NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, FACTS

RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA
PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER,
Petitioner,
- versus -
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU
OF LABOR RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA
PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE
PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 181531
July 31, 2009
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
BRIEF
National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied
Industries Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC),
herein petitioner, seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals
November 8, 2007 Decision[1] and of the Secretary of Labor and
Employments January 25, 2008 Resolution[2] in OS-A-9-52-05
which affirmed the Med-Arbiters Resolutions dated January 22,
2007[3] and March 22, 2007.[4]
A certification election was conducted among the rank-
and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila with the following
results:
EMPLOYEES IN
353
VOTERS LIST =
TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346
NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151
HIMPHLU = 169
NO UNION = 1
SPOILED = 3
SEGREGATED = 22
In view of the significant number of segregated votes,
contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and
respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union
(HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide
which among those votes would be opened and tallied. Eleven
votes were initially segregated because they were cast by
dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still
pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were
segregated because the employees who cast them were already
occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still
five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast
by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot
vote. It bears noting early on, however, that the vote of one Jose
Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was counted.
Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of
the 22 segregated votes.
Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the
votes of the probationary employees should have been opened
considering that probationary employee Gatbontons vote was
tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which
garnered 169 votes, should not be immediately certified as the
bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17 segregated ballots
would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 +
17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be
one vote short of the majority which would then become 169.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), affirmed
the Med-Arbiters Order. In fine, the SOLE concluded that the
certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was
proper.
Petitioners MR was denied. CA affirmed the dismissal of the
MR.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the employees on probationary status at the time of
the certification elections should be allowed to vote. YES
2. MAIN ISSUE- WON HIMPHLU was able to obtain the
required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent.
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter : declared that HIMPHLU is the exclusive
bargaining agent
Secretary of Labor and Employment : Affirmed Med-
Arbiter's decision
SC: HIMPHLU not the exclusive bargaining agent
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
1.FIRST ISSUE
The inclusion of Gatbontons vote was proper not because it was
not questioned but because probationary employees have the right
to vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other
probationary employees should thus also have been counted. In a
certification election, all rank and file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent
are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of
the Labor Code. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the
certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence,
all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a
substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their
employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition
for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in
the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the
petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit."
For purposes of this section Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department
Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, which amended Rule XI of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, any employee,
whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on
the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any
labor organization.
The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary
employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-
protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the
provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on
certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.
Prescinding from the principle that all employees are, from
the first day of their employment, eligible for membership in a
labor organization, it is evident that the period of reckoning in
determining who shall be included in the list of eligible voters is,
in cases where a timely appeal has been filed from the Order of
the Med-Arbiter, the date when the Order of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, whether affirming or denying the appeal,
becomes final and executory.
During the pendency of the appeal, the employer may hire
additional employees. To exclude the employees hired after the
issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order but before the appeal has
been resolved would violate the guarantee that every employee
has the right to be part of a labor organization from the first day of
their service.
In the present case, records show that the probationary
employees, including Gatbonton, were included in the list of
employees in the bargaining unit submitted by the Hotel on
May 25, 2006 in compliance with the directive of the Med-
Arbiter after the appeal and subsequent motion for
reconsideration have been denied by the SOLE, rendering the
Med-Arbiters August 22, 2005 Order final and executory 10
days after the March 22, 2007 Resolution (denying the motion
for reconsideration of the January 22 Order denying the
appeal), and rightly so. Because, for purposes of self-
organization, those employees are, in light of the discussion
above, deemed eligible to vote.
A certification election is the process of determining the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining, refers to the negotiated contract between a
legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages,
hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
in a bargaining unit.
The significance of an employees right to vote in a
certification election cannot thus be overemphasized. For he
has considerable interest in the determination of who shall
represent him in negotiating the terms and conditions of his
employment.
But while the Court rules that the votes of all the probationary
employees should be included, under the particular
circumstances of this case and the period of time which it took
for the appeal to be decided, the votes of the six supervisory
employees must be excluded because at the time the
certification elections was conducted, they had ceased to be
part of the rank and file, their promotion having taken effect
two months before the election.
2. SECOND ISSUE (MAIN ISSUE)
As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent, the Court rules in the negative. It is
well-settled that under the so-called "double majority rule," for
there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining
unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered
majority of the valid votes cast.
Prescinding from the Courts ruling that all the
probationary employees votes should be deemed valid votes
while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded, it
follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase from
321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining
the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% +
1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151
votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority vote.
The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the
opening of the 17 segregated ballots will not materially affect the
outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even
if such member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU
would win, is thus untenable.
It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining
the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for
computing the required majority, and not just to determine which
union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but valid
votes has thus become material. To be sure, the conduct of a
certification election has a two-fold objective: to determine the
appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority
representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees
desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the
determination of who between two or more contending unions
won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
of the bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented
Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off election
and which union they want to represent them.
Having declared that no choice in the certification election between petitioner, National Union of Workers in Hotels,
conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off
election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter
petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees. (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila
A run-off election refers to an election between the labor
unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
certification or consent election with three (3) or more choices, SO ORDERED.
where such a certified or consent election results in none of the
three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid
votes cast; provided that the total number of votes for all
contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number
of votes cast. With 346 votes cast, 337 of which are now
deemed valid and HIMPHLU having only garnered 169 and
petitioner having obtained 151 and the choice "NO UNION"
receiving 1 vote, then the holding of a run-off election between
HIMPHLU and petitioner is in order.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22,
2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05
are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF
UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED
EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners,
vs.
REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, respondents.
G.R. No. 97622
October 19, 1994
ROMERO, J.:
NATURE OF THE CASE
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor
BRIEF
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor which
reversed on appeal the Order dated December 20, 1990 issued by
Med-arbiter Rolando S. dela Cruz declaring petitioners as the
duly-elected officers of the Universal Robina Textile Monthly
Salaried Employees union (URTMSEU) as well as the order dated
March 5, 1991 denying petitioner Catalino Algire's motion for
reconsideration.
FACTS
Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the
holding of an election of union officers with
the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
DOLEs med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated
October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held.
In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the 3 Section 3,
Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, election by secret
ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino
Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al.
(respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly
appointed representation officer.
-In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices
with either a checkmark or an X mark. There should also be no
other markings on the ballot.
De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were
272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
-Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had
two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot.
The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the
voter.
The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algires favor and
certified the latters group to be the unions validly elected officers.
-De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted.
Another order for a new election of officers was made by the
Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.
-Algires group filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied for lack of merit.
-Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a
person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-
the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the Secretary of Labor erred in applying Sections 1 and 8
(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing
the Labor Code to the herein case, considering that the case is an
intra-union activity, which act constitutes a grave abuse in the
exercise of authority amounting to lack of jurisdiction. NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter: In favor of Algire
DOLE: Reveresed, called for another election of officers
SC: DOLE is correct
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
The contention of the petitioner is that a representation officer
(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and
supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code)
can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the
conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity
of the questioned ballot is not within his competence.
Therefore, any ruling made by the representation officer
concerning the validity of the ballot is deemed an absolute
nullity because such is the allegation it was done without
or in excess of his functions amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the company's
premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a
consent election, not a certification election.
It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an
agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate
collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and
has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification
election. 5
The ruling of DOLE's representative in that election that the
questioned ballot is spoiled is not based on any legal provision or
rule justifying or requiring such action by such officer but simply
in pursuance of the intent of the parties, expressed in the written
instructions contained in the ballot, which is to prohibit
unauthorized markings thereon other than a check or a cross,
obviously intended to identify the votes in order to preserve the
sanctity of the ballot, which is in fact the objective of the
contending parties.
If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the
representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was
spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the canvass of
votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's validity shall be
deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity arising from said
election. Moreover, petitioners even question at this stage the clear
instruction to mark a check or cross opposite the same of the
candidate's group, arguing that such instruction was not clear, as
two checks "may be interpreted that a voter may vote for Lino
Algire but not with (sic) his officers or vice-
versa,"6 notwithstanding the fact that a pre-election conference
had already been held where no such question was raised.
In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the union
officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming
collective bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the
democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the true
will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined.
The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once
and for all in a determination where anything is open to their CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF
sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED
is minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners,
and/or maneuvering. vs.
REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, respondents.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated G.R. No. 97622
October 19, 1994
November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22, ROMERO, J.:
2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor NATURE OF THE CASE
and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05 certiorari and prohibition proceeding
are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
BRIEF
This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set aside the
The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor which
Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off election
reversed on appeal the Order dated December 20, 1990 issued by
between petitioner, National Union of Workers in Hotels,
Med-arbiter Rolando S. dela Cruz declaring petitioners as the
Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter
duly-elected officers of the Universal Robina Textile Monthly
(NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila
Salaried Employees union (URTMSEU) as well as the order dated
Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
SO ORDERED. March 5, 1991 denying petitioner Catalino Algire's motion for
reconsideration.

FACTS
Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees
Union (URTMSEU) filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the
holding of an election of union officers with
the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This was done through De Mesa.
DOLEs med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated
October 19, 1990 directing that such an election be held.
In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the 3 Section 3,
Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations, election by secret
ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990 between Catalino
Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al.
(respondents) under the supervision of DOLE through its duly
appointed representation officer.
-In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices
with either a checkmark or an X mark. There should also be no
other markings on the ballot.
De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were
272. 6 were declared as spoiled ballots.
-Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had
two check marks was erroneously declared to be a spoiled ballot.
The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the
voter.
The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algires favor and
certified the latters group to be the unions validly elected officers.
-De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted.
Another order for a new election of officers was made by the
Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.
-Algires group filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied for lack of merit.
-Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a
person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-
the-spot questions arising from the conduct of the elections, but
the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not
within his competence.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. WON the Secretary of Labor erred in applying Sections 1 and 8
(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing
the Labor Code to the herein case, considering that the case is an
intra-union activity, which act constitutes a grave abuse in the
exercise of authority amounting to lack of jurisdiction. NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
Med-Arbiter: In favor of Algire
DOLE: Reveresed, called for another election of officers
SC: DOLE is correct
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
The contention of the petitioner is that a representation officer
(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and
supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code)
can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the
conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity
of the questioned ballot is not within his competence.
Therefore, any ruling made by the representation officer
concerning the validity of the ballot is deemed an absolute
nullity because such is the allegation it was done without
or in excess of his functions amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the company's
premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a
consent election, not a certification election.
It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990 and for all in a determination where anything is open to their
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation
agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of is minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate and/or maneuvering.
collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and
has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification
election. 5
The ruling of DOLE's representative in that election that the SUPREME COURT RULING
questioned ballot is spoiled is not based on any legal provision or
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
rule justifying or requiring such action by such officer but simply
in pursuance of the intent of the parties, expressed in the written November 8, 2007 and Resolution dated January 25, 2008 of the
instructions contained in the ballot, which is to prohibit
Court of Appeals affirming the Resolutions dated January 22,
unauthorized markings thereon other than a check or a cross,
obviously intended to identify the votes in order to preserve the 2007 and March 22, 2007, respectively, of the Secretary of Labor
sanctity of the ballot, which is in fact the objective of the
contending parties. and Employment in OS-A-9-52-05

If indeed petitioner's group had any opposition to the are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
representation officer's ruling that the questioned ballot was
spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the canvass of
votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such ballot's validity shall be
deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity arising from said The Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor
election. Moreover, petitioners even question at this stage the clear
instruction to mark a check or cross opposite the same of the Relations is DIRECTED to cause the holding of a run-off election
candidate's group, arguing that such instruction was not clear, as between petitioner, National Union of Workers in Hotels,
two checks "may be interpreted that a voter may vote for Lino
Algire but not with (sic) his officers or vice- Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter
versa,"6 notwithstanding the fact that a pre-election conference (NUWHRAIN-MPC), and respondent Holiday Inn Manila
had already been held where no such question was raised.
Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the union SO ORDERED.
officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming
collective bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the
democratic process of an election, the proper forum where the true
will of the majority may not be circumvented but clearly defined.
The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once
UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION OF GELMART (UEUGIP) but In the notice of the certification election, however,
INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES (UEUGIP), petitioner, it was wilfully deleted and replaced by "a non-contending party,
vs. namely, Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), which,
HON. CARMELO NORIEL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF although an existing labor federation * * * has nothing to do and
LABOR RELATIONS; GEORGE A. EDUVALA, has no interest or right of participation. As a result, there was
REPRESENTATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF LABOR confusion in the minds of independent voters and demoralization
RELATIONS; and NATIONAL UNION OF GARMENTS, in the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner.
TEXTILE, CORDAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS OF THE A protest was conducted on the ground of the alleged
PHILIPPINES (GATCORD), respondents. electioneering of nuns and a priest as observers or inspectors on
behalf of private respondent.
G.R. No. L-40810 The above notwithstanding, the certification election took
October 3, 1975 place "on the scheduled date, May 24, 1975 and respondent
GATCORD garnered the highest number of votes .
It was then set forth that despite such defect in the mode of
FERNANDO, J.: conducting the election which for petitioner sufficed to cause "the
NATURE OF THE CASE nullity of the election in question," respondent Director Carmelo
Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations "[was] about to certify
certiorari and prohibition proceeding
respondent (National Union of Garments, Textile, Cordage and
Allied Workers of the Philippines) GATCORD as the sole and
BRIEF exclusive collective bargaining representative of the rank and file
This petition seeking to declare certification election declared null employees [and] workers of Gelmart Industries Philippines,
Inc."[8] Hence this petition with its overtones as indicated of an
and void ab initio and thus unenforceable, alleging that the alleged violation of procedural due process.
contending parties in a pre-election conference conducted by the It was alleged that the petitioner-union was included, but
under another name, in the list of contending unions in the
Bureau of Labor Relations agreed that petitioner would be listed in election, where the winning party had 63% of the votes, while the
the ballot as United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries petitioner only had 4.5% (thus, the winner won by a landslide,
even if the votes of all the other 7 contending unions were
Philippines (UEUGIP). combined. Therefore, the mistake didnt really affect the outcome
of the election)
FACTS
A pre-election conference conducted by the Bureau of ISSUE/s of the CASE
Labor Relations agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot
as United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines WON the certification election is void NO
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC: Dismissed petition
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
As noted at the outset, we find for Respondents. The petition lacks
merit.
Considering what transpired, it is apparent that the grievance
spoken of is more fancied than real, the assertion of confusion and
demoralization based on conjecture rather than reality. At most, it
was an honest mistake
Reasoning The institution of collective bargaining is a prime
manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to
the relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by
coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that
really count. As labor, however, is composed of a number of
individuals, it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor
organization of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial a
certification election is.
There must be an opportunity to determine which
labor organization shall act on their behalf.It is precisely
because respect must be accorded to the will of labor thus
ascertained that a general allegation of duress is not sufficient
to invalidate a certification election; it must be shown by
competent and credible proof. That is to give substance to the
principle of majority rule, one of the basic concepts of a
democratic polity.
Nor need this Court pass upon the ground of protest based on the
alleged participation by nuns and a priest who presumably aided
the cause of private Respondent.
In the leading case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,
this court left no doubt as to the privacy of religious freedom, to
which contractual rights, even on labor matters, must yield, thus
removing any taint of nullity from the amendment to the Industrial
Peace Act, 26 which would allow exemption from a closed shop
on the part of employees, members of a given religious sect
prohibiting its devotees from affiliating with any labor
organization. This was reaffrimed in Basa v. Federacion Obrera
de la Industria Tabaquera.
Certainly, the wide latitude accorded religious groups in the
exercise of their, constitutional freedom would caution against
reliance on such a ground to invalidate a certification election. It
thus appears that such an approach is reflected in the attitude
adopted by petitioner, which in effect amounts to an abandonment
of such a possible ground of protest, not at all lodged with this
Court but merely mentioned in its recital of background facts.
During the hearing of this case, reference was made to the
registration of private respondent allegedly having been revoked.
As the pleadings do not touch upon the matter at all, this Court is
not in a position to rule on such a question. The decision therefore
leaves that particular aspect of the litigation open.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is
dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order issued by this
Court is lifted. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.