TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES WORLD FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (TUPAS-WFTU), PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETAR…

The records reveal that the rank-and-file employees of the
Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation (PDIC), represented by
petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS), entered
into a collective bargaining agreement with said company. The CBA expired on April 31, 1991.

On March 8, 1991, PDIC received a letter from the president of
petitioner’s local chapter union. The
company was informed that the union had resolved to disaffiliate from
petitioner and affiliate with private respondent National Federation of Labor
Unions (NAFLU). PDIC entertained
reservations about the validity of the disaffiliation. It was not clear whether the union’s board
resolution to disaffiliate was ratified by the majority of its members. Furthermore, PDIC had received reports that
some employees were coerced to support the disaffiliation.

On April 24, 1991, within the 60-day freedom period, PDIC and
private respondent NAFLU filed separate petitions for certification election
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. 3 in
San Fernando, Pampanga. Both petitions
prayed for the holding of a certification election between NAFLU and petitioner
TUPAS, to determine the collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
in PDIC’s plant and quarry. The two
petitions were consolidated and docketed as Case No. R033-9104-RU-006, with
petitioner TUPAS as compulsory intervenor.

On May 14, 1991, petitioner TUPAS filed an Urgent Motion To Refer
Case To LACC Fraternal Relations Committee, citing paragraph 1(b) of the LACC
(Labor Advisory Consultative Council) Code of Ethics which provides:

“1. Non-Union raiding

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

b. Where company is organized.

All organized local
affiliates or unions of any LACC member must be discouraged from disaffiliating
from their incumbent labor federations/national union affiliation. However, LACC recognizes the ultimate
authority and right of the local unions to decide for themselves during the freedom
period. In the event that said local
unions intend to disaffiliate from any LACC member and to affiliate with
another member, the latter must inform the former about the intention of their
said local union and to settle the matter by themselves. If not so settled, the matter will be brought
to the attention of the Fraternal Relations Committee of the LACC for final
determination or settlement.”^[1]

Said Code of Ethics was adopted and
signed by four base organizations, namely: Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), to which private respondent NAFLU is affiliated;
Federation of Free Workers (FFW); Lakas ng Manggagawa Labor Center (LMLC); and
Philippine World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) Affiliates, which includes
petitioner TUPAS.^[2]
Petitioner urged the DOLE to “give its imprimatur and uphold the binding
effect of the Code among the LACC members.”^[3]

Despite the Urgent Motion, Med-Arbiter Antonio R. Cortez, on June
3, 1991, issued an Order with the following dispositive portion:

“ACCORDINGLY, let a certification election be conducted among
the regular rank-and-file employees of the Philippine Development and
Industrial Corporation, with the following choices, to wit:

1. National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU);

2. Trade Unions of the Philippines Allied Services (TUPAS); and

3. No Union.

“The January 1991 payrolls shall be used as the basis to
determine the qualified voters in this election.

“A pre-election conference intended to thresh out the
mechanics of the aforesaid election will be called by this Office after ten
(10) days from receipt hereof.

“SO ORDERED.”

The Order was appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
and the case was docketed as OS-MA-A-7-212-91. On August 15, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed the
Order. Labor Undersecretary Laguesma
held, viz.:

“The Code of Ethics being invoked by TUPAS is internal to the
Labor Advisory and Consultative Council (LACC). In other words, it behooves on the signatories to the Code to
comply and respect its provisions. This
Office, therefore, can only take cognizance of the Code and recognize its
provisions if the parties thereto fully and mutually respect the same. Otherwise, we are left with no other
recourse but to dispose of the instant case on the basis of existing and
applicable laws and rules.

“It appears that total reliance on the Code of Ethics is
misplaced. It must be pointed out that
no less than the aforequoted provision of the Code of Ethics recognizes the
‘ultimate authority and right of the local unions to decide for themselves
during the freedom period.’ Necessarily, the Code of Ethics itself does not
sanction any act that would curtail the right of the workers to institute
petitions for certification election during the freedom period, as in the case
at bar.

“The emphasis given by the Code of Ethics on the right of the
local unions to decide for themselves during the freedom period is in
accordance with the provision of the Labor Code which allows another union to
question the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within the
sixty-day freedom period. This is
embodied in Article 256 of the Labor code, as amended by RA 6715, to wit:

‘ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a verified
petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is
filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period
before the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter
shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified
petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five per cent
(25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.’

“It being not disputed that the petition of NAFLU is
sufficient in form and in substance, a certification election is indeed
warranted.”^[4]

On October 7, 1991, respondent
undersecretary denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On October 27, 1991, a certification election was conducted among
the rank-and-file workers of PDIC at Iba, Meycauayan, Bulacan. One hundred eighteen (118) of the one
hundred thirty-six (136) qualified voters participated in the elections. Petitioner garnered six (6) votes, while
private respondent got one hundred twelve (112). On November 5, 1991, Med-Arbiter Antonio R. Cortez issued an
Order certifying private respondent as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all rank­-and-file workers of PDIC.^[5]

Thus, on November 6, 1991, petitioner filed this original action
for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, “seeking to
ANNUL the questioned Resolution dated August 15, 1991, and the Order dated
October 7, 1991.”^[6]

On November 18, 1991, we issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondents from enforcing the impugned Resolution and Order.

We find no merit in the petition.

Public respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Med-Arbiter’s
Order, dated June 3, 1991. The order
for the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees
of PDIC finds legal warrant in Art. 256 of the amended Labor Code, as earlier
quoted. Under said provision, the
Med-Arbiter shall automatically order a certification election by
secret ballot in an organized establishment such as PDIC, provided the
following requisites are met: (1) that
a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is
filed before the DOLE within the sixty-day freedom period; (2) that such
petition is verified; and (3) that the petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five (25%) per cent of all employees in the
bargaining unit. It is undisputed that
all these requirements were met by private respondent NAFLU in its petition
before the DOLE Regional Office No. 3, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Thus, Med-­Arbiter Cortez, acting in
accordance with Art. 256 of the Labor Code, as amended, had no recourse but to automatically
order the holding of a certification election at PDIC.

It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding
of certification elections,^[7]
for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.^[8]
We have held that whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union
represents the majority of the rank-and-file employees, in the absence of a
legal impediment, the holding of a certification election is the most
democratic method of determining the employees’ choice of their bargaining
representative. It is the appropriate
means whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest,
by the unequivocal vote of the employees themselves.^[9]
Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial democracy.

Art. 256 of the Labor Code cannot be supplanted by the Code of
Ethics of the LACC. Said Code cannot
amend or repeal a law. And, as
correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, it merely provides
for a voluntary mechanism to settle intra-union disputes. It only applies when both parties to the
dispute seek the mediation of said Committee. However, when one of the parties decides to avail of the remedy provided
for under Art. 256 of our Labor Code and files the proper petition with the
DOLE, jurisdiction over the dispute is exclusively acquired by and cannot be
wrenched away from the Med-Arbiter. It
is familiar learning that jurisdiction is vested by law, and not by agreement
between or among the parties. Moreover,
labor disputes involve public interest, and hence any private agreement on
their settlement cannot prevail over what is provided for by our laws.

The court also recognizes the fact that the certification
election sought to be stopped by petitioner is now fait accompli, and the
rank-and-file employees of PDIC have articulated their choice as to who shall
be their collective bargaining agent in no uncertain terms. In the certification election legally held
before we issued our temporary restraining order in the case, the PDIC workers
voted, 112 to 6 (with 18 qualified voters not participating in the election),
to make private respondent their sole and exclusive bargaining agent. This democratic decision deserves utmost
respect, especially since it was not attended by any legal infirmity. Again, it bears stressing that labor
legislation seeks in the main to protect the interest of the members of the
working class. It should never be used
to subvert their will.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Resolution dated August 15,
1991, and the Order dated October 7, 1991 of respondent Department of Labor and
Employment Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma in OS-MA-A-7-212-91 is hereby
AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex “J” of the Petition, p. 1; Rollo, p. 42.

^[2]
Ibid., at p. 2; Rollo, p. 43. See Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4.

^[3]
Annex “C” of the Petition, p. 2; Rollo, p. 20.

^[4]
Annex “G” of the Petition, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 33-34.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 84.

^[6]
Petition. pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 2-3.

^[7]
See Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. Bureau of Labor
Relations, 159 SCRA 387 (1988); General Textiles Allied Workers Association vs.
Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, 84 SCRA 430 (1978); Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 69 SCRA
132 (1976).

^[8]
Belyca Corporation vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 168 SCRA 184 (1988); Philippine
Airlines Employees’ Association (PALEA) vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 162 SCRA 426
(1988); George and Peter Lines, Inc. vs. Associated Labor Unions (ALU),
134 SCRA 82 (1986).

^[9]
PALEA vs. Ferrer-Calleja, supra..