Title
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment
Case
G.R. No. 91915
Decision Date
Sep 11, 1992
A labor dispute arose as DWUEU-ALU sought CBA negotiations with Divine Word University, which resisted in bad faith. The Secretary of Labor intervened, imposed CBA terms, and dismissed the University’s certification election petition, upheld by the Supreme Court.
collective bargaining agreement
good faith bargaining
union proposals
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91915)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

  • Certification of DWUEU as sole and exclusive bargaining agent: September 6, 1984.
  • Union’s original CBA proposals submitted: March 7, 1985.
  • Alleged unilateral withdrawal of those proposals by a resigned union vice-president: May 26, 1985.
  • Union affiliating with ALU: February 9, 1988.
  • Union request for conference to continue bargaining: March 11, 1988; follow-up March 23, 1988.
  • Notice of strike filed by union: April 25, 1988.
  • Agreement reached at conciliation: May 10, 1988 (but University filed petition for certification election about one hour earlier).
  • Union re-submitted CBA proposals: May 19, 1988 (ignored by University).
  • Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered return-to-work: August 25, 1988.
  • Secretary’s consolidation order resolving representation and other issues: May 23, 1989.
  • Secretary reiterated assumption and ordered parties to return to work: December 29, 1989.
  • Acting Secretary affirmed May 23, 1989 order and denied reconsideration: January 17, 1990.
  • Petition for certiorari filed by the University: February 9, 1990. (Supreme Court decision rendered in 1992.)

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Law

Primary constitutional context: the employees’ constitutionally protected right of self-organization, including forming, joining or assisting labor organizations for collective bargaining purposes (1987 Philippine Constitution). Statutory and regulatory framework applied: Labor Code provisions and implementing rules — notably Art. 263(g) (Secretary’s power to assume jurisdiction), Art. 258 (when employer may file petition for certification election), Art. 250 (procedure in collective bargaining), Art. 252 (duty to bargain in good faith), Art. 231 (registration of collective bargaining agreements), and Rule V, Sec. 3 of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code (when a certification election may or may not be held).

Core Factual Findings Relevant to Dispute

  • The union was duly certified in 1984 and submitted CBA proposals in 1985; an asserted withdrawal by a resigned vice-president was unsigned by a majority of the union board and thus ineffective.
  • Between 1985 and early 1988 the union did not actively pursue bargaining; following affiliation with ALU it renewed efforts in March 1988 and filed a notice of strike in April 1988 citing bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices.
  • A May 10, 1988 conciliation produced an agreement to renew bargaining, but the University had filed for a certification election roughly one hour before that conciliation agreement was concluded. The union submitted renewed proposals on May 19, 1988; the University did not respond.
  • Repeated conciliation efforts failed; the Secretary assumed jurisdiction and consolidated related certification and unfair labor practice proceedings into one labor dispute.

Actions and Orders by the Secretary of Labor

  • August 25, 1988: Secretary Drilon exercised Art. 263(g) power to assume jurisdiction over the dispute, ordered striking workers to return to work, and designated the NCMB to hear the case.
  • September 20, 1988: Secretary enjoined the Med-Arbiter from proceeding with the certification election pending disposition of the labor dispute, relying on prior Supreme Court guidance (Bulletin Today resolution) that representation questions can be subsumed in an assumed dispute where representation is intertwined with bargaining deadlock.
  • May 23, 1989: Secretary consolidated and subsumed the University’s petition for certification election and the parties’ unfair labor practice complaints into the assumed labor dispute; found bargaining deadlock and barred the certification election under Rule V, Sec. 3 because the deadlock had been submitted to conciliation and notice of strike had been filed; dismissed the parties’ unfair labor practice and NLRC cases for lack of merit; directed the University and union to enter into a collective bargaining agreement adopting the union’s May 19, 1988 proposals and warned that delay would amount to unfair labor practice.
  • December 29, 1989: Secretary reiterated assumption of jurisdiction, deemed issues from the second notice of strike subsumed, and ordered return to work and cessation of acts aggravating labor relations.
  • January 17, 1990: Acting Secretary de la Serna denied the University’s motion for reconsideration, affirmed the May 23, 1989 order, deemed the union’s March 7, 1985 withdrawal ineffective, found the University’s conduct in bad faith (including the surreptitious filing of the certification petition), declared the University in default, and authorized imposition of the union’s May 19, 1988 CBA proposals motu proprio given the University’s refusal to bargain.

University’s Principal Legal Arguments in the Petition

The University sought certiorari and prohibition, asserting: (A) grave and patent abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the Secretary in the January 17, 1990 order; (B) that in the absence of a certified CBA and with no certification election for more than five years, a certification election was mandatory; (C) that the Secretary disregarded evidence, law and jurisprudence in the May 23, 1989 and January 17, 1990 orders; and (D) denial of due process. The University also argued that the Secretary should have awaited the Regional Director’s recommendations on subsumed matters before issuing the January 17, 1990 disposition.

Court’s Treatment of the Intervention and Subsummation Arguments

The Court found that the DWU-IFEU’s motion for intervention was, in effect, denied by the dismissal of the University’s petition for certification election in the May 23, 1989 order; the Secretary was not required to separately resolve intervention where the underlying claim to a certification election had been disposed of as unnecessary because the representation question had been subsumed in the assumed labor dispute. The Court rejected the University’s contention that the Secretary should have deferred the January 17, 1990 resolution pending the Regional Director’s recommendation, explaining that while a single comprehensive decision is ideal, exigencies and the need to resolve manageable aspects of the dispute (particularly those affecting students and parents) justified earlier disposition of certain matters. Such action did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Court’s Analysis of the Certification Election Issue and Bargaining Deadlock

The Court set out the statutory framework: Art. 258 and Rule V, Sec. 3 make certification elections appropriate generally but bar them where (a) within one year of a final certification election result or (b) where a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or has become the subject of a valid notice of strike. The Secretary found a bargaining deadlock and reliance on Rule V, Sec. 3 to bar the certification election. The Court examined the facts and concluded that, although the union had periods of passivity, the University’s conduct showed an absence of a reasonable effort at good-faith bargaining and amounted to bad faith (e.g., filing the certification petition surreptitiously one hour before the conciliation agreement, failing to respond to renewed proposals, and generally refusing to bargain). Given the University’s behavior, the Court held that annulling the Secretary’s orders and allowing a certification election would unjustifiably reward bad faith bargaining. Thus, even recognizing the employer’s technical right to file a certification petition in the absence of a subsisting CBA, the equitable and statutory context supported the Secretary’s action to subsume representation issues within the assumed dispute and to bar the election.

Court’s Findings on Duty to Bargain, Bad Faith, and Remedies

The Court emphasized the mutual obligations in collective bargaining under Art. 250 and Art. 252 — serving written notice and responding within ten calendar days, convening conferences, and participating in conciliation. It found the University repeatedly failed to meet these obligations, engaged in conduct inconsistent with justice and good faith (Civil Code, Art. 19), and therefore forfeited certain procedural advantages. The Court considered precedent (Kiok Loy v. NLRC) holding that where a certified bargaining agent submits proposals and the employer fails to make counterproposals, such refusal may indicate bad fa

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms