Case Digest (G.R. No. 77539)
Facts:
Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP v. Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano, G.R. No. 77539, April 12, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP was the certified bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc. under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986. During the sixty-day “freedom period” before that CBA’s expiration a majority of the employees sought renegotiation; negotiations reached a deadlock, petitioner filed a notice of strike on November 3, 1986 and went on strike on December 1, 1986.On November 4, 1986, rival union Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO) filed a verified petition for a certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (Panlalawigang Tanggapan ng Paggawa, Bataan EPZ), docketed as Case No. BZED-CE-11-011-86. While ADLO’s petition was pending, petitioner and the company executed a new CBA on December 4, 1986 which was ratified by a majority of employees and registered with the Regional Director pursuant to Article 231 of the Labor Code.
The Med-Arbiter ruled on December 10, 1986 that a certification election should be held and set the election for March 17, 1987. Petitioner appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). In a resolution dated January 30, 1987 the Director dismissed petitioner’s appeal, holding that ADLO’s petition was seasonably filed within the sixty-day freedom period and supported by the requisite thirty percent(30%) of employees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 24, 1987.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari with this Court on March 9, 1987 and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court’s Second Division issued a TRO on March 16, 1987 enjoining the scheduled election. The OSG filed comments; the petition was given due course on August 10, 1987 and memoranda were later filed. The Court resolved the single controlling q...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering a certification election when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation/arbitration and a valid notice of strike had been filed by the incumbent union before the rival union’s petition?
- Did the execution and registration of a new collective bargaining agreement during the pendency of the representation case render the rival union’s petition for certification election premature or otherwise barred?
- Does the ratified CBA and employees’ enjoyment of its bene...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)