CASE:

and
(WAUP)

GEORGE ARGUELLES (HDA. EMMA ARGUELLES) vs. ROMEO A. YOUNG,

Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and
Employment, and FEDERATION OF UNIONS OF RIZAL (FUR)
WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. L-59880 September 11, 1987

FACTS:
On April 7, 1980, Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR), a legitimate labor organization,
filed with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), a petition for
certification supported by the signatures of 32 workers of Hacienda Emma, alleging among
others that it commands membership of 32 of the 35 workers of Hacienda Emma; that there is
no other union in the said sugar cane plantation; and that no election has been held therein for
the past 12 months.
On May 1, 1980, after the election conference has been scheduled, George Arguelles of
Hacienda Emma, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground
that the 30% requirement under the Labor Code has not been complied with inasmuch as
Hacienda Emma is not the sole bargaining unit of the respondent's workers. Petitioner alleged
that since the management consists of four (4) haciendas with a total of 131 workers who are all
governed by the same working conditions and sharing the same community of interest, 39
workers must support the petition in order to comply with the 30% requirement.
With this, FUR filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss alleging that Hacienda Emma
being separate and distinct from other haciendas, then there is no community interest to speak
of and that the one employer unit principle should admit some exceptions when it would be
impossible to group certain segments into a single unit.
In the middle of this proceeding, another legitimate labor organization, Workers
Amalgamated Union of the Philippines (WAUP) filed a motion to intervene, alleging among
others that it has the majority support of the rank and file workers of the said management and
that there has been no certification election held during the last 12 months, nor has there been a
recognized agent in the management.
On June 2, 1981, MOLE's Regional Office, Bacolod City, issued an order directing the
holding of certification elections within the premises of Hda. Emma, allowing the participation of
FUR and WAUP and directing the construction of polling booths.
On June 9, 1981, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the
Order does not resolve its motion to dismiss and that the med-arbiter has no authority to order
the holding of certification election.
Afterwards, the case was elevated to the Bureau of Labor Relations with public
respondent Romeo A. Young as Arbiter who issued a resolution dismissing the appeal nad
affirming the MOLEs Order with modification that the ordered certification election can be
conducted among the rank and file workers of the herein named respondent comprising of
Hacienda Emma, Hacienda Linao, Hacienda Gloria and Hacienda Iliman.

On January 11, 1982, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the
Resolution is contrary to law and was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. In its Resolution
of January 28, 1982, public respondent denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the
present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion in its Order
to hold of certification election among all the rank and file workers of petitioner's sugar cane
plantation consisting of four (4) different haciendas on the basis of the petition supported by
30% signatures of the employees in one hacienda alone.
HELD:
No. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The act complained of does not come within the
purview of grave abuse of discretion. On the contrary, it was one done in the exercise of sound
discretion attested by justice and fair play in furtherance of the interests of all party litigants
herein.
BLR considered the difference immaterial in view of the presence of intervenor WAUP,
which as correctly pointed out by respondent creates a genuine representation issue which can
be best settled in a certification election where the workers can freely make their choice as to
who will be their sole and exclusive bargaining representation.