Facts:

The case involves the petitioner, Associated Trade Unions-ATU (ATUKILUSAN), and the respondents comprising Hon. Carmelo C. Noriel in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, the Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR), R.B. Enterprises, and R.B. Steel Industries, Inc. The events leading to the case began around May 28, 1977, when Director Noriel ordered a certification election in response to a petition filed by FUR. However, concurrent to this petition, the ATU sought certification of a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, claiming that their contract was duly certified. The petitioner argued that the Director’s actions violated due process since they disregarded what they claimed were proven facts related to the certified collective bargaining agreement. The case was initially heard in lower courts where the director's decision was contested, ultimately leading to a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court due to perceived grave abuse of dis

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Associated Trade Unions–ATU (ATUKILUSAN).
• Respondents:
• Hon. Carmelo C. Noriel, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor.
• Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR).
• R.B. Enterprises.
• R.B. Steel Industries, Inc.

Background of the Controversy

• The petition challenges the action of respondent Director Noriel who allegedly violated due process by disregarding facts heretofore established regarding the existence of a certified collective bargaining agreement.
• Petitioner claimed that there had been an unaccountable reversal in the decision concerning the holding of a certification election, asserting that such reversal was arbitrary and constituted grave abuse of discretion.

Filing and Evidentiary Submissions

• The petition was bolstered by four annexes:
• A certification of the collective bargaining contract between the employer and the petitioner union.
• Documents showing the dismissal of the petition for a certification election filed by the respondent union (FUR).
• The denial by respondent Director Noriel of a Motion for Reconsideration.
• Additional supportive annexes reinforcing the contention of an existing certified collective bargaining agreement.
• Petitioner argued that due process was violated because the Bureau allegedly certified the collective bargaining agreement without due consideration of uncontested facts.

Sequence of Administrative and Judicial Actions

• On May 28, 1977, respondent Director Noriel had ordered that a certification election be held.
• A restraining order was subsequently issued by the Court to maintain the status quo, requiring respondents to comment on the matter.
• Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, representing respondent Director Noriel, clarified that:
• A pending petition for certification election had been filed one month prior to the petitioner’s application for certification of the collective bargaining contract.
• At the time of the petition, the pending petition had not yet been resolved, and its dismissal had been provisional.
• Petitioner failed to disclose to the Bureau the existence of a pending petition for certification election, which, had it been disclosed, would have prevented the certification of the collective bargaining agreement.

Legal and Statutory Context

• The New Labor Code explicitly mandates that no certification election issue shall be entertained if a certified collective bargaining agreement exists, except within sixty (60) days prior to its expiration.
• The petition emphasized that the actions of the petitioner union, aimed at continuing its status as the collective bargaining representative, were in conflict with the clear statutory policy favoring the democratic process via certification election.

Related Precedents and Judicial Commentary

• The Court referenced several precedents that support the holding of a certification election as the proper means to determine exclusive bargaining representation.
• Notable cases cited include:
• Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations.
• General Textiles Allied Workers Association v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations.
• Vassar Industries Employees Union v. Estrella.
• The jurisprudence noted that even a duly certified collective bargaining agreement does not bar a certification election when contested under specific circumstances.

Issue:

• Whether respondent Director Noriel violated due process by disregarding the presented and uncontested evidence regarding a certified collective bargaining contract.
• Whether the existence and certification of a collective bargaining agreement, procured without full disclosure of a pending petition for certification election, legally halts or obstructs the holding of such an election.
• Whether the concealment by petitioner of the pending petition for certification election undermined their position and justified the administrative action taken by the Bureau.
• Whether the statutory mandate under the New Labor Code requiring a certification election under such circumstances was properly applied by respondent Director Noriel.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)