Title
Associated Trade Unions vs. Trajano
Case
G.R. No. 75321
Decision Date
Jun 20, 1988
A union sought certification election; opposition argued lack of 30% signatures and contract-bar rule. Court ruled new Labor Code amendment voided 30% requirement, and petition filed within freedom period allowed election, with CBA temporarily upheld pending results.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 75321)

Facts:

  1. Filing of Petition for Certification Election: On March 25, 1986, the private respondent union, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS), filed a petition for certification election at Baliwag Transit, Inc. among its rank-and-file workers.
  2. Opposition by ATU: The petitioner, Associated Trade Unions (ATU), opposed the petition, but the med-arbiter granted it on May 14, 1986, ordering a certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for collective bargaining.
  3. Appeal and Affirmation: ATU appealed the med-arbiter's decision, but the Director of Labor Relations sustained the order on June 20, 1986, and denied ATU's motion for reconsideration on July 17, 1986.
  4. Temporary Restraining Order: On August 20, 1986, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, maintaining the status quo among the parties.
  5. ATU's Claims: ATU argued that TUPAS's petition was defective because (a) it lacked the signatures of 30% of the workers at the time of filing, and (b) it violated the contract-bar rule due to a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) signed by ATU with Baliwag Transit, Inc. on April 1, 1986.
  6. TUPAS's Defense: TUPAS countered that the 30% consent requirement was substantially complied with and that the CBA was procedurally flawed and signed after the petition was filed.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. 30% Consent Requirement: The amendment of the Labor Code by Executive Order No. 111 rendered the 30% consent requirement inapplicable to organized establishments. The new rule prioritizes the automatic ordering of certification elections to ascertain the workers' will, without requiring prior consent signatures.
  2. Contract-Bar Rule: The contract-bar rule prohibits certification elections during the existence of a CBA, except during the "freedom period." Since TUPAS's petition was filed within this period and before the new CBA was signed, the certification election could proceed. Procedural defects in the CBA further weakened ATU's claim.
  3. Temporary Effect of CBA: The Court emphasized that the CBA signed by ATU would remain in effect temporarily to avoid depriving workers of its benefits. However, its permanence would depend on the outcome of the certification election.
  4. Importance of Certification Elections: The Court reiterated that certification elections are the most democratic means for workers to choose their exclusive bargaining representative, ensuring that their will is respected and implemented.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.