G.R. No. L-41106 - Litex Employees Association vs. Eduvala

The case is a certiorari and prohibition proceeding filed by the Litex Employees Association challenging an order issued by respondent George A. Eduvala, then Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The order required that a referendum election be conducted among the union members to ascertain their wishes regarding affiliation with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).

The petitioner contends that there is no statutory basis authorizing the holding of such a referendum election.
It is argued that the referendum is unnecessary, particularly given that a certified collective bargaining agreement already existed between the union and its employer.
The petitioner further maintained that only a portion of the union membership, roughly 700 out of over 2,200 employees, had manifested a desire to affiliate with the FFW, and a significant number of those had subsequently withdrawn their support.

Respondents defended the action of the public official by citing Article 226 of the New Labor Code, which confers original and exclusive authority on the Bureau of Labor Relations in handling inter-union and intra-union disputes.
It was maintained that the broad language of Article 226 supports the official's authority to call for a referendum election, as it promotes industrial peace and furthers the objectives of social justice and labor protection.
The respondent’s position is bolstered by past interpretations and remarks by legal authorities, demonstrating the intention to give conjuncture to administrative discretion in labor matters.

The controversy originated from a petition by the FFW to have a certification election among union members, initiated due to a split between the union’s president (Johnny de Leon) and the majority of the membership regarding affiliation with the FFW.
The Compulsory Arbitrator, after reviewing the pleadings, recommended a referendum election as the best means to ascertain the truth about the members’ wishes.
The petition for certiorari was ultimately brought to the Court, raising jurisdictional and authority issues regarding the conduct of the referendum by the public official.

The petition raised questions about the possible abuse or overreach of the discretionary power vested in the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Several justices, including Barredo, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Antonio, and Aquino, provided concurring opinions, with some emphasizing that even if a certification election was held later, the exercise of authority in calling for the referendum was valid.
The decision was made immediately executable, affirming the actions of the respondent as consistent with statutory mandates.

Whether Article 226 of the New Labor Code authorizes the holding of a referendum election among union members to determine their affiliation with the Federation of Free Workers.

Does the statutory language of Article 226 mandate or preclude the requirement for a referendum election on matters of union affiliation?
Is the public official’s conduct, in ordering the referendum, within the granted discretionary authority under the Labor Code?
Whether the petitioner's challenge—arguing the lack of statutory authority and the presence of a certified collective bargaining agreement—renders the referendum election defective.

Whether the actions taken by the Bureau of Labor Relations constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the order to hold the referendum election properly reflects the intention of the statute to minimize judicial intervention in labor disputes.