G.R. No. 78206 - Zamora vs. Court of Appeals

Three separate petitions for certiorari were filed under Rule 65, all dealing with the same issue: whether employees of electric cooperatives may form or join a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes.
The cases are identified by G.R. Nos. 62386, 70880, and 74560, involving, respectively, Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Labor Union, Bulacan II Electric Cooperative Inc., and Albay Electric Cooperative I as petitioners.

On June 1, 1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union filed a petition for certification election with the Regional Office No. IV-A of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in San Pablo City.

The petition alleged that the union was legitimate, that Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC) employed approximately 150 employees, and that the union sought to represent the regular rank-and-file employees for collective bargaining.
It was also contended that no competing union existed, there was no existing certified collective bargaining agreement, and no certification election had been held in the previous twelve months.

On August 20, 1981, Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap issued a resolution directing the holding of a certification election.
BATELEC, on August 31, 1981, filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal because union members are de facto owners of the cooperative.
On November 27, 1981, Romeo A. Young, Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, issued a resolution on appeal.

The resolution revoked the Med-Arbiter’s order and held that, by virtue of their membership, the employees were co-owners and thus ineligible to form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
It emphasized that a cooperative’s fundamental purpose is mutual aid and not profit, and hence its members share in benefits (such as free electrical services) which mark them as part-owners.

On September 1, 1982, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) filed a petition for a certification election with Regional Office III of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in San Fernando, Pampanga.

The petition asserted that the FFW was a legitimate labor organization and that BECO II, as an electric cooperative with about 143 employees, should have its regular rank-and-file employees represented by the FFW.
It maintained that there was no other union and no prior collective bargaining agreement.

BECO II responded by challenging the petition based on the 30% subscription (jurisdictional) requirement and argued that a significant portion of its workforce consisted of members or managerial employees.
After submission of position papers by both sides, Eliseo A. Penaflor, Chief Med-Arbiter of Regional Office III, issued an order on October 14, 1982, directing the holding of a certification election.
An appeal was raised to the Bureau of Labor Relations where Director Cresenciano Trajano, on January 16, 1985, dismissed BECO II’s appeal.

Trajano reasoned that even after discounting the cooperative members, there were sufficient non-member workers (meeting and exceeding the required 30% of valid signatures) to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
The decision reiterated that while Section 35 of PD 269 restricts union formation by members/co-owners, employees who are not members retain their right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

On October 1, 1985, the FFW ALECO I Chapter filed a petition for certification election on behalf of Albay Electric Cooperative I (ALECO I).

The petition stated that ALECO I had approximately 160 employees and that most of them were members of the FFW.
It alleged that no prior certification election had been held in the last twelve months and that the union was duly constituted.

The petition process involved submission of signatures; on November 29, 1985, 63 signatures were submitted in support.
Subsequently, opposing position papers emerged:

Counsel for ALECO I employees and intervening parties argued that many of the signatories were members-consumers of the cooperative and therefore should be considered co-owners.
FFW contended that the rank-and-file employees, even if members of the cooperative, were acting as employees and thus eligible under the law.

A Med-Arbiter, on February 26, 1986, found compliance with the 30% subscription requirement and ordered a certification election.
On May 15, 1986, Director Cresenciano Trajano upheld the Med-Arbiter’s order, stating that employees’ right to self-organization was unaffected by their status as cooperative members so long as they did not exercise control over the cooperative.
However, upon a more detailed review of the records, it was determined that although ALECO I had 141 rank-and-file employees, only 12 of those who signed were qualified non-member employees.

This figure fell short of the required 30% (which amounted to at least 27 signatures) of the qualified bargaining unit.

Consequently, the petition in G.R. No. 74560 was granted, and the decision of Director Trajano was reversed and set aside.

Whether employees of an electric cooperative who are also members (and thus de facto co-owners) can form or join labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Interpretation of statutory provisions under Article 243 (formerly Article 244) of the Labor Code regarding the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

Whether the petition for certification election met the required threshold (30% of the rank-and-file employees, under the law then in force) when some petitioners were also cooperative members/co-owners.
The impact of including signatures of employees who are co-owners on the validity of the certification election petition.

Reconciling prior decisions, particularly the ruling in G.R. No. 62386 and the earlier opinion of the Solicitor General, with the current petition arguments.
Whether modifying the approach to allow union membership for cooperative employee-members would conflict with existing legal interpretations and regulatory policies (especially regarding the employer-employee relationship).