NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU-MIF), PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR, FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS – SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA QUALITY CONTAINER CORPORATION AND Q…

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated August 4,
1992 of the Secretary of Labor in Case No. OS-A-4-102-92. In said decision, the Secretary of Labor
affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter in Cases Nos. NCR-­OD-M-91-09-106 and NCR-OD-M-91-10-131, which granted the
petition of respondent Federation of Free Workers – Samahang Manggagawa sa
Quality Container Corporation (FFW-SMQCC), for a certification election to be
conducted among the rank and file employees of respondent Quality Container
Corporation (QCC).

Petitioner and respondent FFW-SMQCC
are local chapters of labor federations duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file workers
of respondent QCC, a domestic corporation engaged in the metal industry.

On September 27, 1991, 38 days before the expiration of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent QCC,
respondent FFW-SMQCC through
Reynito de Pedro filed with the DOLE Industrial Relations Division, National
Capital Region (NCR-OD-M-91-09-106) a petition for certification election. The petition was accompanied by a list of
signatures of company employees, who signified their consent to a certification
election among the rank and file employees of QCC (Rollo, pp. 79-83).

Petitioner herein moved to dismiss the petition of respondent FFW-SMQCC on the grounds that: (a) the required consent to the certification
election of at least 25% of the
rank and file employees had not been met; (b) the petition was not verified as
required by law; and (c) Reynito de Pedro, who was also the president of
petitioner, had no personality to file the petition on behalf of FFW-SMQCC.

On October 30,
1991, respondent FFW-SMQCC, filed
a second petition for certification election, this time signed and verified by
De Pedro (NCR-OD-91-10-131).

On January 24, 1992, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for
certification election of respondent
FFW-SMQCC in a decision, the
dispositive portion of which, reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a certification election be conducted among the rank-and-file
employees of Quality Container Corporation within twenty (20) days from receipt
hereof with the usual pre-election conference of the parties to thresh out the
mechanics and other details of the election. The payroll of the company three (3) months prior to the filing of the
petition shall be used as the basis in determining the list of eligible voters.

“The choices are:

a) Federation of Free
Workers (FFW)-Samahang Manggagawa sa
Quality Container Corporation Chapter;

b) National Mines and
Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU); and

c) No union” (Rollo,
pp. 24-25).

Petitioner appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor
(OS-A-4-102-92). On June 17, 1992, the
Secretary of Labor rendered a decision, denying the appeal for lack of merit
and affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends that the assailed decision was issued in
grave abuse of discretion for the following reasons: (1) that Reynito de Pedro is not the authorized representative of
respondent FFW-SMQCC, he being the duly elected president of petitioner; (2)
that the filing of the second petition for certification election did not cure,
much less correct, the defects in the first petition; and (3) that in the first
and second petitions, the signatures of the 141 employees, who signified their
support thereto, were either forged or pre-maturely obtained prior to the 60-day period
before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

First, although Reynito de Pedro was the duly elected president
of petitioner, he had disaffiliated himself therefrom and joined respondent
FFW-SMQCC before the petition for certification election was filed on September
27, 1991. The eventual dismissal of De
Pedro from the company is of no moment, considering that the petition for
certification election was filed before his dismissal on August 22, 1992.

Second, verification of a pleading is a formal, not
jurisdictional requisite (Buenaventura v. Uy, 149 SCRA 22 [1987]; In the Matter
of the Change of Name of Antonina B. Oshita, 19 SCRA 700 [1967]). Even if verification is lacking and the
pleading is formally defective, the courts may dispense with the requirement in
the interest of justice and order the correction of the pleading
accordingly. Generally, technical and
rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases; and this rule is
specifically applied in certification election proceedings, which are
non-litigious but merely investigative and non-adversarial in character
(Associated Labor Unions v. Ferrer-­Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989]; Tanduay
Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC, 149 SCRA 470 [1987]). Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in the first
petition were cured and corrected in the second petition for certification
election.

Third, attached to the original petition for certification
election was a list of 141 supporting signatures out of the 300 employees
belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent
FFW-SMQCC. Respondent QCC sought to
delete from the list some 36 signatures which were allegedly forged and
falsified. Petitioner, likewise,
submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the
signatures therein.

Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 were
disowned, this leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75
— i.e., 25% of the total number of company employees required by law to
support a petition for certification election. The disclaimer by 13 employees of
their respective signatures covers only their own personal participation
and cannot in any way be extended to include the rest of those who did not
question the same.

Moreover, the fact that the list of signatures is undated does not necessarily mean that the signatures were obtained
prior to the 60-day freedom period before the expiration of the existing
collective bargaining agreement. What
is important is that the petition for certification election must be filed
during the freedom period and that the 25% requirement of supporting signatures
be met upon the filing thereof. These
requirements have been complied by respondent FFW-SMQCC in their first and
second petitions, and it was thus incumbent upon the Med-Arbiter to order a
certification election to be conducted among the rank and file employees of the
company (Labor Code of the Philippines, Art. 256; Warren Mfg. Workers’ Union v.
Bureau of Labor Relations, 159 SCRA 387 [1988]; Samahang Manggagawa ng Pacific
Mills v. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152 [1985]).

If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refuse
to be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC, with all the more reason should a certification
election be held where the employees themselves can freely and voluntarily
express by secret ballot their choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most
effective and expeditious way to determine which labor organization can truly
represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company
(Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Sec. of Labor, 201 SCRA 584
[1991]; National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations,
164 SCRA 12 [1988])

We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary
of Labor.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), and Davide,
Jr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.