G.R. No. L-14689 - General Maritime Stevedores' Union of the Philippines vs. South Sea Shipping Line

A petition for certiorari was filed by the General Maritime Stevedores’ Union (GMSU) and its co-petitioners challenging the order of dismissal by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dated September 23, 1958.
The subject matter involved a petition for a certification election to choose the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of South Sea Shipping Lines.

Acting on a petition by the United Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (USUP) on October 23, 1953 (Case No. 43‐MC), the CIR issued an order on February 28, 1955 directing the holding of a certification election among the unlicensed members and crew of the Shipping Lines.
The certification election was conducted on April 15 and June 10, 1955, after which the CIR issued an order on June 17, 1955 certifying USUP as the exclusive bargaining representative.

On June 28, 1957, a collective bargaining agreement was entered into between the Shipping Line and the USUP.

Article 10 of the agreement provided that it would take effect on July 21, 1957, run for two years until July 20, 1959, and renew automatically for another two years unless terminated by either party with at least sixty days written notice prior to expiration.

GMSU maintained that the agreement of July 28, 1957 was merely a renewal of an earlier agreement (entered in 1955) and that its prolonged existence deprived them of the opportunity to prove that it represented the majority of the workers.
The Shipping Line, in its answer, confirmed that a collective bargaining agreement had indeed been entered into following the certification election procedure, emphasizing the contractual validity of the USUP’s representation.

On April 30, 1958 (later numbered as Case No. 547-MC), GMSU and its co-petitioners filed a petition for a certification election, alleging:

There were two labor unions representing the unlicensed crew members of the Shipping Line.
GMSU’s membership accounted for at least 10% of all the unlicensed crew, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement for petitioning.
No certification election had been held within the twelve months prior to filing the petition, as required by Section 12(b) and (c) of Republic Act No. 875.

The Shipping Line maintained a stance of neutrality and indicated its willingness to comply with the CIR’s orders but also stressed that the existing CBA with USUP was binding until annulled.
The USUP intervened by filing a motion for dismissal, arguing that the binding CBA (entered on June 28, 1957) for a period up to July 26, 1959 served as a procedural bar (the “contract-bar rule”) against a new certification election.

The CIR, in granting the motion to dismiss GMSU’s petition, invoked the “contract-bar rule” stating that an existing, valid, and reasonable collective bargaining agreement barred the certification election.
The rule emphasizes that if the agreement covers essential employment conditions (wages, closed shops, grievance mechanisms, etc.) and has been negotiated by the union representing the majority at the time, it serves as a procedural bar to certifying an alternative bargaining representative.
The rule was supported by precedents and policies aimed at maintaining stability in industrial relations, as well as by analogous decisions and doctrine from the United States’ National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

On September 15, 1959, while the case was still pending, a manifestation was filed by one party stating that the original agreement had expired; however, the USUP countered with a manifestation dated July 6, 1960 asserting that the agreement was automatically renewed for another two-year term (until July 28, 1961).
The contention by GMSU was that the agreement—viewed as a renewal of an earlier contract—had run for approximately five years, thereby unduly prolonging the period barring a new certification election.
Ultimately, the court recommended that while the dismissal of the petition was valid under the then-current circumstances, a new certification election should be held after the present agreement’s term to allow for any potential change in representation.

Whether the existence of the collective bargaining agreement (and its subsequent renewal) between the Shipping Line and the USUP validly barred the certification election petition filed by GMSU.
Whether the “contract-bar rule” should be applied strictly or whether there is room for judicial or administrative discretion given the statutory requirement for a certification election when at least 10% of eligible workers petition its conduct.

Whether Section 12(b) and (c) of Republic Act No. 875, which mandates a certification election under the circumstances, is absolute or subject to exceptions in light of a valid CBA.
The appropriate balance between promoting stable industrial relations through collective bargaining agreements and protecting employees’ right to change their bargaining representative.

Whether the automatic renewal clause, resulting in the extended life of the contract, justifies a delay or prevention of a certification election.
The effect of such renewal on the ability of a new union to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.