Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1979 > March 1979 Decisions > G.R. No. L-48192 March 30, 1979 - ARSENIO REYES, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-48192. March 30, 1979.]

ARSENIO REYES, R. ZINGAPAN, E. SERRANO, P. SISON, L. MENDOZA, F. PEREZ, O. CRUZ, E. BAUTISTA, H. ANGCIANGCO, G. SANTOS, R. PINEDA, J. LLENAS, R. VALDEZEO, C. HERNAL, S. TRIPOLI, D. TRINE, P. MAGAT, N. NATAGOC, J. SASIS AND CRISPA-FLORO WORKERS’ ASSN., Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE BLAS OPLE, CARMELO C. NORIEL and ROMEO A. YOUNG, and NAFLU, Respondents.

B.R. de Luna & Associates, for Petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioners Reyes, Et Al., under CFWA which they had disaffiliated from the mother federation (TUPAS), filed a protest to set aside the certification election held on December 6, 1977. The Director of the Bureau of Labor, Relations dismissed the protest holding, the petitioners’ move to disaffiliate from the mother federation had not been formalized beforehand, that they could not utilize just the name of Crispa Floro Workers Association which was not registered by itself and did not have the required personality of a labor organization and that they and their supporters could have duly intervened in the elections "still under the aegis of the CFWA-TUPAS."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the petition for review, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered labor union lacks the personality of a labor organization.

Petition dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR RELATIONS; LABOR UNION; UNREGISTERED LABOR UNION LACKS THE PERSONALITY OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION. — Respondents’ dismissal of petitioners protest on the ground that the local union’s disaffiliation from its mother federation had not yet been formalized and therefore lacks the personality of a labor organization is correct. Petitioners were well of the calling of the certification election for determining the union chosen by the workers themselves to represent them as their bargaining representative but limited themselves to sending letters to the Bureau of Labor Relations asking for "leave to intervene" and that "pending resolution of our intervention, may we request that this issue be deferred" and another letter alleging that they had disaffiliated CFWA from the mother federation TUPAS. Respondents had properly ruled that disaffiliated from TUPAS, CFWA had no personality not having been duly registered as such, hence, they cannot be held to have acted with grave abuse of discretion.

2. ID.; ID.; CERTIFICATION ELECTION; WORKERS ENTITLED TO CHOOSE THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE: — The Court has consistently favored and upheld the holding of certification elections for the workers themselves to elect the union that the majority may choose as their bargaining representative or if they wish, to vote that there be no union.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


The Court finds without merit the protest of petitioners against the holding and results of the certification election held in December, 1977 whereby the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the workers with the employer P. Floro & Sons, Inc. and therefore elected officers of the union Crispa Floro Workers Association (CFWA) in a "much delayed election of union officers on August 9, 1977" the outcome of which "was finally determined" only on November 22, 1977, due to an intra-union dispute among the workers-members aspiring to the leadership of the union (CFWA) — which then was officially affiliated with the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The individual petitioners, as alleged in their petition, were declared the duly elected officers of the union Crispa Floro Workers Association (CFWA) in a "much delayed election of union officers on August 9, 1977" the outcome of which "was finally determined" only on November 22, 1977, due to an intra-union dispute among the workers-members aspiring to the leadership of the union (CFWA) — which then was officially affiliated with the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS)

On September 1, 1977, however, upon petition of the CFWA-TUPAS (at the instance of petitioners’ opponents), the Bureau of Labor Relations called for a certification election at the employer company, P. Floro & Sons, Inc. Many pre-election conferences in the months of September to November, 1977 were held and all interested unions were allowed to intervene and the lists of voters-workers were agreed upon. The certification election was held on December 6, 1977 with no union emerging with a clear majority, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1) NAFLU 554

2) CRISPA FLORO WORKERS

ASSOCIATION-TUPAS 1

3) FEDERATION OF FREE

WORKERS (FFW) 524

4) NATIONAL UNION OF

GARMENT, TEXTILE, CORDAGE &

ALLIED WORKERS OF THE PHIL.

(GATCORD) 2

5) PLUM FEDERATION OF

INDUSTRIAL & AGRARIAN

WORKERS 136

6) NO UNION 7

7) SPOILED 29

———

TOTAL 1,253"

Petitioners Reyes, Et Al., under CFWA which they had disaffiliated from TUPAS and the PLUM both filed protests to set aside the election results. In the questioned Resolution of December 12, 1977, respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director Carmelo C. Noriel dismissed the protests holding insofar as petitioners Reyes, Et. Al. were concerned that their move to disaffiliate from the mother federation (TUPAS) had not been formalized beforehand, that they could not utilize just the name of Crispa Floro Workers Association which was not registered by itself and did not have the required personality of a labor organization and that they and their supporters could have duly intervened in the elections "still under aegis of the CFWA-TUPAS", as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Anent Reyes Et. Al.’s assertion of grave abuse of discretion, the same may have been given credence, if they had been possessed of the requisite personality to intervene. Apparently, the Med-Arbiter’s inaction on their move to intervene was a tacit recognition of the fact that Reyes, Et. Al.’s group, in utilizing the name of Crispa Floro Workers Association, was not yet possessed of the required personality of a legitimate labor organization. This is so, as officially, Crispa Floro Workers Association is still an affiliate of the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS), one of the intervenors in the instant case. Their move to disaffiliate from the mother federation was sad to state, never formalized beforehand. What is apparent from the record of this case, is an unfortunate intra-union squabble among two sets of officers, one group headed by Reyes, Et. Al. and another group of defeated officers, the one advocating disaffiliation from the mother federation and the other eventually supporting the other intervenor unions in this case. Officially therefore, as there is no formal disaffiliation made, the herein aggrupation which is shown to be just a set of newly elected officers without any noticeable union members supporting them, could have only intervened still under the aegis of the Crispa Floro Workers Association-TUPAS. To have procrastinated on the holding of the certification election by mere reason of this unfortunate incident that happened in one of the intervenor unions, would have equally deprived the others of their legitimate right to represent the already restive workers at the aforementioned corporation. This Office chose the latter alternative. It could not have done otherwise." 1

Respondent Noriel accordingly ordered the holding of a run-off election on December 14, 1977 between the two unions that had gathered the top two places at which the NAFLU emerged with 664 votes as the winner of an absolute majority of the 1,253 votes cast (with FFW receiving 566 votes and 23 votes declared spoiled) and was subsequently certified on December 20, 1977 as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the workers of the employer company.

Hence, this petition filed on May 5, 1978 after petitioners had failed to obtain reconsideration from respondents Noriel and Ople as Secretary (now Minister) of Labor.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The correctness of respondents’ questioned actions was confirmed at the hearing held by the Court on March 2, 1979 and respondents cannot be held to have acted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners were well aware of the calling of the certification election for determining the union chosen by the workers themselves to represent them as their bargaining representative but limited themselves to sending letters to the Bureau of Labor Relations, one on November 23, 1977 asking for "leave to intervene" and that "pending resolution of our intervention, may we request that this issue be deferred" and another letter on November 28, 1977 alleging that they had disaffiliated CFWA from the mother federation TUPAS. Respondents had properly ruled that disaffiliated from TUPAS, CFWA had no personality, not having been duly registered as such. The certification of July 25, 1978 to this effect issued by the Bureau of Labor Relations and submitted by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondents public officials clearly bears this out, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is to certify that based on the records of this Office, CRISPA-FLORO WORKERS ASSOCIATION is not a registered labor organization. However, CRISPA-FLORO WORKERS ASSOCIATION-TUPAS was registered in this Office on 14 February 1974 and was issued Registration Certification No. (Fed-404)-7184-IP-129." 2

That the elections were held peacefully and orderly is not questioned by petitioners. The Court has consistently favored and upheld the holding of certification elections for the workers themselves to elect the union that the majority may choose as their bargaining representative or if they wish, to vote that there be no union. Their plea that another certification election be held at which they may duly take part would be but a futile exercise in the light of the results which were highlighted by the lack of any noticeable support for them by the rank and file, as well as by their admission at the hearing that the winner and certified union, the NAFLU, enjoys the workers’ full support, having signed up more than a thousand of them as members.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed and the restraining order issued on May 17, 1978 is lifted effective immediately. No costs.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio Herrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 23.

2. Rollo, p. 78.




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






March-1979 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26169 March 1, 1979 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42666 March 13, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIO BARUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49247 March 13, 1979 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO M. POLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24627-28-29 March 14, 1979 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. PEDRO NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-27149 March 14, 1979 - KURT NILSEN, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-29480 March 14, 1979 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31982 March 14, 1979 - CARLOS CORDOVA v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39699 March 14, 1979 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CELSO AVELINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42995 March 14, 1979 - VICTOR N. LIZARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43540 March 14, 1979 - ALBERTO FLORES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1052-CCC March 20, 1979 - IN RE: CECILIA MENDIETTA

  • A.M. No. 1294-MJ March 23, 1979 - ROGELIO A. BAIS v. MARIANO C. TUGAOEN

  • G.R. Nos. L-32267-70 March 26, 1979 - PEDRO BARBA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38649 March 26, 1979 - FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LEONARDO DE LA OSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43134 March 26, 1979 - CARMELITA E. VEGA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45996 March 26, 1979 - LORENZA D. LANDICHO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48979 March 26, 1979 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24347 March 27, 1979 - COMMUNITY SAWMILL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49311-12 March 27, 1979 - PASCUAL YPIL v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1664 March 30, 1979 - DOMINGA ROQUE, ET AL. v. MAGTANGGOL C. GUNIGUNDO

  • A.C. No. 1919 March 30, 1979 - CARMEN LAMES v. FEDERICO A. LASCIERAS

  • G.R. No. L-28983 March 30, 1979 - FAUSTINO SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31364 March 30, 1979 - MISAEL P. VERA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32097-98 March 30, 1979 - CITY OF LAOAG, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33145 March 30, 1979 - ELIGIO P. BUENAVENTE, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41808 March 30, 1979 - ENGRACIA B. AMBERTI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42560 March 30, 1979 - ESTELITA B. MICU v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43271 March 30, 1979 - FELIZARDO MARASIGAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46651 March 30, 1979 - ASSOCIATED TRADE UNIONS v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48065 March 30, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO TRAYA

  • G.R. No. L-48192 March 30, 1979 - ARSENIO REYES, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48982 March 30, 1979 - CARLOS BAYOS, ET AL. v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49472 March 30, 1979 - CITY OF OLONGAPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50127-28 March 30, 1979 - VICTOR JUANIZA, ET AL. v. EUGENIO JOSE, ET AL.