Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1979 > May 1979 Decisions > G.R. No. L-42561 May 31, 1979 - NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF TRADE UNIONS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-42561. May 31, 1979]

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NORTU), Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, HON. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND THE "ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS" (ALU), Respondents.

Fernandez, Atienza & Associates for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Trial Attorney Joselito B. Floro for the Public respondents.

SYNOPSIS


The order of respondent Director of Bureau of Labor Relations calling for a certification election was opposed by petitioner Union, on the ground that it is the recognized bargaining agent and is about to conclude a renewed bargaining agreement with the employer. The motion to dismiss was denied as the requisites necessary for such certification were duly satisfied. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court upheld respondent official’s order for certification elections, as there was no obstacle to such petition, the 30% requirement therefor having been met.

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; CERTIFICATION ELECTION, MANDATORY WHEN 30% REQUIREMENT IS FULLY MET. — Any petition for certification election filed by any legitimate labor organization shall be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification of such petition, it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LABOR OFFICIAL BOUND TO PERFORM HIS DUTY UNDER THE LAW. — Where there is no obstacle to a petition for certification, no election having been held the past twelve months, and no certified collective agreement being in existence, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations merely performs a duty imposed on him by law when he orders a certification election to be conducted. It would be unwarranted to nullify such an order based on a plain and explicit command of the law.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION TO BE DISMISSED WHERE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW AS TO THE HOLDING OF A CERTIFICATION ELECTION ARE MET. — The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations can order a certification election even if, as alleged by petitioner Union, it is the recognized bargaining agent and is about to conclude a renewed collective bargaining agreement with the employer where the requisites set forth in Art. 258 of the Labor Code are duly met. As there is no ambiguity in the applicable provision of the Labor Code, all that could have been done was to apply it. It would be unwarranted for the respondent Director to act in any other way.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The specific question raised in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding is whether or not respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations 1 could order a certification election if, as alleged by petitioner Union, it is the recognized bargaining agent and is about to conclude a renewed bargaining agreement with the employer, the Manila Rubber Corporation. 2 The matter was elevated to this Court, as respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the assailed order, held: "The Labor Code explicitly provides for only two instances where a petition for certification is barred, namely: An election held within the past twelve months and the existence of a certified collective agreement. None of the foregoing is applicable hereto." 3 The correctness of such a ruling was sustained in the Answer of Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza. 4 It was made clear that there was neither a collective bargaining agreement in existence and that no certification election had been conducted during the last twelve months. Respondent Union, therefore, was within its right in filing a petition for certification election, supported as it was by the written consent of more than 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit. It was further pointed out in such Answer 5 that the pendency of negotiations to conclude a new collective bargaining agreement is not a bar to such a petition for certification election. 6

The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner Labor Union, at the time of such petition for certification election, being the duly recognized exclusive bargaining agent, was in the process of negotiation leading to a new collective contract between it and the employer. 7 That was, to repeat, the basis of its motion to dismiss when the petition for certification election was filed. 8 Both the Med-Arbiter of the Bureau of Labor Relations 9 as well as respondent Director of such bureau ruled against it, for as specified in the appealed order, the requisites necessary for such certification were duly satisfied. It moved to reconsider, but failed. 10 Hence this petition.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It is quite apparent then why the order for certification election must be upheld.

1. The controlling provision of the Labor Code reads as follows: "Any petition for certification election filed by any legitimate labor organization shall be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification of such petition, it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit." 11 The law cannot be any clearer. The 30% requirement was fully met. Such a finding of fact is well-nigh conclusive on this Court. 12 It becomes, therefore, in the language of the law, "mandatory for the bureau to conduct a certification election . . ." Moreover, the assailed order pointed out that there was no obstacle to such a petition for certification, no election having been held the past twelve months and no certified collective agreement being in existence. When respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, therefore, acted as he did, he was merely performing a duty imposed on him by law. This is not the first time that a labor union, understandably concerned as to whether it could continue as the exclusive bargaining agent, had sought to prevent the holding of a certification election. The response was invariably in the negative. 13 For certainly, it would be unwarranted to nullify an order of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations based on a plain and explicit command of the law.

2. It cannot be stressed sufficiently that the Bureau of Labor Relations as an agency of the executive branch is precisely charged with the responsibility of faithfully executing the law. Where, as in this case, there is no ambiguity in the applicable provision of the Labor Code, all that could have been done was to apply it. That was what respondent Director did. It would be unwarranted for him to act in any other way. There was no room for interpretation. Such a provision speaks unequivocally. There was the peremptory need on the part of the official concerned to yield it obedience. 14

3. The specific question raised in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding as to whether or not respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations could order a certification election if, as alleged by petitioner Union, it is the recognized bargaining agent and is about to conclude a renewed collective bargaining agreement with the employer, must be answered in the affirmative, assuming that the requisites set forth in Article 258 of the Labor Code are duly met.

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit. This decision is immediately executory, and the certification election ordered must be held forthwith. The restraining order issued by this Court is hereby lifted and set aside and declared to be without any force or effect.chanrobles law library

Antonio, Concepcion Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos and Barredo, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur because petitioner’s CBA with the Manila Rubber Corporation expired on May 31, 1975 and petitioner’s right to represent the employees as a collective bargaining agent was seriously assailed by the Associated Labor Unions, which filed a petition for certification election on July 1, 1975. Within twelve months before that date, there had been no certification election.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur because petitioner’s CBA with the Manila Rubber Corporation expired on May 31, 1975 and petitioner’s right to represent the employees as a collective bargaining agent was seriously assailed by the Associated Labor Unions, which filed a petition for certification election on July 1, 1975. Within twelve months before that date, there had been no certification election.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Endnotes:



1. The other respondents are the Secretary of Labor and the Associated Labor Unions.

2. Petition, 4.

3. Ibid, Annex H.

4. He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Trial Attorney Joselito B. Floro.

5. Answer, 4 and 5.

6. Ibid, 5.

7. Petition, pars. 4 and 7.

8. Ibid, par. 8.

9. Ibid, par. 10.

10. Ibid, pars. 13 and 14.

11. Art. 258, Presidential Decree 442 (1974).

12. Cf. Antipolo Highway Lines v. Inciong, L-38532, June 27, 1975, 64 SCRA 441; Jacqueline Industries v. National Labor Relations Commission, L-37034, Aug. 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 397; Federacion Obrera v. Noriel, L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 414; Monark International, Inc. v. Noriel, L-47570-71, May 11, 1978, 83 SCRA 414; Associated Trade Unions v. Noriel, L-48367, January 16, 1979.

13. Cf. Federacion Obrera v. Noriel, L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union v. Noriel, L-45057, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 450; Benguet Exploration Miners Union v. Noriel, L-44110, March 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 107; Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 414; Monark International, Inc. v. Noriel, L-47570-71, May 11, 1978, 83 SCRA 414; National Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Luna, L-46722, June 15, 1978, 83 SCRA 607; Scout Ramon Albano v. Noriel, L-48347, Oct. 3, 1978, Federation of Free Workers v. Noriel, L-47182-83, Oct. 20, 1978.

14. Such a principle is traceable to the leading case of Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, a 1913 decision, 24 Phil. 504. In the latest case where such a doctrine is reiterated, Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company, L-25316, Feb. 28, 1979, Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, L-27455, June 28, 1973, 51 SCRA 381, was cited. In the opinion of such case, reference was made to twelve decisions starting from People v. Mapa, L-22301, Aug. 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 1164 and ending with Allied Brokerage Corp. v. Commissioner of Customs, L-27641, Aug. 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 555. These are the later cases: Espino v. Cleofe, L-33410, July 13, 1973, 52 SCRA 93; Minlay v. Sandoval, L-28901, Sept. 4, 1973, 53 SCRA 1; Vallongca v. Ariola, L-29226, Oct. 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 139; Jalandoni v. Endaya, L-23894, Jan. 24, 1974, 55 SCRA 261; Phil. National Railways v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-30942, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 302; Aquino Jr. v. Commission on Elections, L-40004, Jan. 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1979 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-36797 May 3, 1979 - JOSE GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. ARMANDO CANTADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50150 May 3, 1979 - CENTRAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-37527-52 May 5, 1979 - ALFREDO C. IGNACIO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31102 May 5, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DUEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40620 May 5, 1979 - RICARDO L. GAMBOA, ET AL. v. OSCAR R. VICTORIANO

  • G.R. No. L-43324 May 5, 1979 - ANDRES PATALINJUG v. E. L. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43372 May 5, 1979 - ALFONSO A. CHAN v. OTILLO G. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44240 May 5, 1979 - FREDESWINDA R. CASANOVA v. MARIANO A. LACSAMANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45849 May 5, 1979 - GALILEO D. SIBALA, ET AL. v. AIDA GIL DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46732 May 5, 1979 - MARIO Z. REYES v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47935 May 5, 1979 - ANDRES OLAR, ET AL. v. FORTUNATO B. CUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46009 May 14, 1979 - RICARDO T. SALAS, ET AL. v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1786-CFI May 15, 1979 - LORETA EDERANGO v. LAURO TAPUCAR

  • G.R. Nos. L-34948-49 May 15, 1979 - PHILIPPINE METAL FOUNDRIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38725 May 15, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ARTIEDA

  • G.R. No. L-26675 May 25, 1979 - PELAGIA V. AGUILAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32245 May 25, 1979 - DY KEH BENG v. INTERNATIONAL LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32779 May 25, 1979 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34007 May 25, 1979 - MARCELINO BELAMIDE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979 - RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37876 May 25, 1979 - JOSE BERNARDO, ET AL. v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-42679 May 25, 1979 - GRACIANO SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43434 May 25, 1979 - JUAN SALANGUIT v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48563 May 25, 1979 - VICENTE E. TANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48820 May 25, 1979 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • A.M. No. 243-MJ May 28, 1979 - ROBERTO LASTIMOSO v. IGNACIO LAMBO

  • G.R. No. L-42493 May 28, 1979 - PURIFICACION C. UNITE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45013 May 28, 1979 - SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY v. CELEDONIO SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47629 May 28, 1979 - MANUEL L. GARCIA v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-8 May 31, 1979 - ALFREDO BRENCIS v. ELY FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. L-26281 May 31, 1979 - ROSITA S. VDA. DE VOCAL v. MATILDE VDA. DE SURIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26402 May 31, 1979 - ALTO SURETY & INS. CO., INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-27406 May 31, 1979 - ALEXANDER T. CASTRO v. LUIS ESCUTIN

  • G.R. No. L-29889 May 31, 1979 - VICTORINO CUSI, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS

  • G.R. No. L-33171 May 31, 1979 - PORFIRIO P. CINCO v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33693-94 May 31, 1979 - MISAEL P. VERA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33987 May 31, 1979 - LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34356 May 31, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34602 May 31, 1979 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. LILIA A. ABAIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35707 May 31, 1979 - CRISPINO FLORES v. G. JESUS B. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38268 May 31, 1979 - EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. REMEDIOS S. RUFINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41813 May 31, 1979 - SALUD N. CARREON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42561 May 31, 1979 - NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF TRADE UNIONS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43223 May 31, 1979 - JUANA VDA. DE MACANIP, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43517 May 31, 1979 - CARLOS MESINA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-43627 May 31, 1979 - GALIA TAMBASEN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43852 May 31, 1979 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. TEODOCIA LOZADA

  • G.R. No. L-44346 May 31, 1979 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-4827 May 31, 1979 - GERARDO D. ABE-ABE, ET AL. v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49494 May 31, 1979 - NELIA G. PONCE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49496 May 31, 1979 - MD TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.