Warren Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) vs.
The records show that petitioner admitted that what was
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), et al.
G.R. No. 76185, March 30, 1988
FACTS:
On June 13, 1985, Philippine Agricultural, Commercial
and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition
for certification election. Warren Mfg- Corp. (WMC) filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that there exist a CBA
between the WMC and the Warren Mfg. Union which took
effect upon its signing on July 16, 1985 and to expire on
July 31, 1986.
After PACIWU filed a Notice to Strike and the subsequent
conciliation meeting, the parties entered into agreement
in which they agreed to the holding of a consent election
to resolve the issue of union representation at WMC.
On August 25, 1985, said consent election was held, and
yielded the following results:
PACIWU----------------------------94
WMWU----------------------------193
PACIWU filed an Election Protest but the same was later
dismissed.
On June 5, 1986, PACIWU and Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation-
Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations
(SMWMC-ANGLO). Both petitions were opposed by
WMC on the grounds that:
1. neither petition has 30% support;
2. that both are barred by the one-year no
certification election law; and
3. the existence of a duly ratified CBA.
On August 18, 1986, Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of
certification election to determine the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the rank
and file employees of WMC, with the following choices:
1. PACIWU
2. WMWU
3. SMWMC-ANGLO
4. No Union.
WMC and WMWU filed separate appeals, which BLR
dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the holding of certification election violates the
one-year no certification election rule and the principle of
the Contract Bar Rule.
RULING:
No.
held on August 25, 1985 at the Company’s premises and
which became the root of this controversy, was a consent
election and not a certification election.
As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a
consent election is an agreed one, its purpose being
merely to determine the issue of majority representation
of all the workers in the appropriate collective
bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at
determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate
and distinct process and has nothing to do with the
import and effect of a certification election.
Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor
entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate
an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers
from exercising their right to choose their sole and
exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of
the sixty (60) day freedom period.
It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said
projected election shall respect and administer the
existing CBA at the company until its expiry date on July
31, 1986. It is, therefore, unmistakable that the election
thus held on August 25, 1985 was not for the purpose of
determining which labor union should be the bargaining
representative in the negotiation for a collective contract,
there being an existing collective
bargaining agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but
only to determine which labor union shall administer the
said existing contract.
Accordingly, the following provisions of the New Labor
Code apply:
ART. 254. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists
a collective bargaining agreement.—
Corollary to the above, Article 257 of the New Labor Code
expressly states that “No certification election issue shall
be entertained if a collective agreement which has been
submitted in accordance with Article 231 of this Code
exists between the employer and a legitimate labor
organization except within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the life of such certified collective bargaining
agreement."
Thus, as stated by this Court in General Textiles Allied
Workers Association v. the Director of the Bureau of labor
Relations (84 SCRA 430 [19781) "there should be no
obstacle to the right of the employees to petition for a
certification election at the proper time. That is, within 60
days prior to the expiration of the three year period.”
UST Faculty Union (USTFU), Gamilla, et al. vs. Bitonio
(BLR Director), et al.
G.R. No. 131235, November 16, 1999
FACTS:
Private Respondents Marino, et al. are duly elected
officers of the USTFU. The union has a subsisting five-
year CBA with UST. The CBA was registered with the
Industrial Relations Division, DOLE-NCR, on February
20, 1995, which is set to expire on May 31 1998.
On September 21, 1996, the Sec Gen of USTFU posted
a general assembly announcement to be held on October
5, 1996.
On October 1, 1996, some of herein appellants filed a
separate petition with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR,
directed against herein appellees and the members of the
COMELEC, alleging that the COMELEC was not
constituted in accordance with USTFU's constitution and
by-laws (CBL) and that no rules had been issued to
govern the conduct of the October 5, 1996 election.
On October 4, 1996, Med-Arbiter issued a TRO against
herein appellees enjoining them from conducting the
election scheduled on October 5, 1996.
On the same day, as per request of various UST club
presidents, a general faculty assembly was held wherein
union and non-union faculty members convened. On this
occasion, appellants were elected as USTFU’s new set of
officers by acclamation and clapping of hands.
On October 11, 1996, appellees filed the instant petition
seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the results
of October 4 election, based on the following grounds:
1. that the holding of the same violated the TRO;
2. violative of USTFU’s CBL:
a. the general assembly was not called by
the Board of Officers of the USTFU;
b. there was no compliance with the ten-day
notice rule required by CBL;
c. the supposed elections were conducted
without a COMELEC being constituted
by the Board of Officers;
d. the elections were not by secret balloting
as required by the CBL, and,
e. the general assembly was convened by
faculty members some of whom were not
members of USTFU, so much so that
non-USTFU members were allowed to
vote in violation of the CBL.
On 03 December 1996, pending the petition of the
appellees, appellants and UST allegedly entered into
another CBA covering the period from June 1, 1996 to
May 31, 2001. Appellants moved for the dismissal of the
petition claiming that the issue has become moot and
academic as the new CBA was ratified by an
overwhelming majority of UST’s academic community.
Med-Arbiter declared the election violative of the CBL,
which was subsequently upheld by BLR Director Bitonio.
Bitonio ruled that the CBL could not be suspended during
the October 4, 1996 general assembly of all faculty
members, since that assembly had not been convened or
authorized by the USTFU.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the ‘union election’ held during the general
faculty assembly was valid.
RULING:
No.
Right to Self-Organization and Union Membership
Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees
have the right to form, join or assist labor organizations
for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual
aid and protection.
On joining a labor union, the constitution and by-laws
become a part of the members’ contract of membership
under which he agrees to become bound by the
constitution and governing rules of the union so far as it is
not inconsistent with controlling principles of law. The
constitution and by-laws of an unincorporated trade union
express the terms of a contract, which define the
privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by,
those who have become members. The agreement of a
member on joining a union to abide by its laws and comply
with the will of the lawfully constituted majority does not
require a member to submit to the determination of the
union any question involving his personal rights.
Union Election vs. Certification Election
A union election is held pursuant to the unions constitution
and bylaws, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by
union members. A union election should be
distinguished from a certification election, which is
the process of determining, through secret ballot, the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of
collective bargaining. Specifically, the purpose of a
certification election is to ascertain whether or not a
majority of the employees wish to be represented by a
labor organization and, in the affirmative case,
by which particular labor organization
In a certification election, all employees belonging to the
appropriate bargaining unit can vote. Therefore,
a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate
bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said
election. However, the reverse is not always true; an
employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining
unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote
in the union election, unless otherwise authorized by
the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily,
union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a
non-union activity.

In both elections, there are procedures to be

followed. Thus, the October 4, 1996 election cannot
properly be called a union election, because the
procedure laid down in the USTFUs CBL for the election
of officers was not followed. It could not have been a
certification election either, because representation was
not the issue, and the proper procedure for such election
was not followed. The participation of non-union
members in the election aggravated its irregularity.

Other issues:

2. Whether USTFU’s Constitution and By-Laws were

violated.

YES. SC discussed the same grounds raised by

the petitioners: 1. Assembly was not called by the USTFU;
2. There was no commission on elections to oversee the
election; 3. The purported election was not done by secret
balloting.

3. Whether the suspension of USTFU’s CBL during the

general assembly was valid.

NO. The general faculty assembly was not the

proper forum to conduct the election of USTFU
officers. Not all who attended the assembly were
members of the union; some, apparently, were even
disqualified from becoming union members, since they
represented management. The act of suspending the
constitution when the questioned election was held is an
implied admission that the election held on that date
[October 4, 1996] could not be considered valid under the
existing USTFU constitution

4. Whether the ratification of the new CBA rendered the

issue moot and academic.

NO. The ratification of the new CBA executed

between the petitioners and the University of Santo
Tomas management did not validate the void October 4,
1996 election. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA,
not the issue of union leadership -- a matter that should
be decided only by union members in the proper forum at
the proper time and after observance of proper
procedures.

[G.R. No. 116751. August 28, 1998]
ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION, vs. SECRETARY
OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ORIENTAL TIN CAN
WORKERS UNION FEDERATION OF FREE
WORKERS [OTCWU-FFW] and ORIENTAL TIN CAN
AND METAL SHEET MANUFACTURING,
[G.R. No. 116779. August 28, 1998]
ORIENTAL TIN CAN AND METAL SHEET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., vs. HON. BIENVENIDO
E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, ORIENTAL TIN CAN WORKERS
UNION FFW and ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION,
FACTS:
Respondent (in G.R. No. 116751) and petitioner (in sister
case G.R. No. 116779), Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet
Manufacturing Company, Inc. (the company) is engaged
in the manufacture of tin can containers and metal sheets.
On March 3, 1994, the company entered into a CBA with
petitioner Oriental Tin Can Labor Union (OTCLU) as the
existing CBA was due to expire on April 15, 1994.
Four days later, 248 of the company’s rank-and-file
employees authorized the Federation of Free Workers
(FFW) to file a petition for certification election. This
petition was repudiated via a written waiver by 115 of the
signatories who, along with other employees totaling 897,
ratified the CBA on the same date.
On March 18, 1994, Respondent Oriental Tin Can
Workers Union Federation of Free Workers (OTCWU-
FFW), purporting to represent rank-and-file employees of
the company, filed a petition for certification election with
NCR-DOLE. Both the company and OTCLU opposed the
petition, alleging that the employees who initially signed
the petition had allegedly withdrawn their support.
On April 18, 1994, the DOLE issued a certificate of
registration of the CBA pursuant to Article 231 of LC.
On June 7, 1994, Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for
certification election for lack of merit. Noting that the
petition was filed after the valid retractions were made, he
concluded that by the withdrawal of support to the petition
by 115 workers, the remaining 133 of the 1,020
employees were clearly less than the 25% subscription
requirement.
On appeal, Usec. Laguesma ruled for OTCWU-FFW,
directing the conduct of a certification of election, with the
following choices:
1. OTCWU-FFW;
2. OTCLU;
3. No Union.
On the issue of whether the 25% support requirement for
filing the petition for certification election had been met,
Laguesma opined that the best forum for determining
whether there was indeed retractions is the certification
election itself wherein the workers can freely express their
choice in a secret ballot. DOLE tends to favor the conduct
of certification election, for the rule on simultaneous
submission of the consent signatures and the petition
should be liberally interpreted.
Their MRs having been denied, the company and the
OTCLU filed separate petitions for certiorari before SC.
ISSUE:
Whether the holding of certification election is proper.
RULING:
Yes.
The Labor Code imposes upon the employer and the
representative of the employees the duty to bargain
collectively. Since the question of right of representation
as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining
unit is imbued with public interest, the law governs the
choice of a collective bargaining representative which
shall be the duly certified agent of the employees
concerned. An official certification becomes
necessary where the bargaining agent fails to present
adequate and reasonable proof of its majority
authorization and where the employer demands it, or
when the employer honestly doubts the majority
representation of several contending bargaining
groups.
In fact, Article 255 of the Labor Code allows the majority
of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit to designate or select the labor organization which
shall be their exclusive representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
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.
It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the
holding of certification elections, for it is a statutory policy
that should not be circumvented. We have held that
whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union
represents the majority of the rank-and-file employees, in
the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a
certification election is the most democratic method of
determining the employees choice of their bargaining
representative. It is the appropriate means whereby
controversies and disputes on representation may be laid
to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the employees
themselves. Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial
democracy.

Given these premises, the filing of a petition for

certification election by one of the two unions in the
bargaining unit is enough basis for the DOLE, through its
authorized official, to implement the law by directing the
conduct of a certification election.

Other issue in G.R. No. 116779:

As to the right of the employer to challenge the

holding of certification election:

SC: It is a well-established rule that certification elections

are exclusively the concern of employees; hence, the
employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the
same.

x x x. Law and policy demand that employers take a strict,

hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining
representative of employees should be chosen free from
any extraneous influence of management. A labor
bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its
loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.

The only instance when an employer may concern itself

with employee representation activities is when it has to
file the petition for certification election because there is
no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to bargain
collectively.