SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA UNION INDUSTRIES, INC., JOSE VALENZUELA, AND TOMAS SENA, PETITIONERS, VS. DIRECTOR CARMELO NORIEL, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND G…

It is quite manifest that the reliance of petitioner labor
organization and its two officials^[1]
in this certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus proceeding is on
the constitutional right to freedom of association^[2]
as well as the constitutional mandate of protection to labor, more specifically
insofar as it assures
unionization and collective bargaining.^[3] The Solicitor General^[4] on behalf of respondent Director Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations would view the
matter in a narrower perspective. For him, what is primarily involved is the authority of such official to order the holding of a referendum through secret
balloting to ascertain the alleged disaffiliation of the workers from one union
to join a new labor organization, that of petitioner, then still in the process
of registration.  He pointed out that
such a power must be conceded.  The Court
is of the opinion that the inquiry into the alleged failure to respect what is
ordained by the Constitution deserves priority. 
In that context, the petition
is impressed with merit.  To put on end to a festering labor controversy, the challenged order is set aside, its prohibition
enjoined, and mandamus is granted so that a certification election could
be forthwith conducted.

According to the petition, on October 12, 1978, petitioner Jose Valenzuela filed an
application for a certificate of registration of petitioner union composed of the rank and file employees and workers of the respondent
company at its place of business in Oliveros Drive, corner of Epifanio
de los Santos Avenue.^[5] There was an opposition filed on October
17, 1978 by
respondent Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization.^[6] On December 22, 1978, a certificate of registration of petitioner
union was approved by the Ministry
of Labor, hence it was ready for issuance or release.^[7] It came as a surprise, therefore, when petitioner Valenzuela learned on December
26, 1978 that such
issuance or release was withheld by respondent Director.^[8] The first conference was called by
respondent Director on January 4, 1979.^[9] A conference was scheduled on January
9, 1979.^[10] Respondent Director then, on January
25, 1979, issued an
order for a referendum.^[11] Petitioner union filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on February 9, 1979,
praying, among others, the release of
the certificate of registration.^[12] Respondent Director denied the motion on May 8,
1979.^[13] A complicating factor was the notice of a
commencement of a strike on June 16, 1979, at respondent company’s glass
division by members of respondent Federation of Free Workers by virtue of a
notice of strike filed on May 17, 1979 to compel the negotiation of a
collective bargaining agreement for a group of rank-and-file employees at the
glass division constituting a minority of the rank-and-file employees of the
respondent company, allegedly to the prejudice
and detriment of petitioner union.^[14]

Private respondent Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization would justify the order as it had a “certified col­lective
bargaining agreement” in existence.^[15]
As to the facts set forth in the petition, there was the claim that the solicitation of the signatures
for disaffiliation was attended by “deception, force, and
intimidation.”^[16]
It asserted, however, that the issuance of a certificate of registration is not an absolute right and is, therefore, not mandatory being
subject to regulatory
police power of the State.^[17]
Private respondent Union Industries Workers Association affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers disclaimed
interest in the litigation, maintaining that it “should not be
drawn into this case.  [It should not be
included] as party respondent
[as it] is the bargaining agent by majority choice of another bargaining unit of the company concerned
(Union Industries, Inc.).  On the basis
of the facts, that the bargaining unit petitioners seek to represent being
different, separate and apart from the
bargaining unit that private respondent FFW has been
representing, we firmly submit that the petition must necessary fail.”^[18] Public respondents, in the answer filed by Solicitor General
Mendoza, is equally of the view that the issuance of a certification of registration is “not an
absolute right but one which is subject
to the regulatory power of the State.”^[19]
It argued that there was no abuse of
discretion, secret balloting being the “most efficacious and fairest mode of ascertaining the
member­ship of the contending unions.”^[20]

As set forth at the
outset, the petition is impressed with merit.

1.   According to U.E.
Automotive Employees and Workers Union-Trade
Unions of the Philippines
v. Noriel:^[21]
“Nor is the different outcome called for
just because at the time of the challenged order, there was as yet no registration of petitioner Union.  If at all, that is a circumstance far from flattering as far as the Bureau of Labor
Relations is concerned.  It must be
remembered that as admitted in the
comment of respondent Director, the application for regis­tration was
filed on July 19, 1974.  The challenged order was issued seven months later.  There is no allegation that such applica­tion
suffered from any infirmity.  Moreover,
if such were the case, the attention of
petitioner should have been called so that it could be corrected.  Only thus may
the right to association be accorded full respect.  As far back as Umali
v. Lovina, a 1950 decision, it was held by this Court that under appropriate
circumstances, mandamus lies
to compel registration. * * * In
the absence of any fatal defect to the application for registration, there is no justification for withholding it from petitioner to enable it to exercise fully its constitutional right
to freedom of association. * * * What is decisive is that the
members of petitioner Union did exercise their fundamental right to self-organization and did win in a fair and honest election.”^[22] Such a doctrine calls for application.  Moreover, considering the long period that had elapsed, it would
not suffice just to compel registration.  It is even more essential
that there­after a certification
election be conducted.  This approach dictated by equity no less than by the authoritative
doctrines has recommended itself to the Court.

2.   Respondent Director of Labor Relations, in
the memorandum of authorities submitted by Solicitor General Mendoza, objected
to the characterization of his order as constituting a grave abuse of
discretion.  Litex
Employees Association v. Eduvela^[23]
can be cited in support of such a stand. 
For in that case, under the facts disclosed, this Court held that the
competence of respondent Director under Article 226 of the Labor Code to order
the holding of a referendum election among the members of a labor union on the
question of disaffiliation was conceded. 
As stated at the beginning of this opinion, however, the right to
freedom of association is a preferred right and permits of no further denial where as is so clearly shown,
because of the intro-union rivalry, no certification
election had been held for some time.  To
permit further delay could, under the circumstances, defeat two of the prime
objectives of the protection to labor mandate, namely the right to self-organization and the right
to collective bargaining by the
union that would emerge triumphant in a certification election.

WHEREFORE, certiorari is granted
declaring without force and effect the challenged order as well as the
denial for the
motion for reconsideration.  Prohibition, therefore, lies against
the enforce­ment thereof.  Mandamus is likewise available to compel
the regis­tration and thereafter the holding of the certification election in
the appropriate bargaining unit of respondent company.  This decision
is immediately executory.

Barredo, Concepcion,
Jr., Abad Santos, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., see
concurrence and dissent.

^[1] Petitioner Jose Valenzuela is the President and petitioner Tomas Sena
is the Vice-President of the said organization.

^[2] According to Article IV, Section 7 of the
Constitution:  “The right to form
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”

^[3] According to Article II, Section 9 of the Cons­titution: 
“The State shall 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.”

^[4] Solicitor General Estelito
P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Ramon A. Barcelona and
Solicitor Dennis M. Taningco.

^[5] Petition, 5.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid, 6, and Annex A.

^[12] Ibid, Annex B.

^[13] Ibid, Annex C.

^[14] Ibid, Annex D.

^[15] Answer of private respondent Philippine
Transport and General Workers Organiza­tion, par. 1.

^[16] Ibid, par. 4.

^[17] Ibid, par. 3.

^[18] Answer of private respondent Union Industries
Workers Association, 1-2.

^[19]
Answer of public respondents, Special and Affirmative Defenses, par. 12.

^[20] Ibid, par. 13.

^[21] L-44350, November 25, 1976, 74 SCRA 72.

^[22] Ibid,
81-82.

^[23] L-41106, September 22, 1977, 79 SCRA 88.

150
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}