4/20/2017 G.R.No.77282May5,1989ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.

:MAY1989PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURTJU

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com

Tweet Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > May 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 77282 May 5, 1989
ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.:

CustomSearch Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.77282.May5,1989.]

ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONS(ALU),Petitioner,v.HON.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,asDirector
oftheBureauofLaborRelations,MinistryofLaborandEmploymentPHILIPPINESOCIAL
SECURITYLABORUNION(PSSLU)SOUTHERNPHILIPPINESFEDERATIONOFLABOR(SPFL)
andGAWTRADING,INC.,Respondents.

RomeoS.Occea,LeonardU.Sawal,EdgemeloC.RosalesandErnestoCarreonfor
Petitioner.

HenrickF.GingoyonforrespondentSPFL.

WenifredoL.OrculloforrespondentSouthernPhilippinesFederationofLabor.

MiguelA.Enrique,Jr.forrespondentGAWTrading,Inc.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR LAWS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING JURISDICTIONAL

PRECONDITIONS. We have previously held that the mechanics of collective bargaining are set in
motiononlywhenthefollowingjurisdictionalpreconditionsarepresent,namely,(1)possessionofthe
status of majority representation by the employees representative in accordance with any of the
DebtKollectCompany,Inc. means of selection and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code (2) proof of majority
representation and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, paragraph (a), of the New Labor
Code.

2. ID. ID. CERTIFICATION IS VOIDED FOR FAILURE TO SHOW UNION ENJOYED MAJORITY
REPRESENTATION. The unusual promptitude in the recognition of petitioner union by respondent
company as the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers in GAW Trading, Inc. under the
fluid and amorphous circumstances then obtaining, was decidedly unwarranted and improvident. It
bears mention that even in cases where it was the then Minister of Labor himself who directly
certifiedtheunionasthebargainingrepresentative,thisCourtvoidedsuchcertificationwherethere
was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority
representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification election at a proper time would not
necessarily be a mere formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and unilaterally
certifyaunion.

3. ID. ID. POSTING OF COPIES OF CONTRACT EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY PURPOSE. The

posting of copies of the collective bargaining agreement is the responsibility of the employer which
caneasilycomplywiththerequirementthroughameremechanicalact.Thefactthattherewere"no
impartial members of the unit" who could be apprised of the CBAS contents is immaterial. The
purposeoftherequirementispreciselytoinformtheemployeesinthebargainingunitofthecontents
of said agreement so that they could intelligently decide whether to accept the same or not. The
ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty assembly of the members of ALU wherein the agreement in question was allegedly explained does
Division notcurethedefect.Thecontractisintendedforalltheemployeesandnotonlyforthemembersof
thepurportedrepresentativealone.Itmayevenbesaidthattheneedtoinformthenonmembersof
the terms thereof is more exigent and compelling since, in all likelihood, their contact with the

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989maydecisions.php?id=368 1/5
4/20/2017 G.R.No.77282May5,1989ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.:MAY1989PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURTJU
May1989Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 40062 May 3, 1989 MONTELIBANO
ESGUERRAv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. L36343 May 4, 1989 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.v.JULIANB.DELAROSA,ETAL.
G.R.No.47491May4,1989GALICANOGOLLOYv.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 49677 May 4, 1989 TRADE UNIONS OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES v. NATIONAL
HOUSINGCORPORATION,ETAL.
G.R. No. L55336 May 4, 1989 BENJAMIN
VALLANGCA,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 76209 May 4, 1989 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R.No.77686May4,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.SEDANALEGARBES,ETAL.
G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989 REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.v.SANDIGANBAYAN,ETAL.
G.R. No. L45127 May 5, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.AUXENCIOC.DACUYCUY,ETAL.
G.R. No. L45656 May 5, 1989 PACIFIC BANKING
CORPORATION,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R.No.62806May5,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.DANILOISON
G.R.Nos.6320809May5,1989CAMARASHOESv.
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA
SHOES,ETAL.
G.R.No.70245May5,1989ELEUTERIODOMINGO
v.ALFREDOA.ROSERO,ETAL.
G.R.No.74453May5,1989AMBROCIOVENGCO,
ETAL.v.CRESENCIOB.TRAJANO,ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 7589699 May 5, 1989 RENATO A.
VALDEZv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.,ETAL.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989maydecisions.php?id=368
personswhoaresupposedtorepresentthemislimited.
4.ID.ID.ANNULMENTONGROUNDTHATCONTRACTWILLNOTPROMOTEINDUSTRIALSTABILITY.
Anotherpotentreasonforannullingthedisputedcollectivebargainingagreementisthefindingof
respondentdirectorthatonehundredeightyone(181)ofthetwohundredeightyone(281)workers
who"ratified"thesamenow"stronglyandvehementlydenyand/orrepudiatetheallegednegotiation
and ratification of the CBA." 10 Although petitioner claims that only seven (7) of the repudiating
groupofworkersbelongtothetotalnumberwhoallegedlyratifiedtheagreement,neverthelesssuch
unsubstantiated contention weighed against the factual findings of the respondent director cannot
negatethefactthatthecontrovertedcontractwillnotpromoteindustrialstability.
5. ID. ID. PROCEDURAL RULES NOT STRICTLY APPLIED IN LABOR CASES. At this juncture,
petitioner should be reminded that the technical rules of procedure do not strictly apply in the
adjudication of labor disputes. 12 Consequently, its objection that the evidence with respect to the
aforesaid repudiation of the supposed collective bargaining agreement cannot be considered for the
first time on appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations should be disregarded, especially considering
theweightysignificancethereof.
6. ID. ID. CONTRACT BAR RULE: INAPPLICABLE WHERE PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION WAS
ALREADYPENDINGWHENDISPUTEDAGREEMENTWASFILED.Additionally,theinapplicabilityofthe
contract bar rule is further underscored by the fact that when the disputed agreement was filed
before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a petition for certification election had already
been filed on May 19, 1986. Although the petition was not supported by the signatures of thirty
percent(30%)oftheworkersinthebargainingunit,thesamewasenoughtoinitiatesaidcertification
election.
DECISION
REGALADO,J.:
Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU, for brevity) instituted this special civil action for certiorari
andprohibitiontooverturnthedecisionoftherespondentdirector1datedDecember10,1986,which
ordered the holding of a certification election among the rankandfile workers of the private
respondent GAW Trading, Inc. The averments in the basic petition therefor, which succinctly but
sufficientlydetailtherelevantfactualantecedentsofthisproceeding,justifytheirbeingquotedinfull,
thus:jg c : c h a n r o b le s .c o m.p h
"1.TheAssociatedLaborUnions(ALU)thruitsRegionalVicePresidentTeofanioC.Nunez,inaLetter
dated May 7, 1986 (ANNEX C) informed GAW Trading, Inc. that majority of the latters employees
have authorized ALU to be their sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and requested GAW
TradingInc.,inthesameLetterforaconferencefortheexecutionofaninitialCollectiveBargaining
Agreement(CBA)
"2. GAW Trading Inc. received the Letter of ALU aforesaid on the same day of May 7, 1986 as
acknowledged thereunder and responded (sic) ALU in a Letter dated May 12, 1986 (Annex D)
indicating its recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the majority of its
employees and for which it set the time for conference and/or negotiation at 4:00 P.M. on May 12,
1986atthePillsburyOffice,AboitizBuilding,JuanLunaStreet,CebuCity
"3. On the following day of May 13, 1986, per Transmittal Letter on even date (ANNEX E) ALUs
ChairmanoftheNegotiatingPanelfurnishedGAWTradingInc.ten(10)finalcopiesoftheCollective
BargainingAgreementforComment,orotherwise,forsigning
"4.OnMay15,1986,ALUinbehalfofthemajorityoftheemployeesofGAWTradingInc.andGAW
TradingInc.signedandexecutedtheCollectiveBargainingAgreement(ANNEXF)....
"5.Inthemeantime,atabout1:00P.M.ofMay9,1986,theSouthernPhilippinesFederationofLabor
(SPFL)togetherwithNagkahiusangMamumuosaGAW(NAMGAW)undertooka...Strike...afterit
failed to get the management of GAW Trading Inc. to sit for a conference respecting its demands
presented at 11:00 A.M. on the same day in an effort to pressure GAW Trading Inc. to make a
turnaboutofitsstandingrecognitionofALUasthesoleandexclusivebargainingrepresentativeofits
employees, as to which strike GAW Trading Inc. filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary
Injunction,datedJune1,1986(AnnexU)andwhichstrikeLaborArbiterBonifacioB.Tumamakheld
asillegalinaDecisiondatedAugust5,1986(ANNEXI)
"6. On May 19, 1986, GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLUPSSLU) Federation . . . filed a Certification
Electionpetition(ANNEXJ),but,asfoundbyMedArbiterCandidoM.Cumbainits(sic)Orderdated
June11,1986(ANNEXK),withouthavingcomplied(sic)thesubscriptionrequirementforwhichitwas
merely considered an intervenor until compliance thereof in the other petition for direct recognition
as bargaining agent filed on May 28, 1986 by Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as
foundinthesameOrder(ANNEXK)
7. In the meantime, the Collective Bargaining Agreement executed by ALU and GAW Trading Inc.
(ANNEXF)wasdulyfiledonMay27,1986withtheMinistryofLaborandEmploymentinRegionVII,
CebuCity
"8. Nevertheless, MedArbiter Candido M. Cumba in his Order of June 11, 1986 (Annex K) ruled for
theholdingofacertificationelectioninallthebranchesofGAWTradingInc.inCebuCity,astowhich
ALU filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 19, 1986 (ANNEX L) which was treated as an
appealonthatquestionedOrderforwhichreasontheentirerecordofsubjectcertificationcasewas
forwarded to the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Manila
(ANNEXM)
"9. Bureau of Labor Relations Director Cresenciano B. Trajano, rendered a Decision on August 13,
1986(AnnexB)grantingALUsappeal(MotionforReconsideration)andsetasidethequestionedMed
Arbiter Order of June 11, 1986 (Annex K, on the ground that the CBA has been effective and valid
andthecontractbarruleapplicable
"10.ButthesameDecisionofDirectorCresencianoB.Trajanowassoughtforreconsiderationbothby
SouthernPhilippinesFederationofLabor(SPFL)onAugust26,1986(ANNEXN)supplementedbythe
SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE dated September 29, 1986 (ANNEX O), and Philippine
Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU) on October 2, 1986 (ANNEX P), which were opposed by both
GAWTrading,Inc.onSeptember2,1986(ANNEXQ)andALUonSeptember12,1986(ANNEXR)"2
TheaforesaiddecisionofthenDirectorTrajanowasthereafterreversedbyrespondentdirectorinher
aforeciteddecisionwhichisnowassailedinthisaction.AmotionforreconsiderationofALU3appears
tohavebeendisregarded,hence,itspresentresortgroundedongraveabuseofdiscretionbypublic
Respondent. c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y
Public respondent ordered the holding of a certification election, ruling that the "contract bar rule"
2/5
4/20/2017 G.R.No.77282May5,1989ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.:MAY1989PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURTJU
G.R.No.76542May5,1989ANIANOMATABUENA
v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R.No.77282May 5, 1989 ASSOCIATED LABOR
UNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.
G.R. No. 78012 May 5, 1989 DELTA MOTORS
CORPORATIONv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R.Nos.7887172May5,1989PACIFICCEMENT
COMPANYINC.,ETAL.v.NATIONALLABORRELATIONS
COMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R.No.82363May5,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.ARMANDOM.SOLARES
G.R.No.82768May5,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.ANECITOL.ESTEBAL
A.C. No. 3091 May 5, 1989 ARSENIO REYES v.
DANTETINGA
G.R.No.L40464May9,1989POLICARPIOVISCA
v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES,ETAL.
G.R.No.44588May 9, 1989 LAURA VELASCO, ET
AL.v.SERGIOA.F.APOSTOL,ETAL.
G.R.No.61442May9,1989MODESTOA.MAHINAY
v.SANDIGANBAYAN,ETAL.
G.R. No. L63971 May 9, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.RICARDOC.ELESTERIO
G.R. No. 73854 May 9, 1989 JOSE P. DE LA
CONCEPCIONv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.,ETAL.
A.M. No. P88241 May 9, 1989 LOURDES
PADOLINAv.RUBENL.HENSON,ETAL.
G.R.No.54445May12,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.MARIONUNAG,ETAL.
G.R. No. L68385 May 12, 1989 ILDEFONSO O.
ELEGADOv.COURTOFTAXAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R.No.74075May12,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.BERNABEMACASINAG
G.R. No. 74461 May 12, 1989 JUAN ASONG v.
INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT,ETAL.
G.R.No.77588May12,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.JUNEC.SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 78277 May 12, 1989 SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 81006 May 12, 1989 VICTORINO C.
FRANCISCOv.WINAIPERMSKUL,ETAL.
G.R.No.82278May12,1989EMELINDASUNGA,ET
AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 82506 May 12, 1989 CONSTRUCTION
SERVICESOFAUSTRALIAPHILIPPINES,INC.,ETAL.v.
AMADOP.PERALTA
G.R. No. 83748 May 12, 1989 FLAVIO K.
MACASAET & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT,ETAL.
G.R.No.L33695May15,1989MANUFACTURERS
BANK&TRUSTCO.v.DIVERSIFIEDINDUSTRIES,INC.,
ETAL.
G.R. No. L37165 May 15, 1989 PRIMITIVO
NEPOMUCENOv.BENJAMINSALAZAR
G.R. No. L47628 May 15, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.REYNALDOMANCILLA
G.R. No. L48132 May 15, 1989 LEONCIA
FRANCISCOv.LAMBERTOB.MAGBITANG,ETAL.
G.R. No. 84712 May 15, 1989 SEAHORSE
MARITIME CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R.No.85749May 15, 1989 COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNALREVENUEv.ANTONIOTUASON,INC.,ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 86899903 May 15, 1989 AMOR D.
DELOSOv.SANDIGANBAYAN,ETAL.
A.M. No. 6484Ret May 15, 1989 IN RE:
RETIREMENTOFJUSTICERAMONB.BRITANICO
G.R. No. 76671 May17, 1989 SUSANA SALIDO v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 29759 May 18, 1989 NATIVIDAD DEL
ROSARIOVDA.DEALBERTOv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ET
AL.
G.R. No. L51333 May 18, 1989 RAMONA R.
LOCSIN,ETAL.v.VICENTEP.VALENZUELA,ETAL.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989maydecisions.php?id=368
relieduponbyherpredecessordoesnotapplyinthepresentcontroversy.Accordingtothedecision
ofsaidrespondent,thecollectivebargainingagreementinvolvedhereinisdefectivebecauseit"was
notdulysubmittedinaccordancewithSectionI,RuleIX,BookVoftheImplementingRulesofBatas
PambansaBlg.130."Itwasfurtherobservedthat"(t)hereisnoprooftendingtoshowthattheCBA
hasbeenpostedinatleasttwoconspicuousplacesintheestablishmentatleastfivedaysbeforeits
ratificationandthatithasbeenratifiedbythemajorityoftheemployeesinthebargainingunit."
c r a la wv ir t u a 1 a wlib r a r y
Wefindnoreversibleerrorinthechallengeddecisionofrespondentdirector.Acarefulconsideration
of the facts culled from the records of this case, especially the allegations of petitioner itself as
hereinabove quoted, yields the conclusion that the collective bargaining agreement in question is
indeeddefective,henceunproductiveofthelegaleffectsattributedtoitbytheformerdirectorinhis
decisionwhichwassubsequentlyandproperlyreversed.
Wehavepreviouslyheldthatthemechanicsofcollectivebargainingaresetinmotiononlywhenthe
following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status of majority
representation by the employees representative in accordance with any of the means of selection
and/or designation provided for by the Labor Code (2) proof of majority representation and (3) a
demandtobargainunderArticle251,paragraph(a),oftheNewLaborCode.4Inthepresentcase,
the standing of petitioner as an exclusive bargaining representative is dubious, to say the least. It
may be recalled that respondent company, in a letter dated May 12, 1986 and addressed to
petitioner, merely indicated that it was "not against the desire of (its) workers" and required
petitioner to present proof that it was supported by the majority thereof in a meeting to be held on
the same date. 5 The only express recognition of petitioner as said employees bargaining
representativethatWeseeintherecordsisinthecollectivebargainingagreemententeredintotwo
days thereafter. 6 Evidently, there was precipitate haste on the part of respondent company in
recognizingpetitionerunion,whichrecognitionappearstohavebeenbasedontheselfservingclaim
of the latter that it had the support of the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.
Furthermore,atthetimeofthesupposedrecognition,theemployerwasobviouslyawarethatthere
wereotherunionsexistingintheunit.Asearlierstated,respondentcompanysletterisdatedMay12,
1986 while the two other unions, Southern Philippine Federation of Labor (hereafter, SPFL) and
PhilippineSocialSecurityLaborUnion(PSSLU,forshort),wentonstrikeearlieronMay9,1986.The
unusual promptitude in the recognition of petitioner union by respondent company as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the workers in GAW Trading, Inc. under the fluid and amorphous
circumstancesthenobtaining,wasdecidedlyunwarrantedandimprovident.
It bears mention that even in cases where it was the then Minister of Labor himself who directly
certifiedtheunionasthebargainingrepresentative,thisCourtvoidedsuchcertificationwherethere
was a failure to properly determine with legal certainty whether the union enjoyed a majority
representation. In such a case, the holding of a certification election at a proper time would not
necessarily be a mere formality as there was a compelling reason not to directly and unilaterally
certifyaunion.7
An additional infirmity of the collective bargaining agreement involved was the failure to post the
same in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment at least five days before its
ratification.8Petitionersrationalizationwasthat"(b)ecauseoftherealexistenceoftheillegalstrike
staged by SPFL in all the stores of GAW Trading, Inc. it had become impossible to comply with the
postingrequirementinsofarastherealizationofitspurposeisconcernedastherewerenoimpartial
membersoftheunitwhocouldbeapprisedoftheCBAscontents."9Thisjustificationispuerileand
unacceptable.
c h a n r o b le s la wlib r a r y : r e d
Inthefirstplace,thepostingofcopiesofthecollectivebargainingagreementistheresponsibilityof
theemployerwhichcaneasilycomplywiththerequirementthroughameremechanicalact.Thefact
thattherewere"noimpartialmembersoftheunit"isimmaterial.Thepurposeoftherequirementis
precisely to inform the employees in the bargaining unit of the contents of said agreement so that
they could intelligently decide whether to accept the same or not. The assembly of the members of
ALU wherein the agreement in question was allegedly explained does not cure the defect. The
contract is intended for all the employees and not only for the members of the purported
representative alone. It may even be said that the need to inform the nonmembers of the terms
thereofismoreexigentandcompellingsince,inalllikelihood,theircontactwiththepersonswhoare
supposed to represent them is limited. Moreover, to repeat, there was an apparent and suspicious
hurry in the formulation and finalization of said collective bargaining accord. In the aforementioned
letter where respondent company required petitioner union to present proof of its support by the
employees, the company already suggested that petitioner ALU at the same time submit the
proposals that it intended to embody in the projected agreement. This was on May 12, 1986, and
promptlyonthefollowingdaythenegotiatingpanelfurnishedrespondentcompanyfinalcopiesofthe
desiredagreementwhich,withequaldispatch,wassignedonMay15,1986.
Another potent reason for annulling the disputed collective bargaining agreement is the finding of
respondentdirectorthatonehundredeightyone(181)ofthetwohundredeightyone(281)workers
who"ratified"thesamenow"stronglyandvehementlydenyand/orrepudiatetheallegednegotiation
and ratification of the CBA." 10 Although petitioner claims that only seven (7) of the repudiating
groupofworkersbelongtothetotalnumberwhoallegedlyratifiedtheagreement,neverthelesssuch
unsubstantiated contention weighed against the factual findings of the respondent director cannot
negatethefactthatthecontrovertedcontractwillnotpromoteindustrialstability.TheCourthaslong
sincedeclaredthat: jg c : c h a n r o b le s .c o m.p h
". . . Basic to the contract bar rule is the proposition that the delay of the right to select
representatives can be justified only where stability is deemed paramount. Excepted from the
contract bar rule are certain types of contracts which do not foster industrial stability, such as
contracts where the identity of the representative is in doubt. Any stability derived from such
contracts must be subordinated to the employees freedom of choice because it does not establish
thetypeofindustrialpeacecontemplatedbythelaw."11
At this juncture, petitioner should be reminded that the technical rules of procedure do not strictly
apply in the adjudication of labor disputes. 12 Consequently, its objection that the evidence with
respect to the aforesaid repudiation of the supposed collective bargaining agreement cannot be
considered for the first time on appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations should be disregarded,
especiallyconsideringtheweightysignificancethereof.
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y
BothpetitionerandprivaterespondentGAWTrading,Inc.allegethattheemployeesofthelatterare
now enjoying the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement that both parties had forged.
However, We cannot find sufficient evidence of record to support this contention. The only evidence
citedbypetitioneristhesupposedpaymentofunionfeesbysaidemployees,apremisetootenuous
to sustain the desired conclusion. Even the actual number of workers in the respondent company is
notclearfromtherecords.Saidprivaterespondentclaimsthatitistwohundredeightyone(281)13
but petitioner suggests that it is more than that number. The said parties should be aware that this
Court is not an adjudicator of facts. Worse, to borrow a trite but apt phrase, they would heap the
OssaofconfusionuponthePelionofuncertaintyandstillexpectadefinitiverulingonthematterthus
confounded.
Additionally, the inapplicability of the contract bar rule is further underscored by the fact that when
the disputed agreement was filed before the Labor Regional Office on May 27, 1986, a petition for
certificationelectionhadalreadybeenfiledonMay19,1986.Althoughthepetitionwasnotsupported
3/5
4/20/2017 G.R.No.77282May5,1989ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.:MAY1989PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURTJU
G.R. No. 70493 May 18, 1989 GLAN PEOPLES bythesignaturesofthirtypercent(30%)oftheworkersinthebargainingunit,thesamewasenough
LUMBER AND HARDWARE, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE toinitiatesaidcertificationelection.
APPELLATECOURT,ETAL.
WHEREFORE,theorderofthepublicrespondentfortheconductofacertificationelectionamongthe
G.R. No. 81314 May 18, 1989 EAGLE SECURITY
rankandfileworkersofrespondentGAWTradingInc.isAFFIRMED.Thetemporaryrestrainingorder
AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
issuedinthiscasepursuanttotheResolutionofMarch25,1987isherebylifted.
COMMISSION,ETAL.

G.R.No.82318May18,1989GILBERTOM.DUAVIT SOORDERED.
v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
MelencioHerrera,Paras,PadillaandSarmiento,JJ.,concur.
G.R. No. 84051 May 19, 1989 FRANCISCO
BERGADO,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
Endnotes:
G.R.No.85815May19,1989ELENOT.REGIDOR,
JR.,ETAL.v.WILLIAMCHIONGBIAN,ETAL.

G.R. No. 84750 May 19, 1989 BULIGBULIG KITA

1.Rollo,2527AnnexA.Petition.
KAMAGANAKASSOCIATION,ETAL.v.SULPICIOLINES,
INC.,ETAL. 2.Ibid.,811.

G.R.Nos.7429193May23,1989PEOPLEOFTHE 3.Ibid.,11AnnexS,Petition.
PHIL.v.OSCARLAMOSA,ETAL.
4.KiokLoyv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,141SCRA179,185(1986).
G.R.Nos.7829094May23,1989NATALIAREALTY
CORPORATIONv.PROTACIORANCHUVALLEZ,ETAL. 5.Rollo,9,34AnnexD,Petition.
G.R. No. 81957 May 23, 1989 PHILIPPINE
6.Ibid.,37.
VETERANSBANKv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.

G.R.Nos.80908&80909May 24, 1989 EMERITO

7.ColgatePalmolivePhilippines,Inc.v.Hon.BlasF.Ople,EtAl.,G.R.No.73691,June
M.RAMOS,SR.,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL. 30,1988.

G.R. No. 63279 May 25, 1989 NONITA C. 8.Sec.1(a),RuleIX,BookV,ImplementingRulesofB.P.130..

BUENCONSEJO v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
COMMISSION,ETAL. 9.Rollo,16.

G.R.No.33166May29,1989A.D.GUERRERO,ET 10.Ibid.,27.
AL.v.MERCEDESP.JUNTILLA,ETAL.
11.FirestoneTire&RubberCompanyEmployeesUnion,etc.v.Estrella,etc.,Et.Al.81
G.R.No.67195May 29, 1989 HEIRS OF EUGENIA
SCRA49,54(1978).
V. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT,ETAL.
12.Art.221,LaborCode,asamended.
G.R.No.76048May29,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.BONIFACIOPIGON 13.Rollo,175176.

G.R. No. 83376 May 29, 1989 STRONGHOLD

INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL. Adsby Google LaborBoard CourtCases LaborLaws
Adsby Google CourtDocket LabourCourt Worker
G.R. No. 79902 May 30, 1989 METRO MANILA
TRANSIT CORPORATION v. CONCHITA C. MORALES, ET Adsby Google Unions LaborRelation LawCases
AL.

G.R.No.82007May30,1989FELIPERELUCIOIII, BacktoHome|BacktoMain
ETAL.v.CATALINOMACARAIG,JR.,ETAL.

G.R. Nos. 3283637 May 31, 1989 DANIEL
VICTORIO,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL. QUICKSEARCH
G.R.Nos.L5097475May31,1989JUANCASTRO,
ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.

G.R.No.L53998May31,1989ENRICOMALONZO, 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

ETAL.v.HERMINIOMARIANO,ETAL. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. L55372 May 31, 1989 LETTY HAHN v. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R.No.65589May31,1989PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
v.ROMEOSOMERA 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 77231 May 31, 1989 SAN JOSE CITY 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
ELECTRICSERVICECOOPERATIVE,INC.v.MINISTRYOF 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
LABORANDEMPLOYMENT,ETAL.
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R.No.80264May31,1989SANMIGUELVILLAGE 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
SCHOOLv.AMIRPUKUNUMD.PUNDOGAR,ETAL.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R.No.84358May31,1989RAMONCARENAN,ET 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
AL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
A.C.No.3086May 31, 1989 IN RE: BALTAZAR R. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
DIZON
2013 2014 2015 2016

MainIndicesoftheLibrary> Go!

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989maydecisions.php?id=368 4/5
4/20/2017 G.R.No.77282May5,1989ASSOCIATEDLABORUNIONSv.PURAFERRERCALLEJA,ETAL.:MAY1989PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURTJU

|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions
Copyright19982017ChanRoblesPublishingCompany ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989maydecisions.php?id=368 5/5