Facts:

The case involves the petitioner, Associated Labor Unions (ALU), and several respondents, including Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, as the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations under the Ministry of Labor and Employment, along with the Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL), and GAW Trading, Inc. Petitioner ALU filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition against the respondent director to overturn her decision dated December 10, 1986. The decision mandated a certification election among the rank and file workers of GAW Trading, Inc.

On May 7, 1986, ALU, through its Regional Vice-President Teofanio C. Nunez, informed GAW Trading, Inc. that the majority of its employees authorized ALU as their sole and exclusive bargaining representative and requested a conference for the execution of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). GAW Trading acknowledged receipt of the letter and subsequently recognized ALU as the

...

Facts:

Initiation of Collective Bargaining Process

• On May 7, 1986, the Associated Labor Unions (ALU) sent a letter to GAW Trading, Inc. asserting that a majority of the company’s employees had authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative.
• The letter included a request for a meeting or conference to negotiate and execute an initial Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Employer’s Response and Negotiation

• GAW Trading, Inc. acknowledged receipt of ALU’s letter on the same day and, in a subsequent letter dated May 12, 1986, expressed that it was “not against the desire” of its workers while requiring ALU to prove it enjoyed majority support, setting a conference at 4:00 P.M. on that day.
• ALU promptly complied by furnishing ten final copies of the proposed CBA on May 13, 1986, to be either commented on or signed.

Execution of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

• On May 15, 1986, after a brief period of negotiation and meeting the employer’s requirements, GAW Trading, Inc. and ALU executed the CBA, which was subsequently filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment on May 27, 1986.
• The speedy recognition and execution of the CBA raised questions due to the hastiness in meeting all procedural requirements.

Labor Disputes and Competing Unions

• Prior to the execution of the CBA, on May 9, 1986, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) staged a strike after failing to secure a conference regarding their demands.
• The strike, deemed illegal by Labor Arbiter Bonifacio B. Tumamak on August 5, 1986, further complicated the situation and the status of union representation.

Certification Election Proceedings

• On May 19, 1986, the GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU) Federation filed a Certification Election petition, though it initially failed to meet the required subscription threshold; it was treated as an intervenor until compliance was achieved.
• Med-Arbiter Candido M. Cumba, in an order dated June 11, 1986, ruled for the holding of a certification election across all branches of GAW Trading, Inc.

Subsequent Motions and Decisions

• ALU filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 19, 1986, which was treated as an appeal against the Med-Arbiter’s ruling, prompting the entire record to be forwarded to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations at the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
• Director Cresenciano B. Trajano, on August 13, 1986, granted ALU’s appeal by setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s order, relying on the existence and validity of the executed CBA and invoking the contract bar rule.

Reversal and Contentions on the Validity of the CBA

• Reconsideration motions were later filed by SPFL and the Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), but these were opposed by both GAW Trading, Inc. and ALU.
• The decision of Director Trajano was ultimately reversed by Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, who ordered the holding of a certification election on the ground that the CBA was defective.

Grounds for Declaring the CBA Defective

• The respondent director found that the CBA was not duly submitted in accordance with Section I, Rule IX, Book V of the Implementing Rules of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.
• There was no proof that the CBA was posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the establishment at least five days before its ratification, violating procedural mandates meant to inform all employees.
• Evidence of irregularities included the rapid and possibly premature recognition of ALU as the exclusive bargaining representative, despite the existence of other unions and subsequent repudiation by a significant number of workers.
• The employer's recognition of ALU seemed based on ALU’s claim without sufficient independent proof of majority support, thus compromising the legitimacy of the CBA and necessitating a certification election to determine true representation.

Issue:

• Whether the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) executed between ALU and GAW Trading, Inc. is legally valid given its alleged procedural deficiencies, including the failure to post the agreement in conspicuous places and comply with required formalities.
• Whether ALU can be legitimately considered the exclusive bargaining representative, considering the lack of definitive proof of majority support by the employees at the time of recognition and ratification.
• Whether the decision to order a certification election, which reverses the earlier decision that set aside the election on the basis of the contract bar rule, was proper under the circumstances.
• How the application of the contract bar rule should be interpreted in cases where there are substantial questions regarding the validity of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Whether the evidence that a significant number of workers repudiated the purported ratification of the CBA undermines its contractual effectiveness and validates the need for a certification election.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)