Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14656
two (2) contending labor unions herein, the PLASLU or the AWA shall be the
sole collective bargaining agent in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Employer is hereby ordered to submit a list of employees appearing in its
payroll during milling season for the year 1955 to the Department of Labor
which, together with the "Exhibit X-Court" now part of the records of this case
shall be used as the list of eligible voters minus employees who are
performing functions of supervisors and security guards who are excluded
from participating in said election. (Emphasis supplied.)
SO ORDERED.
Prior to the holding of the election, respondent AWA filed an urgent motion to
exclude 144 employees from participating in the election. The motion, however, was
denied, the Industrial Court holding that the workers sought to be excluded were
eligible to vote since they were actual employees of good standing of the
respondent company during the milling season of 1955 and were included in the
company's payroll as of that date.
On September 21, 1956, the certification election was held in the premises of the
San Carlos Milling Co., PLASLU receiving 88 votes while AWA garnered 149, with 390
ballots recorded as challenged, 242 of them by the petitioner PLASLU and 148 by
the respondent AWA filed with the Industrial Court a petition contesting the election
on the ground of the ineligibility of the voters cast the 148 ballots is challenged by
PLASLU were cast by legitimate employee of the company, as they were the votes
of "piece work (pakiao) workers and stevedores appearing in the employer's payroll
during the milling and off-season" of 1955. PLSLU, on the other hand, in an urgent
motion filed on October 4, 1956, questioned the validity of the 242 ballots cast by
stevedores and piece workers. The motion was opposed by AWA on the ground that
as a protest of the election it was filed late. The Industrial Court, however,
considered the same as an answer to AWA'S petition, and on September 4, 1957,
after hearing the arguments of the parties, ordered that all the 390 challenged
ballots were opened. After the canvass, 148 votes challenged by AWA were counted
in favor of PLASLU. Of the 242 votes challenged by PLASLU, 3 were counted in its
favor, 228 credited in favor of AWA, and 11 declared either for no union or spoiled
ballots. Adding the votes to the results of the certification election, the final count
showed that respondent AWA garnered a total of 377 votes as against 239 for
PLASLU. Accordingly, said respondent was certified by the Industrial Court in its
order dated March 12, 1958 as the sole collective bargaining agent of the
employees of the San Carlos Milling Co. As its motion for reconsideration of the
order was denied by the court en banc with Judge Feliciano Tabigne dissenting -the petitioner PLASLU filed the present petition for review, contending that Industrial
Court erred in not excluding the 242 votes challenged by it from the total number of
votes credited to respondent AWA.
Disregarding the votes cast by stevedores and piece workers which were counted in
favor of the respondent AWA, the final results of the certification election show that
the petitioner PLASLU garnered a majority of the votes cast by eligible voters.
Consequently, said petitioner should be certified as the sole collective bargaining
representative of the employees of the San Carlos Milling Co.
Wherefore, the order complained of is reversed and the petitioner PLASLU is hereby
certified as the collective bargaining agent of the employees of the San Carlos
Milling Company. Without costs
C. 1. The company agrees to collect from all employees and workers in the
COMPANY'S employ (exclusive of the employees and workers specified in the
immediately preceding paragraph) in a collective bargaining unit for which
the UNION has been or may be certified as the representative of said
employees and workers in said unit, starting sixteen (16) days after the
effectivity of this Agreement, weekly compensation in the amount of twentyfive centavos (P0.25) per week, for each calendar week in which the
employees or workers have worked at least one 8-hour shift, such
compensation being in payment of services rendered by the UNION as the
certified exclusive representative of said employees and workers for
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroble s
On October 18, 1962 and October 7, 1964 the Company and appellant Union
filed their answers, respectively. Meanwhile, sometime in October 1962
BBWU filed a complaint in intervention, which was addmitted by the Court,
praying that the weekly deduction of P0.25 from the wages of its members,
being without their consent, be declared illegal and thereafter enjoined. After
trial, the lower court rendered its decision dated November 23, 1964, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, as it would appear that
neither the Benguet Balatoc Workers Union nor the BCI Employees Workers
Union-PAFLU is entitled to the weekly union compensation collected by the
defendant company during the period of September 2, 1962 thru September
12, 1964, both dates inclusive, now in the aggregate amount of P90,183.25,
the defendant Company is hereby ordered to return as soon as practicable,
upon this judgment having become final, to each of its individual employees
and workers the respective aggregate amount deducted from their weekly
(2) When the said contract was renewed by the same parties in 1959 the
provision concerning the Union compensation was continued, but with two
provisos, namely: (a) with respect to those employees and workers who had
not theretofore been paying Union compensation the Company could collect
the same only upon their written authority; and (b) with respect to persons
who might thereafter be engaged by the Company, they should, before
entering their employment, "sign an authorization for check-off of Union
compensation."
chanroble s virtual law library
(3) Implicit in the different provisions of both of the 1955 and 1959
contracts was the understating that the collection by the Company of the
Union compensation was for the benefit of the then bargaining agent, that
is, BBWU. Thus in the 1935 contract (subsection XIII-C) "such compensation
(was) in payment of services rendered by the UNION as the certified
exclusive representative of said employees and workers for collective
bargaining purposes." In accordance with this provision the 1959 contract
stipulated that during its effectivity or any extension thereof "and as long as
the UNION remains the certified exclusive representative of all the
employees and workers ... the Company will continue to collect UNION
compensation ..." And it was further provided "that should the UNION, for
any reason whatsoever cease to be the certified collective bargaining
representative ...the COMPANY'S obligation herein to collect the weekly
compensation ... shall automatically cease.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It is clear from the foregoing that the agreement concerning the Company's
obligation to deduct Union compensation from the pay of the workers was
for the benefit of BBWU alone; that the consent of the workers as to such
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in the sense that only
the dues so far collected by appellant Company from its workers and
employees who are not members of appellant Union and who have not