DIGEST 1

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Litex Employees Association v. Eduvala
Case No. 1! ".R. No. L#11$% &Septem'e( ))* 1!++, C-apte( II* .a/e 01* 2ootnote
No.))
2ACTS3 T-ey made an oat- 'e4o(e an election o5ce( in t-e municipality o4 .iddi/ &in
p(oceedin/s in connection 6it- t-e /ene(al election -eld on Nov. )* 1!$!, t-at t-ey
o6ned (eal p(ope(ty 6it- t-e value o4 .0$$. Evidence s-o6ed t-at t-e Appellants*
except 4o( 7aniel Nava((o and "ena(o Calixt(o* did not o6n p(ope(ty o4 t-e assessed
value o4 .0$$. ISSUE3 89N t-e said statute:s t(ue test o4 p(ope(ty ;uali<cation to
vote is t-e actual9ma(=et value o4 t-e p(ope(ty o6ned o( t-e assessed value t-e(eo4.
2ACTS3 Respondent* O5ce(#in#C-a(/e o4 >u(eau o4 La'o( Relations* (e;ui(ed
(e4e(endum election amon/ .etitione(s to asce(tain t-ei( 6is-es as to t-ei(
a5liation 6it- 2ede(ation o4 2(ee 8o(=e(s. .etitione(s contended t-at t-e(e 6as no
statuto(y aut-o(i?ation 4o( t-e Respondent to (e;ui(e (e4e(endum election and t-at
Respondent and t-e >u(eau 6e(e 'eyond @u(isdiction. ISSUE3 89N t-e(e is a statute
aut-o(i?in/ Respondents and /ivin/ t-em @u(isdiction. AEL73 A(ticle ))% o4 t-e
La'o( Code add(esses t-is. Respondent and t-e >u(eau 6e(e 6it-in @u(isdiction.
.etition denied. A(ticle ))% o4 La'o( Code is ve(y clea( conce(nin/ executive
depa(tment:s Bo(i/inal and exclusive aut-o(ity to actC. LATIN DAEID3 !a* !c* )$a*
)a
AEL73 It 6as t-e intention o4 t-e le/islato( as p(oved 4(om an examination o4 t-e
immediate context o4 p(ovisions o4 t-e statute de<nin/ Bp(ope(ty ;uali<cationsC o4 a
vote(* and o4 t-e statute as a 6-ole. In t-e statute* p(ope(ty ;uali<cation is an
alte(native to ;uali<cation 'ased upon an annual payment. >ot- ;uali<cations a(e
unde( a sin/le -ead* su//estin/ an intimate (elation 'et6een t-e t6o in t-e mind o4
t-e le/islato(. Anot-e( section o4 t-e statute dis;uali<es people 6-o a(e delin;uent
in t-e payment o4 pu'lic taxes assessed since Au/. 11* 1F!F* 4(om votin/. T-is
p(ovision 6as di(ected to t-e case o4 delin;uency in t-e payment o4 land taxes as
6ell as all ot-e( taxes. T-e statute as a 6-ole &as an election la6, is intended to
secu(e pu(ity o4 t-e 'allot 'ox. I4 t-e p(ope(ty ;uali<cation is actual9ma(=et value* it
6ould 'e -i/-ly imp(o'a'le to en4o(ce t-e statute 6it-in a (easona'le time 'ecause
it 6ill 'e di5cult to dete(mine. LATIN DAEID3 1$* 11a* 1)a* )F* 1%a* 1+
LA8.AIL
G.R. No. L-41106 September 22, 1977
LITEX EMPLOYEES SSO!ITION, petitioner,
vs.
GEORGE . E"#$L, %& '%( )*p*)%t+ *( O,,%)er-%&-!'*r-e, .#RE# O/ L.OR RELTIONS
"ep*rtme&to, L*bor *&0 /E"ERTION O/ /REE 1OR2ERS 3/./.1.4, respondents.
Esteban M. Mendoza for petitioner.
F. F. Bonifacio, Jr. for respondent FFW.
Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Renato S. !uno and
Solicitor Ro"eo #. de la #ruz for respondent George A. Edu$ala, etc.

/ERNN"O, J.:
In this and certiorari and prohibition proceeding, what is sought to be nullified is an Order of
respondent George A. Eduvala, the then Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor elations,
re!uiring that a "e"orandu"" election be held a"ong the "e"bers of the Lite# E"plo$ees
Association, petioner labor union, to ascertain their wishes as to their wishes as to their affiliation
with respondent %ederation of %ree &or'ers. It is the contention of petitioner (nion that there is no
statutor$ authori)ation for the holding of such a referendu" election. *hat is the decisive issue in this
co"trovers$. In support of the co"petence of respondent public official, Article ++, of the -resent
Labor Code is cited. It reads thus. /*he Bureau of Labor elations and the Labor elations 0ivision
in the the regional offices of the Labor shall have and e#clusive authorit$ to act, at their own initiation
or upon re!uest of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and disputes,
grievances of probe arising fro" or affecting labor-"anage"ent relations in all wor'places, whether
natural or non-agricultural, e#cept those arising fro" the i"ple"entation or interpretation of
collective bargaining agree"ents which shall be the sub1ect of grievance -rocedure and2or voluntar$
arbitration./
1
*he co""ent of the then Acting 3olicitor General, now Associate 4ustice of the Court of
Appeal, 5ugo E. Gutierre), 4r., treated as the answer,
2
"aintained that the wording of the above
provision sustains the authorit$ thus challenged. *here is considerable persuasiveness to such a view. It
would be an undul$ restrictive interpretation the" if a negative answer were 3even to the !uestion posed.
It would be oblivious to the basic end and ai" of the pant Labor Code to confer on the 0epart"ent of
Labor and its bereaus the co"petence to pass upon and decide labor controversies and thus "ini"i)e
1udicial intervention. *here is no legal basis for nullif$ing such order.
*his later dispute originated fro" a petition of respondent %ederation of %ree &or'ers filed with the
Bureau of labor elations against petitioner labor (nion to hold a referendu" a"ong the "e"bers
of the union for the of deter"ining whether the$ desired to be affiliated with such %ederation. It was
alleged that a /great "a1orit$/ of the "e"bers of the union desired such affiliaion, but that its
-resident, a certain 4ohnn$ de Leon, was opposed. *he contention of petitioner (nion acting
through its counsel was that onl$ about 677 out of "ore than +,+77 e"plo$ees of the co"pan$ had
"anifested their desire to affliate with the %ederation and that a substantial nu"ber of such had
since then repudiated their signatures. It also raised the point that what was sought was a
certification election which was not proper as there was a certified collective bargaining agree"ent
between the union and the co"pan$. *he Co"pulsor$ Arbitrator, after a careful stud$ of the
pleadings, reached the conclusion that the truth of the "atter could best be assertained b$ a
referendu" election. espondent as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of labor elations affir"ed.
5ence this petition directed to this Court, as a 1urisdictional !uestion is raised.
*he petition, as noted at the outset, lac's "erit.
8. Article ++, of the 9ew Labor Code cannot be "isread to signif$ that the authorit$ conferred on the
3ecretar$ of labor and the officials of the 0epart"ent is li"ited in character. On the contrar$, even a
cursor$ reading thereof readil$ $ields the conclusion that in the interest of industrial peace and for
the pro"otion of the salutar$ constitutional ob1ectives of social 1ustice and protection to labor, the
co"petence of the govern"ental entrusted with supervision over disputes involving e"plo$ers and
e"plo$ees as well as /inter-union and intra-union conflicts,/ is broad and e#pensive. *hereb$ its
purpose beco"es cr$stal-clear. As is !uite readil$ discernible where it concerns the pro"otion of
social and econo"$ rights, the active participation in the i"ple"entation of the codal ob1ective is
entrusted to the e#ecutive depart"ent. *here is no support for an$ allegation of 1urisdictional
infir"it$, considering that the language e"plo$ed is well-nigh inclusive with the stress on its /and
e#clusive authorit$ to act./ If it were otherwise, its polic$ "ight be rendered futile. *hat is to run
counter to a basic postulate in the canons of statutor$ interpretation. Learned 5and referred to it as
the proliferation of purpose. As was e"phatecall$ asserted b$ 4ustice %ran'furter. /*he generating
consideration is that legislation is "ore than co"position. It is an active instru"ent of govern"ent
which, for purposes of interpretation, "eans that laws have ends to be achieved. It is in this
connection that 5ol"es said, :words are fle#ible.: Again it was 5ol"es, the last 1udge to give !uarter
to loose thin'ing or vague $earning, who said that :the general purpose is a "ore is a "ore i"portant
aid to the "eaning than an$ rule which gra""ar or for"al logic "a$ la$ down.: And it was 5ol"es
who chided courts for being apt to err b$ stic'ing too closel$ to the words of a law when those words
i"port a polic$ that goes be$ond the"./
5
&hat is intended b$ the fra"ers of code or statute is not to be
frustrated. Even on the assu"ption that b$ so"e strained or literal reading of the e"plo$ed, a doubt can
be raised as to its scope, the :i""itation should not be at war with the end sought to be attained. It cannot
be denied that if through an ingenious argu"entation, li"its "a$ be set on a statutor$ power which should
not be there, there would be a failure to effectuate the statutor$ purpose and polic$. *hat 'ind of approach
in statutor$ construction has never reco""ended itself.
4
+. 9or has petitioner "ade out a case of grave abuse of since the "atter involved is a dispute as to
whether or not the "e"bers of petitioner labor union had decided, contrar$ to the wishes of its
president, to 1oin respondent %ederation. &hat better wa$ could there be of ascertaining the truth
there than to hold the referendu" election. *he guarantee of fairness as to whether there is
accurac$ depends on the i"partialit$ and neutralit$ of the Bureau of Labor elations. *here is
nothing in petitioner:s sub"ission to indicate that such would not be the case. (nder such
circu"stances then, petitioner labor union could not be held to allege that there was an abuse, "uch
less a grave abuse, of the discretionar$ authorit$ vested in such office. It suffices to ta'e note of how
often this Court, after a careful consideration of the issue involved, had re1ected such a contention in
certification cases, analogous, if not si"ilar in character. Invariabl$, the i"putation that the holding of
an election for the purpose of deter"ining with e#actitude the wishes of the e"plo$ees concerned as
a"ounting to arbitrar$ e#ercise e#ercise of a power had been re1ected.
6
&5EE%OE, the petition for certiorari is dis"issed. *his decision is i""ediatel$ e#ecutor$.
Barredo, #oncepcion Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.


Sep*r*te Op%&%o&(
NTONIO, J., concurring.
*he respondent public officer has sufficient authorit$, under the labor Code, to conduct the
referendu" afore"entioned.
7#INO, J., concur.
Because the instant case was rendered "oot b$ the 8;6< petition of %%& for a certification election
a"ong the e"plo$ees and wor'ers of Lirag *e#tile =ills, Inc. If a certification election will be held, a
referendu" is not necessar$.

Sep*r*te Op%&%o&(
NTONIO, J., concurring.
*he respondent public officer has sufficient authorit$, under the labor Code, to conduct the
referendu" afore"entioned.
7#INO, J., concur.
Because the instant case was rendered "oot b$ the 8;6< petition of %%& for a certification election
a"ong the e"plo$ees and wor'ers of Lirag *e#tile =ills, Inc. If a certification election will be held, a
referendu" is not necessar$.