1|Labor

140 SAMAHAN ng mga MANGGAGAWA sa FILSYSTEMS vs. SOLE and

a.

Filsystems Inc.
J. Puno

G.R. No. 128067

TOPIC: APPEAL; A dismissal of a petition for certification election seasonably

appealed shall stop the holding of any certification of election, pursuant to Rule
V10, which provides that the filing of the appeal from the decision of the MedArbiter stays the holding of any certification election.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-NAFLUKMU) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file
employees of Filsystems. It submitted the Certificate of Registration issued by
the DOLE, copies of union membership signed by 33 rank-and-file employees of
the company, the Charter Certificate showing its affiliation with the NAFLU,
the list of union officers, the certification of the union secretary of the minutes
of the general membership meeting, the Books of Accounts and its CBL.
Filsystems opposed the petition, questioning the status of petitioner as a
legitimate labor org on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation
with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the BLR within 30 days from its
execution. Petitioner replied that as a duly registered labor union, it has all the
rights and privileges to act as representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining with employers.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. He ruled that
petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no legal personality on account
of its failure to comply with pars (a), (b), and (e) of Rule II3 of the
Implementing Rules of the LC.
Petitioner appealed to the Office of the SOLE, reiterating its contention that as
an independently registered union, it has the right to file a petition for
certification election regardless of its failure to prove its affiliation with the
NAFLU-KMU. Filsystems opposed the appeal.
On Feb. 7, 1996, the Filsystems Workers Union (FWU) filed a PCE in the same
bargaining unit, which the Med-Arbitration NCR Branch granted on April 19,
1996.
Filsystems filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeall of petitioner as it has become moot
and academic. It invoked Rule V3 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the
LC stating that once a union has been certified, no certification election may be
held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election.
In its opposition, petitioner contended its appeal is not moot as the certification
election held on April 19, 1996 was void as

b.

Day

06

It violated Rule V10 of the Implementing Rules of the LC, which

provides that the filing of the appeal from the decision of the MedArbiter stays the holding of any certification election.
The CBA executed between FWU and Filsystems could not affect its
pending representation case pursuant to Rule V4 which provides that
the representation case shall not be adversely affected by a CBA
registered before or during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement
or during the pendency of the representation case.

SOLE: Dismissed SAMAFILs appeal as it has been rendered MOOT by the

subsequent certification of FWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
R&F workers of respondent company
ISSUE: Whether or not SOLE acted with GAD in holding that the pending appeal
in the representation case was rendered moot and academic by a subsequently
enacted CBA in the company (YES)
Petitioners appeal was not rendered moot and academic by virtue of the
subsequent certification election later held on April 19, 1996. The order of
the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioners petition for certification election was
seasonably appealed. The appeal stopped the holding of any certification election.

There was an unresolved representation case at the time Filsystems entered into a
CBA with FWU. Following Rule V4 of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the LC,
such CBA cannot and will not prejudice petitioners pending representation case or
ender the same moot. This rule was applied in Associated Labor Unions (ALUTUCP) v. Trajano where the Court held that There should be no obstacle to the
right of the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time,
which is 60 days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified CBA x x x, not even
by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of the representation case.

Rule V10: Decision of the Secretary Final and Inappealable. The Secretary shall h

calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the c

the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certificatio
decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.

141 CALIFORNIA MANUFACATURING CORP. v. THE HONORABLE

UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, AND

2|Labor
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW), CALIFORNIA MFG. CORP.
SUPERVISORS UNION CHAPTER (CALMASUCO)

Day

06

Besides the employer CMC has no standing to question a certification election. It

is only a bystander. The only exception is when the employer has to file a petition for
certification because it was requested to collectively bargain.

GR No. 97020 / 8 Jun 1992 / J. Paras

FACTS
The Federation of Free Workers (FFW) - California Manufacturing Corporation
Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO) filed a petition for certification election
among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corp. (CMC).
CMC alleged that the petition should be denied as it is not supported by the
required 25% of all its supervisors (numbering about 150) and that a big number of
those supposed supervisors are not actually supervisors as they have no
subordinates to supervise nor do they have powers and functions under the law that
would classify them as supervisors.
In its reply FFW-CALMASUCO maintained that the 25% rule on signatories does
not apply because "organized establishment" does not refer to "company" per se but
rather to a "bargaining unit" which may be of different classifications in a single
company. Thus there is still no existing bargaining agent for the bargaining unit
and the 25% rule does not apply.
The Med-Arbiter ordered the certification election to be held. CMC appealed this
order to the DOLE but the latter affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter. Hence this
petition for review on certiorari to the SC.

142 ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. v.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the existence of collective bargaining agents for the establishment
as a whole, including all bargaining units, i.e. rank-and-file and supervisory, is the
reference for the 25% requirement, or is it per bargaining unit.

in the construction and fabrication, with operations in at Batangas Marine

HELD:
It refers to the bargaining unit. Since it is uncontested that the supervisors do not
have a bargaining agent separate and distinct from that of rank-and-file, thus they
correctly filed a petition for certification election through the petitioning union.
The requirement of 25% is relevant only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a
certification election. In all other cases the discretion outght to be exercised in favor
of a petition for certification.

LAGUESMA (USEC DOLE), FALCONITIN (MED-ARBITER), BLR, DOLE

and

LAKAS

NG

MANGGAGAWA

SA

AG

&

P-SMSG-NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF LABOR (LAKAS-NFL), [August 6, 1992 NOCON, J.]

DOCTRINE: A petition for certification election will not be entertained if there is

an existing and duly registered CBA except during the 60 day freedom period prior
to the expiration of said CBA.

FACTS
1.

Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc (COMPANY) is engaged

and Fabrication Yard (BMFY)

2.

COMPANY practice to hire project employees when job orders exceed

existing fabrication capacity

3.

Project employees covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment

Agreements
a.

Assigned to specific projects

b.

Terminated upon completion of project

3|Labor
c.
4.

Day

06

Basically same work as regular rank-and-file employees

COMPANY executed CBA

with

AG&P

United

Rank &

File

SC Ruling:

Association AND registered CBA with DOLE sole and exclusive

bargaining agent of regular rank-and-file employees.
5.

1.

regularized would become part of the bargaining unit.

LAKAS-NFL filed a separate Petition for Certification Election to be

a.

certified as exclusive bargaining agent of the regular non-project employees

6.

CBA with the AG&P Union provided that project employees who became

Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as

at the BMFY plant.

contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular

*** MED-ARBITER issued ORDER granting Petition BUT INCLUDED

Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are

employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this

PROJECT EMPLOYEES in the ORDER***

assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this Contract,

7.

COMPANY appealed; USEC Laguesma denied.

positions which may become vacant shall be duly considered for

8.

COMPANY responded by regularizing its project employees prior to

period.

the holding of the certification election so that there would be only one
bargaining unit
a.

9.

and provided further that relievers who are assigned to regular

such regular positions after attaining the six months probationary

2.

Book V, Rule V, Sec 3, Par 2 of Labor Code IRR states that no petition for
certification election will be entertained if there is a duly registered and

(SIDE STORY: some project employees initiated a strike, which

existing CBA. Said petitions will only be entertained during the 60 Day

was settled through conciliation).

Freedom Period prior to expiration of CBA.

COMPANY filed MR of Laguesma decision arguing that the workers sought

3.

Legislative Intent of LC Art 232:

designed to ensure industrial peace

to be represented were all regular workers under the CBA with AG&P. MR

between the employer and its employees during the existence of the

DENIED. Petition for Certiorari to SC.

collective bargaining agreement.

REFERENCES:
Syllabus Issue: Can petition for certification election be entertained if there is an
existing CBA (NO)
Case Issue: WON USEC Laguesma acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying
the MR and affirming Med Arbiters order to hold the second Certification Election
(YES)

LC, Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not
entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may
disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining
agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
Code.

4|Labor
Book V, Rule V, Sec 3, Par 2 of Labor Code IRR. If a collective bargaining
agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained
within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.

Day

06

proposed CBA. Copies of the newly concluded CBA were posted in the company
premises and were ratified by the members of the bargaining unit.

Thereafter, petitioner ALU moved for the dismissal of the appeal alleging that it
had just concluded a CBA with PASAR and that the said CBA had been ratified

143. Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. Hon. Ferrer-Calleja, Dir. of BLR,

by 98% of the regular R&F EEs and that at least 75 of NAFLU's members

DOLE & NAFLU (1989)

renounced their membership thereat and affirmed membership with PEA-ALU

in separate affidavits.

Facts:

PASAR with ALU, NAFLU and no union as choices, and denied petitioner's

Phil. Associated Smelting and Refining Corp (PASAR) is engaged in the

MTD.

manufacture and processing of copper cathodes with a plant operating in Isabel,

Leyte. It employs more or less 850 rank & file employees (R&F EEs) in its
departments.

BLR ordered the conduct of a certification election among the R&F EEs of

Both parties moved for reconsideration but both motions were denied. Hence,
this petition.

Petitioner Associated Labor Union (ALU) had a CBA with PASAR which
expired on April 1, 1987. Several days before the expiration of the said CBA or
on March 23, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions
(NAFLU) filed a PCE with BLR Regional Office in Tacloban City alleging,
among others, that no certification election had been held in PASAR within 12
months immediately preceding the filing of the said petition.

petition.
Med-Arbiter Elorcha dismissed the petition but enjoined PASAR from entering
into a CBA with any union until after the issue of representation is finally
resolved. Ultimately, the petition for certification was dismissed for failure of
NAFLU to solicit 20% of the total number of R&F EEs while ALU submitted 33
pages containing the signatures of 88.5% of the R&F EEs at PASAR.

defiance of the order of the med-arbiter enjoining the parties from entering into a
CBA until the issue on representation is finally resolved? NO

Petitioner moved to intervene and sought the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that NAFLU failed to present the necessary signatures in support of its

Issue: Is contract bar rule applicable where a CBA was hastily concluded in

Respondent NAFLU appealed the order of dismissal to BLR. While the appeal
was pending, petitioner ALU concluded negotiations with PASAR on the

Ratio:

Petitioner argues that Art. 257 of the Labor Code which requires the signature
of at least 20% of the total number of R&F EEs should be applied in the case at
bar. The Court disagreed and held that Art. 257 is applicable only to
unorganized labor organizations and not to establishments like PASAR where
there exists a certified bargaining agent, petitioner ALU, which as the record
shows had previously entered into a CBA with the management. Art. 257 is
applicable only to unorganized establishments.

5|Labor

In cases of organized establishments where there exists a certified bargaining

06

General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers. All 190 were
members of General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (the

period as provided for in Art. 256 of the Labor Code.

Union), the duly certified bargaining agent.

Art. 256 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. The mere filing of a PCE

1989: GMC and the Union concluded a CBA, effective for a term of three

within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director to order

years, retroactive to 1988, including a provision on the Unions presentation

the holding of a certification election.

of GMCs workers.

The petition for certification filed by NAFLU was well within the freedom

1991: A day before the expiration of the CBA, the Union sent GMC a draft
for a new CBA. However, even a month before, GMC had already received
letters

Day

agent, what is essential is whether the PCE was filed within the 60-day freedom

period.

from

workers

(individually

and

collectively),

stating

their

The contract bar rule is applicable only where the PCE was filed either before

withdrawal from union membership due to religious and other personal

or after the freedom period.

reasons.

The PCE in this case was filed within the freedom period but the petitioner and

Because of this, GMC did not send the Union any counter-proposal,

PASAR hastily concluded a CBA despite the order of the Med-Arbiter enjoining

believing that the Union did not have standing to negotiate a CBA. GMC

them from doing so until the issue of representation is finally resolved. The

wrote a letter to the Union officers, stating that it felt that there was no

parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. Their act was clearly

basis to negotiate with the Union, but that management was nonetheless

intended to bar the PCE filed by NAFLU. A CBA which was prematurely

willing to dialogue with them on matters of common concern.

renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. Such indecent

haste in renewing the CBA despite an order enjoining them from doing so is

The Union officers replied, disclaiming any mass disaffiliation from the

designed to frustrate the constitutional right of the employees to self-

Union, attaching a manifesto, signed by the members, stating that they had

organization. Moreover, the actuation of the petitioner and the management in

not withdrawn.

this case is not conducive to industrial peace.

GMC dismissed Marcia Tumbiga, a member of the Union. The Union

The renewed CBA cannot constitute a bar to the instant PCE for the very

protested and requested GMC to submit the matter to the grievance

reason that the same was not yet in existence when the said petition was filed.

procedure provided in the CBA. GMC, however, advised the Union to refer

The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be

to its previous letter (saying that the Union had no standing to negotiate a

circumvented.

CBA).

144 General Milling Corp v. CA (2004)

Facts:

So, the Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice.

LA: Dismissed the case, with recommendation that a petition for

certification be held to determine if the Union still enjoyed the support of
the workers.

6|Labor

Day

06

NLRC: Reversed the LA. As per RA 6715, the duration of CBAs shall be

The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to

five years. This means that the Union remained as the exclusive bargaining

meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of

agent. It was unfair labor practice for GMC to not enter into negotiation

negotiating an agreement (Art. 252, Labor Code). The crucial question whether or

with the Union.

not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the
facts of the individual case. Both parties are required to perform their mutual

NLRC, upon Motion for Reconsideration: Set aside its previous ruling.

obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the

GMCs doubts as to the status of the Union were justified.

purpose of negotiating an agreement. In the case at bar, the Union lived up to this

CA: Reinstated the original NLRC ruling.

Issues + Ratio:
1.

WON GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to
bargain collectively YES

obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA. But GMC failed in its duty.

The procedure in collective bargaining prescribed by the Code is mandatory. Art.

250 states that when a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a
written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. Then, the
other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten calendar days from receipt
of such notice. GMCs failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by
the Union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. It is
an indication of bad faith. GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it

Art. 253-A of the Labor Code mandates that the representation provision of a CBA
should last for five years. (Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties
may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term
of five (5) years.) The relation between labor and management should be
undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that
when the Union requested for a renegotiation of the CBA, it was still the certified
collective bargaining agent of the workers. It is obvious that GMC had no valid
reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the Union. GMC committed an
unfair labor practice under Art. 248 (g) of the Labor Code (It shall be unlawful for
an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.
- -> NOTE: In the Reviewer, it is this portion of the case which is cited as the
doctrine. But take note that the syllabus topic the case is assigned under is the
process of certification election, and the only part about certification election in this
case is where the LA ordered that a certification election be ordered. Kung pipilitin
ang topic, I would say that the doctrine is that no certification election was necessary
because the Union remained the exclusive bargaining agent.

liable for unfair labor practice.

2.

WON the draft CBA proposed by the Union may be imposed upon GMC

The general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to
govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The
rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither
party is guilty of bad faith.

It would be unfair to the Union if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA
would continue to be imposed for the remaining two years of the CBAs duration.
The Court will not gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it
resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which

7|Labor

Day

06

violated the duty to bargain collectively, it lost its statutory right to negotiate or

the workers. Respondent Union countered with the allegation that there was no

renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the Union.

legal bar to the petition for certification.

-Med-Arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez issued an order granting the petition for
certification election. The matter was then appealed to the Bureau of Labor

DISPOSITIVE: CA affirmed. The duration of the CBA is five years, so the Union

Relations. Appeal was denied. It ordered a certification election to be conducted by

remained as the exclusive bargaining agent. The provisions of the draft CBA

the Bureau within twenty days from receipt of the resolution. Hence this certiorari

submitted by the Union shall prevail.

and prohibition petition with this Court.

ISSUE: WON arbiter erred in granting the petition of a certificate elections inspite
Alyanna Apacible

of the companys recognition that another union is the bargaining representative

HELD: NO

146 TODAYS KNITTING v NORIEL

75 SCRA 450 | FERNANDO CJ |February 28, 1977 |Digest by: Janica Brigola
FACTS:
-Philippine National Union Council, on April 1, 1976, filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations a petition for the holding of a certification election. Along with this were
200 signatures of Companys employees confirming such petition.

-ART.257 of the Labor Code is applicable here. What is required is that the petition
for certification election should have in its favor "the written consent of at least 30%
of all the employees in the bargaining unit. To elaborate:
-Requisites for certification election.Any petition for certification election filed by
any legitimate labor organization shall be supported by the written consent of at
least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification
of such petition, it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification
election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit. It speaks clearly and
categorically.

-A petition for intervention on behalf of petitioner Today's Knitting Free Workers

Union was filed. It saw no need for a certification election, asserting that it had
already been voluntarily recognized by the management as the bargaining
representative.
-Todays Knitting Company apparently affirmed the assertion that intervenor union,
now petitioner, had been recognized by management as representing the minority of

-There is no element of ambiguity. What is required is that the petition for

certification election should have in its favor "the written consent of at least 30% of
all the employees in the bargaining unit. The duty then cast on the Detector of
Labor Relations is to ascertain whether there has been such a compliance. There is
no doubt in this case there was evidence that more than a total of two-hundred
signatures were obtained by respondent Union in seeking such a certification
election.

8|Labor
-The respondent Director having satisfied himself that the codal requisite had been

for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the

appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit."
150 ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION V. SECRETARY OF LABOR
Topic: Submission
GR 116751; 116779
ROMERO; August 28, 1998

FACTS

Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet Manufacturing entered into CBA with

Oriental Tin Can Labor Union (OTCLU).

248 rank and file workers Federation of Free Workers (FFW) to file a petition
for certification election. However, this petition was repudiated by waiver of 115

signatories who ratified the new CBA.

OTCWU-FFW filed petition for certification election, accompanied by authentic

signatures of 25% of employees.

OTCLU filed motion for dismissal of the petition for certification election. It
said the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% as some of the employees

allegedly withdrew their support.

Company filed comment alleging that the new CBA was already ratified.
OTCWU-FFW filed a reply, alleging that the employer has no legal personality

to oppose petition for certification election.

DOLE issued certificate of registration of the CBA. It showed that the CBA

between the OTCLU and the company has the force and effect of law.
OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed notice of strike

Day

06

Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the order of

Med-arbiter.
After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for certiorari

met, he had no choice but to order such certification. In the language of the above
provision, "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election

before SC.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election
2. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election because a new
CBA has already been ratified.
3. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case
HELD
1. YES
The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, however,
going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a certification election
applies only when representation is not in issue. There is no problem if a union is
unanimously chosen by a majority of the employees as their bargaining
representative, but a question of representation arising from the presence of more
than one union in a bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees representative,
can only be resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the
proper government authority.
2. NO
Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of existing CBA,
well within 60-day period provided for.
Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period gives rise to
a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been
entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted
Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The

with NCMB grounded on alleged dismissal of union members/officers.

reason behind this rule is obvious.

Company directed the officers to return to work. None of them did.

Med-arbiter dismissed petition for certification election.
OTCWU-FFW appealed to Sec of Labor. Pending appeal, they staged a strike.

necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the
bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the legislative

They prevented free ingress and egress of non-striking employees, and vehicles.

hold a certification election during the freedom period.

NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

A petition for certification election is not

authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a bargaining unit to

3. YES

9|Labor

Day

06

The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed in

THE HONORABLE CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, in his capacity as Director of

determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating it. Thus, in Port

the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, PHILIPPINE

Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) v. Laguesma, this Court declared that:

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' ORGANIZATION (PTGWO), and

In line with this policy (that the holding of a certification election is a certain and

WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION (WAWU), respondents.

definitive

G.R. No. 75724 | May 6, 1991 | 3rd Division | Bidin, J.

mode

of

arriving

at

the

choice

of

the

employees

bargaining

representative), we feel that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous

FACTS:

submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of the petition for

WAWU is one of the local members of ULGWP, a national union, and the former was

certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of

called WAWU-ULGWP Local 101. On the other hand, KMU-WAWU refers to the

the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the

members of WAWU-ULGWP Local 101, who disaffiliated themselves from the

rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more

mother union ULGWP. Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) has employed in its

reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect.

business a working force of more or less 2,100 workers in the level of rank and file,

Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within

almost all of whom are members of the Labor Union of WAWU.

the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a

Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), the mother

certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a

union of KMU-WAWU, instituted a petition for certification election for the rank and

reasonable period from such filing.

file workers of NALCO. This was opposed by WAWU-ULGWP Local 101 on the

All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of a

certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such procedure.
It is judicially settled that a certification election is the most effective and
expeditious means of determining which labor organization can truly represent the
working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company. If the OTCLU
wanted to be retained as the rank-and-file employees bargaining representative, it
should have sought their vote, not engaged in legal sophistry. The selection by the
majority of the employees of the union which would best represent them in the CBA
negotiations should be achieved through the democratic process of an election.

grounds that the petition does not meet the 30% consent requirement as the names
and signatures appearing in the list submitted by PTGWO had been secured
through fraud and that the purported signatures thereon were mere forgeries.
Med-Arbiter issued an order granting the certification election sought by PTGWO;
declaring the disaffiliation of WAWU from ULGWP meritorious, legal and valid;
denying the motion of NALCO-PWC for interpleader to be allowed to hold the
checked-off dues and/or deposit the same in a special account and designating the
unions to participate in the certification election. Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a certification election should be held? (Yes.)

152 Western Agusan Workers Union v. Trajano (digested by Celebrado)

HELD:

TOPIC: Discretion Rule Application

academic, even assuming such is not the case, it has long been settled that the

WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION-LOCAL 101 OF THE UNITED LUMBER

AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (WAWU-ULGWP LOCAL
101), petitioner,
vs.

YES. While it appears evident that the issues in this case have become moot and
policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of
the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit.
Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor

10 | L a b o r

Day

06

Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election

supervisory

notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement.

establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code.

153. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. vs HON.

The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already represented by a

LAGUESMA
FACTS:

PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity) filed a

petition before the Industrial Relations Decision of the Department of Labor and
Employment praying for the holding of a certification election among the
supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation.
It later amended its petition to allege that PT&T is an unorganized establishment.
PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that
union members were not just supervisory employees, but also performed managerial
functions, and that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank and
file employees. The Union opposed this on the ground that supervisory employees
can form their own union, and that they are not allowed to join the labor
organization of rank and file employees anyway.

an

unorganized

J. Grio-Aquino
Facts:

The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to

registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for
certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the

deemed

154 Celine Marketing Corporation v. Laguesma

represent them at the time the UNION, which is legitimate labor organization duly

be

membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees."

Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any establishment where

automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a
legitimate labor organization (emphasis supplied).

may

the supervisory employees. After all, supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for

ISSUE: May the petition for certificate election be granted?

there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall

PT&T

certified bargaining agent doe not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis

Med-arbiter granted the petition, from which PT&T appeals.

HELD: YES. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Med-Arbiter.

employees,

On August 26, 1990, the Confederation of Filipino Workers(CFW) filed for a

certification election to be declared as the exclusive bargaining agent of
Celine Marketing Corporation.
On September 10, 1990, the petition was amended to include all the rankand-file employees of the petitioner in its outlets at Landmark-Makati;
Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North: Ginza-Esperanza-Shoe Mart; SM Car
Park-Celine Marketing; Gold Crest-Makati; Greenbelt-Celine: Makati
Ginza-Esperanza-Tesoro Building; Mabini-Celine, Mabini; Escolta-Celine,
Escolta; and Escolta Ginza-Esperanza Escolta, comprising more or less 100
employees.
The petitioner moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the CFW
had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and file employees, and
that it failed to submit a copy of the charter certificate issued to the local
union.
At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter on October 16, 1991, CFW
submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union,
"Celine Marketing Corp. Workers Chapter-CFW."
The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for non-production of the
original and for lack of proof that the organizational documents of the
union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
On October 19, 1990, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on those
grounds.
The Union appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment and
Undersecretary Laguesma Reversed the Labor Arbiter.
Hence this petition for certiorari.

11 | L a b o r
Issue:

Day

06

Titan opposed the petition, contending that members of the union are not its
employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMC), an independent

WON Usec Laguesma committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction by reversing the Med-Arbiter and granting the
Unions request for Certification Election.

contractor.
o

Held:

Titan claimed that it engaged SMC to manufacture and sew its multipurpose industrial bags.

No. The issuance of the questioned resolution by Undersecretary of Labor

Laguesma was not irregular for he did so authority of the Secretary of
Labor & Employment. Not having been repudiated or reversed by the head
of office, that resolution has the force and effect of a resolution of the
Secretary himself.
While it may be true that the petition for certification election did not carry
the authorization of a majority of the rank-and file employees of the
petitioner, their consent is not necessary when the bargaining unit that the
union seeks to represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification
election may be filed by any union, not by the employees.
The law assumes that the union is the real party in interest in a petition
for certification election.

MED-ARBITER: held that Titan is the employer of the members of petitioner

union and directed that a certification election be conducted by its regular rank
and file workers.

DOLE Secretary: affirmed the Med-Arbiter in toto.

CA: reversed Med-Arbiter and DOLE Sec and disallowed the conduct of
certification elections.

The union filed a petition for certiorari before the SC.

156 SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION FEBRUARY SIX MOVEMENT

(FSM) LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 1564 (for and in behalf of its members),
petitioner,
respondent.

vs.

TITAN

MEGABAGS

INDUSTRIAL

CORPORATION,

May 19, 2004

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

ISSUE:
WON the CA was correct in disallowing the certification elections.

FACTS:

The controversy at bar arose from a petition for certification election filed with
the Med-Arbitration by petitioner SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six
Movement (FSM).

In its petition for certification election, the union alleged that it is a legitimate

HELD/RATIO:
No, it was not.

labor organization that seeks to represent the regular rank-and-file workers at

Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation, respondent.

According to the SC, the CA should have denied Titans appeal because in
certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material
interest to assail the certification election.
Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor
organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any participation or
partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative.

12 | L a b o r
o

Day

06

While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such

nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with an
inalienable right to oppose it.
Digested by: Lindsey Supremo Fabella

The Unions petition was GRANTED.

158 ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), vs.DIRECTOR OF

LABOR RELATIONS, TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES,

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, and ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS

(1979)

Note:

The Court also ruled that another reason why Titans appeal should have been
dismissed by the CA was because the DOLE Secretarys decision became final
and executory:

AQUINO, J.:

FACTS:
1.

This is a certification election case. On June 24, 1976, or within sixty days
prior to the expiration on August 19, 1976 of the unregistered collective
bargaining agreement between the Associated Labor Unions and the
General Milling Corporation, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a duly
registered labor union, filed with Regional Office at Cebu City of the
Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election.

2.

The med-arbiter in his order granted the petition. He ordered the holding
of a certification election within twenty days from notice among the rankand-file employees of the company at Lapu-Lapu City. The Associated
Labor Unions appealed from that order to the Director of Labor Relations.

3.

Instead of deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over

Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a certification
election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor
who shall decide the same within fifteen (15) calendar days.
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE on
appeal shall be final and executory. Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary,
the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of origin for
implementation of the Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court.

Titans failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably is jurisdictional

Philippines (TUCP) a federation of labor unions, allegedly by

and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered the DOLE Secs decision final

virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the

and executory.
o

said federation that cases involving its member-unions must first

be referred to it for possible settlement in accordance with its

The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the

Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure

the record of the case to the Trade Union Congress of the

Code of Ethics.
4.

The TUCP has not decided the controversy. On September 14, 1978, or
more than twenty months after the federation received the record of the
case, the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa filed in this Court the instant
petition for mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Relations to decide

13 | L a b o r

Day

06

the case, or, in the alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the
Director the record of the case.

collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure

and/or voluntary arbitration."

5.

The petitioner accused the TUCP of sitting indefinitely on the appeal

because its president and the president of appellant Associated Labor
Unions are the same person. The TUCP admits that its president is also
the president of the Associated Labor Unions but it clarifies that its
executive board, not its president, will decide the controversy.

6.

Respondent employer, the General Milling Corporation, revealed in its

comment that it has a registered collective bargaining agreement with the
Associated Labor Unions which will expire on August 19, 1979.
Presumably, that agreement was a renewal of the unregistered collective
bargaining agreement which expired on August 19, 1976. It was the
impending expiration of that agreement, which provoked the Ilaw at
Buklod ng Manggagawa to file its petition for certification election in June,
1976.

Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that "all certification cases shall be decided
within twenty (20) working days." Article 260 of the same Code provides that the
Bureau of Labor Relations should decide appeals in representation cases, within
fifteen (15) working days", or twenty working days, according to section 10, Rule V,
Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. Section 10
further provides that "the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and
unappealable."

7.

The petitioner in its reply to the TUCP's comment alleged that it was
affiliated with the TUCP only in 1978 or long after the certification case
was appealed to the Director of Labor Relations. It further manifested that
other certification cases referred in 1976 to the TUCP have not been acted
upon by it up to this time and that the delay is a denial of labor justice.

ISSUE: WON it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer to
the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case.
HELD and RATIO: The referral of the appeal to the TUCP is glaringly illegal
and void. The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations
should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a
private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of
official functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the
Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in representation cases. The Director was
directed to decide the appeal within ten days from the receipt of the record

Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory terms that the Bureau of
Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the regional offices of the
Ministry of Labor "shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intraunion conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of

Those provisions are mandatory and should be strictly adhered to. They are part
and parcel of the adequate administrative machinery established by the Labor Code
for the expeditious settlement of labor disputes. The Director's act of referring the
appeal of the Associated Labor Unions to the TUCP is not only contrary to law but
is a patent nullification of the policy of the Labor Code to avoid delay in the
adjudication of labor controversies.

160 JISSCOR INDEPENDENT UNION v. TORRES

Grino-Aquino, J
Luciano, Noel Christian
Topic: Election-Mechanics of Process; Waiver
FACTS: JISSCOR Independent Union (JIU) filed a petition for certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of the Jacinto Iron and Steel Sheets Corporation
(JISSCOR) before the Med-Arb Unit of DOLE.
By agreement between the parties, the Med-Arb issued an Order setting the
certification election on Sep. 4, 1990.
However, on the date of the certification election, another pre-election conference
was held in DOLE, as previously agreed upon by the parties. Another agreement
was entered into by the parties providing that the election would be conducted on
Sep. 6, 1990 from 8am to 3pm, and that the mandatory 5 days posting is
hereby waived by agreement of the parties.

The certification election was held on Sep 6 and yielded the following results:
1. JIU 46 votes
2. Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU 50 votes

14 | L a b o r
3.
4.
5.

No Union 0
Spoiled 3
TOTAL VOTES CAST 99

JIU then registered a protest in the minutes of the election stating that we file
protest on the following grounds using visor, emblem. By Sep. 11, JIU filed a formal
protest before DOLE on the following grounds:
1.

3.
4.

5.

there was no compliance of mandatory posting of notice of

1, Rule VI, IRR
Lack of required posting misled other voters of the manner of voting which
resulted in the spoiled votes
Escorting of workers from their place of work to the election registration
Forcing workers to vote for a specific union by posting of a very big
streamer with printed words VOTE! Samahang Manggagawa Ng
JISCCOR-ALU at the entrance front door of election area
Forcing workers to vote for Samahan by wearing sunvisors and pins

MED-ARB DECISION: It declared the certification election NULL and VOID.

The winner, Samahang Manggagawa, appealed to the DOLE Sec. and prayed that it
be declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
DOLE SEC. DECISION: It granted the appeal and set aside the Order of the MedArb. The Dole Secc certified Samahang Manggagawa as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of JISSCOR.
JIU then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: WON the DOLE Sec. committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction in certifying Samahang Manggagawa as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent,
HELD: NO, there was no grave abuse of discretion. Petition has no merit.
RATIO:

Day

06

Section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code
provides that:
1. Grounds of a protest may be filed:
a. On the spot or
b. In writing with the representation officer
2. Protests shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.
3. Protests not so raised are deemed waived.

Election was conducted in a disorderly and irregular manner as

certification election and necessary list of qualified voters, per Sec.

2.

The minutes of the certification election show, however, that JIU only protested
against the use of emblem, visor, pin.
Hence, other "protests [such as the posting in the chapel entrance of a huge
streamer with the words: "Vote! Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCORALU"] not so raised are deemed waived"
There is no merit in the JIUs contention that the non-posting of the notice of the
certification election as prescribed by Section 1, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the labor Code misled and confused the workers regarding the
mechanics of the election.
-

JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement

with the private respondent to waive the mandatory five (5) days
posting of election notices

The results of the certification election belie the JIUs allegation that the workers
were misinformed about the election
Records show that out of 104 eligible voters, 99 were able to cast their votes
and only 3 were spoiled ballots.
On the alleged use of sunvisors, pins, emblems and the posting of a huge streamer,
the DOLE found:
. . . nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and
pins, the posting of huge streamers, as well as the alleged escorting of
voters by SMJ-ALU have unduly pressured, influenced, vitiated, or in any
manner affected the choice of the workers of their bargaining agent.
SC: That finding of fact of the head of an administrative agency is
conclusive upon the court
DISPOSITIVE: No grave abuse of discretion. Petition for certiorari dismissed.

15 | L a b o r
Election-Mechanics of Process/D. Voters All Employees

Day

06

lower court issued, on July 21, 1961: motion denied and certify
respondent Union NAMAWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining

161 Acoje Workers v National Mines

agent of all the workers of the Company

ACOJE WORKERS UNION vs. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED

WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU), ACOJE MINES COMPANY and CIR

G.R. No. L-18848 April 23, 1963

petitioners MR denied

present appeal by certiorari: lower court should have invalidated the

election as the same the result of acts of terrorism, force, threat and
intimidation employed by agents of respondent Union
o

FACTS:

petitioner also questioned the list of qualified voters that was used
during the election which was based on the payroll of the
employees

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

o

Acoje United Workers Union

Acoje Labor Union (PELTA)

Acoje Labor Union (PLUM)

respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU)

petitioner Acoje Workers Union

NAMAWU won in the said election

Petitioner Union which had been defeated by respondent Union by a

not less than 310 workers of the Company were threatened the
night immediately preceding the election by agents of respondent
Union individually "to cast their vote for said Union ... or else;"

gents of respondent Union were even aided by the Municipal

Mayor of Santa Cruz, Zambales, and his policemen, and, as a
consequence, said Municipal Mayor was suspended from office

acts performed by said agents of respondent Union "resulted into

unlawful disorder, damaged belongings, and physical injuries
suffered by the workers"

any workers were unable to vote for justified causes

many workers, subject of unfair labor practice case actually

pending in Court, were not allowed to vote, contrary to law.

margin of 282 votes had filed a motion to invalidate said election upon
several grounds

ISSUE: WoN a payroll can be used as basis for determining the qualified employeevoters (YES)

16 | L a b o r

Day

06

number of workers involved, without the supporting affidavit of any of

them, and without an offer to introduce their testimony or the testimony of
RATIO:

any of them was

o

insufficient to warrant the invalidation of the aforementioned

election

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
o

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

Petitioners representative then stated that it would abide by

whatever ruling the court may make on the matter of inclusion
and exclusion of voters

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 that workers were threatened, coerced and intimidated

to vote for NAMAWU - general allegation, without anything to indicate the

CIR affirmed

162 Yokohama Tires vs Yokohama Employees

Facts:
On October 7, 1999, the union filed a petition for certification election among the
rank-and-file employees of the company. The Med-Arbiter dismissed this petition but
the SOLE ordered an election which yielded the following results:
YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION
- 131
NO UNION
- 117
SPOILED
2
----250
VOTES CHALLENGED BY [YOKOHAMA]
VOTES CHALLENGED BY [UNION]

TOTAL CHALLENGED VOTES

TOTAL VOTES CAST

78
73
-----151
401

The company challenged the 78 votes for the reason that they were cast by
dismissed employees. The union, on the other hand, challenged the 68 votes cast by
newly regularized rank-and-file employees and another 5 votes by alleged
supervisor-trainees.
The Med-Arbiter ruled that:
a. the appreciation of the votes of the 65 dismissed employees (out of the 78) shall be
suspended until final disposition of their complaint for illegal dismissal.

17 | L a b o r
b. the votes of the 68 newly-regularized employees shall be appreciated in the final
tabulation
On appeal, the acting SOLE ruled that:
a. the votes of the dismissed employees who contested their dismissal before the
NLRCshall be appreciated in the final tabulation of the certification election results
b. the votes of the 68 shall be exclude.
The CA affirmed the acting SOLE's in toto because of Article 212 (f) of the Labor
Code (It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in
connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if
he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.)
and Section 2, Rule XII of the IRR of the Labor Code (A dismissed employee whose
dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall be allowed to vote in the
election.). It excluded the 68 votes because they were not included in the voter's list
submitted in the pre-election conference. It further ruled that the company's
insistence on including the 68 lends suspicion that it wanted to create a company
union, and that the company had no right to interfere in the certification election.
Issues:
W/N the dismissed employees can vote? YES
W/N the newly-regularized employees can vote? MOOTED
Held:
Dismissed employees whose cases are still pending at the time of the election are
allowed to vote as per Section 2 Rule XII. Moreover, Department Order No. 40-03,
Series of 2003 explicitly states that without a final judgment declaring the legality
of the dismissal, dismissed employees are eligible or qualified voters.
The 68 votes, even if their votes (No Union) are counted, will not materially alter the
result of the certification election (208-189)
164 Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions, Pacific Knitting Workers Org.
v. Carmelo Noriel, PAFLU, Vicente Arniego Luzon Federation of Labor
Organization Fur Chapter, Pacific Mills Inc.

BLR Director Noriel issued an order including PAFLU to participate in a

certification election.

Day

06

This certiorari and prohibition proceeding assumes that the order amounts to a
grave abuse of discretion on the ground that the motion to do so by such union
"came too late for the order calling for a certification election has already become
final without an appeal interposed by any party.
Noriel justified his order, saying: "It may not be disputed that the order for an
election has already become final. But this per se did not eliminate PAFLU from the
picture since its motion for intervention was interposed before the scheduled
election.
SolGen submitted its comment considered as the answer sustaining the issuance of
the assailed order not only because no certification election had as yet been held but
as the union in question had "established substantial interest in the ordered
election.
Noriel also argued that the issue had become moot and academic as a certification
election among the rank and file employees resulted in respondent PAFLU receiving
254 votes out of the 401 total votes cast.
SC: Petition cannot prosper.
It cited United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, that it has been
the consistent ruling of the court that for the integrity of the collective bargaining
process to be maintained and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of
industrial democracy, all the workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given
the opportunity to participate in a certification election.
Also, petitioner must have realized the futility of insisting on its claim for on March
7, 1980, it filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of interest and recognizing the fact
that respondent PAFLU "be certified as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
agent of the employer firm, Pacific Mills Inc.
166 R. Transport Corp. v Laguesma
November 16, 1993 QUIASON, J.
FACTS:

Respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Phils. (CLOP), filed

petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of
petitioner R. Transport Corp

18 | L a b o r

Med-Arb dismissed the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit did
not include all the eligible employees of petitioner (inspectors,
inspectresses, dispatchers, mechanics and washerboys were excluded)
CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a 2nd petition for certification election
Petitioner filed a MTD the 2nd petition and contended that the dismissal of
the first petition constituted res judicata.
Med-Arb rendered decision which ordered that a certification election be
conducted
Later, the Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) filed a motion for
intervention and alleged that it has members in the proposed bargaining
unit. Subsequently, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed
a separate petition for certification election and a motion to consolidate
related cases
Petitioner appealed Med-Arbs decision to the DOLE Secretary. Med-Arb
decision affirmed through USec Laguesmas resolution calling for conduct
of certification election (no res judicata no final judgment on the merits;
parties not identical)
Petitioner filed MR, again stressing res judicata and arguing that the 2nd
petition for certification election is barred at least for 1 year from the time
CLOPs petition was dismissed. MR Denied.

bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or unfair labor

practices was filed, the employees concerned could still
qualify to vote in the elections.
Therefore, the employees of petitioner who participated in the strike,
legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare their employment
status legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved
by the NLRC.
Other discussions:

No res judicata - Before the principle of res judicata can be operative, the

suspended until cases involving CLOP are resolved (a case wherein

improperly laid-off but who have a present, unabandoned right to

or expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in certification

following requisites must be present: a) the former judgment or order must

be final; b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; c) it must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and
the parties; and d) there must be, between the first and second actions,
identity of parties; in the case at bench, it cannot be said that the parties in
the first and second actions were identical. The first action was dismissed
by the Med-Arbiter because it excluded parties essential to the bargaining
unit... The second petition included all the employees who were excluded in
the first petition.
Contention that 2nd petition for certification election should have

been filed after 1 year from dismissal of 1 st petition is untenable -

ISSUE: W/N employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who joined the
strike must first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted. NO.
Petition dismissed.
RATIO: As held in the case of Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. v.
Torres, 211 SCRA 95 (1992):
At any rate, it is now well-settled that employees who have been

06

repeat, if the dismissal is under question, as in the case now at

Prejudicial Question, arguing that the present case must be

CLOP for illegal dismissal). MTS Denied.

MR filed, also denied.
Petitioner then filed Comment and Objection with Urgent Motion to
Dismiss the Petition for Certification Election; without waiting for
resolution of the MTD, it also filed petition for certitiorari to SC

Day

elections (Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 548). Thus, and to

Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on

a strike staged by CLOP was declared illegal and a case filed by

Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor

Code as amended provides:
When to file In the absence of collective bargaining agreement
duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
petition for certification election may be filed any time. However,
no certification election may be held within one year from the date
of the issuance of a final certification election result
The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an
actual conduct of election. In this case, there was no certification election
conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed.
Resort to judicial action is premature - petitioner's Comment and
Objection with Urgent Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Certification
Election is still pending with the Undersecretary of Labor. Hence, it is also

19 | L a b o r
guilty of forum-shopping in pursuing the same cause of action involving the
same issue, parties and subject matter before two different fora.
168 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma

1.

1.

WON certification election is valid. YES.

On Premature Contract
SAMAHAN: The CBA between it and PPC signed during the pendency of the
representation proceedings, rendered the certification election moot.
SC: A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding o a

certification election. Hence, the CBA entered into between SAMAHAN and

PPC during he pendecy of the representation case and after filing of the
petition for certification election cannot possibly prejudice the
certification election nor render it moot.

169 EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO vs.HON. RICARDO C. CASTRO, in his

capacity as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of
Labor and Employment, and DELICANO PAJARES
G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990; NARVASA, J.:

Ratio:
1.

06

SC: It should ideally be the payroll. However, the unjustified

refusal of company to submit compelled resort to the SSS list as
the next best source of information. We find no substantial reason
to nullify the certification election on the basis of mere technicality
which finds no justification considering the facts nor upon close
examination of true intent of the law to remove all impediments to
the conduct of certification elections. At the latest, SAMAHANs
protest should have been raised before the close of the proceedings
and duly formalized within 5 days after its close.

Facts:

Issue/Held:

Day

SAMAHAN: The Implementing Rules provides that the basis for

the list should be the payroll 3 months preceding the filing of
petition.

267 SCRA 303 (31 January 1997)

Respondent Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic

(MNMPP) filed a petition for certification election, alleging that there were
more or less 130 rank and file employees it seeks to represent.
2. Petitioner Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN)
countered by seeking cancellation of MNMPPs union registration.
3. Med-Arbiter: MNMPPs petition for certification election was dismissed.
4. Secretary of Labor: Reversed. Ordered holding of certification election.
5. Secretary of Labor held a pre-election conference. PPC was required to
submit list of employees based on company payroll 3 months prior to filing
of petition.
6. Company failed to submit.
7. MNMPP and SAMAHAN agreed to adopt list of employees from SSS.
8. Certification election was set.
9. SAMAHAN objected to using list furnished by SSS.
10. Certification election was held.
11. MNMPP won.
12. SAMAHAN protested the result.

In order to have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible

voters must have cast their votes. The certification election results

Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of the Kapisanan ng

Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation
(Kapisanan), composed of employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco
Corporation (AAATC).

The union had a three-year CBA with the Corporation. The expiration date

show that more than a majority (62 out of 98 eligible voters included in
the list of employees obtained from SSS) cast their votes.

20 | L a b o r
was August 24, 1984.

On July 15, 1984 within the "freedom period" of sixty (60) days a
general meeting of all the members of the Kapisanan was convoked by
Timbungco.
o

The body unanimously approved, among others, the disaffiliation

of the Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and
the amendment of its constitution and by-laws.

a certified copy of the Kapisanan's amended constitution and bylaws;

an affidavit jointly executed by him and the union secretary

declaring that the Kapisanan was the sole collective bargaining
agent in AAATC;

a copy of the minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1984; and

a copy of the Kapasiyahan (Resolution) of the rank and file

members to disaffiliate from the Federacion FOITAF.

A new registration certificate was thereafter issued in due course to the

Kapisanan, indicating its independence of Federacion FOITAF.
Timbungco, as re-elected President of Kapisanan commenced negotiations
for a new collective bargaining agreement with the representatives of
AAATC. The negotiations lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in
the execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year collective
bargaining agreement. A copy of the agreement was filed with the Bureau
of Labor Relations as required by Policy Instruction No. 17.
About seven months later, Leodegario L. Zapanta, 1st National President of
the Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO, for short), sent

Day

06

a letter to the Bureau of Labor Relations advising that Bureau that the
majority of the members of the Kapisanan had affiliated with ADLO.

ADLO's Executive National Vice-President Tayo, wrote AAATC that

AAATC stop deduction of union dues and refuse to deal with Timbungco
and his group. Later, Deliciano Pajares filed another letter with similar
content.

AAATC replied to Tayo's letter that it could not accede to the request to
stop deduction of union dues since it had been dealing over many years
with the Kapisanan as its workers' authorized bargaining representative.

On April 23, 1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan, alleging that
he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the petition;
that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, and they
wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union officers. He
also adverted to the existing collective bargaining agreement between
Kapisanan and AAATC.

Med-Arbiter L. Reynante: declared invalid the election of union officers and

ordered another election of union officers to be conducted in the premises of

A new set of officers was also elected which included Timbungco

On July 23, 1984 Timbungco submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations

the appropriate documents:

AAATC under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. 8

Appeal was rejected.

Issue/Holding/Ratio
WON the election of officers of July 15, 1984 was valid? Yes, it was valid. The writ of
certiorari prayed for will issue.

Respondents: There is no record of the number of members who attended

the meeting, the number of those who actually voted, and the number of
votes obtained by each candidate, and that a COMELEC (committee on
elections) had not been formed to supervise the election. Private
respondents also argue that the "contract bar rule" which proscribes any
certification election during the life of a collective bargaining agreement or
any other action which may disturb the administration of said agreement,

21 | L a b o r
except during the "freedom period" (i.e., the period of 60 days prior to the

Day

06

execution of a new collective bargaining agreement which was

afterwards filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations in accordance
with pertinent regulations; and Timbungco and the entire
membership of the Kapisanan accepted benefits granted and
assumed the obligations set out in said collective bargaining
agreement.

expiration of the agreement) 11 has no application to the election of

officers sought in the petition in accordance with the union's constitution
and by-laws. 12

In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the

membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements

or formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had
resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative

of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly,

or more importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the
popular will in the choice of officers.

In the second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points out, the
private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come

170 DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION UNITED RANK AND FILE

ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (DHL-URFA-FFW) vs.
BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited

their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules implementing the

Labor Code, protests against elections should be formalized before

the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election
proceedings and must be decided by the latter within twenty (20)
working days. 13

In this case, the protest against the election was presented to the medarbiter only after the lapse of almost two (2) years after it was held. And in
that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented
against the election.
Indeed, there was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and

the results thereof, for during that period of almost two (2) years, certain
significant events took place without demur or objection:
o

Timbungco officially made known to the Bureau of Labor Relations

the Kapisanan's disaffiliation from the Federacion FOITAF and
obtained a new certificate of registration for the union after
complying with the requisites prescribed therefor;

he and the other officers of the Kapisanan negotiated with the

AAATC management and succeeded in bringing about the

FACTS:
A certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees in
the main office and the regional branches of DHL Philippines Corporation. The
contending choices were petitioner and no union. On the basis of the results of the
certification election, with petitioner receiving 546 votes and no union garnering
348 votes, the election officer certified the former as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent.
Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD)
filed with the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE a Petition for the
nullification of the certification election. The officers of petitioner were charged with
committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings by misrepresenting to the
voter-employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate of
the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled allegedly
withdrew their membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an
independent union. The latter union, BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of
Registration by DOLE.

Procedural-

22 | L a b o r
MA: nullified the certification election and ordered the holding of another one with
the following contending choices: petitioner, respondent, and no choice.
DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz: issue of representation had
already been settled with finality in favor of petitioner
CA: the withdrawal of a great majority of the members of petitioner -- 704 out of 894
of them -- provided a compelling reason to conduct a certification election anew. The
issue of representation was not put to rest by the mere issuance of a Certification
Order by the election officer.
ISSUE:
WON the certification election was valid (NO)
RATIO:
Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code,the election
officers authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in
which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been
perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings.
Further, Section 14 of the same Rules provides that when a protest has been
perfected, only the med-arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner.
Clearly, this rule is based on the election officers function, which is merely to
conduct and supervise certification elections.It is the med-arbiter who is authorized
to hear and decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to
certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents occurring
during the campaign is within the med-arbiters discretion.
Petitioner argues: no protest or challenge had been formalized within five days, or
raised during the election proceedings and entered in the minutes thereof.
Respondent did not file any protest, either, against the alleged fraud and
misrepresentation by the formers officers during the election.
SC: When the med-arbiter admitted and gave due course to respondents Petition for
nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer should have deferred
issuing the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing
Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case.
The employees had long desired to have an independent union that would represent
them in collective bargaining, they voted yes in favor of petitioner. Having been
misled, a majority of them eventually disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an

Day

06

independent union which thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having
been formed just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest within
five days from the close of the election proceedings. Petitioner insistently opposed
the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration at
the time. Because such certificate was issued in favor of the latter four days after
the filing of the Petition, the misgivings of the former were brushed aside by the
med-arbiter. The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not
sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural
technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken
against them.
The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the free
choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be
set aside for misstatements made during the campaign, where 1) a material fact has
been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an opportunity for reply has been lacking;
and 3) the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees
participating in the election. A misrepresentation is likely to have an impact on
their free choice, if it comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an
authoritative position to know the true facts. This principle holds true, especially
when the employees are unable to evaluate the truth or the falsity of the assertions.
The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, misrepresented it to
the voting employees as an independent union constituted a substantial
misrepresentation of material facts of vital concern to those employees. The
employees wanted an independent union to represent them in collective bargaining,
free from outside interference. Additionally, the misrepresentation came from
petitioners recognized representative, who was clearly in a position to hold himself
out as a person who had special knowledge and was in an authoritative position to
know the true facts.

Other contentionPetitioner: employees had sufficient time between the misrepresentation and the
election to check the truth of its claims.
SC: NO! They could hardly be expected to verify the accuracy of any statement
regarding petitioner, made to them by its officers. No less than its president stated
that it was an independent union (i.e. no reason to doubt him).

23 | L a b o r
171 PHILIPPINE FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES vs.TORRES

Med-Arbiter Basa granted the petition for Certification election (CE) filed
by the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS)----which directed the holding of a certification election among the regular and
seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc.. (PFVI)
After a series of pre-election conferences, all issues relative to the CE were
threshed out except the voting qualifications of the 194 workers

Day

06

It turned out that the yes votes failed to obtain the majority of the votes
cast, hence, the necessity of opening the 168 challenged votes to determine
the true will of the employees.

PFVI objected: alleged not to be regular employees nor seasonal workers for
having allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days.---- they formally
filed a Protest.

Med-Arbiter Basa ruled in favor of TUPAS: Protest filed beyond

reglementary period.

Topic: Election Mechanics of Process----Appeal

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:

enumerated in the lists of qualified voters submitted by TUPAS.

Med-Arbiter Basa allowed 184 of the 194 questioned workers to vote,

subject to challenge, in the CE. Copies of said Order were furnished to the

Topical: W/N the formal protest of PFVII was filed beyond the reglementary
period? YES

parties and notice of certification election was duly posted. 168 of the
questioned workers actually voted on election day.

On the day of CE, PFVI objected to the proceeding, through a Manifestation

filed with the Representation Officer before the close of the election

W/N non-regular seasonal workers who have long been separated from employment
prior to the filing of the petition for certification election would be allowed to vote
and participate in a certification election

proceedings, alleging that: the posting of the list of eligible voters

authorized to participate in the certification election was five days late.

HELD:

By agreement of PFVI and TUPAS, workers whose names were

inadvertently omitted in the list of qualified voters were allowed to vote,
subject to challenge: 38 of them voted on election day.

Requirements in order that a protest filed would prosper

(1) The protest must be filed with the representation officer and made of record in

Problem arose during tallying of votes. Management and TUPAS agreed to

have the 38 challenged votes of the regular rank-and-file employees
counted.

the minutes of the proceedings before the close of election proceedings, and
(2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days
after the close of the election proceedings.

24 | L a b o r
PFVI after filing a manifestation of protest on December 16, 1988, election day, only
formalized the same on February 20, 1989, or more than two months after the close
of election proceedings. The phrase "close of election proceedings" refers to that
period from the closing of the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes and
DOES NOT INCLUED the period for the final determination of the challenged votes
and the canvass since it may take a VERY LONG PERIOD.

NOTE: if a protest can be formalized within five days after a final determination
and canvass of the challenged votes have been made, it would result in an undue
delay in the affirmation of the employees' expressed choice of a bargaining
representative

Plus re compliance with req posting days: SC adopted the liberal approach which
favors the exercise of labor rights, and found that the lack of one day in the posting
of notices was not a compelling reason at all to nullify the elections since a
substantial number, or 291 of 322 qualified voters, of the employees concerned were
informed and were able to vote accordingly. (SUBSTANTIAL Compliance)

Day

06

Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems (SAMAFIL-NAFLU-KMU) is a

registered labor union with the DOLE which issued a certificate of registration to
the union. It is also an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU.
SAMAFIL filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank-and-file
employees of FILSYSTEMS, Inc. before the DOLE.
FILSYSTEMS opposed. It questioned the status of petitioner as a legitimate labor
organization on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with the
NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) within
thirty (30) days from its execution.
SAMAFIL in reply argued that as a duly registered labor union, it has "all the
rights and privileges x x x to act as representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining with employers.
The petition for certification election was dismissed. The Med-Arbiter ruled that
as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, SAMAFIL has no legal personality on account of its
failure to comply with the Labor Codes IRR (i.e. submitting contract of affiliation to
the BLR within 30 days).

SAMAFIL appealed to the Office of the Secretary.

On 2 Issue: employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a present,
unabandoned right to or expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in
certification elections (like when dismissal is questioned)
nd

Plus: a certification election is the sole concern of the workers and the employer is
regarded as nothing more than a bystander with no right to interfere at all in the
election. The only exception here is where the employer has to file a petition for
certification election.
172 SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FILSYSTEMS VS SECRETARY
OF LABOR
Puno, J.
Facts:

While the appeal was pending, another union, Filsystem Workers Union (FWU),
filed a petition for certification election, won and negotiated a CBA with
FILSYSTEMS.
FILSYSTEMS filed a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing that it is made moot
and academic by the FWUs status as the current exclusive bargaining agent and
the CBA.
SAMAFIL countered that the certification election which FWU won was void for
violating Section 10 and Section 4, Rule V of the IRR.
The Secretary of Labor dismissed the appeal.
Issue:
1.) Whether SAMAFIL has the legal personality to file the petition for certification
election. YES.

25 | L a b o r
2.) Whether the appeal was rendered moot and academic. NO.
Ratio
Issue 1:
SAMAFIL is an independently registered labor union as evidenced by a Certificate
of Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate labor organization, SAMAFILs
right to file a petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. The
failure of SAMAFIL to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right
to file said petition for certification election as an independent union. At the most,
petitioner's failure will result in an ineffective affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. Still,
however, it can pursue its petition for certification election as an independent union.

"SEC. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable. - The Secretary shall
have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the
records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter
stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be
final and inappealable."
Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was
entered between FWU and private respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will not
prejudice petitioner's pending representation case or render the same moot
"SEC. 4. Effects of early agreements. - The representation case shall not, however,
be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or
during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
representation case."
This rule was applied in the case of Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) v.
Trajano where we held that "[t]here should be no obstacle to the right of the
employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is, within
sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified collective bargaining
agreement x x x, not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency

Day

06

of the representation case." Likewise, in Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. FerrerCalleja, we held that a prematurely renewed CBA is not a bar to the holding of a
certification election.
173 United Employees Union of GELMART Industries Philippines v. Noriel
October 3, 1975 Fernando, J.:
FACTS:

Issue 2:
The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition for certification
election was seasonably appealed. The appeal stopped the holding of any
certification election. Section 10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the
Labor Code is crystal clear and hardly needs any interpretation.

petition sought to have the certification election declared null and void ab
initio and thus unenforceable
o contending parties in a pre-election conference conducted by the
BLR agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot as United
Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines (UEUGIP)
o In the notice of the certification election, however, it was wilfully
deleted and replaced by "a non-contending party, namely,
Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), which, although
an existing labor federation has nothing to do and has no interest
or right of participation therein."
As a result, there was confusion in the minds of independent voters and
demoralization in the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner
There was a protest but it was not based on this ground; instead the
grievance complained of referred to the alleged electioneering of nuns and a
priest as observers or inspectors on behalf of respondent
The certification election took place as scheduled and respondent
GATCORD garnered the highest number of votes
BLR Director Carmelo Noriel was about to certify respondent GATCORD
as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the rank
and file employees of Gelmart
present petition for violation of procedural due process

ISSUE: WoN there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of BLR (NO)
RATIO:

The institution of collective bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime

manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the
relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by coming to
terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. As labor,

26 | L a b o r
however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable that
they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be
discerned how crucial a certification election is. There must be such an
opportunity to determine which labor organization shall act on their behalf.

It is precisely because respect must be accorded to the will of labor thus

ascertained that a general allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate
a certification election; it must be shown by competent and credible proof.
That is to give substance to the principle of majority rule, one of the basic
concepts of a democratic polity.
In Federation of the United Workers Organization v. CIR: "The slightest
doubt cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses significance in a
petition for certification is that through such a device the employees are
given the opportunity to make known who shall have the right to represent
them. What is equally important is that not only some but all of them
should have the right to do so."
In the case at bar, the grievance spoken of is more fancied than real, the
assertion of confusion and demoralization based on conjecture rather than
reality. The mode and manner in which Antonio Diaz (Union President)
demonstrated how militant and articulate he could be in presenting his
side of the controversy could hardly argue for the accuracy of his claim that
his men did lose heart by what appeared at the most to be an honest
mistake, if it could be characterized as one. Accusation that there was
abuse of discretion, much less a grave one, falls to the ground.

On the participation of nuns and a priest:

Nor need this Court pass upon the ground of protest based on the alleged
participation by nuns and a priest who presumably aided the cause of
private respondent. Petitioner understandably did not choose to press this
point.
o Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union: primacy of religious
freedom, to which contractual rights, even on labor matters, must
yield, thus removing any taint of nullity from the amendment to
the Industrial Peace Act, which would allow exemption from a
closed shop on the part of employees, members of a given religious
sect prohibiting its devotees from affiliating with any labor
organization.

Day

06

Basa v. Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera: doctrine was

reaffirmed, one's religious convictions may be the basis for an
employee joining or refusing to join a labor union. Certainly, the
wide latitude accorded religious groups in the exercise of their
constitutional freedom would caution against reliance on such
aground to invalidate a certification election.

174: National Federation v DOLE Secretary and Hijo

Plantation Inc. (HPI)
FACTS:
First certification election held on November 12, 1988. No union was voted
as the collective bargaining agent.

A second certification election was conducted on August 20, 1989 because of

allegations of company intervention. Petitioner won as the collective
bargaining agent.

Three other unions (TRUST-Kilusan, United Lmper ad General Workers of

the Philippines, Hijo Labor Union) intervened on the ff grounds:
fraud
that 54% of the voters were not able to vote
failure of election.

Med-Arbiter report states:

that rank and file workers were disenfranchised and not able to vote.
Election was held on a sunday, not a work day
election held outside company premises on vehicles used as makeshift
precincts
various other irregularities

Petitioner argues:
that the petitions against it are dilatory tactics
that they were not notified
company intervention

DOLE did not give wieght to the Med-Arbiter's reports and considered the
same as baseless.

However, on motion of HPI, the Secretary of Labor reversed its decisions

and ruled against petitioner.
ISSUES:

27 | L a b o r

company intervened when it should have only acted as a bystander

WON any protest concerning the election should be registered and

entered into the minutes of the election proceedings before it can
be considered.
The complaint in this case was that a number of employees were not
able to cast their votes because they were not properly notified of the
date. They could not have filed their protests within five (5) days
because they were not notified. At all events, the Solicitor General

Day

06

states, that the protests were not filed within five (5) days, is a mere
technicality which should not be allowed to prevail over the workers
welfare.

WON the certification election is valid? Petitioner argues that the

and that the only exception under Art. 258 does not apply.
It is not the motion filed by the company which made the DOLE
reconsider its judgment, but the deluge of letter-appeals and
complaints from the workers themselves.
Nor is it improper for private respondent to show interest in the
conduct of the election. Private respondent is the employer. The
manner in which the election was held could make the difference
between industrial strife and industrial harmony in the
company. What an employer is prohibited from doing is to interfere
with the conduct of the certification election for the purpose of
influencing its outcome. But certainly an employer has an abiding
interest in seeing to it that the election is clean, peaceful, orderly and
credible.

Syllabus topic: annulment, grounds.

The complaints readily show the grounds for the annulment of the
certification election:
cannot identify all the voters who voted on that election
polling precinct were not conducive to secrecy of the voters since it
was conducted outside of the Company premises. The precincts
were (sic) the election was held were located in a passenger
waiting shed infront of the canteen across the road; on the yellow
pick-up; at the back of a car; a waiting shed near the Guard House
and a waiting shed infront of the Guard House across the road.
Herein private respondents also observed during the election that
there were voters who dictated some voters the phrase number 3
to those who were casting their votes and those who were about to
vote. Number 3 refers to the National Federation of Labor in the
official ballot.
The record shows that as early as August 22 and 30, 1989, employees
already wrote letters/affidavits/manifestoes alleging irregularities in
the elections and disfranchisement of workers.
As to the letters not being verified, suffice it to say that technical rules
of evidence are not binding in labor cases.