LABOR LAW REVIEW 1

Read: Department of Labor and Employment Order 40-I-15

BARGAINING AGENT AND CERTIFICATION ELECTION

PROCEEDINGS: Arts 267 271 [Arts. 255-258-A]: Omnibus Rules,
Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (d, h, i, o, t, ll, ss, bbb), Rules VI-X, as amended by
D.O. 40-03 (as amended)

Bargaining Agent and Certification Election Proceedings:

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL (SMCC-SUPER) VS.

CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORP. MARCH 16, 2011; Bystander
rule; CC need not be under oath; comingling does not nullify
personality
In accordance with the San Miguel case, a charter certificate need
not be executed under oath since it does not make sense to have
the local/chapters officers certify or attest to a document which they
had not hand in preparation of. Thus, it validly acquired the status of a
LLO upon submission of it.
The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in
petition union does not nullify its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization. While there is a prohibition
against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and- file employees
in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the
effects thereof. Thus, once a union is registered, it may exercise
all rights and privileges of a LLO.
Bystander Rule: The legal personality of petition union cannot
be literally attacked by respondent company in the certification
election proceedings.

Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v Laguesma, 324 SCRA 425 (2000) Union
filed to represent the supervisory employees; Union not an alter ego of
the rank and file union
Bank personnel are not managerial nor confidential employees.
Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election
shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of
a petition by a legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said therein
that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the
management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union's
registration. On this score, petitioner's appeal was correctly dismissed.
1 Students are REQUIRED to read annotations / text books on these topics.

1
 Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile,
July 23, 2008
Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its
membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds
for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about
by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor
Code.

St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang Mangagawa sa St. James,

Nov. 23, 2005 Er may not question the CE; All members of the BU
are entitled to vote

Per Omnibus Rules, employees who are members of the bargaining

unit are allowed to vote. Based on Samahang's by laws, the bargaining
unit is the motor pool, construction, and transpo employees = 149;
NOT the whole rank and file of St James-QC (179). And 84 is a majority
of 149. And those 84 are already deemed to be regular employees.

LOC thus employees: St. James may no longer question the validity of
the formation of the labor union because the CA decision in a petition for
cancellation of Samahang's union registration was final after St James
screwed up their SC appeal (wrong mode). The decision affirmed the finding
that the contractor for the construction workers was a labor-only contractor
and thus the affected employees who were the employees voting in the
electionwere deemed regular employees of St James.

DHL Phils. United Rank and File Association v. Buklod ng Mangagawa

ng DHL Phils, July 22, 2004 Grounds for invalidating CE [Misrep, no
reply, Impact on free choice]; Affiliated but employees did not want
affiliation with FFW

The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president,

misrepresented it to the voting employees as an independent union
constituted a substantial misrepresentation of material facts of vital
concern to those employees.
The employees wanted an independent union to represent them in
collective bargaining, free from outside interference. Thus, upon
knowing that petitioner was in fact an affiliate of the FFW, the
members disaffiliated from petitioner and organized themselves into
an independent union.

2
 Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary of Labor,
August 14, 2009 Voluntary Recognition only allowed in unorganized
establishments; However, by stander rule prevents employer

The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of a

union in unorganized establishments. SLECC was not an unorganized
establishment when it voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as its exclusive
bargaining representative on 20 July 2001. CLUP- SLECC and its
Affiliates Workers Union filed a petition for certification election on 27
February 2001 and this petition remained pending as of 20 July 2001.
Thus, SLECCs voluntary recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the
subsequent negotiations and resulting registration of a CBA executed
by SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot bar CLUP-SLECCWAs
present petition for certification election.

Samahan ng Mangagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industriya Ng Kapatirang

Haligi ng ALyansa (Samma-Likha) v. Samma Corporation, March 13,
2009 Remanded to determine legal personality; CNFS not required;
Legal personality of LLO

As mentioned, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the

registration of petitioner on December 14, 2002. In a resolution dated
April 14, 2003, petitioners charter certificate was revoked by the DOLE.
But on May 6, 2003, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of this
resolution. Neither of the parties alleged that this resolution revoking
petitioners charter certificate had attained finality. However, in this
petition, petitioner prayed that its charter certificate be reinstated in
the roster of active legitimate labor [organizations] This cannot be
granted here. To repeat, the proceedings on a petition for cancellation
of registration are independent of those of a petition for certification
election. This case originated from the latter.
A petition for certification election is not a proceeding where one party
claims a right against the other in the regular courts. The petition for
certification election is filed only in the DOLE Regional office of the
place where the union is found. If there is more than one pending
certification election for an employer, it will actually be consolidated.
Thus, the evil sought to be avoided by a certification against forum
shopping is not present in petitions for certification elections.

Matters involving labor are not bound by strict rules of procedure.

Where appellee has been amply notified, proof of service is no longer
required.

Legal personality to file for a petition for certification election (PCE)

begins upon the being granted the registration certificate. For local

3
 chapters, this begins upon submission of all the documents required to
complete its registration. From that point onward, no collateral attack
may be made on such registration.

Chris Graments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Chris

Garments workers Union-PTGWO, January 12, 2009
There is no res judicata in a case where petition for certification
election was previously denied due to the contract bar rule. A
subsequent petition for certification election outside the contract bar
rule is proper. There is no res judicata as the 4th element is lacking.
There is no identity of causes of action to speak of since in the first
petition, the union has no cause of action while in the third, a cause of
action already exists for the union as they are now legally allowed to
challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER as exclusive bargaining
representative.

National Union of Workers In Hotels, Restaurant and Allied Industries-

Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor, July 31, 2009

Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010
Employees withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the
petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal
after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not
affect the same.

PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, August 9, 2010

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue

to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent
(and in extension keep the status quo aka their cba) even after the
expiration of the freedom period unless a petition for certification
election (which essentially questions their majority status) was
filed. The reason is, with a pending petition for certification, any such
agreement entered into by management with a labor organization is fraught
with the risk that such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as the
collective bargaining representative.

Legend International Resorts v. Kilusang Mangagagwa ng Legend,

February 23, 2011
Legend opposed the certification election filed by KML. KML also claimed that its legitimacy
as a labor union could not be collaterally attacked in the certification election
proceedings but only through a separate and independent action for cancellation of union
registration.
MA: KML is not a legitimate labor organization because there are supervisory ees. KML was
also found to have fraudulently procured registration certificates.

4
DOLE: KMLs legitimacy as a union could not be collaterally attacked, citing Section 5, Rule V
of Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.

Legal personality of Unions are not subject to a collateral attack

Article 245 does not ipso facto render the existence of the labor
organization illegal

Petition to Cancel Registration does not Bar Certification Election:

An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the
petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union
since at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal
personality to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation.
That there is a pending cancellation proceedings against the
respondent Union is not a bar to set in motion the mechanics of
collective bargaining.
No retroaction of the cancellation: The cancellation of a unions
certificate of registration will not retroact to the time of its issuance. It
will not nullify all of the unions activities during the pendency of the
petition for cancellation of certificate of registration.

BARS TO CERTIFICATION ELECTION: Art. 238 [Art. 232]:

Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule VIII, Sections 14-15, Rule XVII, Section 7, as
amended by D.O. 40-03