Case # 19

G.R. No. L-77415 June 29, 1989

ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
HON. PURA FERRER- CALLEJA, in her capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, and SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR KILUSANG
MAYO UNO (KMU)

Topic: Voting/Election Day, Certificate of Election

Facts:
Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) is a corporation duly
organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. Upon petition of Buklod ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), one of several labor unions at ADMACOR'S factory, the Labor
Relations Division, Regional Office VII (Cebu City) ordered a certification election to be
conducted on May 21, 1986, a regular business day.

On May 19,1986, several factory workers of ADMACOR held a strike. No previous notice of
strike was filed by the factory workers with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office.
ADMACOR filed a petition for the indefinite resetting of the scheduled certification election,
which petition was not acted upon by the Labor Relations Division. The scheduled certification
election was conducted, despite the strike. Of the 423 workers who voted, 413 voted for Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as their exclusive bargaining agent on the same day,
ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike and for illegal picketing with the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu City.

ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification election conducted on May 21, 1986 as
null and void on the ground that there being a strike by some workers in the premises of the factory
on the day of the certification election, such day cannot be considered a regular business day,
pursuant to Section 2, Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

However, Med-Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR's complaint to annul the May 21, 1986 certification
election and certified SPFL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees of ADMACOR. This dismissal was appealed by ADMACOR to the Bureau of Labor
Relations by way of a motion for reconsideration and docketed as BLR Case No. A-10- 247-85.
On August 14, 1986, the Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR filed a motion for
intervention in the case appealed to the Bureau.

The public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja acting as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations
dismissed the appeal of ADMACOR and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. are assailed in
this petition for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion
Issue: WON there was compliance with the procedural requirement set by Section 2, Rule VI,
Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election shall be set during a regular
business day.
WON the Bureau has jurisdiction in dismissing its protest against the certification election despite
the pendency of the case before the Labor Arbiter.
Held:
Yes. The court agree with the ruling of the respondent Director upholding the validity of the
certification election despite the strike. In the first place, since petitioner invoked the jurisdiction
of the Bureau when it filed its election protest before the Med-Arbiter, it cannot now be allowed
to repudiate the same jurisdiction after failing to obtain affirmative relief. Moreover, it cannot be
denied that an actual election was conducted on said date where, of the 423 workers who voted,
413 voted for SPFL as its exclusive bargaining agent. In the "Minutes of the Certification Election
among the Rank and File Employees of Asian Design Manufacturing Corp.", the representatives
of the contending unions, and of the Ministry of Labor even attested that the election was peaceful
and orderly and none of the parties registered any protest on any matter concerning the election
proceedings. There is thus, no valid reason to annul the certification election.

On the pretext that the issue deposited in this petition is the lack of jurisdiction of the Bureau in
dismissing its protest against the certification election despite the pendency of the case before the
Labor Arbiter on the validity of the strike, petitioner seeks exception to the rule that an employer
has no standing to question a certification election. We reiterate the rule that such concern over
the validity of certification election must come from the employees themselves. The case of Trade
Union Congress of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 61153, January 17,
1983, 120 SCRA 64, 66, is clear on this point. This Court therein held:

A certification election is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is
where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to
Article 259 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively.
Thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. It becomes
merely a bystander.

In the instant case, the petitioner for a certification election was filed by a
legitimate labor organization as stipulated by Article 258 of the Labor Code. Such
being the case, ROBINA should not have involved itself in the certification
election. That it did gives rise to a well-founded suspicion that it wanted a
company union which is a no, no in this jurisdiction.
Case # 20
G.R. No. 96255. September 18, 1992.]
HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,
UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAQUESMA, MED-ARBITER MELCHOR S.
LIM AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, Respondents.
Topic: Election Conduct
Facts:
Hercules Industries, Inc., herein petitioner, is a corporation duly registered under Philippine laws
which employs more or less one hundred eighty (180) workers.

Private respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL), a legitimate labor federation, filed a
petition for certification election alleging that the existing collective bargaining agreement would
expire in August, 1987 and that it enjoys the support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the
rank and file employees in the bargaining unit.

Med-Arbiter issued an order for the conduct of a certification election with the following
choices:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) National Federation of Labor (NFL);

(2) Hercules Employees Labor Union (HELU); and

(3) No Union.

A pre-election conference was conducted. Hercules Industries, Inc. charged that the list included
ninety-eight (98) scabs; sixteen (16) capatazes; eight (8) security guards; and nine (9) managerial
employees.

The Med-Arbiter issued removed the list of voters for Managerial employees, security guards
and the strike employees who have been executed a deed of quitclaim and voluntarily accepted
separation pay. NFL appealed the order to the BLR, alleging that the MA still allowed for the 98-
contract replacement works among other. Pending resolution, the certificate of election push
through. BLR granted the appeal of NFL and rendered the Certificate election null and void and
ordered a new CE with minus the 98-scab replacement.
CE took place, and NFL won as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and
employees of the petitioner. The company filed a motion for reconsideration/appeal with the
DOLE, however it was denied on the grounds that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 6, Book V of the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code on protests had not been followed; that the records
disclose that no protest was made before the election, nor formalized within five (5) days after
the election, as provided for by the rules; and the DOLE has not found any legal obstacle to the
proclamation of the NFL as the collective bargaining agent of petitioner’s workers.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner, Hercules Industries, Inc., as employer, may question the
validity of the certification election among its rank-and-file employees.
Held: NO.
In a long line of decisions, this Court has undeviatingly ruled that the employer is not a party to
a certification election which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers (Rizal Workers
Union v. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective bargaining
representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to put it mildly, deserves
no encouragement (Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469; Filipino Metals Corp. v.
Ople, 107 SCRA 211).

The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file
a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to bargain collectively pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the employer’s
involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander. (Rizal Workers’ Union v. Calleja,
supra.).

In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while the employees themselves never
requested the petitioner to bargain collectively, still, they did not object to the results of the
certification election. Hence, petitioner’s appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations from the Med-
Arbiter’s Order certifying the NFL as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file
employees, and its filing of this petition for certiorari with us, must be rejected. The employer’s
intervention in the certification election of its workers is frowned upon by law.
Case #21

G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990

EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO, petitioner,

vs.
HON. RICARDO C. CASTRO, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor
Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and DELICANO PAJARES, respondents.

Topic: Period, Certificate of Election, Protest

Facts:
Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of the Kapisanan, composed of employees of Associated
Anglo American Tobacco Corporation. The union had a three-year collective bargaining
agreement with AAAT he union had a 3-year CBA with the said corporation.
On July 15, 1984, or with the so called “freedom period” of sixty days a general meeting of all the
members of the KAPISANAN was held and the body unanimously approved the disaffiliation of
the KAPISANAN from the mother union, Federation FOITAF, and amendment of its constitution
and by-laws. A new set of officers were elected which included Timbungco as the re-elected
president without opposition. After submission to the BLR of the required documentation, a new
registration certificate was issued to the KAPISANAN. CBA negotiations were commenced
between Timbungco as the re-elected president of the KAPISANAN and AAATC which
eventually resulted in the execution of another 3-year collective bargaining agreement. A copy of
the agreement was filed with the BLR.
On April 8, 1986, Zapanta, president of Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO)
sent a letter to BLR advising that majority of members of KAPISANAN had affiliated with ADLO.
On April 10,1986, ADLO’s Executive National Vice President Tayo, wrote AAATC and requested
to stop deducting dues and refuse to deal with Timbungco and his group for the loss by the
KAPISANAN of its status as recognized representative of the bargaining unit.
On April 12, Delicano Pajares, a member of the KAPISANAN also wrote a letter to AAATC to
stop deducting union dues. Pajares filed with BLR a petition for election of officers of the
KAPISANAN alleging that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid. After
appropriate proceedings, the Med-Arbiter Reynante issued an order declaring invalid the election
of union officers held on July 15, 1984. On appeal, the decision was affirmed in toto in a resolution
rendered by BLR Cresenciano Trajano. Timbungco filed a motion for reconsideration and was
denied by OIC Director Labor Relations, Ricardo Castro. The petitioner filed a special action of
certiorari praying for the nullification of the resolution of the BLR sustaining the decision of Med-
Arbiter.

ISSUE: WON the election of union officers held on July 15, 1984 is valid.
HELD:
Yes, the election of union officers is valid. Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests
against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the
election proceedings and must be decided by the latter within twenty (20) working days. The
private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must
be deemed in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same. In this case, the protest
against the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of almost two (2) years
after it was held. And in that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented
against the election. There was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results
thereof. It does not appear that the dispensing by the membership of the KAPISANAN with certain
technical requirements or formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the
deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud
or other serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the
popular will in the choice of officers