Case Summary (G.R. No. 175864)
Basic Facts and Procedural History
The key facts are not disputed. The Samahan filed a petition for a certification election which became BLR Case No. A-6-201-87. On April 27, 1987, the petitioner, PAFLU, submitted a motion to intervene supported by the consent of 20% of the rank-and-file workers. Subsequently, KAMAPI attempted to intervene on June 1, 1987, but did not provide the requisite written consent. PAFLU sought to exclude KAMAPI's intervention due to this lack of consent. The Med-Arbiter denied KAMAPI's motion and allowed PAFLU to participate. KAMAPI appealed this denial, prompting the issuance of a directive from the respondent Director, which led to the filing of a certiorari petition by PAFLU on August 17, 1987.
Main Legal Issue
The central issue of the case pertains to whether KAMAPI could be permitted to participate in the certification election through a motion for intervention without showing prior support by the required written consent from at least 20% of the employees within the bargaining unit. The Solicitor General framed the issue concerning the interpretation of applicable rules and the necessity for consent in the context of intervention in certification elections.
Relevant Legal Provisions
The petitioner referenced Section 6, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111, which specifies that for petitions filed by legitimate labor organizations in unorganized establishments, written consent from at least 20% of the employees is required. Moreover, under amended Articles 257 and 258 of the Labor Code, such consent must also accompany any petitions for certification elections, thereby establishing a procedural threshold for the initiation of these proceedings.
Court's Ruling on Discretion and Requirements
The court ruled that the respondent Director did not abuse her discretion by allowing KAMAPI's participation. It clarified that the 20% written consent requirement specifically pertains to petitions for certification elections and does not extend to motions for intervention. The court determined that the rules do not stipulate that a motion for intervention must be preceded by the same level of consent required for a petition. It thus differentiated the intent of the 20% threshold as ensuring substantial interest and demonstrated support in certification election petitions rather than intervention requests.
Implications for Union Representation and Justice
The ruling concluded that KAMAPI should be allowed to participate in the certification election. The essence of such elections is to identify the union preferred by the worke
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175864)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a special civil action for certiorari filed by the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) questioning an order from the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
- The order was issued on July 27, 1987, regarding the conduct of a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of Hundred Island Chemical Corporation.
- The certification election was to include three contending unions: Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation, PAFLU, and Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI).
Factual Background
- A petition for a certification election was initially filed by the Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa on May 6, 1987, and was docketed as BLR Case No. A-6-201-87.
- PAFLU filed a motion to intervene on April 27, 1987, with the written consent of 20% of the rank-and-file employees.
- KAMAPI filed its motion to intervene on June 1, 1987, but did not provide the required written consent.
- The Med-Arbiter denied KAMAPI's motion for intervention on June 8, 1987, and allowed PAFLU to participate in the certification election.
- KAMAPI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Di