KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA SUERTE-FOITAF v
NORIEL Whether BLR Director Noriel committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming
June 20, 1977 | Fernando, J. | Questions of Discretion
Digester: Angat, Christine Joy F.
SUMMARY: After the expiration of the CBA between Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa
and La Suerte, the Federation of Free Workers filed a petition for certification election.
Kapisanan intervened and eventually sought to dismiss the petition on grounds that it
failed to meet the 30% consent requirement and that it was filed beyond the 60-day
freedom period. The Med-Arbiter found these arguments bereft of merit and granted
the PCE. This order was affirmed by BLR Director Noriel. The Court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and that the 30% requirement was met. Moreover, the Court
stated that even without the 30% requirement, the PCE will still be granted because the
conduct of a certification election in establishments with two or more unions is a
question of discretion that the Bureau can validly decide upon.
DOCTRINE: Under the Labor Code, when it is shown that the petition has the
support of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit, it becomes mandatory
for the Bureau to grant the petition for the conduct of a certification election. However,
the Bureau Director likewise possesses discretionary power whether or not a
certification election should be held, in which case, there is no need to satisfy 30%
requirement.
FACTS:
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Suerte Poitaf is the exclusive bargaining
representative of the rank-and-file employees of La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette
Factory.
Dec. 5, 1975: the CBA between Kapisanan and the company expired.
Feb. 6, 1978: Federation of Free Workers La Suerte Chapter filed a petition for
certification election, alleging that out of the bargaining unit of more or less 3,500,
there were 1,068 signatories supporting the petition.
Eleven days later, Kapisanan filed a motion to intervene, and eventually, a motion
to dismiss, alleging that FFW did not comply with the 30% consent requirement
and that the PCE was filed beyond the 60-day period to the expiration of the CBA.
o Kapisanan contested 112 signatories, alleging that 106 of them were falsified or
double entries while 7 came from unqualified voters.
A few days later, the employer submitted a list of the rank and file employees
numbering 4,055. FFW then submitted an additional list of 331 signatories,
amounting to 1,339 signatories in total.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed Kapisanans motion and granted the PCE. He ordered
the conduct of a certification election, the choices being Kapisanan, FFW, and No
Union.
Kapisanan appealed the order to BLR Director Noriel, who affirmed the Med-
Arbiters order. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
RULING: Petition dismissed.
the order to conduct a certification election - NO
It has been settled that the Court may, in appropriate certiorari proceedings, pass
upon the validity of decisions reached by officials or administrative agencies in
labor controversies when there is a showing of lack of power or arbitrary or
improvident exercise of authority. However, in the case at bar, there is no showing
of arbitrary or improvident exercise of authority to justify granting the writ of
certiorari.
FIRST: The contentions that FFW did not meet the 30% consent requirement is
bereft of merit. When it filed its PCE, its petition was supported by 1,068
signatories or more than 30% of the 3,500 rank and file employees. When it was
found that there were 4,055 employees, it submitted an additional list of 331
signatories, for a total of 1,399 still more than 30% of the 4,055 employees.
o The matter of satisfying the 30% consent requirement is factual in character,
the determination by BLR Director Norial being entitled to respect. And even
granting the argument that there were 112 contested signatures, that would still
leave 1, 287 signatories or more than 30% of the 4,055 employees.
Further, the 30% consent requirement is only relevant when it becomes mandatory
for Noriel to conduct a certification election. The wording of the law states that
when it is shown that the petition is supported by at least 30% of all the employees
in the bargaining unit, it becomes mandatory for the Bureau to conduct the
certification election.
However, it should be noted that the BLR Director likewise possesses
discretionary power whether or not a certification election should be held, in
which case, there is no such 30% requirement.
o There is a distinction between the right of the labor organization to be able to
persuade 30% of the labor force to petition for a certification election, in
which case the Bureau is left with no choice but to order it, and the power of
such governmental agency, precisely entrusted with implementation of the
collective bargaining process, to determine which of the several unions
within the bargaining unit shall be the exclusive collective bargaining
representative, in which case the 30% requirement is immaterial
because the order now lies within the discretion of the Bureau.
o In the case at bar, whether to conduct a certification election was a question of
discretion. Because there were several unions within the bargaining unit, the
Med-Arbiter and the Bureau used its judgment and deemed it proper to order
the conduct of a certification election, immaterial of whether FFW has the
30% support.
o The fact that the conduct of certification election may be a question of
discretion is consistent with the idea that the certification election exists
to ascertain which labor union should be the collective bargaining agent
of the employees. What could be more appropriate than such a procedure if
the goal desired is to enable labor to determine which of the competing
organizations should represent it for the purpose of a collective bargaining
contract?
 SECOND: The PCE was not filed out of time. While the PCE was filed beyond
the 60-day freedom period, it was filed when the former CBA had already expired
and no certified CBA had taken its place. As such, there is no legal bar to prevent
the filing of the CBA.
o The laws does not mean that a PCE can only be filed within those 60-day
period. A PCE can be filed even beyond that provided that there was no
certified CBA that had replaced it and that no other bars were present.
o To restrictively interpret the rules would set naught the basic objective of the
Labor Code to institute a true system of industrial democracy, through the
collective bargaining process with the representative of the labor chosen after a
free and honest certification election.