G.R. No. L-24898 - Go Oh vs. Vivo

Certification Election Conducted at Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation

On January 15, 1991, a certification election was held among the employees of Permex Producer.
The election results were as follows:

A group of employees formed the Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) and registered it with the Department of Labor and Employment on March 11, 1991.
The union later affiliated with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU), thus becoming known as SMP-PIILU.
On August 16, 1991, SMP-PIILU formally requested recognition by Permex Producer as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.

On October 19, 1991, Permex Producer voluntarily recognized SMP-PIILU as the representative.
Subsequently, on December 1, 1991, the company entered into a collective bargaining agreement with SMP-PIILU.
The CBA was ratified between December 9 and 10, 1991 by the majority of the rank and file employees, and later certified by the DOLE on December 13, 1991.

On February 25, 1992, respondent NFL filed a petition for a certification election.
The petition was initially dismissed by Med-Arbiter Edgar B. Gongalos in an order dated August 20, 1992.
NFL appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
On October 8, 1992, the Secretary, through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma, set aside the Med-Arbiter's order and directed that a certification election be conducted, offering employees three options:

Petitioner (SMP-PIILU) filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an order dated November 12, 1992.

The petitioner contended that the union had been acknowledged by a majority of employees through its voluntary request and subsequent ratification of the CBA.
It argued that an employer may elect to either voluntarily recognize a union by entering into a CBA or, alternatively, petition for a certification election if they do not wish to recognize the union.
Citing the case of Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, the petitioner maintained that voluntary recognition should suffice.

The petitioner asserted that under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code (Arts. 253, 253-A, 256) and the Implementing Rules and Regulations (Book V, Rule V, A3), a petition for a certification election should only be entertained within 60 days before the expiration of an existing CBA.
It argued that the union entered into the CBA prematurely, as the exclusive bargaining agent status had not been established through a proper certification election.

Whether the employer’s voluntary recognition of SMP-PIILU as the bargaining representative was proper given that employees had earlier indicated a preference for “no union” in a certification election.
Whether a union’s claim to be the collective bargaining agent can be substantiated solely on the basis of voluntary recognition and subsequent ratification of a CBA.

Whether the petition for certification election should be barred by the contract-bar rule as provided under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Whether the early conclusion of the CBA, before the proper determination of the exclusive bargaining agent through a certification election, falls within the exceptions to the contract-bar rule.

The reliability and voluntariness of the employee support presented by SMP-PIILU, given allegations of coercion, intimidation, and misleading information leading to alleged flip-flopping in employees’ positions.