ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU)-TUCP, PETITIONER, VS. HON, CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZAT…

This is a petition for certiorari
with prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking review of the resolution
of the Director of Labor Relations* dated January 30, 1987 in BLR Case No. A-1-18-87 ordering a
certification election among the rank and file employees of respondent company
and the order of public respondent** dated February 24, 1987 dismissing petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration for lack of
merit.

The dispositive
portion of the questioned resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated January
30, 1987 (Rollo, p. 55), reads
as follows:

“Accordingly, let a certification election be conducted
within the twenty (20) days
from receipt of this Resolution, subject to the usual pre-election conference,
with the following as choices:

1.            Association of
Democratic Labor Union (ADLO);

2.            Associated Labor
Union – ALU; and

3.            No Union.

Let, therefore, the records be forwarded to the Office of origin
for the immediate implementation of this Resolution.”

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioner herein is the
recognized collective bargaining representative of all the rank and file
employees of respondent Company with a collective bargaining agreement
effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986. 
Article XX of the collective bargaining agreement provides that the CBA shall be for a period of three
(3) years effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986, provided that within
sixty (60) days before its expiration the parties shall renegotiate for a new
one (Memorandum for the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 208).

On October 22, 1986,
a big majority of the covered employees of respondent Company petitioned for
the renewal of the expiring agreement which petitioner and the respondent Company agreed to
negotiate.  The parties, however, failed to arrive at an acceptable agreement
so that a bargaining deadlock on CBA negotiation was declared (Memorandum for
the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 209).

On November
3, 1986, petitioner
filed a notice of strike (Rollo, p. 27).  Failing to arrive at an agreement during the conciliation following the filing of the
notice of strike, on December 1, 1986 petitioner went on strike.

Meanwhile, on November
4, 1986 private respondent Union, Association of Democratic Labor Organization
(ADLO) filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Panlalawigang
Tanggapan ng Paggawa, Bataan Export Processing Zone, a verified
petition for certification election among the regular rank and file workers of
private company, docketed as Case No. BZED-CE-11-011-86 (Rollo, p. 87).

On December 4, 1986,
petitioner and respondent company came to an agreement with representatives of
the parties setting their signature on the resulting CBA on the same date (Rollo, p. 28), ratified by a big majority of the covered
employees, 584 out of 742
covered employees, also on the same date (Rollo,
p. 43). 
Petitioner registered the new CBA with the Regional Director of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment in San Fernando, Pampanga on December
4, 1986 (Rollo, p. 41) as required under Article 231 of the
Labor Code.

Petitioner herein
intervened in the petition for certification election.  On December 9, 1986, the Med-Arbiter called for a conference to
see whether a consent election could be agreed upon between the intervenor union and the petitioner union, but the parties
failed to reach an agreement despite several conferences.  (Rollo,
pp. 59; 78).

The Med-Arbiter, Eladio de Jesus, issued an order for the holding of a
certification election in a resolution dated December 10, 1986, premised on the fact that the petitioner,
respondent union herein, “has satisfactorily complied with the
jurisdictional requirement of this Office. 
The same records show that the instant petition was seasonably filed
within the sixty-day freedom period.” (Rollo, p. 59). 
The said resolution was appealed by petitioner to the Director of Bureau
of Labor Relations but the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, in the questioned resolution of January
30, 1987 (Rollo, p. 53). 
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated February
12, 1987 (Rollo, p. 19) was likewise dismissed in the equally
questioned order of February 24, 1987 (Rollo, p.
17).  The Med-Arbiter then set the
certification election for March 17, 1987 (Rollo, p. 60).

Instant petition was
filed with the Court on March 9, 1987 (Rollo, p.
2).  On the same date, petitioner filed
an urgent ex parte motion
for issuance of a temporary restraining order (Rollo,
p. 6).  On March 16, 1987, the Second
Division of this Court, without giving due course to the petition, required the
respondents to comment thereon and issued a temporary restraining order
effective on the same date that the resolution was passed, to continue until
otherwise ordered by the Court (Rollo, p. 64).

The comment of public respondent
was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on June 3, 1987 (Rollo, p.
75).  In a resolution dated June 29, 1987, petitioner was
required to file a reply thereto
and the letters addressed to then Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee,
of twenty one (21) progressive democratic labor unions in Japan
protesting the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on March 16, 1987 was noted (Rollo, p. 129). 
Again on August 31, 1987,
the Court resolved to note the letters of the progressive democratic organizations
in Japan
(Rollo, p. 140).

On August
10, 1987, the
petition was given due course and both parties were required to submit
their simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice (Rollo, p. 166).  On September 18, 1987, the Office of the
Solicitor General manifested that it was adopting for its memorandum its
comment on the petition for certiorari filed with the Court on June 3, 1987 (Rollo,
p. 194) which was noted by the Court in its resolution dated November 11,
1987 (Rollo, p. 202).  In the
same resolution, the Court also noted receipt of two telegrams of the
Mitsumi Workers Union – ALDO of Mariveles, Bataan dated September 3 and September 9, 1987 (Rollo, pp. 184, 185), requesting for information on the
status of the case and for its expeditious
resolution, and the letters all addressed to the Chief Justice from progressive
unions in Japan together with two undated letters signed in Japanese
characters, all demanding for a certification election (Rollo,
pp. 170-182).

Memorandum for the Petitioner
was filed on November 2, 1987 (Rollo, p. 208)
noted by the Court in its resolution dated February 15, 1988 (Rollo, p.
231).  The motion to admit memorandum
filed by respondent union on April 7, 1988 (Rollo, p. 232) was granted by the Court in its resolution dated April
18, 1988 (Rollo, p. 259) wherein the Court also noted the memorandum
of respondent union attached to the motion (Rollo, p.
234).

The issues raised by
petitioner (Rollo, p. 212), are as follows:

I

THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT NO
CERTIFICATION ELECTION MAY BE HELD DUE TO THE FACT THAT A BARGAINING DEADLOCK
TO WHICH PETITIONER IS A PARTY IS SUBMITTED TO CONCILIATION/ARBITRATION AND
THERE IS A VALID NOTICE OF STRIKE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CERTIFICATION ELECTION ON DECEMBER 4, 1986.

II

THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AS A RESULT OF A BARGAINING DEADLOCK
AND CONCILIATION DURING THE PROGRESS OF A STRIKE HAVING BEEN ACCORDINGLY
REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE 231 OF THE LABOR CODE RENDERS THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
CERTIFICATION ELECTION PREMATURE.

III

THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION,
ANNEXED “D” AND HOLDING THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
(ANNEX “B” TO ANNEX
“B” HEREOF) HAVING BEEN RATIFIED BY THE MEMBERS AND THE BENEFITS
THEREIN ENJOYED IS A BAR TO THE HOLDING OF A CERTIFICATION ELECTION.

The petition is devoid of
merit.

Simply stated, the sole
issue is whether or not public respondent
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ordering a certification election considering that at the time the petition for
certification election was filed, there was a bargaining deadlock
between company and the petitioner union, as a result of which
petitioner union filed a notice of strike.

In fact, it actually went
on strike, and pending decision on the said petition, petitioner and respondent
company came to terms on the collective bargaining agreement
duly ratified by a big majority of the covered members and duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

Public respondent denied
petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, finding
“no compelling justification to effect a reconsideration,
much less a reversal” of the resolution of January 30, 1987 (Rollo, p. 18). 
The aforesaid resolution dismissed
the appeal of petitioner as intervenor in the petition for certification
election based on the following: (1) the records show that the petition for certification election was
seasonably filed within the sixty (60) day freedom period; and (2) the records likewise reveal that the petition is supported by two
hundred forty-two (242) of the more or less six hundred (600) rank-and-file
employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc., hence, has complied with
the thirty percent (30%) statutory requirement (Rollo,
p. 54).  The provision of the law then in
force was Article 258 of the Labor Code inasmuch as
Executive Order No. 111 which amended it took effect only on March 4,
1987.  Article 258 reads, as follows:

“Art, 258.  Requisites for certification election.  –  Any
petition for certification election filed by any legitimate labor organization
shall be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of
all the employees in the bargaining unit. 
Upon receipt and verification of such petition, it shall be mandatory
for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of
determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of all the employees in the unit.”

There is no question that
the 30% support requirement for a certification election had been met even if
the covered employees number 742, as alleged by petitioner (Memorandum for the
Petitioner, Rollo, p. 217) not 600.  Hence, it
became mandatory for the Director of Labor Relations to call a certification
election (Atlas Free Workers Union (AFWU)-PSSLU Local v. Noriel,
104 SCRA 565 [1981]; Vismico Industrial Workers
Association (VIWA) v. Noriel, 131 SCRA
569 [1984]; Samahang Manggagawa
ng Pacific Mills, Inc. v. Noriel,
134 SCRA 152 [1985]), and in the language of the Labor Code, “mandatory
for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of
determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit and certify the winner as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit” (Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas
v. Noriel, 72 SCRA 24 [1976]; Kapisanan
ng mga Manggagawa v. Noriel, 77
SCRA 414 [1977]).

“No administrative
agency can ignore the imperative tone of the above article.  The language used is one of command.  Once it has been verified that a petition for certification election has the support of at least 30% of the employees
in the bargaining unit, it must be granted.  The specific word used yields no other
meaning” (Federation of
Free Workers v. Noriel, 86 SCRA 132 [1978]; Warren Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. 76185, March 30, 1988).

Petitioner, however,
insists that the deadlock in negotiation already submitted to
conciliation/arbitration after the filing of a valid notice of strike based on
deadlock in negotiation prior to
the filing of the petition for
certification election bars the holding of a certification election, basing its
argument on the contract bar rule under Section 3 of Rule V,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Memorandum for the
Petitioner, Rollo, p. 213), which provides:

“Sec.
3.  When to file
– In the absence of a collective agreement submitted 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 declaration 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 a valid notice of
strike or lockout.

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

As the introductory
sentence of the first paragraph states, said paragraph applies where there is no existing collective
bargaining agreement.  This circumstance
is not obtaining in the instant case.  As
admitted by petitioner (Memorandum for the Petitioner, Rollo,
p. 208) there was an existing collective bargaining agreement when the petition
for certification election was filed, which was to expire on December
31, 1986.  It is the second paragraph which is applicable to the case at bar.

In a recent decision,
this Court interpreted the above provision
as follows:

“This rule simply provides that a petition for certification election or a motion
for intervention can only be entertained within 60 days prior to the expiry
date of an existing collective bargaining agreement.  Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing
of a petition for certification election during the existence of a collective
bargaining agreement except within the freedom period, as it is called, when
the said agreement is about to expire. 
The purpose, obviously, is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management by
preventing frequent modifications of any collective bargaining agreement
earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original
period.” (Associated
Trade Unions (ATU) v. Trajano, G.R. No. 75321, June
20, 1988).

Undoubtedly, the petition
for certification election was filed
during the 60-day freedom period.  The
fact that petitioner was able to negotiate a new CBA with respondent company on
December 4, 1986 within the freedom period of the existing CBA, does not foreclose the right of a rival union, which in this instant case is the respondent
union, to challenge petitioner’s claim to majority status, by filing earlier on
November 4, 1986, a timely petition for certification election before the old
CBA expired on December 31, 1986 and before petitioner signed
a new CBA with respondent company (Kapatiran Sa
Meat and Canning  Division (TUPAS Local Chapter No.
1027) v. Calleja, G.R. No. 82914, June 20, 1988).  There should be no obstacle to the right of
the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that
is, within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the life of a certified collective bargaining agreement (General
Textiles Allied Workers Association (GTAWA) v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, 84 SCRA 430 [1978]; Warren
Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations, supra),
not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency
of a representation case.

On said subject, Rule
V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, provides:

“Sec. 4.  Effects of early agreements.  The representation case shall not, however,
be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the
last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency
of the representation case.”

The new CBA negotiated by petitioners whether or not
submitted to the MOLE in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code
cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations by
another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time
when the petition for certification election had already been filed by
respondent union (Associated Trade Unions (ATU) v. Trajano,
supra).  Meantime, this interim
agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to
deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement (Vassar Industries
Employers Union (VIEW) v. Estrella, 82 SCRA 280
[1978]; National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF) v. Estrella, 87 SCRA 84 [1978], cited in Associated Trade
Unions (ATU) v. Trajano, Ibid.)

If, as a result of the certification election, respondent union
or a union other than petitioner union which executed the interim agreement, is
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
employees of respondent company, then, such union may adopt the interim
collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective bargaining agreement
(Associated Trade Unions (ATU) v. Trajano, Ibid).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, (a) the petition for certiorari
is DISMISSED for lack of merit; (b) the resolution of the Bureau of Labor
Relations dated January 30, 1987
and the order of the Bureau dated February
24, 1987 are AFFIRMED; and (c) the temporary restraining order
issued by the Court on March 9, 1987
is LIFTED permanently.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja.

** Hon. Cresenciano N.
Trajano, as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor
Relations.