Title
Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex vs. Secretary of Labor
Case
G.R. No. 107792
Decision Date
Mar 2, 1998
A certification election was ordered after Permex Producer's invalid unilateral recognition of SMP-PIILU as bargaining agent, overriding the CBA and upholding employees' freedom of choice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 418)

Background Facts

The case at hand arises from a petition for review on certiorari against the decisions of Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido Laguesma, which mandated a certification election among employees of the Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation (Permex Producer). On January 15, 1991, a certification election held among the employees demonstrated a majority (466 votes) choosing "No Union," contrary to the National Federation of Labor (NFL), which garnered 235 votes. Subsequently, employees of Permex Producer formed the SMP, registering with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on March 11, 1991. After showing significant employee support, the union was recognized by Permex on October 19, 1991, and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was ratified in December 1991.

Legal Proceedings

Following the submission of documents to recognize the SMP as the exclusive bargaining representative, the NFL petitioned for a certification election, which was dismissed by Med-Arbiter Edgar B. Gongalos in an order dated August 20, 1992. This decision was appealed by NFL to the Secretary of Labor, resulting in the issuance of an order on October 8, 1992, that set aside the Med-Arbiter's order and called for a certification election with three choices: NFL, SMP, or No Union. Petitioner SMP sought reconsideration of this order, which was subsequently denied on November 12, 1992, leading to the present petition.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they had been recognized by the majority of employees as their sole collective bargaining representative. They argue that an employer may either voluntarily recognize a union or, if declined, receive a petition from the employees for a certification election. By referencing the ruling in Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, the SMP asserts that recognizing them constituted proper action since they had a claim of supporting majority.

Consideration of Certification Elections

In response to the petitioners' claims, the discussion emphasized the importance of conducting elections to ascertain employees' preferences genuinely. The ruling in Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa highlighted that the employer lacks the authority to certify a union as the exclusive representative of the employees. The ruling also noted that an employer must refrain from declaring a union as a representative if there is a prior election with a clear outcome displaying employee choice against union representation within the year preceding the new recognition.

Doubts about Majority Support

The court expressed skepticism about the credibility of the SMP's claimed support, noting that the recognition by Permex came less than a year following the employees' rejection of union representation in the prior election. Affidavit claims indicated possible coercion among employees regarding their support for the SMP, causing credible doubt about the integrity and legitimacy of the union's majority claim.

The Contract-Bar Rule

The petitioners further invoked the contract-bar rule, arguing that petitions for a certification election could only be filed within 60 days prior to the expiration of an existing collective bargaining agreem

...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.