G.R. No. 77539 - Associated Labor Unions vs. Trajano

The petitioner was the recognized collective bargaining representative of all rank and file employees of the respondent company under a CBA effective from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986.
Pursuant to Article XX of the CBA, the agreement was for three years with a provision that within 60 days before its expiration, the parties must renegotiate a new agreement.

On October 22, 1986, a majority of the covered employees petitioned for the renewal of the expiring agreement. Despite the parties’ agreement to negotiate, a bargaining deadlock ensued.
On November 3, 1986, the petitioner filed a notice of strike. This resulted in actual strike action on December 1, 1986 after failed conciliation.
While these disputes were ongoing, the private respondent union, Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO), filed a verified petition for a certification election on November 4, 1986 with the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
On December 4, 1986, despite the deadlock and strike, petitioner and the respondent company negotiated and ratified a new CBA—ratified by a significant majority of the employees—and duly registered the agreement with the Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 231 of the Labor Code.
The petitioner intervened in the certification election petition initiated by ADLO.

The Med-Arbiter, after several failed attempts to secure a consent election between the parties, ordered that a certification election be held (resolution dated December 10, 1986).
Petitioner appealed this order to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit in a resolution dated January 30, 1987.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioner, filed on February 12, 1987, was also dismissed in an order dated February 24, 1987.
The certification election was scheduled for March 17, 1987, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari on March 9, 1987, along with an urgent ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order.
On March 16, 1987, the Second Division of the Court granted the temporary restraining order and compelled the respondents to submit their comment on the petition.
Over the ensuing months, additional submissions, memoranda, telegrams, and international protest letters were filed and noted by the Court, reflecting both domestic and international labor concerns.

The petition for a certification election had to comply with Article 258 of the Labor Code, mandating that a petition must be supported by at least 30% of all employees in the bargaining unit.
Despite the controversy surrounding the timing—given that a new CBA was negotiated on December 4, 1986—the requirement was satisfied, as evidenced by the substantial employee support (242 out of approximately 600 or 742 workers).
The legal framework also required that any petition for a certification election during the existence of a CBA must be filed within 60 days prior to its expiration (the so-called freedom period).

Whether the ordering of a certification election by the Bureau of Labor Relations was a grave abuse of discretion and amounted to a lack of jurisdiction, considering the existence of a bargaining deadlock and a valid notice of strike prior to the petition.
Whether the very filing of the petition for a certification election was premature due to the negotiation of a new CBA during the freedom period, thereby triggering the contract bar rule.
Whether the ratification of the new CBA, with its attendant benefits enjoyed by the employees, should preclude the holding of a certification election, thus serving as a bar to further representation challenges.