PAFLU vs. BLR, et.

al
G.R. No. L-43760 August 21, 1976

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE

LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) assailing a CERTIFICATION by respondent public respondent
BLR certifying respondent National Federation of Free Labor Unions (NAFLU) as the
exclusive bargaining agent (EBA) of all the employees in the Philippine Blooming Mills,
Company, Inc. and disregarding the objection raised by petitioner.

It appears that in a Certification Election, there were four (4) votes cast by employees
who did not want any union. On its face therefore, respondent NAFLU ought to have
been certified in accordance with the above applicable rule.

Petitioner disagreed and invokes the doctrine announced in the case of Allied Workers
Association of the Philippines v. Court of Industrial Relations that spoiled ballots should
be counted in determining the valid votes cast. Considering there were seventeen
spoiled ballots, petitioner imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent
BLR Director in certifying NAFLU as the EBA and holding that the ruling in the Allied
Workers Association case does not apply since the controversy therein arose during the
period when the law in effect is the Industrial Peace Act, not the Labor Code, no longer
possesses relevance. It cannot and should not be applied. It is not controlling.

ISSUE:

W/N there was grave abuse of discretion on the part respondent BLR Director in
certifying that NAFLU as the EBA of Philippine Blooming Mills, Company, Inc.

RULING:

No, there was no grave abuse of discretion. The SC held that the Allied Workers
Association case does not apply since Labor Code is already in effect. Further, it held
that it cannot ignore the interpretation embodied in the Implementing Rules of the
Labor Code. In so ruling, the Court cited an excerpt from the leading American case of
Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, decided in 1891: "The principle that the contemporaneous
construction of a statute by the executive officers of the government, whose duty it is
to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily control the construction
of the statute by the courts, is so firmly embedded in our jurisprudence that no
authorities need be cited to support it." It likewise cited a paraphrase thereof by Justice
Malcolm of such a pronouncement in the 1918 case of Molina v. Rafferty, which stated:
"Courts will and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a
statute by the executive officers whose duty it is to enforce it, and unless such
interpretation is clearly erroneous will ordinarily be controlled thereby."

Since then, such a doctrine has been reiterated in numerous decisions. As was
emphasized by Chief Justice Castro, "the construction placed by the office charged with
implementing and enforcing the provisions of a Code should he given controlling
weight.

In simple terms, absent any showing that the Decision of the BLR Director violates any
provision of the Labor Code or any law in effect, his construction of the law must be
given credence.