G.R. No. 79347 - Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Calleja

A petition for a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of Hundred Island Chemical Corporation was filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) by respondent Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation (referred to as Samahan).
The petition was docketed as BLR Case No. A-6-201-87, establishing the framework for a union representation exercise within the company.

On 27 April 1987, petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (September Convention) or PAFLU filed a motion to intervene in the certification election, accompanied by the required written consent of twenty percent (20%) of the rank-and-file employees.
Subsequently, on 1 June 1987, Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI) filed its own motion to intervene; however, this motion was not supported by the necessary written consent from the employees, as mandated by the applicable rules.
Acting on PAFLU’s motion, Med-Arbiter Renato D. Parungo issued an order dated 8 June 1987 that denied KAMAPI’s motion for intervention and confirmed PAFLU’s inclusion in the certification election.

Dissatisfied with the Med-Arbiter’s ruling, KAMAPI appealed the order on 17 June 1987 to the Director of the BLR.
On 27 July 1987, the BLR Director issued an order permitting KAMAPI’s participation by incorporating it as one of the contending unions in the certification election, alongside PAFLU and Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation.

On 17 August 1987, KAMAPI filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Director’s order that allowed its participation despite the absence of the mandatory written consent.
In response, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on 24 August 1987, halting the certification election proceedings.
Respondent Samahan contested the TRO, arguing that its delay undermined the constitutional right of workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining.

Whether the statutory requirement of obtaining written consent from at least twenty (20%) of the employees applies exclusively to the petition for certification election rather than to a motion for intervention.
Whether KAMAPI’s failure to provide the mandated written consent in its motion for intervention invalidates its participation in the election process.

Whether the BLR Director abused her discretion in issuing the contested order that allowed KAMAPI to join the certification election despite non-compliance with the written consent requirement.
Whether the procedural steps taken (and the subsequent decisions) are in conformity with Section 6, Rule V and Section 7 of Executive Order No. 111 as well as the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.