THIRD DIVISION Same; Same; The company’s interference in the certification election below

by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalledfor and unduly creates

294 SCRA 640 a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union.—The only instance
when an employer may concern itself with employee representation
G.R. No. 116751 / August 28, 1998 activities is when it has to file the petition for certification election because
ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION, petitioner, there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to bargain
vs. collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After filing the
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ORIENTAL TIN CAN petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere bystander.
WORKERS UNION — FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS [OTCWU- The company’s interference in the certification election below by actively
FFW] and ORIENTAL TIN CAN AND METAL SHEET opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly creates a suspicion
MANUFACTURING, respondents. that it intends to establish a company union. On this score, it is clear that the
perceived grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Secretary is
G.R. No. 116779 / August 28, 1998 non-existent and G.R. No. 116779 should, consequently, be dismissed.
ORIENTAL TIN CAN AND METAL SHEET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC., petitioner, Same; Same; The Labor Code imposes upon the employer and the
vs. representative of the employees the duty to bargain collectively.—The
HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF Labor Code imposes upon the employer and the representative of the
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ORIENTAL TIN CAN WORKERS employees the duty to bargain collectively. Since the question of right of
UNION — FFW and ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION, representation as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining
respondents. unit is imbued with public interest, the law governs the choice of a
collective bargaining representative which shall be the duly certified agent
Case Nature : SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. of the employees concerned. An official certification becomes necessary
where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate and reasonable proof of
Syllabi : its majority authorization and where the employer demands it, or when the
employer honestly doubts the majority representation of several contending
Labor Law; Labor Unions; Certification elections are exclusively the bargaining groups. In fact, Article 255 of the Labor Code allows the
concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to
challenge the same.—It is a well-established rule that certification elections designate or select the labor organization which shall be their exclusive
are exclusively the concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
legal personality to challenge the same. In Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary
of Labor, the Court declared: “x x x. Law and policy demand that Same; Same; Collective Bargaining Agreements; If a collective bargaining
employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the
bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free from any Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can
extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.” agreement.—Article 253-A of the Labor Code explicitly provides that the
aspect of a union’s representation of the rank-and-file employees contained
in the CBA shall be for a term of five (5) years and that “(n)o petition

Pajuyo vs CA 1/9
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be following pronouncement of the Court is relevant: “x x x. Even doubts as to
entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the the required 30% being met warrant (the) holding of the certification
Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period election. In fact, once the required percentage requirement has been
immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the reached, the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place
Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Accordingly, Section 3, Rule V, Book after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the
V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that “(i)f a petition. On the contrary, the presumption arises that the withdrawal was
collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with not free but was procured through duress, coercion or for a valuable
Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for consideration. Hence, the subsequent disaffiliation of the six (6) employees
intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the from the union will not be counted against or deducted from the previous
expiry date of such agreement.” number who had signed up for certification elections. x x x.”

Same; Same; Same; The agreement prematurely signed by the union and the Same; Same; Same; It is judicially settled that a certification election is the
company during the freedom period does not affect the petition for most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor
certification election filed by another union.—The filing of a petition for organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate
certification election during the 60-day freedom period gives rise to a bargaining unit of the company.—All doubts as to the number of employees
representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been actually supporting the holding of a certification election should, therefore,
entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the be resolved by going through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a
aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules certification election is the most effective and expeditious means of
Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this rule is obvious. A determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force
petition for certification election is not necessary where the employees are in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company. If the OTCLU wanted to
one in their choice of a representative in the bargaining process. Moreover, be retained as the rank-and-file employees’ bargaining representative, it
said provision of the Omnibus Rules manifests the intent of the legislative should have sought their vote, not engaged in legal sophistry. The selection
authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a bargaining by the majority of the employees of the union which would best represent
unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period. Hence, the them in the CBA negotiations should be achieved through the democratic
Court held in the case of Warren Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) process of an election.
v. Bureau of Labor Relations, that the agreement prematurely signed by the
union and the company during the freedom period does not affect the ROMERO, J.:
petition for certification election filed by another union.
Respondent (in G.R. No. 116751) and petitioner (in sister case G.R. No.
Same; Same; Same; Once the required percentage requirement has been 116779), Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet Manufacturing Company, Inc.
reached, the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place (the company) is engaged in the manufacture of tin can containers and
after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the metal sheets. On March 3, 1994, it entered into a collective bargaining
petition.—As regards the 25% support requirement, we concur with public agreement (CBA) with petitioner Oriental Tin Can Labor Union (OTCLU)
respondent’s finding that said requisite has been met in this case. With as the existing CBA was due to expire on April 15, 1994. Four days later,
regard to the finding that the “waiver” document executed by the employees 248 of the company's rank-and-file employees authorized the Federation of
“was the product of duress, force and intimidation employed by the Free Workers (FFW) to file a petition for certification election.1 On March
company after it learned of the petition for certification election,” the 10, 1994, however, this petition was repudiated via a written waiver2 by

Pajuyo vs CA 2/9
115 of the signatories who, along with other employees totalling 897, before or after the petition was filed; the Collective Bargaining Agreement
ratified the CBA on the same date. (CBA) between respondent company and Forced Intervenor (OTCLU) is a
sweetheart contract and concluded within the freedom period; and that
On March 18, 1994, armed with Charter Certificate No. IV-MEE-089, additional employees gave their support to the petition after the same was
respondent Oriental Tin Can Workers Union — Federation of Free Workers filed." 3
(OTCWU-FFW) filed a petition for certification election with the National
Capital Region office of the Department of Labor and Employment The company filed a rejoinder to said consolidated reply, asserting its
(DOLE), pursuant to Article 256 of the Labor Code. Purporting to represent objection to the petition for certification election because the case at bar
the regular rank-and-file employees of the company, the petition was "involves a collective bargaining agreement which was ratified by 897
accompanied by the "authentic signatures" of 25% of the employees including the 245 workers who had earlier given their consent to
employees/workers in the bargaining unit. the filing of the petition; that the benefits provided for therein are being
enjoyed by the workers themselves; that a certification election would
The OTCLU filed a manifestation and motion on April 15, 1994, praying impair the said contract; that the officers of (OTCWU-FFW) were among
for the dismissal of the petition for certification election on the ground that those who ratified the CBA; and (OTCWU-FFW) failed to name the
it was not endorsed by at least 25% of the employees of the bargaining unit. supervisors and workers hired after the filing of the petition that were
Some of the employees who initially signed the petition had allegedly allegedly included in the list of rank and file employees." 4
withdrawn in writing such support prior to the filing of the same.
In the meantime, on April 18, 1994, the DOLE issued a certificate of
The OTCWU-FFW filed a reply to said manifestation and motion, claiming registration of the CBA pursuant to Article 231 of the Labor Code, as
that the retraction of support for the petition was "not verified under oath" amended by Republic Act No. 6715. It showed that the CBA between the
and, therefore, had no legal and binding effect. It further asserted that the company and the OTCLU would have the force and effect of law between
petition had the required support of more than 25% of all the employees in the parties that had complied with the requirements and standards for
the bargaining unit. registration thereof.

For its part, the company filed a comment alleging inter alia that the new On June 1, 1994, the officers of the OTCWU-FFW walked out of their jobs,
CBA was ratified by 897 out of the 1,020 rank-and-file employees within prompting the company to require them to explain in writing why no
the bargaining unit. The OTCLU then filed a motion to dismiss and/or disciplinary action should be taken against them for walking out en masse.
position paper reiterating its position that the petition did not comply with The following day, said union filed a notice of strike with the National
the 25% signature requirement and maintaining that the new CBA was a bar Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) grounded on the alleged
to a certification election. dismissal of union members/officers. Two days later, the company directed
said officers to report back to work within 48 hours, but none of them did.
To said comment and motion to dismiss, the OTCWU-FFW filed a
consolidated reply, alleging that "an employer has no legal personality to In an order dated June 7, 1994, Med-Arbiter Renato D. Paruñgo dismissed
oppose a petition for certification election; that there are only 882 rank and the petition for certification election for lack of merit. Noting that the
file workers in the bargaining unit and not 1,020 which included supervisors petition was filed after the valid retractions were made, he concluded that
and workers hired after the filing of the petition; that those who gave their by the withdrawal of support to the petition by 115 workers, the remaining
support to the filing of the petition did not withdraw or retract the same

Pajuyo vs CA 3/9
133 of the 1,020 employees were clearly less than the 25% subscription An examination of the records of this case shows that the subject CBA was
requirement. Thus, he opined: concluded during the 60-day freedom period of the old CBA which expired
on 15 April 1994, and registered with the Regional Office of this
There is merit to the Company's contention that by subsequently ratifying Department on 18 April 1994 while the petition for certification election
the CBA, the employees in effect withdrew their previous support to the was filed on 18 March 1994. It is therefore, crystal clear that, the present
petition. Thus, when the petition was filed on March 18, 1994, it did not petition was filed during the freedom period and no registered CBA in the
have the required consent of the employees within the bargaining unit. respondent establishment could be invoked (to) pose as a bar to the holding
Another factor which militates against the petition is the fact that actually of a certification election. In other words, when the said CBA was
there are 1,020 rank and file workers in the bargaining unit. Twenty-five registered there was a pending representation case. Consequently, said CBA
percent (25%) of this is 255, but admittedly only 248 union members had cannot bar the election being prayed for. This is the rule contained in
originally authorized the filing of the petition. The law expressly requires Section 4, Rule V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
that a petition for certification election should be supported by the written Code, as amended, which provides that:
consent of at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit at the
time of the filing thereof. Sec. 4. Effects of early agreements. — The representation case shall not,
however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement
In view of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we are constrained registered before or during the last sixty (60) days of a subsisting agreement
to order the dismissal of the instant petition. Furthermore, it would be in the or during the pendency of the representation case. (Emphasis supplied)
interest of industrial peace to deny the holding of a certification election
among the rank and file workers of respondent Company during the On the issue of whether the 25% support requirement for filing the petition
effectivity of the new CBA it appearing that out of 1,020 rank and file for certification election had been met, Undersecretary Laguesma opined
employees, 897 have ratified the same and the benefits of which are thus:
currently being enjoyed by all covered employees of respondent Company.
5 The rule being followed in case of alleged retractions and withdrawals, as
appellant correctly pointed out, is that the best forum for determining
The OTCWU-FFW appealed this ruling to the Labor Secretary. On June 18, whether there was (sic) indeed retractions is the certification election itself
1994, however, during the pendency of the appeal, said union staged a wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot. (Atlas
strike that prevented the free ingress and egress of non-striking employees, Free Workers Union vs. Noriel, et al., 104 SCRA 565) The argument of
delivery trucks and other vehicles to and from the company's premises. (OTCLU) that since the withdrawal was made prior to the filing of the
Upon complaint of the company, the National Labor Relations Commission petition it should be presumed voluntary and therefore, has adversely
(NLRC) issued a writ of preliminary injunction on July 19, 1994, on the affected the petition, lacks merit. The Supreme Court ruling cited in support
ground that the strike caused the company to incur daily losses amounting of the argument (i.e. La Suede Cigar and Cigarette Factory, et al. vs.
to P3.6 million. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., 123 SCRA 679) is not
squarely applicable in the present case. For while in the said case it was
Meanwhile, on July 15, 1994, Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, undisputably (sic) shown that 31 members have withdrawn their support to
acting on the appeal of the OTCWU-FFW, issued a resolution 6 holding the petition, in the present case, the employees who supposedly withdrew
that: from the union executed joint statements (Sama-samang Pahayag) declaring
that the "WAIVER" document they signed has no force and effect

Pajuyo vs CA 4/9
considering that it was the product of duress, force and intimidation Let therefore, the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Regional
employed by the company after it learned of the petition for certification Office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election, subject
election, and reiterating their wish to be given the opportunity to choose the to the usual pre-election conference. The payrolls three (3) months before
union of their choice. Said statements raised doubts on the voluntariness of the filing of the petition shall be the basis of the list of eligible voters.
the retractions, destroyed the presumption that retractions made before the
filing of the petition are deemed voluntary and consequently brought the SO RESOLVED.
present case outside the mantle of the Atlas ruling
Herein petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said resolution, but
He added that even if there were 1,020 rank-and-file employees in the this was denied for lack of merit in the resolution dated August 22, 1994.
bargaining unit, the signatures gathered sufficed to meet the 25% support From this resolution, the company and the OTCLU filed separate petitions
requirement because the Sama-samang Pahayag invalidating the previous for certiorari before this Court.
"Waiver," contained 359 signatures which, when added to the 165
signatures submitted by the OTCWU-FFW on May 27, 1994, brought the G. R. No. 116779
total to 524, much more than the required 25% of the alleged 1,020 rank-
and-file employees. Moreover, in case of doubt, the DOLE tends to favor In assailing the resolution of July 15, 1994, the company raises in issue the
the conduct of certification election, for the rule on simultaneous following grounds to show that the Labor Secretary, through
submission of the consent signatures and the petition should be liberally Undersecretary Laguesma, gravely abused his discretion in: (a) ordering the
interpreted. As such, "contracts where the identity of the authorized conduct of a certification election even though the employees who signed
representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a more the petition therefor had withdrawn their support by ratifying the CBA and
certain indication of the will of the workers. Any stability that does not even though no certification election could be conducted without the written
establish the type of industrial peace contemplated by the law must be consent of at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit, and (b)
subordinated to the employees' freedom to choose their real representative." ruling, in effect, "that the provision of Article 256 of the Labor Code takes
Accordingly, Undersecretary Laguesma disposed of the appeal as follows: precedence over that of Article 253 of the same Code."

WHEREFORE, the appeal of the petitioner is hereby granted and the Order The company concedes that, as an employer, it should "remain a bystander
of the Med-Arbiter is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, a new order is hereby in the entire process of selection by the employees of their bargaining
issued directing the conduct of a certification election among the regular representative, since the exercise is indisputably an all-employee affair."
rank and file employees of the Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet Nonetheless, it justifies its "right to question the filing of the petition for
Manufacturing, with the following as choices: certification election" by the situation "where, the small number of
employees, the very ones who had earlier supported the petition for
1. Oriental Tin Can Workers Union — Federation of Free Workers certification election, subsequently changed their mind, and ratified the
(OTCWU-FFW); CBA and thereafter reaped from its bounty."7 Thus, in its desire to maintain
industrial peace, the company deemed it necessary to challenge the
2. Oriental Tin Can Labor Union (OTCLU); propriety of holding a certification election.

3. No Union. This argument is misleading.

Pajuyo vs CA 5/9
It is a well-established rule that certification elections are exclusively the effectively repudiated the "notion" of a certification election by ratifying the
concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to CBA entered into during the freedom period
challenge the same. 8 In Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 9 the
Court declared: This contention is without merit as it runs counter to the policy of the State
on the matter.
. . . Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in
certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should Undersecretary Laguesma, by authority of the Secretary of the DOLE, was
be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor exercising the function of the Department to "(e)nforce social and labor
bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the legislation to protect the working class and regulate the relations between
employees alone and to no other. the worker and his employee" 13 when he issued the resolution being
assailed in the instant petition. As will be shown shortly, he was merely
The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee applying the law applicable to the appeal raised before his office.
representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification
election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to The Labor Code imposes upon the employer and the representative of the
bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor code. 10 After employees the duty to bargain collectively. 14 Since the question of right of
filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere representation as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining
bystander. 11 The company's interference in the certification election below unit is imbued with public interest, 15 the law governs the choice of a
by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly creates collective bargaining representative which shall be the duly certified agent
a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union. 12 On this score, it of the employees concerned. An official certification becomes necessary
is clear that the perceived grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate and reasonable proof of
Secretary is non-existent and G.R. No. 116779 should, consequently, be its majority authorization and where the employer demands it, or when the
dismissed. This case will now proceed and decided on the merits of the employer honestly doubts the majority representation of several contending
issues raised in G.R. No. 116751. bargaining groups. 16 In fact, Article 255 of the Labor Code allows the
majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to
G.R. No. 116751 designate or select the labor organization which shall be their exclusive
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
The OTCLU contends that the Labor Secretary acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion: (a) in "imposing upon the employees the The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without,
manner of choosing their collective bargaining representative by ordering a however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a
certification election notwithstanding the fact that the overwhelming certification election applies only when representation is not in issue. There
majority of the employees have already decided to retain the petitioner is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of the
(OCTLU) as their collective bargaining representative," and (b) in giving employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of
due course to the petition for certification election even though it lacked the representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a
required support of 25% of the employees. bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees' representative, can only be
resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the
(a) The OTCLU maintains that the Labor Secretary improperly prescribed proper government authority. Thus:
the mode of picking a collective bargaining agent upon the employees who

Pajuyo vs CA 6/9
It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding of
certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be The law dictates a negative reply. The filing of a petition for certification
circumvented. We have held that whenever there is doubt as to whether a election during the 60-day freedom period gives rise to a representation case
particular union represents the majority of the rank-and-file employees, in that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been entered into within
the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification election is that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule
the most democratic method of determining the employees' choice of their V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The
bargaining representative. It is the appropriate means whereby controversies reason behind this rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not
and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in
of the employees themselves. Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial the bargaining process. Moreover, said provision of the Omnibus Rules
democracy. 17 manifests the intent of the legislative authority to allow, if not encourage,
the contending unions in a bargaining unit to hold a certification election
Given these premises, the filing of a petition for certification election by during the freedom period. Hence, the Court held in the case of Warren
one of the two unions in the bargaining unit is enough basis for the DOLE, Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations,18
through its authorized official, to implement the law by directing the that the agreement prematurely signed by the union and the company during
conduct of a certification election. the freedom period does not affect the petition for certification election filed
by another union.
Art. 253-A of the Labor Code explicitly provides that the aspect of a union's
representation of the rank-and-file employees contained in the CBA shall be (b) As regards the 25% support requirement, we concur with public
for a term of five (5) years and that "(n)o petition questioning the majority respondent's finding that said requisite has been met in this case. With
status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no regard to the finding that the "waiver" document executed by the employees
certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and "was the product of duress, force and intimidation employed by the
Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of company after it learned of the petition for certification election," 19 the
expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement." following pronouncement of the Court is relevant:
Accordingly, Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides that "(i)f a collective bargaining . . . Even doubts as to the required 30% being met warrant (the) holding of
agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the the certification election. In fact, once the required percentage requirement
Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can has been reached, the employees' withdrawal from union membership
only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such taking place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not
agreement." affect the petition. On the contrary, the presumption arises that the
withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, coercion or for a
It is uncontroverted that the petition for certification election in this case valuable consideration. Hence, the subsequent disaffiliation of the six (6)
was filed on March 18, 1994, twenty-eight days before the expiration of the employees from the union will not be counted against or deducted from the
existing CBA on April 15, 1994, and well within the 60-day period previous number who had signed up for certification . . . 20 (Citations
provided for by the Code. The OTCLU, however, is concerned with the omitted)
effect of the employees' ratification of the new CBA on the timely filing of
the petition for certification election. Would such ratification nullify the The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed
petition? in determining the true will of the workers 21 instead of frustrating the

Pajuyo vs CA 7/9
same. Thus, in Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) v. representative is chosen and negotiations for a new collective bargaining
Laguesma, 22 this Court declared that: agreement is thereafter concluded. 25 A struggle between contending labor
unions must not jeopardize the implementation of a CBA that is
In line with this policy (that the holding of a certification election is a advantageous to employees.
certain and definitive mode of arriving at the choice of the employees'
bargaining representative), we feel that the administrative rule requiring the WHEREFORE, both petitions for certiorari are hereby DISMISSED. This
simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioners.
the petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to
frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. SO ORDERED.
Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law
it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.
at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere
filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is Note.—The choice of a collective bargaining agreement is the sole concern
sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification of the employees. (San Miguel Food, Inc.Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant vs.
election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a Laguesma, 263 SCRA 68 [1996])
reasonable period from such filing.
1 Rollo of G.R. No. 116779, pp. 83-96.
All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of 2 Ibid., p. 128.
3 Rollo of G.R. No. 116751, p. 56.
a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such 4 Ibid., pp. 56-57.
procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election is the most 5 Rollo of G.R. No. 116779, pp. 69-70.
effective and expeditious means of determining which labor organizations 6 Rollo of G.R. No. 116751, pp. 20-29.
can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of 7 Rollo of G.R. No. 116779, p. 18.
the company. 23 If the OTCLU wanted to be retained as the rank-and-file 8 Barbizon Phils., Inc. v. NSBPI-NAFLU, 330 Phil, 472; Philippine Telegraph and
Telephone Corp. v. Laguesma, 223 SCRA 452 (1993); California Manufacturing
employees' bargaining representative, it should have sought their vote, not Corporation v. Laguesma, 209 SCRA 606 (1992), citing Asian Design and Manufacturing
engaged in legal sophistry. The selection by the majority of the employees Corporation v. Calleja, 174 SCRA 477 (1989).
of the union which would best represent them in the CBA negotiations 9 234 SCRA 517 (1994).
should be achieved through the democratic process of an election. 24 10 Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. — When requested to bargain
collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing
certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a
The fear expressed by the OTCLU that granting the petition for certification certification election.
election would be prejudicial to all the employees since the new CBA All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days.
would run the risk of being nullified and the employees would be required The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance
to restitute whatever benefits they might have received under the new CBA, with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
is to be dismissed as being baseless and highly speculative. 11 California Manufacturing Corp. v. Laguesmo, supra, at p. 611.
12 San Miguel Foods. Inc. v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 356, citing Philippine Scout
Veterans Security and Investigation Agency v. Torres, 224 SCRA 682 (1993).
The benefits that may be derived from the implementation of the CBA 13 Sec. 3 (1), Chapter I, Title VII, Administrative Code of 1987.
prematurely entered into between the OTCLU and the company shall, 14 Art. 251, Labor Code.
therefore, be in full force and effect until the appropriate bargaining 15 51 C.J.S. 957-958.

Pajuyo vs CA 8/9
16 ROTHENBERG ON LABOR RELATIONS, 1949 ed., p. 479.
17 Trade Unions of the Philippines v. Laguesma, 233 SCRA 565 (1994).
18 159 SCRA 387 (1988).
19 Resolution of July 15, 1994, p. 7.
20 Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer-Calleja, 168 SCRA 184 (1988).
21 Atlas Free Workers Union (AFWU) — PSSLU Local v. Noriel. 104 SCRA 565 (1981).
22 207 SCRA 329 (1992).
23 National Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor. 227 SCRA 821
(1993), citing Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 201 SCRA
584 (1991)
24 See Algire v. De Mesa, 237 SCRA 647 (1994).
25 Associated Trade Unions-ATU v. Noriel, 89 SCRA 264 (1979).

Pajuyo vs CA 9/9