PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On February 18, 1964, the Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU) filed a petition for certification election with the
Court of Industrial Relations praying, among other things, that a
certification election be conducted among the supervisory personnel and
employees of the La Carlota Sugar Central to determine which labor
union represents the majority of the members in the supervisory
bargaining unit therein.

After due notice and hearing the Court of Industrial Relations
granted the petition in an order issued on April 13, 1964 wherein it
specified the supervisors and employees who may take part in the
certification election.

Within the period of five days after receipt of a copy of the order
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the union filed a motion for
reconsideration praying for the correction of the aforesaid order to
include therein the list of laborers contained in an exhibit submitted
by said union who should also take part in the certification election
but which list, through an oversight, was omitted from the order.

Pursuant to the order of the Court of Industrial Relations, the
Director of Labor sent notifications to all parties concerned regarding
the holding of the certification set for June 29, 1964, but as its
motion for correction has not yet been acted upon due to the
insufficient number of judges composing the industrial court to
constitute a quorum of at least three out of five that forms its
membership, the union filed with said court on June 18, 1964, or ten
days before the date set for the holding of the certification election,
an urgent motion to suspend the election in order that its motion for
correction may be properly acted upon. However, this motion could not
also be acted upon for the same reason above adverted to relative to
the insufficient membership of the industrial court.

And considering chat the Director of Labor will proceed with the
certification election as scheduled on June 29, 1964 unless an order be
issued suspending the same and this cannot be issued for the reason
abovementioned, the union found no other alternative than to interpose
the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in
order that said certification election may be suspended until after its
motion for correction and suspension shall have been acted upon.

This Court gave due course to the petition but declined to grant the
writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. Respondent Director of Labor
failed to file an answer, and the parties failed to file any brief.
When this case was called for hearing on September 23, 1964, none of
the parties appeared.

It appearing that the certification election authorized by the Court
of Industrial Relations was set for June 29, 1964 and the time that had
elapsed since then is nearly two years, there is every reason to
believe that said election has been held as scheduled in view of the
refusal of this Court to issue the injunction prayed for in the
petition. Consequently, this petition may now be dismissed as academic
or for lack of justiciable controversy.

Wherefore, petition is dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.