NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFTU), PETITIONER, VS. MAINIT LUMBER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WORKERS UNION-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (MALDECOW…

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside
the resolution*
of the public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations dated January 29, 1987 in BLR Case No. A-5-99-85
entitled:  IN RE:  Petition for Direct Certification or Certification
Election, Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers
Union-United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (MALDECOWU-ULGWP),
petitioner-appellee vs. Mainit
Lumber and Development Company, Inc. (MALDECO), respondent; National
Association of Free Trade Unions (NAFTU), compulsory intervenor-appellant, affirming the Order of the Med
Arbiter dated September 24, 1986 and denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

On January 28, 1985, private respondent Mainit
Lumber Development Company Workers Union-United Lumber and General Workers of
the Philippines, MALDECOWU-ULGWP (ULGWP, for short), a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Ministry
of Labor and Employment under Registry
No. 2944-IP, filed with Regional Office No. 10, Ministry of Labor and
Employment at Cagayan de Oro
City, a petition for certification election to determine the sole and
exclusive collective bargaining representative among the rank and file workers/employees of Mainit
Lumber Development Company Inc. (MALDECO), a duly organized, registered and existing corporation engaged in
the business of logging and saw-mill operations employing approximately 136
rank and file employees/workers (Rollo, p. 11; Petition; Annex “A”).  The case was scheduled for hearing two (2)
times.  During the first scheduled
hearing on February 20, 1985,
the counsel for compulsory intervenor (now
petitioner), National Association of Free Trade Union (NAFTU) requested for
postponement on the ground that he was leaving for abroad.  During the scheduled hearing of March 13, 1985, they, however, agreed
to submit simultaneously their respective position papers within twenty (20)
days (Rollo, p. 17; Petition; Annex “D”).

Petitioner ULGWP, private respondent herein, in its petition and position paper
alleged, among others:  (1) that there
was no certification election
conducted within 12 months prior to the filing of the petition; (2) that the petition was filed within the 60 day
freedom period, i.e., CBA expired on February 28, 1985; (3) that the
petition is supported by the signatures of 101 rank and file employees out of a
total of 201 employees of the employer or more than thirty percent (30%) than
that required by law (Rollo, p. 13; Petition; Annex
“B”).

On April 11, 1985,
the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election.  On April
26, 1985, NAFTU appealed the decision of the Med-Arbiter on the
ground that MALDECO was composed of two (2) bargaining units, the Sawmill
Division and the Logging Division, but both the petition and decision
treated these separate and distinct units only as one (Rollo,
p. 20; Petition; Annex “E”).

On April 28, 1986,
the Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the decision (Rollo,
p. 26; Petition; Annex “J”). 
Thus, a certification election was held on separate dates at the
employer’s sawmill division and logging area respectively.  In said election MALDECOWU­-ULGWP garnered a
total vote of 146 while NAFTU garnered a total of 2 votes (Rollo,
p. 42; Petition; Annex “0”).

On July 26, 1986, NAFTU filed an election protest alleging
massive vote buying accompanied with grave and serious threat, force and
intimidation on the lives of 25 applicants as stated in a Joint Affidavit
attached thereto (Rollo, p. 28; Petition; Annexes
“K”, “K-3”).

MALDECO filed its Manifestation on August 3, 1986, which corroborated petitioner’s
stand.  Attached to the said
Manifestation was a joint affidavit executed by thirty five (35) of its
employees/workers (Rollo, p. 33; Petition; Annexes
“L”, “L-1”).

On September 3, 1986,
private respondent filed its position paper (Rollo,
p. 36; Petition; Annex “M”). 
On September 8, 1986,
petitioner filed its opposition to private respondent’s position paper (Rollo, p. 39; Petition; Annex “N”).  On September
24, 1986, the Med­-Arbiter dismissed the election protest (Rollo, p. 42; Petition;
Annex “O”).

On October 10, 1986, petitioner NAFTU appealed the order of the
Med-Arbiter to the Bureau of Labor Relations in Manila (Rollo,
p. 46) which denied the appeal (Rollo, p. 48) and the
two motions for reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 51, 55).

Hence, this petition.

The issues raised in this petition are:

I

WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS RIGHT FOR THE
MED-ARBITER TO CHANGE THE EMPLOYER FROM TWO SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS TO ONLY
ONE.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS MASSIVE VOTE
BUYING AND SERIOUS THREAT TO LIFE TO JUSTIFY INVALIDATING THE RESULT OF THE
ELECTION.

III

WHETHER OR NOT AN ELECTION PROTEST IN A
CERTIFICATION ELECTION CAN BE GIVEN DUE COURSE EVEN IF NOT ENTERED IN THE
MINUTES OF THE ELECTION.

In the case at bar, petitioner alleges that the employer MALDECO
was composed of two bargaining units, the Sawmill Division in Butuan City and the Logging Division, in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao, Agusan Norte, about 80 kilometers distant from each other
and in fact, had then two separate CBA’s, one for the
Sawmill Division and another for the Logging Division, both the petition and
decision referred only to one bargaining unit; that from 1979 to 1985, the
Ministry of Labor and Employment recognized the existence of two (2) separate
bargaining units at MALDECO, one for its Logging Division and another for its
Sawmill Division.

Significantly, out of two hundred and one (201) employees of
MALDECO, one hundred seventy five (175) consented and supported the petition for
certification election, thereby confirming their desire for one bargaining
representative (Rollo, p. 104).

Moreover, while the existence of bargaining history is a factor
that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the
same is not decisive or conclusive. 
Other factors must be considered. 
The test of grouping is community or
mutuality of interests.  This is
so because “the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability
is whether or not it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights.” (Democratic Labor
Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., et
al., 103 Phil. 1103 [1958].

Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees
of the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division.  Their functions mesh with one another.  One group needs the other in the same way
that the company needs them both.  There
may be difference as to the nature of their individual assignments but the
distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining
unit.

Secondly, the issue had been raised earlier by petitioner.  The respondent Bureau of Labor Relations had already
ruled on the same in its decision dated April 28, 1986 affirming the
Med-Arbiter’s Order dated April 11, 1985 which granted the petition for
Certification Election.  NAFTU did not
elevate the April 28, 1986 decision to this Court.  On the contrary, it participated in the
questioned election and later it did not raise the issue in its election
protest (Rollo, p. 210).  Hence, the principle of res judicata applies.  It was settled as early as 1956 that “the
rule which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by
competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of
public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their
jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers x x x (B.F. Goodrich Philippines,
Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission and Leandro
M. Castro, 159 SCRA 355 [1988]).

With regards to the second and third issues raised by petitioner,
the public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations in its order dated September
24, 1986 found the following, to wit:

“After a careful perusal of the records of this case and after
considering, adducing and weighing all the pleadings, arguments, etc. and the
circumstances attendant to the instant case, this Office is of the opinion that
the grounds relied upon by the protestant NAFTU in its protest are bereft of
any merit, hence, this Office finds no cogent reason to order the invalidation
or annulment of the certification election under protest or the holding of a
run-off election thereat between no union and the protestee, MALDECOWU-ULGWP.  Indeed, the minutes of said certification
elections conducted both at the sawmill and logging departments on August 15
and 21, 1986 respectively, of the respondent/employer showed that there was no
protest on massive vote buying accompanied with grave and serious threats,
force and intimidation raised by any of the parties who were ably represented
in said elections.  Paragraph 2, Section
9, Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the
Philippines (now Section 3, Rule VI, Book 5 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code) provides that protests not so raised and contained in the
minutes of the proceedings are deemed waived.  Allegations of vote buying, grave and serious
threats, force and intimidation are questions of fact which should be contained
in the minutes of said proceedings. 
There is no clear and convincing proof presented by the protestant in
support of its contention, hence, we have no other alternative than to uphold
the election results.”

In the case of Philippine Airlines Employees’ Association (PALEA)
v. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja,
et al., 162 SCRA 425 [1988]), this Court held that factual findings of the
Bureau of Labor Relations which are supported by substantial evidence are
binding on this Court and must be respected.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the resolution of public respondent
Bureau of Labor Relations dated January
29, 1987 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

*
Penned by Pura Ferrer-Calleja.