Case Digest (G.R. No. 85085)
Facts:
Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. Hon. Pura Ferrer‑Calleja, G.R. No. 85085, November 06, 1989, the Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) was the incumbent certified bargaining agent of the rank‑and‑file employees of Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR), whose collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired on April 1, 1987. Some days before expiration, on March 23, 1987, respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Regional Office in Tacloban (Med‑Arb‑RO VII, Case No. 3‑28‑87) a petition for certification election alleging that no certification election had been held within the prior twelve months.
ALU intervened and moved to dismiss NAFLU’s petition for lack of supporting signatures. Med‑Arbiter Bienvenido C. Elorcha initially dismissed NAFLU’s petition in an April 21, 1987 order, but that dismissal was set aside on May 8, 1987 and the case was rescheduled for hearing; the May 8 order also enjoined PASAR from entering into any CBA until the representation issue was finally resolved. On June 1, 1987 the Med‑Arbiter again dismissed NAFLU’s petition for failing to show the requisite 20% support, while ALU submitted signatures showing overwhelming support.
NAFLU appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. While that appeal was pending, ALU and PASAR negotiated and executed a new CBA: copies were posted July 24, 1987 and the CBA was ratified July 28, 1987. ALU later moved to dismiss NAFLU’s appeal on the ground of the newly ratified CBA and asserted majority support. In a resolution dated September 30, 1987 the Director of the BLR gave due course to NAFLU’s appeal, ordered a certification election (with ALU, NAFLU and no union as choices), and denied ALU’s motion to dismiss; reconsideration was denied April 22, 1988.
ALU filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court contesting the BLR’s order to hold a certification election and arguing, inter alia, that Article 257 of the Labor Code (as amended by Executive Order No. 111) — the 20% signature rule — should apply, and that the newly ratified CBA constituted a contract bar to an election. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 10, 1988 (late...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certification election properly ordered where NAFLU filed within the sixty‑day freedom period before expiration of the incumbent CBA — i.e., did Article 256 require the BLR to order an election?
- Is Article 257’s 20% signature requirement applicable to this case, or does Article 257 apply only to unorganized establishments?
- Can the newly concluded and ratified CBA—executed after filing but before certification and in defiance of the Med‑Arbiter’s injunction—operate as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)