Statutory Source and Interpretation
certification election until the former case was settled. The petitioner argues that if
B.F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
B.F. GOODRICH (MARIKINA FACTORY) CONFIDENTIAL &
SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU, B.F. GOODRICH (MAKATI
OFFICE) CONFIDENTIAL & SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU,
and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.
G.R. No. Nos. L-34069-70
February 28, 1973
Ponente: FERNANDO, J
NATURE OF CASE
Petition on Certiorari
BRIEF
Before the Court is petition on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations. The latter Decision dismissed the motions to hold in
abeyance the certification election until the ULP cases were settled, and stated that
individual respondents in the ULP case are still employees and possessed of the
right to self-organization.
FACTS
On February 27th 1971, one Rodolfo Pajaro, as president of BF Goodrich (Makati
Office) confidential and salaried employees union sent a letter to the petitioner
seeking recognition as the bargaining agent of such employees so that thereafter
there could be negotiations for a collective contract. Similarly Pablo C. Fulgar and
Marcelino Lontok, president and vice president of BF Goodrich (Marikina
Factory) Confidential and Salaried Employees union also sent a letter with the
similar purpose. The employer countered by filing two petitions for certification
election with the Court of Industrial Relations.
Two strike notices were filed by the respondent-unions with the Bureau of Labor
Relations. A strike was staged by the respondent-unions to force the recognition
of their organizations. A case of unfair labor practices was then filed against them
as well as motions to hold in abeyance the hearings of the petitions for
the ULP case will prosper and the strike staged by the unions during the pendency
of the cases will be declared illegal and individual members cited there in as
respondents found guilty of unfair labor practices. On the other hand the
respondent oppositors maintained that the pendency of the said cases is not a bar
for the holding of the certification election. The respondent unions also contended
that after the person, the strike of the respondent unions still on, the striking
employees cannot be considered to have quit, or otherwise terminated their
employment relationship with the company, on the basis of the doctrine that a
strike does not serve to sever the Employer-employee relationship, hence seeking
the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
Whether or not the determination of unfair labor practice cases brought against the
unions must precede the holding of a certification election
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC: The decision of the CIR is AFFIRMED
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
The determination of unfair labor practice cases brought against the unions need
not precede the holding of a certification election. In any case, there's no valid
reason for postponement.
A suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to
prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization
that will represent It.This is one instance that calls for the application of the
maxim, lex dilationes semper exhorret. Moreover, is there not in the posture taken
by petitioner a contravention of what is expressly set forth in the Industrial Peace
Act, which pics of the labor organizations designated or selected for the purpose
of collective bargaining with the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
The postponement would not serve any useful purpose. In the meanwhile, there is
no opportunity for free choice on the part of the employees as to which labor
organization should be their exclusive bargaining representative.

In general Maritime Stevedores' Union vs South Sea Shipping Line, it was

decided that matters on certification election will be left to the sound discretion of
the Court of Industrial Relations. The decision in such matters by administrative
agencies Is accorded with utmost respect. The prevailing principle on questions as
to certification, as well as in other labor cases, is that only where there is a
showing of a clear abuse of discretion would the Supreme Court be warranted in
reversing the operation of respondent court.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed. With costs against

petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar,

Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.