St.
James School of QC v Samahan ng SRBI v Laguesma
Manggagawa sa St. James
The computation of the quorum should be based on
the rank-and-file motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora
campus. The motor pool, construction and
transportation employees of the Tandang Sora
campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the
certi cation election. Hence, the 149 quali ed
voters should be used to determine the existence of
a quorum.
• Qualification of voters; inclusion-
exclusion proceedings – all employees of
the appropriate bargaining unit at the time
of the certification election. In case of
disagreement, the contested votes shall be
segregated and sealed.
DHL Phils v Buklod ng Manggagawa
The election officer’s authority to certify the results
of the election is limited to situations which there has
been not protest filed or if any protest is filed, it was
formalized after the five-day period from the closing
of the election proceedings.
• When a protest has been filed, the med-
arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner.
Thus, the decision to certify the results of
an election or set them aside due to
incidents occurring during the campaign is
within the discretion of the med-arbiter.
The five-day rule cannot be strictly applied in this
case. In this case, when the med-arbiter gave due
course to respondent’s petition for nullification, the
election officer should have deferred issuing the
certification results.
• The members disaffiliated after learning of
the misrepresentation and formed their own
union. Thus, the five-day period cannot be
reasonably complied with.
• 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.
NUHWRAIN v Secretary of Labor
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.
• Nothing is said therein that prohibits such
automatic conduct of the certification
election if the management appeals on the
issue of the validity of the union's
registration.
• In this case the management is assailing
that the union and another rank-and-file
union were represented by the same
federation. In this regard, the court ruled
that despite the affiliation, the local union
maintains its separate personality.
SAMMA-Lakas v Samma Corporation
Unless petitioner's union registration is cancelled in
independent proceedings, it shall continue to have
all the rights of a legitimate labor organization,
including the right to petition for certification election.
• In this case, the cancellation of registration
of the union was filed by the company and
it was granted. The certification was
revoked. However, the union moved for
reconsideration. None of the parties
alleged that the cancellation attained
finality.
• However, in this case, the petitioner prayed
for the reinstatement of its status as
legitimate labor organizations. It cannot be
granted here.
An employer is a mere by-stander in a certification
election proceedings, except when it is the employer
itself who files for certification election on account of
a request for collective bargaining.
Chris Garments v Sto. Tomas
60-day freedom period. The first and third petition is
not barred by res judicata because in the former, the
freedom period has yet to commence, while in the
latter, the freedom period already began.
Employer-employee relationship. Since petitioner
did not appeal this factual finding, then, it may be
considered as the final resolution of such issue.
Double Majority Rule. for there to be a valid
certification election, majority of the bargaining unit
must have voted AND the winning union must have
garnered majority of the valid votes cast.
• Union A and B both failed to reach the
majority since the inclusion of the
probationary and exclusion of the
supervisory altered the number of votes
from 321 to 337.
• Ascertaining number of valid votes. For (a)
computing the required majority and (b) to
determine who won the elections.
Purpose of certification election. (a) determine the
bargaining unit and (b) ascertain the majority
representation of the bargaining representative.
Eagle Ridge v CA
Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file
employees in Eagle Ridge would require a union
membership of at least 22 employees (112 x 205 =
22.4). When the EREU filed its application for
registration on December 19, 2005, there were
clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the
certificate of registration was granted, there is no
dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory
20% membership requirement.
• Despite the withdrawal of the alleged 6
members, there is still compliance because
the 20% of 112 employees is 22. (There is
still 24 members remaining).
PICOP v Taneca
However, we are constrained to believe that an
"authorization letter to file a petition for certification
election" is different from an actual "Petition for
Certification Election."
• The provision on status quo only applies to
economic provisions. In representation
issues, the status quo does not apply.
Legend International v Kilusan
The cancellation of KML's certificate of registration
should not retroact to the time of its issuance nor
should it nullify all of KML's activities, including its
filing of the petition for certification election and its
demand to collectively bargain.
SMCC-Super v Charter Chemical
Kawashima applies with equal force here. As a
result, petitioner union was not divested of its status
as a legitimate labor organization even if some of its
members were supervisory employees; it had the
right to file the subject petition for certification
election.
Heritage Hotel v Secretary
Kawashima does not apply due to the date of the
petition but the court still ruled in favor of
NUHWRAIN because:
(1) The allegations of mixed membership was
not properly substantiated. It merely
identified the alleged managerial and
confidential employees but did not file
supporting evidence to prove the said
description.
Republic v Namboku Peak
The Secretary of Labor is not the real party-in-
interest vested with personality to file the present
petitions.
• As the officer who rendered the decision
now subject of these cases, the Secretary
of Labor should have remained impartial
and detached from the time the cases
reached her until the same were being
scrutinized on appeal.
T&H Shopfitters v T&H Union
Interference on the right to self-organization.
(1) Whether the employer has engaged in
conduct which, it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of
employees' rights; and
(2) that it is not necessary that there be direct
evidence that any employee was in fact
intimidated or coerced by statements of
threats of the employer
a. if there is a reasonable inference
that anti-union conduct of the
employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and
collective bargaining.
Hijo Resources v Mijares
This case is different from the Chris Garments case
cited by the NLRC where the Court held that the
matter of employer-employee relationship has been
resolved with finality by the DOLE Secretary, whose
factual findings were not appealed by the losing
party.
• The Med-Arbiter's order in this case
dismissing the petition for certification,
election on the basis of non-existence of
employer- employee relationship was
issued after the members of the respondent
union were dismissed from their
employment.
Ren Transport v NLRC
It bears stressing that Ren Transport had a duty to
bargain collectively with SMART. Under Article 263
in relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is
during the freedom period — or the last 60 days
before the expiration of the CBA — when another
union may challenge the majority status of the
bargaining agent through the filing of a petition for a
certification election.
• No petition for certification election
challenging the majority status of SMART
was filed during the freedom period, which
was from November 1 to December 31,
2004 — the 60-day period prior to the
expiration of the five-year CBA. SMART
therefore remained the exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees.