PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS, PETITIONER, VS. DIRECTOR CARMELO C. NORIEL OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS; MANILA JOCKEY CLUB RACE DAY OPERATION EMPLOYEES …

Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order and Resolutions dated May
5, 1977, September 17, 1977 and March 14, 1978 of the Bureau of Labor Relations
for having been issued in excess of juris­diction and with grave abuse of
discretion.  It, likewise, prays for an
order directing respondent director to hold a certification election so that
the employees in the company can elect a union representative to negotiate an
improved collective bargaining agreement to replace the agreement which has
expired on February 1, 1976.

On May 5, 1976,
Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers filed a petition, praying
that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey Club, Inc.

On June 18, 1976,
the Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a
motion to intervene and oppo­sition to said petition and alleged among other
things, that it is the recognized collective bargaining representative of all
the employees of the company and that it is in the process of negotiating a
modification of the collective bargaining agreement.

On August 30, 1976, another supplemental motion to dismiss was
filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the
“No Union Raiding Clause” of the “Code of Ethics” adopted
by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (T.U.C.P.)
wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members,
and claiming that the petition failed
to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law. 
The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of the
President of the T.U.C.P. for the purpose of submitting the matter to the
Congress for decision.

On March 16, 1977, the
entire record of the case was returned by the T.U.C.P. President to the Office
of then Secretary of Labor which in turn transmitted the same to the Bureau of
Labor Relations Office with a forwarding letter signed by the late Roberto S. Oca in his capacity as President of the Congress, stating
among other things, the following:^[1]

“In a National Executive Board meeting of the Katipunang Manggagawang Pilipino
(TUCP) held last March 7, 1977 at the Army & Navy Club, it was duly
approved that the above-captioned case be referred back to the BLR and that
MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and ex­clusive bargaining agent, thus
dismissing the petition of PLUM.”

On March
22, 1977, the BLR endorsed
the case to Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leogardo, Jr.,
of Region IV for appropriate action.

On May 5, 1977, Atty.
Luna C. Piezas, Chief, Med-Arbiter Section of Region
IV, Department of Labor, promulgated an order^[2] dismissing the case pursuant to the letter
of the President of the T.U.C.P.

Petitioner PLUM filed an
appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations predicated on the ground that TUCP has
no authority in law to grant or deny election under the Labor Code which
mandated the secret ballot to elect the true union representative.

On September
17, 1977, the Bureau
Director issued a resolution^[3] dismissing the appeal.  Pertinent portions of said resolution read
thus:

“While it may be true that the facts of the case may warrant
the holding of a certification election in the bargaining unit concerned, to
sustain first the decision arrived at by the National Executive Board of TUCP
appears of indispensable importance. 
Contenders in the case at bar are both members of TUCP.  Undeniably, there are internal rules
including their Code of Ethics to keep them intact, to govern their actions and
finally to preserve the Congress.  It is
therefore, a matter of utmost necessity that a decision arrived at by the
National Executive Board be respected and enforced not only by the members of
the Congress themselves but also by this Bureau and the Department if necessity
arises.

“The appealed order has the letter of Roberto Oca as its basis.  It
is worthy to note that the latter sent said communication in his capacity as
President of the TUCP and nothing else. 
Whether or not he happens also to be the president of intervenor union is of no legal signi­ficance since the
decision of the TUCP was handed down by its National Executive Board and not by
him alone.

“Other recourse could have been taken by appellant.  Very much aware of the Decision of the
National Executive Board on March 7,
1977, it could have asked for a reconsideration of the same.  As shown by the records, the first decision
of the National Board was for the holding of a certification election.  But intervenor
asked for a reconsideration hence the March 7, decision.  Appellant’s failure however could unequivocably be interpreted as satisfaction of the
Decision.  For this Office now, to
sustain appellant’s stand and re-open the case again by giving due course to
the instant appeal is not only an open manifestation of non-recognition of the
existence of TUCP but a further obstruction to the goal of the Department to
establish one-union in one industry; thus at the end, to attain industrial
peace.”

x          x          x

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by public
respondent for being pro–forma, hence the present recourse by way
of a petition for certiorari and mandamus.

It was asserted by petitioner that nowhere in the Labor Code or
in the new Constitution has TUCP been granted any authority to supersede or
impair the holding of a certification election or deny the majority employees
of their right to elect their own union; that public respondent and the PTGWO
acted without jurisdiction in defiance of the rule of law and popular
democracy; that it is not within the Code of Ethics to suppress the employees’
freedom to choose their own union; and that the TUCP, while asserting itself to
be a Labor Center did not call the parties involved for conference, to submit
evidence or to make a fair judicious and rational evaluation of the dispute.

The Solicitor General in his manifestation and motion prayed that
he be relieved from filing the required answer to the instant petition for the
reason that he was unable to sustain respondent bureau director’s questioned
orders and resolution.  The records of
the case were returned to said public respondent and he was granted an
extension of time within which to submit his own answer to the petition.

Respondent Noriel in his comment (answer)
made it clear that he is not opposed to the conduct of a certification
election, and in fact he is ready to hold such election if the case is returned
to the juris­diction of his office. 
However, he stressed that the TUCP Code of Ethics and General Council
Resolution No. 76-2 are clear expressions of consent by the signatory members,
including their locals or affiliates, to settle their disputes among themselves
in accordance with the decision of the National Executive Board and the
decision he made was made pursuant to such an agreement.

On the other hand, private respondent union maintained its stand
that no certification election should be held because the petition was not
supported by the written consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the
bargaining unit, and that this requirement is mandatory.

A letter from the president of respondent union reveals the
present state of affairs of the employees wherein they are deprived of the
benefits of a collective bargaining agreement, for management refused to
bargain with the union.  If this
situation continues, the employees would stand to lose and with the present
set-up, a certification election is warranted. 
Time and again, We have ruled in a long-line of cases that the workers’
welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process.  Certification election is the fairest and
most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent
the working force.  It is a fundamental
postulate that the will of the majority if given expression in an honest
election with freedom on the part of the voters to make their choice, is
controlling.^[4]
Protection to labor and freedom of peaceful assembly and association are
guaranteed by the Constitution.

As to the issue of whether or not the 30% minimum subscription
requirement was met, it was held that the Director is still empowered to call
for a certification election provided there was no abuse of discretion.  However, in the case at bar, instead of
ordering an election, respondent Director dismissed the appeal of PLUM based on
the decision of the TUCP, which the Court considers an impairment of the
freedom of the workers to voice out their choice of the union to represent
them.  If there is any doubt as to the
required number having met, there would be no better way than the holding of a
certification election to ascertain which union really commands the allegiance
of the rank-and-file employ­ees.^[5]
If the desired goal is for the execution of a collective bargaining contract to
protect the workers, then certification election is the most appropriate means
to attain said end.

Since there has been no certification election for the past three
(3) years as well as a certified collective bargaining agreement which should
govern the economic and working conditions of the workers, a certification
election should immediately be ordered. 
This Court had repeatedly made it clear that in labor controversies,
time is of the essence.^[6]

Accordingly, the questioned order and resolutions dated May 5, 1977, September 17, 1977 and March 14, 1978 are nullified and set aside.  Respondent Director is hereby ordered to hold
a certification election forthwith.  This
decision is immediately executory.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs,
the practice of the Bureau of Labor Relations of referring certification
election cases to the TUCP, a private entity, is utterly wrong.  It is not sanctioned by the Labor Code.  It is an abdication of its functions.

Abad Santos, J., reserves his vote.

^[1]
p. 174, Original Records.

^[2]
p. 76, Rollo.

^[3]
pp. 88-89, Rollo.

^[4]
PAFLU vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 69 SCRA 139.

^[5]
National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs. Luna,
83 SCRA 607, 617.

^[6]
supra.