CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA ABD FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW), CALIFORNIA MFG. CORP. SU…

This is a petition for review on certiorari with prayer
for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order seeking to annul
and set aside the (a) resolution* of the Department of Labor and
Employment dated October 16, 1990 in OS-A-10-283-90 (NCR-OD-M-90-05-095)
entitled “In Re: Petition for
Certification Election Among the Supervisors of California Manufacturing
Corporation, Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Mfg. Corp. Supervisors
Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), petitioner-appellee, California Manufacturing
Corporation, employer?appellant” which denied herein petitioner’s
appeal and affirmed the order of Med-Arbiter Arsenia Q. Ocampo dated August 22,
1990 directing the conduct of a certification election among the supervisory
employees of California Manufacturing Corporation and (b) the Order** of
the same Department denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

As culled from the records, the following facts appear
undisputed:

On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the
supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC for brevity) was filed
by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) – California Manufacturing Corporation
Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), alleging inter alia, that
it is a duly registered federation with registry certificate no. 1952-TTT-IP,
while FFW-CALMASUCO Chapter is a duly registered chapter with registry
certificate no. 1-AFBI-038 issued on May 21, 1990 (Annex “A”, Rollo,
p. 63); that the employer CMC employs one hundred fifty (150) supervisors; that
there is no recognized supervisors union existing in the company; that the
petition is filed in accordance with Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 6715; and that the petition is nevertheless supported by a
substantial number of signatures of the employees concerned (Annexes
“E” and “F”, Ibid., pp. 28-29).

In  its answer, CMC, now
petitioner herein, alleged among others, that the petition for the holding of a
certification election should be denied as it is not supported by the required
twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big number of the
supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they have
no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and functions which
under the law would classify them as supervisors (Annex “D”, Ibid.,
p. 25).

On July 24, 1990, FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that
under the law, when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining
unit at the time a petition for certification election is filed, the 25%
rule on the signatories does not apply; that the “organized
establishment” contemplated by law does not refer to a “company”
per se but rather refers to a “bargaining unit” which may be
of different classifications in a single company; that CMC has at least two (2)
different bargaining units, namely, the supervisory (unorganized) and the
rank-and-file (organized); that the signatories to the petition have been
performing supervisory functions; that since it is CMC which promoted them to
the positions of supervisors, it is already estopped from claiming that they
are not supervisors; that the said supervisors were excluded from the coverage
of the collective bargaining agreement of its rank-and-file employees; and that
the contested signatories are indeed supervisors as shown in the “CMC
Master List of Employees” of January 2, 1990 and the CMS Publication
(Annex “G”, Ibid., p. 30).

On August 22, 1990, the Med-Arbiter issued an order, the decretal
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that a
certification election be conducted among the supervisory employees of
California Manufacturing Corporation within twenty (20) days from receipt
hereof with the usual pre-election conference of the parties to thresh out the
mechanics of the election. The payroll
of the company three (3) months prior to the filing of the petition shall be
used as the basis in determining the list of eligible voters.

‘The choices are:

‘1. Federation of Free Workers (FFW) – California Manufacturing
Corpora­tion Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO); and

‘2. No union.’

“SO ORDERED.” (Annex “H”, Ibid., p. 33).

CMC thereafter appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment
which, however, affirmed the above order in its assailed resolution dated
October 16, 1990 (Annex “B”, Ibid., p. 18). CMC’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied in
its order dated November 17, 1990 (Annex “A”, Ibid., p. 15), hence,
his petition.

The issues are presented by CMC in this wise:

“a) whether or
not the term “unorganized establishment” in Article 257 of the Labor
Code refers to a bargaining unit
or a business establishment;

“b) whether or not
non-supervisors can participate in a supervisor’s certification election; and

“c)  whether or not the two (2) diffe­rent and
separate plants of herein petitioner in Paranaque and Las Pinas can be treated
as a single bargaining unit.”

The petition must be denied.

The Court has already categorically ruled that Article 257 of the
Labor Code is applicable to unorganized labor organizations
and not to establishments where there
exists a certified bargaining agent which
had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
management (Associated Labor Unions [ALU] v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85085, November
6, 1989, 179 SCRA 127) (Underscoring supplied). Otherwise stated, the establishment concerned must have no
certified bargaining agent (Associated Labor Unions [ALU] v. Calleja, G.R. No.
82260, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 490). In
the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the supervisors of CMC which
constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from that of the
rank-and-file, have no such agent, thus they correctly filed a petition for
certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise indubitably a
legitimate labor organization. CMC’s
insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by
Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in
organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents. Compliance with the said requirement need
not even be established with absolute certainty. The Court has consistently ruled that “even conceding that
the statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force asking for a
certification election had not been strictly complied with, the Director (now
the Med­-Arbiter) is still empowered to order that it be held precisely for the
purpose of ascertaining which of the contending labor organizations shall be
the exclusive collective bargaining agent (Atlas Free Workers Union
(AFWU)-PSSLU Local v. Noriel, G.R. No. L-51905, May 26, 1981, 104 SCRA
565). The requirement then is relevant
only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other instances, the discretion,
according to the rulings of this Tribunal, ought to be ordinarily exercised in
favor of a petition for certification (National Mines and Allied Workers Union
(NAMAWU-UIF) v. Luna, et al., G.R. No. L-46722, June 15, 1978, 83 SCRA 607).

In any event, CMC as employer has no standing to question a
certification election (Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation v. Calleja,
et al., G.R. No. 77415, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 477). Such is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is where the employer has
to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 259 (now
258) of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. Thereafter, the role of the employer in the
certification process ceases. The
employer becomes merely a by-stander. Oft-quoted is the pronouncement of the Court on management interference
in certification elections, thus:

“On matters that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the
choice of a collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an
intruder. His participation, to say the
least, deserves no encouragement. This
Court should be the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at
interference with purely internal affair of labor.” (Trade Unions of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, G.R. No. L-61153, January
17, 1983, 120 SCRA 64 citing Consolidated Farms, Inc v. Noriel, G.R. No.
L-47752. July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 469,
473).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

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

Nocon, J., on leave.

*
Penned by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma

**
Penned by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma