LIBERTY COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PURA FERRER CALLEJA-BLR DIRECTOR/SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG LIBERTY COMMERCIAL CENTER-ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES…

The principal issue in this case is whether or not public
respondent Pura Ferrer Calleja, in her capacity as the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment, can order a
certification election among the rank and file employees working in the Tabaco, Albay office and in the Legaspi City office
of petitioner Liberty Commercial Center, Inc., despite the existence of two
separate collective bargaining agreements for each of the two said office.

Petitioner questions the decision of Director Calleja
dated September 2, 1987 in
BLR Case No. A-6-205-87 (MED-ARB-Case No. R05-41-87), the dispositive
portion of which is as follows:

“WHEREFORE premises considered the Order of the Med-Arbiter
dated May 8, 1987 is hereby set aside and vacated and a new one entered,
calling for a certification election among the rank and file employees of
Liberty Commercial Center, Inc., Tabaco and Legaspi City, with the following choices:

1.  Samahan
Ng Mangagawa sa Liberty
Commercial Center-Olalia;

2.  Association of L.C.C.
Employees;

3.  Liberty
Employees Association; and

4.  No union.

Let, therefore, the records of this case be immediately remanded to
the Office of Origin for the conduct of the certification election.

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

On February 10, 1988,
this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the execution of the
said decision.^[2]

The undisputed pertinent facts follow:

Petitioner has its principal business office at Tabaco, Albay, and a branch
office at Legaspi
City.  Private respondent SMLCC Olalia
KMU is an organized labor union.

The Association of Liberty Commercial
Center Employees (ALCCE) and the Liberty Employees Association (LEA) are
registered labor unions since July 29,
1986.^[3] Their certificates of registration bear the signatures of
Director of Labor Cresenciano B. Trajano
and then Minister of Labor and Employment Augusto S.
Sanchez.  The authenticity of these two
certificates has never been successfully assailed.

The ALCCE represented all the rank and file employees of the
petitioner in Legaspi City, while the LEA
represented the rank and file employees of petitioner in Tabaco, Albay.  Both unions
are represented by a lawyer from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).

After five months of negotiation, two separate collective
bargaining agreements were executed. 
They both took effect on December
1, 1986, and were to last for a period of three years.

The collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and
the ALCCE is a notarized document consisting of eleven pages.^[4]
The said document is accompanied by a certification of union secretary Lina Pasmayor that the collective
bargaining agreement was posted in two places within the premises of the office
five days before ratification, and that it had been ratified by a majority of
the members of the union.^[5]

Similarly, the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner
and the LEA is a notarized document consisting of eleven (11) pages^[6]
together with a certification by union secretary Lorna Kallos
that the said agreement was posted in two places within the premises of the
office five days before ratification, and that it was ratified by a majority of
the members of the union.^[7]

It is recorded in the minutes of the board membership meeting for
the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and
the ALCEE that the majority of the members signed for ratification (221 signatures).^[8]
The minutes of the general membership meeting for the ratification of the
collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and the LEA also show that
the majority of the members signed for ratification (124 signatures).^[9]

In the meantime, the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU
filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

On April 2, 1987,
a group led by the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU picketed the Legaspi City
office of petitioner at around 8:00 o’clock
in the morning.  Petitioner learned that
the said group consisted of slum dwellers and employees dismissed as early as
January, 1983.

At around 11:00 o’clock
in the morning of the same day, Atty. Domingo Reyes, a conciliator from the
Department of Labor and Employment arrived at the office of petitioner.  He informed the management that a Notice of
Strike was filed by the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU.  In a conference
organized by the conciliator and attended by the officers of petitioner, the
SMLCC-Olalia-KMU demanded the reinstatement of the
dismissed employees of petitioner.

While the conference was going on, the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU picket
continued.  As there was no settlement,
the group became unruly and started to harass petitioner’s customers and other
employees.  Petitioner sought relief in
court.  In due time, the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU was ordered to desist from committing acts of
grave threats, grave coercion and disturbance of the peace, and from
barricading the business establishment of petitioner.  After arrests were made, there was a lull.

On May 3, 1987,
the same group led by the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU picketed
the Tabaco, Albay office of
petitioner.  Inasmuch as the same acts of
harassment had been committed in the picket line, petitioner sought police
intervention.

On April 9, 1987,
petitioner was furnished a copy of the notice setting the initial hearing of
the petition for certification election, as well as the petition for direct
certification filed by the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU, docketed
as Med-ARB Case No. R05-41-87 and now BLR Case No. A-6-205-87.

On April 20, 1987,
petitioner filed an “Answer With Motion To Dismiss the Petition For Direct
Certification” on the ground that the petition has no legal and factual
basis.

On May 8, 1987,
the Med-Arbiter dismissed the Petition for Direct Certification on the ground
that the same had been filed before the sixty-day freedom period.^[10]
On May 22, 1987, the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU interposed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor
Relations, and on September 2, 1987,
the BLR Director penned the questioned decision in BLR Case No.
A-6-205-87.  Hence, this petition.

The petition is meritorious.

An examination of the record clearly shows that both the ALCEE
and the LEA are duly registered unions of petitioner’s employees in its two
separate offices, one at Tabaco, Albay
and the other at Legaspi City.  The certificates of registration of both
unions appear to be authentic even considering that both unions were organized
and registered on the same date.  In the
absence of strong evidence to the contrary, both ALCEE and LEA must be
considered registered unions representing the employees of petitioner in two
separate offices.

Likewise, there is no denying that two separate collective
bargaining agreements were entered into between petitioner and the ALCEE on one
hand, and between petitioner and the LEA on the other.  Both agreements were to be in force until December 1, 1989.  Again, notwithstanding the observation of
public respondent that the certificates
of registration were executed on the same dates thus casting doubt on
their authenticity, it appears that the two collective bargaining agreements
are notarized documents bearing the certifications of ratification and the
signatures of the ratifying employees. 
The authenticity of both collective bargaining agreements must be
sustained.

Examining the Petition for Direct Certification filed by the
SMLCC-Olalia-KMU, it clearly appears that only
fourteen supposed employees of petitioner signed it.^[11]
Petitioner contends, and this was never controverted
by the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU, that those signatories are
dismissed employees of petitioner.  It
also appears that the said petition was filed before the sixty-day freedom
period prior to the expiration of the said collective bargaining agreements.

The law is explicit.  A
petition filed before or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed
outright.^[12]

What could be immediately perceived in this case is that
notwithstanding the existence of two legitimate labor unions (ALCEE and LEA)
representing the employees of petitioner, and despite the existence of two
collective bargaining agreements as ratified by an overwhelming majority of the
said employees, the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU pretended to
represent the employees of petitioner by committing illegal acts of picketing and
by filing a petition for certification election.  The said petition had only fourteen
signatories and petitioner’s contention that all of them were previously
dismissed employees was never controverted.

The only logical
conclusion is that the SMLCC-Olalia-KMU had
questionable motives in filing the petition for certification election and in
resorting to illegal acts to coerce petitioner to allow it to intrude upon the
activities of two legitimate unions.  We
cannot agree with the perceptions of the public respondent who, without
supporting evidence, doubted the authenticity of the certificates of
registration of the two labor unions. 
Inasmuch as the authenticity of the certificates of registration has not
been successfully assailed, this Court cannot accept the gratuitous statement
of the public respondent that both unions are company unions, in the absence of
evidence to establish the imputation.

The SMLCC-Olalia-KMU obviously does not
have any lawful basis in filing a petition for direct certification.  Indeed, by its coercive acts tending to harass
petitioner, it betrayed its motives to be far from sincere.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The Decision of the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations dated September 2, 1987
in BLR Case No. A-6-205-87 is hereby SET ASIDE. 
The petition for certification election filed by the private respondent
is hereby DISMISSED.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Pages 89 to 91, Rollo.

^[2] Page 102, Rollo.

^[3] Pages 56 to 57, Rollo.

^[4] Pages 28 to 38, Rollo.

^[5] Page 27, Rollo.

^[6]
Pages 40 to 55, Rollo.

^[7]
Page 39, Rollo.

^[8] Pages 58 to 67, Rollo.

^[9] Pages 68 to 77, Rollo.

^[10] Pages 81 to 84, Rollo.

^[11] Pages 79 to 81, Rollo.

^[12] See Section 3, Rule V of the Implementing Regulations
of the Labor Code relating to certification cases; and Article 254, Labor Code.