Today is Friday, August 29, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

SPR!"! #$RT
"anila
F%RST &%'%S%$(

)*R* (o* +,-.4/0 April 10, 1992
(AT%$(A+ #$()R!SS $F (%$(S %( T1! S)AR %(&STR2 $F T1! P1%+%PP%(!S 3(A#S%P4,T#P,petitioner,
5s*
&%R* #R!S!(#%A($ 6* TRA7A($, 6ureau of +abor Relations, "inistry of +abor and !8ploy8ent, "anila, F!&!RAT%$( $F
(%$(S $F R%9A+ 3FR4,T#P, and #A+%($) R!F%(!R2 #$RP$RAT%$( 3(ASR!F#$4, respondents*

"!&%A+&!A, 7*:
This petition for certiorari see;s to annul and set aside the decision rendered by the respondent &irector #resenciano 6* Tra<ano of the
6ureau of +abor Relations, "inistry of +abor and !8ploy8ent, dated (o5e8ber 1/, 19/= affir8ing the order of "ed,Arbiter &e8etrio
#orrea dated "ay 2, 19/= gi5ing due course to the petition for certification election filed by pri5ate respondent Federation of nions of
Ri>al 3FR4,T#P? and the order dated "arch 21, 19/4 denying the 8otion for reconsideration for lac; of 8erit*
The antecedent facts are as follo@s:
Petitioner (ational #ongress of nions in the Sugar %ndustry of the Philippines 3(A#S%P4,T#P is the certified eAclusi5e bargaining
representati5e of the ran; and file @or;ers of #alinog Refinery #orporation* Pri5ate respondent Federation of nions of Ri>al 3FR4,T#P
is a labor organi>ation duly registered @ith the &epart8ent of +abor and !8ploy8ent @hile pri5ate respondent #alinog Refineries
!8ployees nion 3#R!4,(A#S%P is the certified eAclusi5e bargaining representati5e of the ran; and file @or;ers of the pri5ate
respondent #alinog Refinery #orporation by 5irtue of the certification election held on "arch =0, 19/1*
$n 7une 21, 19/2, petitioner union filed a petition for deadloc; in collecti5e bargaining @ith the "inistry of +abor and !8ploy8ent 3no@
&epart8ent of +abor and !8ploy8ent4* %n order to ob5iate friction and tension, the parties agreed to sub8it the petition for deadloc; to
co8pulsory arbitration on 7uly 14, 19/2 and @as doc;eted as RA6 #ase (o* '%,0220,/2*
$n 7uly 21, 19/2, pri5ate respondent FR,T#P filed @ith the Regional $ffice (o* '%, "$+! 3no@ &$+!4, %loilo #ity a petition for
certification election a8ong the ran; and file e8ployees of pri5ate respondent co8pany, alleging that: 314 about forty,fi5e percent 340B4 of
pri5ate respondent co8panyCs e8ployees had disaffiliated fro8 petitioner union and <oined pri5ate respondent union? 324 no election had
been held for the past t@el5e 3124 8onths? and 3=4 @hile petitioner union had been certified as the sole collecti5e bargaining agent, for o5er
a year it failed to conclude a collecti5e bargaining agree8ent @ith pri5ate respondent co8pany* Petitioner union filed a 8otion to inter5ene
in the petition for certification election filed by pri5ate respondent union*
6y order dated 7uly 2=, 19/2, the Acting "ed,Arbiter Pacifico '* "ilitante dis8issed the petition for certification election for lac; of 8erit
since the petition is barred by a pending bargaining deadloc;*
$n August 20, 19/2, pri5ate respondent union filed an appeal to the 6ureau of +abor Relations, "anila*
The 6ureau of +abor Relations through respondent &irector #resenciano 6* Tra<ano rendered a decision on Septe8ber =0, 19/2 setting
aside the order of the Acting "ed,Arbiter and re8anding the case to Regional $ffice '%, %loilo #ity for hearing and reception of e5idence*
$n "ay 2, 19/=, 1onorable "ed,Arbiter &e8etrio #orrea issued an order in +R& #ase (o* 429= gi5ing due course to the petition of
pri5ate respondent FR,T#P and ordering that an election be held @ithin 20 days fro8 receipt of the order*
Fro8 the order of "ed,Arbiter #orrea, petitioner interposed an appeal to the 6ureau of +abor Relations*
&uring the pendency of the appeal or on Septe8ber 10, 19/=, a collecti5e bargaining agree8ent @as entered and eAecuted by the
8anage8ent of the (ational Sugar Refineries #o*, %nc* and petitioner union and @as subseDuently ratified by a 8a<ority of the ran; and file
e8ployees* $n the basis of the concluded #6A, the 1onorable !Aecuti5e +abor Arbiter #elerino )recia %% issued an a@ard dated Septe8ber
12, 19/= adopting the sub8itted agree8ent as the #6A bet@een the parties*
$n (o5e8ber 1/, 19/=, respondent &irector Tra<ano rendered a decision affir8ing @ith Dualification the order of "ed,Arbiter #orrea dated
"ay 2, 19/=, the pertinent portions of @hich pro5ide as follo@s:
%t appears that the #alinog Refinery !8ployees, nion,(A#S%P,T#P no longer co88ands the support of the 8a<ority of the
e8ployees* This obser5ation is buttressed by the fact that 8ore than se5enty fi5e percent 3.0B4 of the @or;ers ha5e disaffiliated
fro8 the inter5enor and <oined the ran;s of the petitioner* Thus, inter5enorCs status as sole and eAclusi5e bargaining representati5e
is no@ of doubtful 5alidity*
For the abo5e,8entioned reason, @e stand obliged to resort to the 8ost eApeditious, practical and de8ocratic option open to us,
that is, the conduct of a certification election* Through this foru8, the true senti8ents of the @or;ers as to @hich labor organi>ation
deser5es their loyalty can be fairly ascertained* %n any e5ent, it is our 5ie@ that the 10 Septe8ber 19/= collecti5e agree8ent should
be respected by the union that shall pre5ail in the election not only because it is an arbitration a@ard but also because substantial
benefits are pro5ided thereunder* $ther@ise stated, the @inning union shall ad8inister said agree8ent* %n passing, it 8ay be
pointed out that #AR!F#$ has been included as one of the contending parties in the election* Ee feel that it is error for the acting
"ed,Arbiter to do so considering that the co8pany is a 8ere bystander in this representation dispute*
E1!R!F$R!, as abo5e Dualified, the $rder dated 2 "ay 19/= is affir8ed*
S$ &!#%&!&* 3Rollo, pp* 40,414
Fro8 the decision of respondent &irector Tra<ano, petitioner filed a 8otion for reconsideration dated &ece8ber -, 19/=*
The respondent &irector in his order dated "arch 21, 19/4 denied the 8otion for reconsideration for lac; of 8erit and affir8ed the
6ureauCs decision of (o5e8ber 1/, 19/=*
1ence, this petition*
This #ourt in a resolution dated &ece8ber 10, 19/4 resol5ed to grant the urgent 8otion of petitioner for the issuance of a restraining order
and issued a te8porary restraining order en<oining the respondents fro8 conducting and holding the certification election on &ece8ber 1.,
19/4 a8ong the ran; and file e8ployees of respondent co8pany 3see Rollo, p* 994*
Petitioner 8aintains that respondent &irector Tra<ano co88itted gra5e abuse of discretion a8ounting to lac; of <urisdiction @hen it
rendered a decision affir8ing the order of "ed,Arbiter #orrea finding that the deadloc; is Fnothing but a 8ere subterfuge to obstruct the
eAercise of the @or;ers of their legiti8ate right to self,organi>ation, a last 8inute 8aneu5er to deny the @or;ers the eAercise of their
constitutional rightsF 3Rollo, p* 2/4 and ordering a certification election a8ong the ran; and file @or;ers of respondent co8pany*
Further8ore, petitioner stresses that the finding that the contract 3deadloc;4 bar rule has no roo8 for application in the instant case, runs
counter to the pro5ision of Section = of the Rules %8ple8enting 6atas Pa8bansa 6lg* 1=0 @hich prohibits the filing of a petition for
certification election during the pendency of a bargaining deadloc;*
%n confor8ity @ith the petitionerCs contentions, the Solicitor )eneral insists that the respondent &irector has acted arbitrarily in issuing the
assailed decision and order* %n addition, it argues that the #6A concluded on Septe8ber 10, 19/= has a life span of three 3=4 years and
constitutes a bar to the petition for certification election pursuant to Section = of the Rules %8ple8enting 6atas Pa8bansa 6lg* 1=0*
The pi5otal issue therefore, is @hether or not a petition for certification election 8ay be filed during the pendency of a bargaining deadloc;
sub8itted to arbitration or conciliation*
After a careful re5ie@ of the records of this case, the #ourt finds the petition 8eritorious and holds that the respondent &irector gra5ely
abused his discretion @hen he affir8ed the order of "ed,Arbiter #orrea calling for a certification election a8ong the ran; and file @or;ers
of pri5ate respondent co8pany*
The la@ on the 8atter is Section =, 6oo; ', Rule ' of the $8nibus Rules %8ple8enting the +abor #ode, to @it:
Sec* =* Ehen to file* G %n the absence of a collecti5e bargaining agree8ent duly registered in accordance @ith Article 2=1 of the
#ode, a petition for certification election 8ay be filed at any ti8e* 1o@e5er, no certification election 8ay be held @ithin one year
fro8 the date of issuance of a final certification election result* (either 8ay a representation Duestion be entertained if, before the
filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadloc; to @hich an incu8bent or certified bargaining agent is a party
had been sub8itted to conciliation or arbitration or had beco8e the sub<ect of 5alid notice or stri;e or loc;out*
%f a collecti5e bargaining agree8ent has been duly registered in accordance @ith Article 2=1 of the #ode, a petition for certification
election or a 8otion for inter5ention can only be entertained @ithin siAty 3-04 days prior to the eApiry date of such agree8ent*
The clear 8andate of the aforeDuoted section is that a petition for certification election 8ay be filed at any ti8e, in the absence of a
collecti5e bargaining agree8ent* $ther@ise put, the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election in the follo@ing cases:
314 during the eAistence of a collecti5e bargaining agree8ent eAcept @ithin the freedo8 period?
324 @ithin one 314 year fro8 the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification election result? or
3=4 during the eAistence of a bargaining deadloc; to @hich an incu8bent or certified bargaining agent is a party and @hich had been
sub8itted to conciliation or arbitration or had beco8e the sub<ect of a 5alid notice of stri;e or loc;out*
The &eadloc; 6ar Rule si8ply pro5ides that a petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending bargaining
deadloc; sub8itted to conciliation or arbitration or had beco8e the sub<ect of a 5alid notice of stri;e or loc;out* The principal purpose is to
ensure stability in the relationship of the @or;ers and the 8anage8ent*
%n the case at bar, a bargaining deadloc; @as already sub8itted to arbitration @hen pri5ate respondent FR,T#P filed a petition for
certification election* The sa8e petition @as dis8issed for lac; of 8erit by the Acting "ed,Arbiter in an order dated 7uly 2=, 19/2 on the
sole ground that the petition is barred by a pending bargaining deadloc;* 1o@e5er, respondent &irector set aside the sa8e order and
subseDuently affir8ed an order gi5ing due course to the petition for certification election and ordering that an election be held*
The la@ de8ands that the petition for certification election should fail in the presence of a then pending bargaining deadloc;*
A director of the 6ureau of +abor Relations, by the nature of his functions, acts in a Duasi,<udicial capacity* Ee find no reason @hy his
decision should be beyond this #ourtCs re5ie@* Ad8inistrati5e officials, li;e the director of the 6ureau of +abor Relations are presu8ed to
act in accordance @ith la@ but this #ourt @ill not hesitate to pass upon their @or; @here there is a sho@ing of abuse of authority or
discretion in their official acts or @hen their decisions or orders are tainted @ith unfairness or arbitrariness*
(ote@orthy is the fact that a certification @as issued by !Aecuti5e +abor Arbiter #elerino )recia %% on $ctober 21, 19/2 certifying that the
petition for deadloc; in RA6 #ase (o* '%,0220,/2 @as for@arded to the !Aecuti5e +abor Arbiter for co8pulsory arbitration 3see Rollo, p*
194* The respondent &irector erred in finding that the order issued by the "ed,Arbiter dis8issing the petition for certification election @as
irregular and @as 8erely based on infor8ation*
All pre8ises considered, the #ourt is con5inced that the assailed decision and order of the respondent &irector is tainted @ith arbitrariness
that @ould a8ount to gra5e abuse of discretion*
A##$R&%()+2, the petition is )RA(T!&? the decision dated (o5e8ber 1/, 19/= and order dated "arch 21, 19/4 of the respondent
&irector #resenciano 6* Tra<ano are hereby nullified and the order of "ed,Arbiter "ilitante dated 7uly 2=, 19/2 dis8issing the petition for
certification election is hereby reinstated*
S$ $R&!R!&*
(ar5asa, #*7*, #ru> and )riHo,ADuino, 77*, concur*
6ellosillo, 7*, is on lea5e*
The +a@phil Pro<ect , Arellano +a@ Foundation