BLUE BAR WORKERS’ UNION, PETITIONER, VS. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

In this, a petition for certiorari with prayer for prelim­inary
injunction, petitioner seeks to reverse, and meanwhile restrain enforcement of,
the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dated July 17, 1968 and August 26, 1968 as well as its
resolution en banc of October
3, 1968.

Briefly, the facts are:

On September 20, 1967,
Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers (PLUM for short) petitioned
CIR for certification as the majority union and as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees and workers in the
Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc.^[1]

Upon the averment that petitioner Blue Bar Workers’ Union
is a local affiliate of another labor union – respondent Lakas
Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (Lakas) – and that it has an existing collective bargaining
agreement with the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines,
Int., said Blue Bar Workers’ Union filed in said case on
September 27, 1967 a motion
for intervention which CIR granted.^[2]

Blue Bar’s foregoing allegations in reference to the existence of
the collective bargaining agreement were con­firmed by the company in its
answer dated October 10, 1967
and filed with CIR.^[3]

On July 3, 1968,
a consent election conducted and super­vised by CIR’s
personnel was held in the premises of the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. at
Lusacan, Tiaong, Quezon.  In the official ballots used in said
election, the name of peti­tioner Blue Bar Workers’ Union
appeared in parenthesis below that of respondent union
Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan.  The
official tally sheet shows that out of a total of 714 votes cast in the
election, 526 votes were garnered by petitioner Blue Bar Workers’ Union-Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan as against 155 in favor of the PLUM.^[4]

On July 17, 1968,
CIR issued the controverted order certifying Lakas as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
regular rank-and-file employees and workers of Blue Bar Coconut Philippines,
Inc., for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment.  That order disregarded the name of petitioner
union.^[5]

Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. balked at this order, moved to
reconsider.  CIR refused to reconsider.^[6]

It was petitioner union’s turn, on September 4, 1968, to file its motion for reconsideration
of the orders of July 17, 1968
and August 26, 1968.  This too was denied by CIR en banc
on October 3, 1968.  Petitioner appealed to this Court.^[7]

Thereafter, on November
26, 1968, petitioner filed before this Court a manifestation
stating that respondent Lakas insists on demanding
for a new collective bargaining agreement with Blue Bar Coconut Philippines,
Inc., despite the existing col­lective bargaining agreement between petitioner
and the com­pany.  Petitioner prayed that
said manifestation be considered together with its prayer for preliminary
injunction.^[8]  On the same date, respondent Lakas filed its answer to the present petition for
certiorari.  And on December 11, 1968, Lakas
also filed its comment to the manifestation of petitioner.^[9]

This Court resolved on December
19, 1968 to deny the motion for intervention of the Blue Bar
Coconut Philippines, Inc. dated December
17, 1968 since such intervention was “not necessary for a
determination of the issues raised herein.” We, however, directed the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain respondent court from
enforcing its orders of July 17, 1968
and August 26, 1968 and its
resolution of October 3, 1968
upon petitioner’s filing of a bond in the sum of P1,000.00
and the approval thereof by this Court.^[10]
And this, to prevent respondent union (Lakas) and
Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. from considering a new set of collective bar­gaining
proposals which might affect the existing bargaining agreement between
petitioner and said company.

A surety bond in the amount of P1,000.00
subscribed by the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. having been filed and approved
by the Chief Justice, a writ of preliminary injunc­tion was issued on January 3, 1969.^[11]

This case was submitted for decision on February 17, 1969.

Then came the letter of respondent Lakas to Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. dated June 23, 1969.  Lakas, in that
letter, informed the employer that “in accordance with an under­standing
and agreement with our local officers that they are joining voluntarily with
the Blue Bar Workers’ Union, we are giving up all our rights, claims and
interest” in the case at bar “on the issue of Union recognition in
favor of Blue Bar Workers’ Union.” Request was there made that said
company “fully recognize” petitioner “as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees.” Petitioner, in view of this
letter, filed on August 19, 1969
a manifestation and motion praying that decision be rendered herein by this
Court recog­nizing said petitioner (Blue Bar Workers’ Union)
as the sole collective bargaining representative of the rank-and-file em­ployees
of Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc.^[12]

In a resolution of this Court of August 22, 1969, re­spondent Lakas was asked to comment within 10 days from notice
thereof, on the foregoing manifestation and motion.  Notwithstanding the lapse of the 10-day
period, respondent union failed of compliance.^[13]

In view of such development, the controversy comes to an end.

WHEREFORE, the Blue Bar Workers’ Union
is hereby declared as the sole bargaining representative of the rank-and-file
employees of the Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc.  The preliminary injunction heretofore issued
herein is hereby made permanent.  No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes, JBL, J., on leave.

^[1] Case No. 2024-MC.

^[2] Petition, pp. 1, 4.

^[3] Id.,
p. 4.

^[4]
Annexes “F” and “G”, Petition, pp. 19-20.

^[5]
Annex “H”, Petition, p. 21.

^[6]
Annex “I”, Petition, p. 22, Order of August 26, 1968.

^[7]
Petition, p. 7.

^[8] Rollo, p. 34.

^[9] Id.,
p. 43.

^[10] Id.,
p. 52.

^[11] Id.,
pp. 53-54.

^[12] Rollo, pp. 68-70.

^[13] Id.,
pp. 72-73.