G.R. No. 85085 - Associated Labor Unions vs. Ferrer-Calleja

PASAR Corporation, a manufacturing and processing entity for copper cathodes operating in Isabel, Leyte, employed approximately 850 rank-and-file employees.
The labor relationship was governed by collective bargaining agreements (CBA), with petitioner Associated Labor Union (ALU) having a prior CBA with PASAR that expired on April 1, 1987.

Prior to the expiration of the previous CBA, on March 23, 1987, private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a petition for a certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Office in Tacloban City (MED-ARB-RO VII Case No. 3-28-87).
NAFLU’s petition alleged, among other things, that no certification election had been held in PASAR within the preceding twelve (12) months, a requirement under the law.

Petitioner ALU moved to intervene in the proceedings on the ground that NAFLU failed to secure the necessary signatures with its petition.
On April 21, 1987, Med-Arbiter Bienvenido C. Elorcha dismissed NAFLU’s petition; however, this dismissal was later set aside in another order dated May 8, 1987, with the case rescheduled for a hearing on May 29, 1987.
Concurrently, the Med-Arbiter issued an order enjoining PASAR from entering into any new CBA with any union until the resolution of the representation issue.

Despite the existing order of injunction, while the appeal by NAFLU was still pending, ALU concluded negotiations with PASAR and hastily entered into a new CBA.
The new CBA was posted in four conspicuous locations on the company premises on July 24, 1987 and was subsequently ratified by the bargaining unit members on July 28, 1987.
Following the ratification, ALU moved to dismiss NAFLU’s pending appeal, citing overwhelming support from 98% of the employees and evidence of at least 75 NAFLU members renouncing membership in that union.

On September 30, 1987, public respondent (the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations) gave due course to the appeal and ordered that a certification election be conducted among the PASAR employees, offering ALU, NAFLU, and the option of “no union” as choices.
Motions for reconsideration by both parties were filed but subsequently denied on April 22, 1988.
Petitioner ALU then filed a special civil action for certiorari, challenging the certification election order by arguing that the concluding of the new CBA should invoke the contract bar rule as provided in Article 257 of the Labor Code.

Whether the contract bar rule is applicable when a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is hastily concluded in defiance of a Med-Arbiter’s order enjoining the parties from entering into a new CBA until the representation issue is finally resolved.

Whether holding a certification election is proper even after ALU, the certified bargaining agent in an organized establishment, negotiated and ratified a new CBA with PASAR, particularly given the filings and the timing relative to the expiration of the prior CBA.

The proper interpretation and application of Article 257 (which applies to unorganized establishments) versus Article 256 (which governs certification elections in organized establishments) with respect to the conduct of certification elections and the protection of workers’ right to self-organize.