G.R. No. 74306 - Razon vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

The dispute arose within the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) where the incumbent collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was set to expire on April 14, 1990.
Amidst growing unrest among workers and emerging interest from alternative unions, several petitions and motions were filed to contest the incumbent union’s majority status.

On March 14, 1990, the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for a certification election challenging the APCWU’s standing.
The petition by SAMADA initially lacked the required 25% consent signatures, which were subsequently submitted on March 26, 1990, eleven days after the petition’s filing.
Later, on April 2, 1990, the Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) intervened by filing its own petition for intervention.
On April 6, 1990, the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU) also filed a petition for certification election, with its consent signatures being submitted on May 11, 1990 (thirty-five days after filing).

APCWU contested the petitions of SAMADA and PEALU by arguing non-compliance with Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.

This rule required the simultaneous submission of consent signatures (at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit) with the petition for certification election.

In an order dated June 5, 1990, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the consolidated petitions on the stated technical ground.

PWUP appealed the Med-Arbiter’s order to the Secretary of Labor on June 28, 1990, contending that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not mandate the simultaneous submission of consent signatures.
On August 21, 1990, the DOLE Undersecretary, Bienvenido Laguesma, affirmed the dismissal of PWUP’s appeal.
Concurrently, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations and concluded a new CBA on September 28, 1990, which was ratified on October 7, 1990, by a majority of the workers (910 out of 1,223 members).
Despite the ratification and registration of the new CBA, PWUP continued to challenge the dismissal and the application of Article 256, arguing that it indirectly certified APCWU as the sole bargaining agent.

PWUP argued that Article 256 should be liberally construed pursuant to the pro-labor stance of Article 4 of the Labor Code.
The union maintained that the mere filing of a petition within the freedom period should suffice for ordering a certification election, even if the required consent signatures were submitted later, particularly in a petition for intervention.
PWUP insisted that dismissing petitions solely because of a technical lapse undermined the workers’ constitutional right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

APCWU and the private respondent ICTSI contended that the dismissal of the petitions was proper under the administrative rules that strictly required simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures.
ICTSI further argued that the subsequent ratification of the new CBA was an affirmation of the membership in the existing incumbent union, thus rendering the certification election moot.
The position was supported by reference to prior Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning the collective representation and the contract-bar rule.

The case extensively referred to seminal decisions such as Tupas v. Inciong, Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 vs. Trajano, and others to underscore the necessity of a certification election as the means for determining the legitimate bargaining representative.
The Court also discussed the principles enunciated in Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations, emphasizing that technical rules should not obstruct the proper expression of the workers' will.

Whether the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of consent signatures (25% of the employees) with the petition for certification election should be strictly applied.
Whether the failure to submit the required signatures at the time of filing should warrant the outright dismissal of a petition, particularly in the context of a petition for intervention.

Whether PWUP, despite not initially meeting the technical filing requirement for consent signatures, had the standing to intervene and challenge the representation issue.
Whether the intervention should be considered valid given that the principal petitioners (SAMADA and PEALU) later submitted the required signatures.

Whether the ratification and registration of the new CBA automatically bar the ordering of a certification election.
Whether the new CBA should be considered the final word on representation when the process for determining the legitimate bargaining representative remains unsettled.

Whether the dismissal of the petitions for certification election by the Med-Arbiter, and the subsequent affirmation by the DOLE Undersecretary, constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the strict application of technical rules in this context impinges on the workers’ right to determine their true bargaining representative.