D. O. PLAZA ENTERPRISES, INC., NOW KNOWN AS AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DANILO P. CRU…

Petitioner ought not to have been surprised by the dismissal of
its suit for certiorari and prohibition, filed against respondent Carmelo C. Noriel, the Director
of Labor Relations.^[1]
In essence, the thrust of the petition is to prevent the holding of a
certification election.  The congenital
infirmity of such a writ, petitioner being D. O. Plaza Enterprises, Inc., was
pointed out in the Comment of Solicitor General Estelito
P. Mendoza.^[2]
Thus:  “It is settled jurisprudence
that management should maintain a hands-off policy in certification
election.  In the recent case of Scout
Ramon V. Albano Memorial
College v. Noriel,
et al., G. R. No. L-48347, October 3,
1978, this Honorable Court held: 
3.  There is relevance likewise to
this excerpt from Monark International, Inc. v. Noriel, cited in the Comment of Solicitor General
Mendoza:  ‘There is another infirmity
from which the petition suffers.  It was
filed by the employer, the adversary in the collective bargaining process.  Precisely, the institution of collective
bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor is free to choose
its representative, to resolve any doubt on the matter, a certification
election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of ascertaining its
will.  It is true that there may be
circumstances where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on
the matter.  An obvious instance is where
it invokes the obstacles interposed by the contract-bar rule.  This case certainly does not fall within the
exception.  Sound policy dictates that as
much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy.  For if it does not, it may lend itself to the
legitimate suspicion that it is partial to one of the contending unions.  That is repugnant to the concept of collective
bargaining.  That is against the letter
and spirit of welfare legislation intended to protect labor and to promote
social justice.  The judiciary then
should be the last to look with tolerance at such efforts of an employer to
take part in the process leading to the free and untrammeled choice of the
exclusive bargaining representative of the workers.’ In filing the petition at
bar, petitioner pretends to vindicate the right to self-organization guaranteed
in no less than the Constitution.  The
interest of petitioner is to say the least, highly suspect.  The right to self-organization belongs to the
workers and petitioner is ill-advised to champion the same.”^[3]
Hence the order of dismissal of December
11, 1978.

In the motion for reconsideration, there is a statement made by
counsel for petitioner to the effect that this Court might have failed to take
into consideration an allegation in its reply regarding the recommendation made
by a certain Col. Alfredo S. Olano, Regional
Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in Agusan,
directed to the Regional Director of Regional Office No. 10 of the Ministry of
Labor, for the temporary suspension of any projected certification elections in
certain logging firms including petitioner “due to escalating
subversive/insurgent activities in Agusan Sur.”^[4]
Such an observation by petitioner’s counsel lack accuracy.  There was no failure to take note of such an
allegation.  It was the opinion of the
Court that such an allegation did not suffice for the failure to comply with
the mandate of the law.  That point was
stressed anew in the motion thus: 
“Indeed, while it was herein petitioner who filed the petition for
certification election in the Ministry of Labor, petitioner has stated, and
shall repeat here for emphasis, that in view of the prevailing unrest in the
province of Agusan Sur,
admitted no less by the Regional Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in Agusan, petitioner has no objection to the temporary
suspension of the actual holding of the certification election until the peace
and order problem has been resolved, in order to insure that such election,
when held, shall be free, peaceful and devoid of coercive circumstances.”^[5]
It is for that reason that the Comment of the Solicitor General who represents
not only respondent Noriel but the Republic was
sought.

On March 20, 1979 came his Comment worded thus:  [Come now] the public respondents by the
undersigned counsel and by way of Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration of
petitioner respectfully state:  (1) The
Motion for Reconsideration is pro forma for it merely reiterates
petitioner’s arguments already submitted in the main petition itself.  Thus – (a) Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Motion
for Reconsideration recite petitioner’s objections to the intervention of
respondent PLAC.  This is a mere
repetition of paragraph 33, sub-paragraphs a to d of the petition.  Undersigned counsel replied to these
objections in pp. 2-5 of their Comment. 
(b) Paragraph 9 of the Motion for Reconsideration alleges that public
respondents abused their discretion in ordering the participation of the 221
members of the MATU whose petition for illegal dismissal and reinstatement is
still pending with the NLRC. Again, this is a reiteration of paragraph 35 of
the petition.  Undersigned counsel
already replied to this argument on page 6 of their Comment. (c) Paragraph 10
of the Motion for Reconsideration alleges ‘the legal significance of the dispositive portion of the relief in the alternative
granted by the Honorable Executive Labor Arbiter Ildefonso
Agbuya * * *.’ This again is a reiteration, of
paragraphs 36 and 37 of the petition and answered by public respondents on page
6 of their Comment.  In fine all these
arguments had been considered in the resolution of this Honorable Court dated December 11, 1978 dismissing the
Petition.  (2) Belatedly, the Motion for
Reconsideration calls the attention of this Honorable Court to a letter dated
November 24, 1978 of Col. Alfredo S. Olano, Regional
Commander of the PC in Agusan, recommending the
temporary suspension of any projected certification election in certain logging
firms including D. O. Plaza Enterprises, due to insurgent activities in Agusan del Sur.  To begin with, the letter does not affect the
legal issues in the case at bar. 
The matter of whether or not under the present circumstances in Agusan del Sur a certification
election can be freely held in D. O. Plaza Enterprises is best addressed to the
discretion of the Ministry of Labor. 
Indeed, there can be more unrest in the area if the workers’ freedom to
choose their bargaining agents is further negated.”^[6]

The above Comment of the Solicitor General has in its favor
conformity with the requirements of the rule of law.  It is therefore impressed with a highly
persuasive quality.  It is to be
expected, of course, that management will not readily yield to an order which
in its opinion, whether sound or not, works against its interest.  That feature of the capitalist system has
been noted time and time again, lately with some disfavor, as public welfare,
not only the quest for profits, deserves to be fully taken into account.  If it were not thus, the dissatisfaction of
the less economically-favored element of the population would be
intensified.  It is for that reason that
there is a great need for provisions on social and economic rights so that the
interest of the other party to the industrial process, labor, would be equally
safeguarded.  The 1935 Constitution
already provided for social justice and protection to labor.^[7]
The present Constitution is even more emphatic on that score.^[8]

No doubt, the Comment of the Regional Commander of the Philippine
Constabulary was given in good faith. 
Nonetheless, it betrays lack of awareness of the role of the military in
times of martial law.  Even under the
more restrictive view of the governmental powers during a period of emergency,
Willoughby pointed out that the legal effect of the declarations of martial law
“goes no further than to warn citizens that the military powers have been
called upon by the executive to assist him in the maintenance of law and order,
and that, while the emergency lasts, they must, upon pain of arrest and
punishment not commit any acts which will in any way render more difficult the
restoration of order and the enforcement of law.”^[9]
It would appear, therefore, that with the prompt and efficient compliance with
such a duty on the military, the apprehension and misgivings felt would not
materialize.  It can see to it, it must
see to it, that the law be complied with. 
It is not only good law then but sound sense that is embodied in the
last sentence of the Comment of the Solicitor General:  “Indeed, there can be more unrest in the
area if the workers’ freedom to choose their bargaining agents is further
negated.”^[10]

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied and
the resolution of this Court dated December
11, 1978 dismissing the petition is hereby affirmed.  This resolution is immediately executory.  No costs.

Antonio, (Actg. Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and
Santos, JJ., concur.

Barredo and
Abad Santos, JJ., on
official leave.

^[1] Danilo P. Cruz, Mindanao Association of Trade Unions, and
the Philippine Labor Alliance Council were included as respondents.

^[2]
He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Reynato
S. Puno.

^[3]
Comment, 7-8.  The other legal points
raised in the petition were likewise ably refuted by the Solicitor General.

^[4]
Motion for Reconsideration, par. 3.

^[5] Ibid,
par. 5.

^[6]
Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration, 1-3.

^[7]
According to Article II, Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution:  “The promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the
concern of the State.” According to Article XIV, Section 6 of the 1935
Constitution:  “The State shall
afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall
regulate the relation between landowner and tenant, and between labor and
capital in industry and in agriculture. 
The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.”

^[8]
As far as social justice is concerned, there is this provision found in Article
II, Section 6 of the present Constitution: 
“The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity,
welfare, and security of all the people. 
Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership,
use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse
property ownership and profits.” Equally so, the State is required to
“afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in
employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed,
and regulate the relations between workers and employers.  The State shall assure the rights of workers
to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and
humane conditions of work.  The State may provide for compulsory
arbitration.” Article II, Section 9.

^[9] Willoughby
on the Constitution of the United States,
2nd ed., 1591 (1929).

^[10]
Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration, 3.