NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP, PETITIONER, VS. DIR. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, MINISTRY OF LABOR AN…

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside
the decision rendered by the respondent Director Cresenciano
B. Trajano of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry
of Labor and Employment, dated November 18, 1983 affirming the order of
Med-Arbiter Demetrio Correa dated May 2, 1983 giving
due course to the petition for certification election filed by private
respondent Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) –
TUCP; and the order dated March 21, 1984 denying the motion
for reconsideration for lack of merit.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner National Congress of Unions in the collective
bargaining agreement with private respondent company.  Petitioner union filed a motion to intervene in the petition
for certification election filed by private respondent union.

By order dated July 23,
1982, the Acting Med­-Arbiter Pacifico V.
Militante dismissed the petition for certification
election for lack of merit since the petition is barred by a pending bargaining
deadlock.

On August 25, 1982,
private respondent union filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations, Manila.

The Bureau of Labor Relations through respondent Director Cresenciano B. Trajano rendered a decision on September 30, 1982 setting aside the order of the
Acting Med-Arbiter and remanding the case to Regional Office VI, Iloilo City
for hearing and reception of evidence.

On May 2, 1983, Honorable Med-Arbiter Demetrio
Correa issued an order in LRD Case No. 4293 giving due course to the petition
of private respondent FUR-TUCP and ordering that an election be held within 20
days from receipt of the order.

From the order of Med-Arbiter Correa, petitioner interposed an
appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations.

During the pendency of the appeal or on
September 10, 1983, a collective bargaining agreement was entered and executed
by the management of the National Sugar Refineries Co., Inc. and petitioner
union and was subsequently ratified by a majority of the rank and file
employees.  On the basis of the concluded
CBA, the Honorable Executive Labor Arbiter Celerino Grecia II Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP)-TUCP
is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
workers of Calinog Refinery Corporation.  Private respondent Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR)-TUCP is a labor organization duly registered
with the Department of Labor and Employment while private respondent Calinog Refirieries Employees
Union (CREU)-NACUSIP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of
the rank and file workers of the private respondent Calinog
Refinery Corporation by virtue of the certification election held on March 30,
1981.

On June 21, 1982,
petitioner union filed a petition for deadlock in collective bargaining with
the Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor and
Employment).  In order to obviate
friction and tension, the parties agreed to submit the
petition for deadlock to compulsory arbitration on July 14, 1982 and was docketed as RAB Case No. VI-0220-82.

On July 21, 1982,
private respondent FUR-TUCP filed with the Regional Office No. VI, MOLE (now
DOLE), Iloilo City a petition for certification election among the rank and
file employees of private respondent company, alleging that:  (1) about forty-five percent (45%) of private
respondent company’s employees had disaffiliated from petitioner union and joined
private respondent union; (2) no election had been held for the past twelve
(12) months; and (3) while petitioner union had been certified as the sole
collective bargaining agent, for over a year it failed to conclude a issued an
award dated September 12, 1983 adopting the submitted agreement as the CBA
between the parties.

On November 18, 1983, respondent Director Trajano
rendered a decision affirming
with qualification the order of Med-Arbiter Correa dated May 2, 1983, the
pertinent portions of which provide as follows:

“It appears that the Calinog
Refinery Employees Union – NACUSIP-TUCP no longer commands the support of the
majority of the employees.  This
observation is buttressed by the fact that more than seventy five percent (75%)
of the workers have disaffiliated from the intervenor
and joined the ranks of the petitioner. 
Thus, intervenor’s status as sole and
exclusive bargaining representative is now of doubtful validity.

“For the above-mentioned reason, we stand obliged to resort to
the most expeditious, practical and democratic option open to us, that is, the
conduct of a certification election. 
Through this forum, the true sentiments of the workers as to which labor
organization deserves their loyalty can be fairly ascertained.  In any event, it is our view that the 10
September 1983 collective agreement should be respected by the union that shall
prevail in the election not only because it is an arbitration award but also
because substantial benefits are provided thereunder.  Otherwise stated, the winning union shall
administer said agreement.  In passing,
it may be pointed out that CAREFCO has been included as one of the contending
parties in the election.  We feel that it
is error for the acting Med-Arbiter to do so considering that the company is a
mere bystander in this representation dispute.

“WHEREFORE, as above qualified, the Order dated 2 May 1983 is affirmed.

“SO DECIDED.” (Rollo, pp. 40-41)

From the decision of respondent Director Trajano,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated December 6, 1983.

The respondent Director in his order dated March 21, 1984 denied the motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit and affirmed the Bureau’s decision of November 18, 1983.

Hence, this petition.

This Court in a resolution dated December 10, 1984 resolved to grant the urgent motion of
petitioner for the issuance of a restraining order and issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the respondents from conducting and holding the
certification election on December
17, 1984 among the rank and file employees of respondent company
(see Rollo, p. 99).

Petitioner maintains that respondent Director Trajano
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
rendered a decision affirming the order of Med-Arbiter Correa finding that the
deadlock is “nothing but a mere subterfuge to obstruct the exercise of the
workers of their legitimate right to self-organization, a last minute maneuver
to deny the workers the exercise of their constitutional rights” (Rollo, p. 28) and ordering a certification election among
the rank and file workers of respondent company.

Furthermore, petitioner stresses that the finding that the
contract (deadlock) bar rule has no room for application in the instant case,
runs counter to the provision of Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 which prohibits
the filing of a petition for certification election during the pendency of a bargaining deadlock.

In conformity with the petitioner’s contentions, the Solicitor
General insists that the respondent Director has acted arbitrarily in issuing
the assailed decision and order.  In
addition, it argues that the CBA concluded on September 10, 1983 has a life span of three (3) years and
constitutes a bar to the petition for certification election pursuant to
Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.

The pivotal issue therefore, is whether or not a petition for
certification election may be filed during the pendency
of a bargaining deadlock submitted to arbitration or conciliation.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court
finds the petition meritorious and holds that the respondent Director gravely
abused his discretion when he affirmed the order of Med-Arbiter Correa calling
for a certification election among the rank and file workers of private
respondent company.

The law on the matter is Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code, to wit:

“Sec. 3. When to
file. – In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement duly
registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election may be filed at any time.  However, no certification election may be
held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification
election result.  Neither may a representation
question be entertained if, before the filing of a petition for certification
election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining
agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had
become the subject of valid notice or strike or lockout.

“If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered
in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification
election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60)
days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.”

The clear mandate of the aforequoted
section is that a petition for certification election may be filed at any time,
in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.  Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing
of a petition for certification election in the following cases:

(1) during the existence of a collective
bargaining agreement except within the freedom period;

(2) within one (1) year from the date of
issuance of declaration of a final certification election result; or

(3) during the existence of a bargaining
deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party and
which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.

The Deadlock Bar Rule simply provides that a petition for
certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending
bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. 
The principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the
workers and the management.

In the case at bar, a bargaining deadlock was already submitted
to arbitration when private respondent FUR-TUCP filed a petition for certification
election.  The same petition was
dismissed for lack of merit by the Acting Med-Arbiter in an order dated July 23, 1982 on the sole ground that
the petition is barred by a pending bargaining deadlock.  However, respondent Director set aside the
same order and subsequently affirmed an order giving due course to the petition
for certification election and ordering that an election be held.

The law demands that the petition for certification election
should fail in the presence of a then pending bargaining deadlock.

A director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, by the nature of his
functions, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. 
We find no reason why his decision should be beyond this Court’s review.  Administrative officials, like the director
of the Bureau of Labor Relations are presumed to act in accordance with law but
this Court will not hesitate to pass upon their work where there is a showing
of abuse of authority or discretion in their official acts or when their
decisions or orders are tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness.

Noteworthy is the fact that a certification was issued by
Executive Labor Arbiter Celerino Grecia
II on October 21, 1982
certifying that the petition for deadlock in RAB Case No. VI-0220-82 was
forwarded to the Executive Labor Arbiter for compulsory arbitration (see Rollo, p. 19).  The
respondent Director erred in finding that the order issued by the Med-Arbiter
dismissing the petition for certification election was irregular and was merely
based on information.

All premises considered, the Court is
convinced that the assailed decision and order of the respondent Director is
tainted with arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED; the decision
dated November 18, 1983 and order dated March 21, 1984 of the respondent
Director Cresenciano B. Trajano
are hereby nullified and the order of Med-Arbiter Militante
dated July 23, 1982 dismissing the petition for certification election is
hereby reinstated.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.