ARSENIO REYES, R. ZINGAPAN, E. SERRANO, P. SISON, L. MENDOZA, F. PEREZ, O. CRUZ, E. BAUTISTA, H. ANGCIANGCO, G. SANTOS, R. PINEDA, J. LLENAS, R. VALDEZEO, C. HERNAL, S. TRIPOLI,…

The Court finds without merit the protest of petitioners against
the holding and results of the certification election held in December, 1977
whereby the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) was certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the workers with the employer P. Floro & Sons, Inc. and therefore dismisses the petition
at bar.

The individual petitioners, as alleged in their petition, were
declared the duly elected officers of the union Crispa
Floro Workers Association (CFWA) in a “much
delayed election of union officers on August 9, 1977” the outcome of which
“was finally determined” only on November 22, 1977, due to an
intra-union dispute among the workers-members aspiring to the leadership of the
union (CFWA) – which then was officially affiliated with the Trade Unions of
the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS).

On September 1, 1977,
however, upon petition of the CFWA­-TUPAS (at the instance of petitioners’
opponents), the Bureau of Labor Relations called for a certification election
at the employer company, P. Floro & Sons,
Inc.  Many pre-election conferences in
the months of September to November, 1977 were held and all interested unions
were allowed to intervene and the lists of voters-workers were agreed upon.  The certification election was held on December 6, 1977 with no union
emerging with a clear majority, as follows:

“1) NAFLU………………………………………………………………………………………………….     554

2) CRISPA FLORO
WORKERS ASSOCIATION-TUPAS ………………………………        1

3) FEDERATION OF
FREE WORKERS (FFW)……………………………………………    524

4) NATIONAL UNION
OF GARMENT, TEXTILE, CORDAGE & ALLIED

WORKERS
OF THE PHIL. (GATCORD) ……………………………………………        2

5) PLUM
FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AGRARIAN WORKERS…………………     136

6) NO UNION…………………………………………………………………………………………….         7

7) SPOILED………………………………………………………………………………………………        29

TOTAL …………………………………………………………….   1,253“

Petitioners Reyes, et al., under CFWA which they had
disaffiliated from TUPAS and the PLUM both filed
protests to set aside the election results. 
In the questioned Resolution of December 12, 1977; respondent Bureau of
Labor Relations Director Carmelo C. Noriel dismissed the protests holding insofar as
petitioners Reyes, et al. were concerned that their move to disaffiliate from
the mother federation (TUPAS) had not been formalized beforehand, that they
could not utilize just the name of Crispa Floro Workers Association which was not registered by
itself and did not have the required personality of a labor organization and
that they and their supporters could have duly intervened in the elections
“still under the aegis of the CFWA?TUPAS”, as follows:

“Anent Reyes et al.’s assertion of grave abuse of discretion,
the same may have been given credence, if they had been possessed of the requisite
personality to intervene.  Apparently,
the Med-Arbiter’s inaction on their move to intervene was a tacit recognition
of the fact that Reyes, et al.’s group, in utilizing the name of Crispa Floro Workers Association,
was not yet possessed of the required personality of a legitimate labor
organization.  This is so, as officially,
Crispa Floro Workers
Association is still an affiliate of the Trade Unions of the Philippines
and Allied Services (TUPAS), one of the intervenors
in the instant case.  Their move to disaffiliate
from the mother federation was sad to state, never formalized beforehand.  What is apparent from the record of this
case, is an unfortunate intra-union squabble among two sets of officers, one
group headed by Reyes, et al. and another group of defeated officers, the one
advocating disaffiliation from the mother federation and the other eventually
supporting the other intervenor unions in this
case.  Officially therefore, as there is
no formal disaffiliation made, the herein aggrupation
which is shown to be just a set of newly elected officers without any
noticeable union members supporting them, could have only intervened still
under the aegis of the Crispa Floro
Workers Association-TUPAS.  To have
procrastinated on the holding of the certification election by mere reason of
this unfortunate incident that happened in one of the intervenor
unions, would have equally deprived the others of their legitimate right to
represent the already restive workers at the aforemen­tioned corporation.  This Office chose the latter
alternative.  It could not have done
otherwise.”^[1]

Respondent Noriel accordingly ordered
the holding of a run-off election on December 14, 1977 between the two unions
that had gathered the top two places at which the NAFLU emerged with 664 votes
as the winner of an absolute majority of the 1, 253 votes cast (with FFW
receiving 566 votes and 23 votes declared spoiled) and was subsequently
certified on December 20, 1977 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the workers of the employer company.

Hence, this petition filed on May 5, 1978 after petitioners had
failed to obtain reconsideration from respondents Noriel
and Ople as Secretary (now Minister) of Labor.

The correctness of respondents’ questioned actions was confirmed
at the hearing held by the Court on March
2, 1979 and respondents cannot be held to have acted with grave
abuse of discretion.  Petitioners were
well aware of the calling of the certification election for determining the
union chosen by the workers themselves to represent them as their bargaining
representative but limited themselves to sending letters to the Bureau of Labor
Relations, one on November 23, 1977 asking for “leave to intervene” and
that “pending resolution of our intervention, may we request that this
issue be deferred” and another letter on November 28, 1977 alleging that
they had disaffiliated CFWA from the mother federation TUPAS.  Respondents had properly ruled that
disaffiliated from TUPAS, CFWA had no personality, not having been duly registered
as such.  The certification of July 25, 1978 to this effect issued
by the Bureau of Labor Relations and submitted by the Solicitor General on
behalf of respondents public officials clearly bears this out, thus:

“This is to certify that based on the records of this Office,
CRISPA-FLORO WORKERS ASSOCIATION is not a registered labor organization.  However, CRISPA-FLORO WORKERS ASSOCIATION?TUPAS
was registered in this Office on 14
February 1974 and was issued Registration Certificate No.
(Fed-404)-7184-IP-129.”^[2]

That the elections were held peacefully and orderly is not
questioned by petitioners.  The Court has
consistently favored and upheld the holding of certification elections for the
workers themselves to elect the union that the majority may choose as their
bargaining representative or if they wish, to vote that there be no union.  Their plea that another certification
election be held at which they may duly take part would be but a futile
exercise in the light of the results which were highlighted by the lack of any
noticeable support for them by the rank and file, as well as by their admission
at the hearing that the winner and certified union, the NAFLU, enjoys the
workers’ full support, having signed up more than a thousand of them as
members.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed and the restraining
order issued on May 17, 1978
is lifted effective immediately.  No
costs.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 23.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 78.