the 30% minimum subscription requirement was met, it was
held that the Director is still empowered to call for a certification election provided there was no
abuse of discretion. However, in the case at bar, instead of ordering an election, respondent
Director dismissed the appeal of PLUM based on the decision of the TUCP, which the Court
considers an impairment of the freedom of the workers to voice out their choice of the union to
represent them. If there is any doubt as to the required number having met, there would be no
better way than the holding of a certification election to ascertain which union really commands
the allegiance of the rank-and-file employees. If the desired goal is for the execution of a
collective bargaining contract to protect the workers, then certification election is the most
appropriate means to attain said end. Since there has been no certification election for the past
three (3) years as well as a certified collective bargaining agreement which should govern the
economic and working conditions of the workers, a certification election should immediately be
ordered.
ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION v. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS' UNION
G.R. No. L-18848, April 23, 1963

FACTS:
Department of Labor, through the BLR, conducted on June 9, 1961, a “consent election” among
the workers of the Acoje Mining Company at Santa Cruz, Zambales, in which 5 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. NAMAWU won in the said election.

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. After hearing, the lower court
issued, on July 21, 1961, the order appealed from holding that said motion was without merit,
and certifying respondent Union NAMAWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers of the Company. MR of petitioner was denied, hence this present appeal by certiorari,
and petitioner 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. The petitioner also questioned the list of qualified voters that
was used during the election which was based on the payroll of the employees.

ISSUE: Can a payroll be used as the basis for qualified employee- voters?

HELD:
YES. It appears that 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. The
Company presented its aforementioned payroll to said court and stated that the labor unions had
been furnished copy thereof, at least 3 days prior thereto. 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. Indeed, on May 19, 1961, the court issued the
corresponding order for the holding of the election and made its ruling on the question as to who
were qualified to vote, and petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of said ruling. Hence,
petitioner may no longer contest the accuracy of the aforementioned voters list.

As to the allegation of petitioner that there are many cases where the workers were threatened,
coerced and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU, is but a 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. Petitioner’s
contention is insufficient to warrant the invalidation of the aforementioned election.
AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC., et al. v. HON. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS CALLEJA, et al.
G.R. No. 80612-16 December 29, 1989

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).