G.R. No. 84433 - Reyes vs. Trajano

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84433)

Factual Background

The Bureau of Labor Relations authorized a certification election for employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation in which two unions, TUEU-OLALIA and TUPAS, contested for status as exclusive bargaining agent. Of 348 workers initially deemed qualified voters, 240 actually voted on October 20, 1987. The ballots allowed three choices: TUPAS, TUEU-OLALIA, and the alternative choice “NO UNION.” The final raw returns among the 240 ballots showed one vote for TUPAS, ninety-five votes for TUEU-OLALIA, one “NO UNION” vote, one spoiled ballot, and 141 challenged ballots. The challenged ballots were those cast by the 141 INK members.

Pre-Election Agreement and Exclusion of Ballots

At the pre-election conference the competing unions agreed that the INK members should not be allowed to vote because, in the unions’ view, they were not members of any union and had refused to participate in previous certification elections. Pursuant to that agreement the 141 INK ballots were segregated and excluded from the final canvass. The INK employees immediately protested their exclusion and petitioned to cancel the election on the ground that it “was not fair” and that the result did “not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees.”

Med-Arbiter and Bureau Decisions

The Med-Arbiter denied the INK employees’ petition and, by Order dated December 21, 1987, certified TUEU-OLALIA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. The Med-Arbiter declared that the petitioners lacked legal personality to institute the present cause of action because they were not parties to the petition for the certification election. The INK employees appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Assistant Labor Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, as Officer-in-Charge, denied the appeal in a Decision dated July 22, 1988, reasoning that the petitioners were “bereft of legal personality to protest their alleged disenfranchisement” because they were not organized into a labor union and because their religious beliefs prevented them from forming or joining labor organizations.

Petition for Certiorari and Amicus Participation

The INK members filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to annul the administrative denial of their right to vote. The Solicitor General expressed concurrence with the position taken by the petitioners. The public respondent NLRC filed a comment insisting that if INK members, by reason of religious belief, opted not to join any labor organization, that choice should not deny other members of the bargaining unit the right to be represented by a bargaining agent.

Applicable Legal Principles

The Court reviewed the statutory guarantee of the right to self-organization in Article 243 of the Labor Code, the prohibitions against interference with self-organization in Article 248(a) and against coercion by labor organizations in Article 249(a), and the implementing provisions of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (notably Section 1, Rule II, Book V). The Court recognized that the right to form, join or assist labor organizations necessarily includes the converse right not to form, join or assist them, and that an employee’s right to abstain is an aspect of the constitutional and statutory right of self-organization. The Court cited precedent to the effect that a right comprehends both liberty and power, so that an employee may decide to join or to refrain from joining an association (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al.) and that in a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote (Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja).

Court’s Analysis of the Balloting Rule and Religious Choice

The Court examined the practice and rules governing certification elections and noted the historical inclusion of a “NO UNION” choice on ballots. Although the current implementing rules did not explicitly require the inclusion of “NO UNION” in every ballot, the Court observed that Rule VI, Section 8, Book V contemplates a negative response when only one union is involved and therefore implicitly recognizes the employees’ alternative not to be represented. The Court held that the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether the majority of employees desire representation by a union and, if so, by which union, and that the motive of voters—religious belief or otherwise—is immaterial and not subject to inquiry.

Rejection of Respondents’ Grounds for Disqualification

The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners were disqualified to vote because they were not members of any labor organization or because they had not participated in prior certification elections. The Court held that neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only union-affiliated employees may vote in a certification election. The statutory scheme contemplates that “all persons employed” in the bargaining unit are entitled to the right of self-organization and to exercise the franchise in certification elections. Nor does prior non-participation in elections for religious reasons forfeit the right to vote in a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84433)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, AND 138 OTHERS, PETITIONERS, were one hundred forty-one employees who were members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, the Med-Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, were respondents to the certification election dispute.
The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the denial of their right to vote in a certification election and the subsequent administrative decisions affirming that denial.
The Med-Arbiter issued an Order on December 21, 1987, that certified TUEU-OLALIA as the exclusive bargaining agent and denied the petitioners’ protest.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO denied the petitioners’ appeal in a Decision dated July 22, 1988, which the petitioners sought to annul before the Court.
The Solicitor General expressed concurrence with the petitioners, and the NLRC filed a comment defending the right of nonparticipating employees not to be forced into representation.

Key Factual Allegations

A certification election was conducted among employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987.
Three hundred forty-eight workers were initially deemed qualified voters, and two hundred forty employees actually voted in the supervised election.
One hundred forty-one of the voters were members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and their ballots were marked as CHALLENGED 141 and excluded from the final tally pursuant to an agreement between the competing unions at the pre-election conference.
The ballots permitted three choices: TUPAS, TUEU-OLALIA, and NO UNION.
The final tally recorded TUPAS 1, TUEU-OLALIA 95, NO UNION 1, SPOILED 1, and CHALLENGED 141.
The challenged votes were excluded because the competing unions agreed the INK members were not union members and had refused to participate in previous certification elections.

Procedural History

The petitioners promptly protested the exclusion of their ballots and filed a petition to cancel the election alleging unfairness and that the result did not reflect the true sentiments of the majority.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition and held that the petitioners lacked legal personality to institute the action because they were not parties to the petition for certification election.
The petitioners appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations, where their appeal was denied by CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his Decision of July 22, 1988.
The petitioners invoked a special civil action of certiorari before the Court seeking annulment of the administrative decisions and vindication of their right to vote.

Issues Presented

Whether the one hundred forty-one INK members were legally entitled to vote in the certification election notwithstanding their nonaffiliation with any labor union.
Whether administrative respondents gravely abused their discretion in excluding and refusing to count the ballots of the INK members.