AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC., ABSOLUTE SOUND, INC., COUNTRYWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORP.; AD PLANNERS & MARKETING COUNSELLORS, INC.; AND ATLAS RESOURCES & MANAGE­MENT GROUP, PETITIONERS…

This certiorari proceeding was filed by petitioners to
assail the orders of respondent Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz and Director of
Labor Relations Pura Ferrer-Calleja ordering a certification election.

The pertinent background facts are as follows:

Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Asia-FFW Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and
Employment, on May 22, 1986, two separate petitions
for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the regular
rank-and-file employees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute
Sound, Inc.  The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the
same office, on the same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the
regular rank and file employees
of petitioners Country-Wealth Development, Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors
and Atlas Resources.

All these five cases were consolidated.

Petitioners filed their position paper with motion to dismiss on
the following grounds – disaffiliation of the rank and file employees,
ineligibility of some signatories because they had
less than one (1) year of service resulting in the non-­compliance with the 30%
requirement.

On March 9, 1987, the
Med-Arbiter issued an Order the dispositive portion of which reads –

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, a certification election is hereby
ordered conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime Specialists,
Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth Development Corporation; Ad Planners
& Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas Resources & Management Group, within 20 days
from receipt of this Order.  The parties
are:

‘1.  Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia
(SAMA-ASIA) FFW Chapter & Pinagbuklod ng mga Manggagawa sa Ataco (PMA-FFW);
and

‘2.  No union.

“Pre-election conference shall
be conducted to thresh out the details of the election.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 25, Rollo)

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration having been denied, they
filed the instant petition for “Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction” with a Prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order enjoining public respondents from conducting any further proceedings in the said
five cases.

The petition was given due course and the parties were required
to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda.

In assailing the aforesaid Order of public respondents,
petitioners alleged that –

I.   Public respondents (Director Calleja and
Med-Arbiter Cruz) gravely erred in considering employees with less than one
year of service, and even probationaries as qualified participants in a certification election process; in direct
violation of the ruling of this Honorable Court in the Ternate vs. Noriel case;

II.  Public respondents gravely erred in
not considering proven disaffiliation and resignations from a petitioning union
worse, from the company, and valid termination
for cause from the service as material consideration to support a petition for
certification and/or election.

III.  Public respondent Director Calleja gravely
misinterpreted the ruling of this Honorable Court in the case of Albano vs. Noriel, 85 SCRA 499,
even as she held that, notwithstanding the absence of the statutory consent requirement of 30% (now 20%),
the Bureau of Labor Relations can
in every such case still order a
certification election, giving
the wrong impression that such exercise of discretion is absolute.  (pp. 12-15, Rollo)

Thus, petitioners argue that the public respondents committed grave
abuse of discretion when they considered (a) employees with less than one year of service and even (b) probationary
employees as
qualified participants in the certification election process.  They contend that “by the very fact that such
(probationary) – employees have not earned regular status, they are not of the
bargaining unit”.  (Reply,
p. 21).  Petitioners maintain that
this “directly violates” the ruling of this Court in Tarnate vs. Noriel, (100
SCRA 93) where it held that “at least one year of service is required for an
employee to enjoy the benefits of membership in any labor union”.

Petitioners’ contentions are untenable.  It is Our holding in the case of B.F.
Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees
Union – NATU (49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act
would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the employees, all
of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be polled to determine
which labor organization should be its exclusive representative.  This Court had made it clear that We should give discretion to the Court of Industrial
Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether
or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and
circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge.  Moreover, a perusal of Art.
258 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that
compliance with the 30% requirement (now
20%) makes it mandatory upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the
holding of a certification election in order to determine the
exclusive-bargaining agent of the employees. 
Stated otherwise, it means
that with such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the
holding of certification election. 
Parenthetically, where the petition is supported by less than 30% (now
20%) the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion whether or not to order the
holding of certification election depending on the circumstances of the
case.  Thus, it is Our holding in LVN
Pictures vs. Musicians Guild, et
al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election, the Court of
Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure
necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by
employees, and having exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot
interfere.  (Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA
690).

In a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote.  This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255
of the Labor Code which states that the “labor organization designated or
selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all aspects of
the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union
binds all employees in the bargaining unit. 
Hence, all rank-and-file employees, probationary or permanent, have a
substantial interest in the
selection of the bargaining representative. 
The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for
eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election.  The law refers to “all” the employees in the bargaining unit.  All they need to be eligible to support the
petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit”.

The case of Tarnate vs. Noriel relied upon by petitioners has no
application in certification election. 
That case involves the right of probationary employee to vote in the
election of union officers.

Petitioners argue at length that more than a majority of the
signatories to the petitions for certification election “have disaffiliated
from the two private respondent unions (PMA-FFW and SAMA-ASIA-FFW) and have
joined another union (ADLO).” Petitioners then contend that, with the mass
disaffiliation, the petition for certification would fall short of the 20%
consent requirement of the Labor Code.

Even assuming the fact of such disaffiliation and even assuming
further that the 20% requirement is not reached, this will not defeat the
petition for certification election.  On
the contrary, it becomes more imperative to conduct one.  The alleged disaffiliation from the
petitioning unions (PMA-FFW and (SAMA­-ASIA-FFW) in favor of the ADLO-KMU
raised a genuine representation issue which can best be tested in a
certification election.  In VICMICO
Industrial Workers Association (VWA) vs. The Honorable
Carmelo Noriel, et al.  (131 SCRA 569)
this Court ruled upon the same argument: 
Thus:

“On the issue that more than 600 bona fide rank and
file members of VIWA had disaffiliated with respondent NFSW, this Court had
occasion to state what should be followed in case of withdrawal or retraction
of signatures.  In National Mines and
Allied Workers Union vs. Luna, 83 SCRA
607, it was held that ‘the best forum for determining whether there were indeed
retractions from some of the laborers is the certification election itself
wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot.” x x x x x x x x x.  To
hold otherwise would be violative of the liberal approach constantly
followed by this Court in matters of certification elections.”

In the same vein, in George and Peter Lines, Inc. vs. ALU, et
al., 134 SCRA 82, where it was alleged that 80% of the membership of the Union
had withdrawn but the union claimed that the withdrawals were involuntary, the
Court held that “the best forum to determine if there was indeed undue pressure
exerted upon the employees to retract their membership is in the certification
election itself.”

The employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor
organization which they desire to join. 
The exercise of such right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if
they would be denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election,
which is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary
character, the bargaining unit to represent them (NAMAWUMIF vs. Estrella, 87
SCRA 84).  The holding of a certification
election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented (ATU vs. Noriel,
89 SCRA 264).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, the assailed
orders of public respondents are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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