TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES/FEBRUARY SIX MOVEMENT (TUPAS/FSM), PETITIONER, VS. HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, TRANSUNION CORPORATION-GLASS DIVISION, AND INTEGRATED LABOR ORGANIZA…

Petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines-February Six Movement
(TUPAS-FSM) seeks the reversal of the Resolution, dated July 25, 1990,
rendered by then Secretary of Labor and Employment Ruben D. Torres, in
OS-MA-A-5-167-90, which dismissed the petition for certification election
filed by petitioner TUPAS-FSM for being prematurely filed.^[1]

The controlling facts, as culled from the records, are as
follows:

On March 23, 1990,
TUPAS-FSM filed a petition for certification election with the Regional Office
No. IV of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), for the purpose of
choosing a bargaining
representative for the rank-and-file employees of Transunion Corporation’s
industrial plant, situated in Canlubang, Laguna, known as the Transunion
Corporation-Glassware Division. Petitioner had then secured a
Certification, dated March 22, 1990,
issued by Tomas B. Bautista,
Jr., Director IV of DOLE (Region IV), that “Transunion
Corporation” has no
existing collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization.^[2]

It appears, however, that
before the filing of said petition, or on November 15, 1989, Integrated Labor
Organization (ILO-Phils.) was
duly certified by DOLE as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division.^[3] On November 28, 1989, a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was
then forged between
Transunion-Glassware Division and ILO-Phils covering the company’s
rank-and-file employees. The CBA, with
a five-year term from December 1, 1989 to December 1, 1994,
was ratified by a great majority of the
rank-and-filers on December 8, 1989.^[4] In the meantime, the President of ILO-PHILS
died. An inter-union conflict followed
and the subject CBA was filed with DOLE, for registration
purposes, only on March 14, 1990, more or less, three (3) months from its execution. Finally, on May 4, 1990, the Certification of Registration was
issued by DOLE through Regional
Director Romeo A. Young.^[5]

ILO-Phils., intervened in
the certification election proceedings initiated by TUPAS-FSM. It opposed the petition in view of the
existing CBA between ILO and the Transunion Corporation-Glassware
Division. It stressed that the petition for certification election should be
entertained only during the freedom period, or sixty days before the expiration
of the CBA. Med-Arbiter Rolando S. dela
Cruz dismissed the petition on the ground of prematurity.

TUPAS-FSM appealed
contending: (1) that pursuant to
Article 231 of the Labor Code, CBAs shall be filed with the Regional Office of
the DOLE within thirty (30)
days from the date of signing thereof; (2) that
said requirement is mandatory, although it would not affect the enforceability
of the CBA as between the parties thereto; and (3) since
the CBA was filed outside the 30-day period specified
under Article 231 of the Labor Code, the prohibition against certification
election under Article 232 of the same Code should not apply to third parties
such as petitioner.

As stated earlier, the Secretary
of Labor and Employment affirmed the impugned Order of the Med-Arbiter, ruling
that the belated submission of the CBA was excusable and that the requirement
of the law was substantially complied with upon the filing of a copy of the CBA prior to the filing of the petition for
certification election. TUPAS-FSM then
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari
where petitioner alleged:

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS AMOUNTING TO LOSS OF JURISDICTION; and

THE RESOLUTION IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS
AND THE LAW.

The petition lacks merit.

Petitioner raises both
factual and legal issues in this present petition.

First, the factual
issues. Relying on the March 22, 1990
DOLE Certification issued by Director Bautista, Jr., supra, petitioner insists there was no existing CBA between Transunion
Corporation and any labor organization when it filed its petition for
certification election on March 23, 1990. To further strengthen its position, petitioner charges that the filing
of the CBA was antedated to March 14, 1990, to make it appear
that the same was already existing and filed before the filing of the petition
for certification election. Petitioner
also claims that since Article 231 of the Labor Code mandates DOLE to act on
the CBA filed in its office within five (5) days from date of filing thereof,
the subject CBA was filed on April 30, 1990, or five (5) days before its
registration on May 4, 1990.

The argument deserves scant consideration. It is elementary that the special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court can be availed of to nullify or modify the proceedings before the
concerned tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions who has
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. This Court is not a trier of facts
and it is not its function to examine and evaluate the probative value of all
evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its impugned decision, resolution or
order.^[6]
Following this hoary rule, it is inappropriate
to review the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor,
regarding the date of filing of the CBA on
March 14, 1990 prior to the filing of the petition for certification election;
the company’s voluntary recognition and DOLE’s certification of ILO-PHILS, as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the
rank-and-file employees of Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division; and the
subsequent registration of the CBA. They are binding on this
Court as they are supported by substantial evidence. In contrast, petitioner’s bare allegation pertaining to the
“antedating” of the date of
filing of the CBA is unsubstantiated and based purely on conjectures.

It is crystal clear from
the records that the rank-and­-file employees of private respondent’s Glassware
Division are, at present, represented by ILO-PHILS. Hence, petitioner’s reliance on the March 22,
1990 Certification issued by Director
Bautista, Jr., is misplaced. The existence and filing of their CBA was confirmed in a
Certification, dated April 24, 1990, issued by Director Romeo A. Young of DOLE-Region
IV.^[7] The certification of ILO-PHILS, “as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Transunion-Glassware Division,” means it shall remain as such
during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion of other labor organizations,
including petitioner, and no petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained, nor shall certification
election be conducted, outside of the
sixty-day freedom period immediately before the expiry date of the five-year
term of the CBA.^[8]

We now resolve the legal
issue. Petitioner points out that the
subject CBA was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Article 231 of
the Labor Code. It also insists that
under Article 232 of the Labor Code, the prohibition on the filing of a petition for certification election applies when the CBA had been duly
registered and, in this case, since the CBA was not registered in accordance
with the Art. 231, the prohibition will not apply. We disagree.

Articles 231 and 232 of
the Labor Code read:

“Art. 231. – Registry of unions and file
of collective agreements.
– x x x.

“Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to
the Bureau or the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment for
registration accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous
places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers
in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
Regional Office shall act upon the application for registration of such
Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the
Bureau with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days
from its submission.

“x x x.”

“Art. 232. – Prohibition
on Certification Election. –
The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing
collective bargaining agreements
affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this
Code.”

Corollary thereto,
Article 253-A of the same Code reads:

“Art. 253-A. — Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar
as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5)
years. No petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no
certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and
Employment outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry
of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. xxx.”

It appears that the
procedural requirement of filing the CBA within 30 days from date of execution
under Article 231 was not met. The
subject CBA was executed on November 28, 1989. It was ratified on December 8, 1989, and then filed with DOLE for
registration purposes on March 14, 1990. Be that as it may, the delay in the filing of the CBA was sufficiently
explained, i.e., there was an inter-union conflict on who would succeed
to the presidency of ILO?PHILS. The CBA was registered by
the DOLE only on May 4, 1990. It would
be injudicious for us to assume, as what petitioner did, that the said CBA was
filed only on April 30, 1990, or five (5) days before its registration, on the
unsupported surmise that it was done to suit the law that enjoins Regional
Offices of DOLE to act upon an application for registration of a CBA within
five (5) days from its receipt thereof. In the absence of any substantial evidence that DOLE officials or
personnel, in collusion with private respondent, had antedated the filing date
of the CBA, the presumption on regularity in the performance of official
functions holds.

More importantly, non-compliance with the cited procedural
requirement should not adversely affect the substantive validity of the CBA
between ILO-PHILS and the Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division covering
the company’s rank and file employees. A collective bargaining agreement is more than a contract. It is highly impressed with public interest
for it is an essential instrument to promote industrial peace. Hence, it bears the blessings not only of
the employer and employees concerned but even the Department of Labor and
Employment. To set it aside on technical
grounds is not conducive to the public good.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned July 25, 1990 Resolution,
and August 23, 1990 Order of Secretary Ruben D. Torres and Undersecretary
Bienvenido E. Laguesma, respectively, in OS-MA-A-5-167-90, is AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla,
Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, p. 20; reiterated by the Order
dated August 23, 1990 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

^[2]
Annex “B” of Petition; Rollo,
p. 26.

^[3]
The Order dated November 15, 1989 of Med-Arbiter Rolando S. dela Cruz, reads:

“O R D E R

“Considering PSSLU’s
(Philippine Social Security Labor Union) manifestation during the conference on
July 27, 1989,. that it is withdrawing from further participation in this
(petition for certification election) case, and the Company’s Manifestation
filed on October 13, 1989 stating, among others, that it is voluntarily
recognizing petitioner ILO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its
rank-and-file workers, let the Integrated Labor Organization (ILO-­PHILS.) be,
as it is hereby CERTIFIED as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file workers of Transunion Corporation-Glassware Division.

“SO ORDERED.”

^[4]
Annex “C” of Petition; Rollo,
p. 27; See also Annexes “D” and “E”, Comment (Transunion
Corporation-Glassware Division); Rollo, pp. 84-94.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 27.

^[6]
Valdez, Jr., et al., v. Comelec, G.R. No. 85129, January 31, 1989, En
Banc, Minute Resolution.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 112.

^[8]
Article 253-A, Labor Code, as amended
by RA 6715.