HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAQUESMA, MED-ARBITER MELCHOR S. LIM AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, RESPOND…

This petition for certiorari*
seeks to set aside the resolution**
dated September 17, 1990 of the Undersecretary of Labor in the case entitled,
“National Federation of Labor vs. Hercules Industries, Inc.” denying
the herein petitioner’s appeal from respondent Med-Arbiter’s Order dated May
25, 1990 declaring the National Federation of Labor (NFL) as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file workers/employees of Hercules
Industries, Inc.

Hercules Industries, Inc., herein petitioner, is a corporation
duly registered under Philippine laws which employs more or less one hundred
eighty (180) workers.

On July 30, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor
(NFL), a legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for certification
election alleging that the
existing collective bargaining agreement would expire in August, 1987 and that
it enjoys the support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the rank and file
employees in the bargaining unit.

On August 21, 1987, by agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter
issued an order for the conduct of a certification election with the following
choices:

(1)  
National Federation of Labor (NFL);

(2)  
Hercules Employees Labor Union (HELU); and

(3)  
No Union.

On September 21, 1987, a pre-election conference was
conducted. The parties, however, could
not agree on the list of qualified voters
who would participate in the election. Specifically, Hercules Industries, Inc. charged that the list included
ninety eight (98) scabs; sixteen (16) capatazes; eight (8) security guards; and
nine (9) managerial employees.

On October 26, 1987, the Med-Arbiter issued an order, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, considering
the foregoing, judgment should be, as it is hereby promulgated, ordering the immediate conduct of the
Certification Election within fifteen (15) days from date hereof, at the
premises of the Hercules Industries, Inc., Laih, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur, with
all the regular rank and file workers appearing in the payroll of July, 1987, and
the strikers, who have not executed ‘Quitclaim’ and voluntarily accepted
separation pay, are eligible participants in the Certification Election, except
those that are herein below expressly and categorically excluded by virtue of
their being classified as managerial employees, legally separated and barred
under the contemplation of law.

“A.   MANAGERIAL
EMPLOYEES

(Excluded)

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“B.  SECURITY FORCE DEPARTMENT

(Excluded)

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“C. STRIKES
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED DEED OF QUITCLAIM AND VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED
SEPARATION PAY.

(Excluded)

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“The representation officer-designate is hereby ordered to
post immediately within five (5) days prior to the date of election the notices
of Certification Election together with the master list of eligible voters in conspicuous places
at the premises of the respondent.” (pp. 27-28, Rollo.)

On November 4,
1987, NFL appealed the order to the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR Case No. A-1-10-88 LRD Case No. 014-87) on the
following grounds:

“1. The Med-Arbiter erred in unqualifiedly
accepting all the names appearing in the July 1987 payroll as eligible voters
and in allowing the 98 contract replacement workers to vote; and

“2. The
Med-Arbiter erred in disregarding the fact that an earlier order for
certification election had already been handed down and that the workers were
on strike.” (p. 29, Rollo.)

Pending the resolution of the NFL’s appeal, a certification
election was conducted on November 7, 1990.

On January 6, 1988, BLR Director Pura Ferrer­-Calleja of the DOLE rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted
and the certification election held on 7 November 1987 declared null and void.

“Let a new certification election among the rank and file
workers of Hercules Industries, Inc. be held. The payroll of July 1987 excluding the [ninety eight] 98 scab
replacement, shall be the basis of the voters’ list.” (p. 32, Rollo.)

On April 4, 1990, a pre-election conference attended by the
management of Hercules Industries, Inc.
and NFL’s representatives
was held at the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office in Zamboanga
City. The NFL asked that a
certification election be immediately scheduled on May 4, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to
be held in the Barangay Hall, Bato, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur.

Accordingly, a certification election was held on May 4, 1990 with the following results:

“1.     NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
LABOR – – – – – – – – – – 89
Votes

“2. HERCULES LUMBER & EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION – – – – – 0 (Zero)

“3. MANAGEMENT (NO UNION)                  – – – – – – – – – – – – – –     0 (Zero)

“4. SPOILED/INVALID VOTES         – – – – – – – – – – – – –       2
(Votes)

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 91 Votes”

(p. 188, Rollo.)

On May 25, 1990, Med-Arbiter Melchor S. Lim issued a resolution
declaring and certifying the
National Federation of Labor as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank
and file employees of the petitioner.

On July 5, 1990, the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration/appeal with the DOLE. It was denied on September 17, 1990 by Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laquesma on the grounds that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 6, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code on
protests had not been followed; that the records disclose that no protest was
made before the election, nor formalized within five (5) days after the
election, as provided for by the rules; and the DOLE has not found any legal
obstacle to the proclamation of the NFL as the collective bargaining agent of
petitioner’s workers.

On September 29, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied on October 26, 1990 by Undersecretary Laquesma.

Hence, the present recourse.

On January 21, 1991,
Zamboanga Rubber Workers Union, a duly organized labor union affiliated with
the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union, filed a motion for
intervention in this Court alleging that it had requested the petitioner in
writing to recognize it as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of its
workers. The motion was noted by this
Court without action.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner,
Hercules Industries, Inc., as employer, may question the validity of the
certification election among its rank-and-file employees. The answer is no.

In a long line of decisions, this Court has
undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification
election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal Workers
Union vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the
employer is definitely an intruder. His
participation, to put it mildly, deserves no
encouragement (Consolidated Farms, Inc. vs. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469;
Filipino Metals Corp. vs. Ople, 107 SCRA 211).

The only instance when the employer may be involved in that
process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on
its workers’ request to bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the
Labor Code. After the order for a
certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it
becomes a neutral bystander. (Rizal
Workers’ Union vs. Calleja, supra.)

In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while
the employees themselves never requested the petitioner to bargain
collectively, still, they did not object to the results of the certification
election. Hence, petitioner’s appeal to
the Bureau of Labor Relations from the Med-Arbiter’s Order certifying the NFL
as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file employees, and its
filing of this petition for certiorari with us, must be rejected. The employer’s intervention in the certification
election of its workers is frowned upon by law.

In any event,
petitioner’s challenge against the validity of the certification election of
May 4, 1990 is devoid of merit. Its
allegations that no notice of
the certification election had been issued, hence, no copies of said notice
were given to it, nor posted in conspicuous places within the company’s
premises; that the payroll of July 1987 was not used as the basis of the
voters’ list; and that only fifteen (15) out of the ninety eight (98) voters signed
their names showing that they actually voted, were belied by the minutes of the
pre-election conference (Annex “A” of Comment of private respondent) which showed that petitioner was
duly notified of the conference and attended the same, and that during said
conference the Med-Arbiter set the certification election on May 4, 1990.

The minutes of the certification election (Annex “C” of
private respondent’s Comment) also show that “the list of the names of the
voters were (sic) copied from the payroll of 1987 per order of the
Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Manila, x x x” (p. 188,
Rollo).

Finally, the same minutes certified that: “The certification election just concluded was conducted in the most
just, honest and freely (sic) manner without untoward happening. Further, we certify that the result above is true and correct” (p. 188,
Rollo) thereby refuting petitioner’s allegation that only fifteen (15) out of
ninety eight (98) workers signed the master list to show that they actually
voted again.

Besides, neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the
certification election show that petitioner protested the conduct of the
certification election as provided in Section 3 of Rule VI (ELECTIONS) of Book
V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:

“Sec. 3. Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot questions. – The Representation officer may rule on any
on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a
protest with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings.

“Protests not so raised are
deemed waived. Such
protests shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.”
(Underscoring ours.)

On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and competent evidence on
the conduct of the election, the Med-Arbiter did not err in declaring the NFL
as the duly elected exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner’s rank and
file workers. That finding should be
accorded not only respect but also finality by this Court for it is supported
by substantial evidence (Chua vs. NLRC, 182 SCRA 354).

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
assailed decision of the NLRC, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED,
with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Medialdea and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on leave.

*
Atty. Demosthenes S. Baban for petitioner; and the Solicitor General for the
public respondents.

**
Issued by Undersecretary of Labor, Bienvenido E. Laquesma.