Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43760)
Petitioner’s Claim and Relief Sought
PAFLU challenged the Director’s certification of NAFLU as sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Petitioner contended that seventeen spoiled ballots should be counted in determining the majority and that, because ten of those spoiled ballots were allegedly intended for PAFLU, the Director’s certification constituted grave abuse of discretion and should be annulled.
Key Dates
Certification election: February 27, 1976. Decision date: August 21, 1976. Effective date of the governing Labor Code: November 1, 1974. Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code took effect February 3, 1975.
Applicable Law and Regulatory Framework
Primary statutory framework: the Labor Code of the Philippines (governing the election because it took effect November 1, 1974) and the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code promulgated by the Department of Labor. Relevant implementing provision: Rule 6, Section 8, Subsection (f) of the Rules and Regulations — “The union which obtained majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate unit. However, in order to have a valid election, at least fifty-one percent of all eligible voters in the appropriate bargaining unit shall have cast their votes.” Also relevant statutory provision: Article 256 of the Labor Code. The earlier Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875, 1953) and its rules for certification elections (under which the Allied Workers Association decision was decided) had been superseded by the Labor Code and its implementing rules. Applicable constitutional backdrop at the time of decision: the 1973 Philippine Constitution.
Material Facts Established from the Record
In the certification election NAFLU received 429 votes and PAFLU received 414 votes. Four employees voted for no union; another union (PLAC) received zero votes. Seventeen ballots were spoilt (defaced, torn, or marked). Petitioner asserted that of those seventeen spoiled ballots, ten were intended for PAFLU.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion by certifying NAFLU as exclusive bargaining agent based on the majority of valid votes cast, without counting spoiled ballots in determining the majority, where petitioner argued that the previous doctrine (Allied Workers Association) required counting spoiled ballots.
Court’s Holding / Disposition
The petition for certiorari was dismissed. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Director. Costs were assessed against petitioner PAFLU.
Court’s Reasoning — Majority-of-Valid-Votes Rule Controls Under the Implementing Rules
The Court emphasized that, under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, certification is governed by the rule that the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified. That implementing rule was binding for certification elections occurring after the Labor Code and its Rules became operative. On the face of the election returns NAFLU obtained a majority of the valid votes cast (429 to 414), and therefore, under the governing rule, it was properly certified.
Court’s Treatment of the Allied Workers Doctrine on Spoiled Ballots
The Allied Workers Association decision, which held that spoiled ballots should be counted in determining majority, was based on the rules promulgated under the former Industrial Peace Act. The Court explained that those rules and the jurisprudential pronouncements grounded in them are not controlling where a new statutory and regulatory scheme (the Labor Code and its Rules) has been adopted. Because the Labor Code and its implementing Rules expressly required certification based on majority of valid votes cast, the prior doctrine did not apply to this election and could not be used to invalidate the Director’s action.
Burden on Petitioner to Show Repugnancy or Invalidity of the Implementing Rules
The Court stressed that if a party seeks to invalidate or disregard an implementing rule, it must show that the rule is repugnant to or in conflict with the governing statute. PAFLU did not attempt to demonstrate any inconsistency between Rule 6, Section 8(f) and Article 256 of the Labor Code; it merely invoked the earlier Allied Workers decision. The Court therefore concluded petitioner failed to show any ground to set aside the rule or the Director’s adherence to it.
Administrative Deference and Contemporaneous Construction
The Court accorded controlling weight to the contemporaneous construction of the Labor Code embodied in the Rules promulgated by the Department of Labor and applied by the Director. The opinion invoked longstanding precedent that the construction given a statute by the executive officers charged with its enforcement is entitled to great respect and ordinarily should control unless clearly erroneous. The Rules had been promulgated well after the Labor Code’s publication and the Court found no clear error or conflict warranting judicial nullification.
Policy Considerations
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-43760)
Case Caption and Citation
- Reported at 164 Phil. 389, Second Division, G.R. No. L-43760, decided August 21, 1976.
- Caption identifies petitioner as Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) and respondents as Bureau of Labor Relations, Hon. Carmelo C. Noriel (Director of Labor Relations), National Federation of Free Labor Unions (NAFLU), and Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
- Decision authored by Fernando, Acting Chief Justice; Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
Procedural Posture
- The petition is a certiorari proceeding assailing the certification by the Director of Labor Relations (Carmelo C. Noriel) that NAFLU is the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., notwithstanding petitioner's objection.
- The certification followed a certification election held on February 27, 1976.
- The petition seeks nullification of respondent Director’s certification decision on grounds raised by petitioner concerning vote counting and spoiled ballots.
Facts
- In the February 27, 1976 certification election, NAFLU obtained 429 votes while PAFLU obtained 414 votes.
- Four votes were cast by employees expressing that they did not want any union.
- There were seventeen (17) spoiled ballots in the election.
- Petitioner alleged that out of the 17 spoiled ballots, ten (10) were intended for petitioner PAFLU.
- Another labor union, PLAC, received zero votes.
- The Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code define a valid and certifiable result (Rule 6, Section 8, Subsection (f)), quoted in the decision.
Governing Rule and Statutory Framework
- Rule 6, Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code, Section 8, Subsection (f), provides: "The union which obtained majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate unit. However, in order to have a valid election, at least fifty-one percent of all eligible voters in the appropriate bargaining unit shall have cast their votes."
- The present Labor Code (with rules effective February 3, 1975) superseded the previously applicable Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875, 1953), which governed earlier rules for certification elections.
- The Labor Code took effect on November 1, 1974, and was made known to the public as of May 1, 1974; the implementing Rules and Regulations were promulgated by Secretary Bias Ople and took effect on February 3, 1975.
Petitioner's Contentions
- Petitioner contends that spoiled ballots should be counted in determining the majority, invoking the doctrine in Allied Workers Association of the Philippines v. Court of Industrial Relations (L-22580 and L-22950, June 6, 1967, 20 SCRA 364).
- Relying on Allied Workers, petitioner argues that spoiled ballots (those defaced, torn, or marked) are still "votes cast by those who are qualified to do so" and therefore should be included in the computation of the majority.
- Petitioner asserts that because 17 ballots were spoiled and 10 of these were intended for PAFLU, the Director’s certification of NAFLU constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Respondent Director’s Position and Comment
- The Director of Labor Relations applied the implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, counting only "valid votes" in certifying the exclusive bargaining agent, consistent with Rule 6, Section 8(f).
- Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno (assisted by Solicitor Jesus V. Diaz) submitted a comment explaining and defending the Director’s action.
- The Director implicitly gave controlling weight to the implementing rule and maintained no inconsistency between that rule and the Labor Code was shown by petitioner.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying NAFLU despite petitioner's contention about counting spoiled ballots.
- Whether the doctrine of Allied Workers Association—counting spoiled ballots in determining majority—remains applicable under the present Labor Code and its implementing Rules and Regulations.
- Whether the implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, which limit certification to the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast, are inconsistent with the Labor Code itself.
Court’s Holding
- The petition for certiorari is dismissed.
- The Court held there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Director of Labor Relations in certifying NAFLU.
- Costs were imposed against petitioner PAFLU.
Court’s Reasoning — Majority of Valid Votes Rule
- The Court emphasized that under the implementing rule (Rule 6, Section 8(f)), "a majority of the valid votes cast suffices for certification of the victorious labor union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent."
- On its face, the vote tally (NAFLU 429 vs. PAFLU 414) met the implementing rule’s requirement; therefore, NAFLU ought to have been certified.
- The Court noted the statutory rule req