Bars to Certification Election: Contract Bar Rule - Effect of Early Agreement ● Petitioner filed an MR but was denied.
but was denied. Then, petitioner appealed before the CA
00 COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN V. ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES &
FACULTY OF LETRAN AND ELEANOR AMBAS
September 2000, | Kapunan, J. |
Petitioner/s: Colegio de San Juan de Letran
Respondent/s: Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran (AEFL) and Eleanor
Ambas
Facts:
● Earlier in 1992, the Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran (AEFL)
elected a new set of officers (who will probably take over in 1993) wherein private
respondent Eleanor Ambas (Ambas) emerged as the new President
● December 1992 – incumbent President Salvador Abtria of the AEFL initiated the
renegotiation of its CBA with petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran for the last
2 years of the CBA's 5-year lifetime (1989 – 1994)
● Ambas wanted to continue the CBA renegotiation but petitioner Colegio de San
Juan de Letran through Fr. Edwin Lao claimed that the CBA was already
prepared for signing of the parties.
● The parties submitted the disputed CBA to referendum where the union
members rejected such CBA.
● Petitioner school accused the AEFL officers of bargaining in bad faith and filed a
case with the NLRC. Labor Arbiter Edgardo Madriaga ruled in favor of petitioner
but was reversed on appeal before the NLRC.
● January 1996 – the union notified the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) of its intention to strike on the following grounds:
○ Petitioner's non-compliance with the NLRC order to delete the
name of Atty. Federico Leynes as the union's legal counsel
○ Petitioner's refusal to bargain, in spite of the NLRC order
● In the same month, parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and start
renegotiation on a new 5-year CBA (1994-1999).
● February 1996 – AEFL submitted its proposals to petitioner. Petitioner notified
the union six days later that the proposals have been submitted to its Board of
Trustees
● In the meantime, Ambas was informed by her superior that her work schedule
was being changed from Mon-Fri to Tue-Sun. Ambas protested and requested
the issue to be submitted to the greviance machinery. Unfortunately, petitioner
failed to act upon such request.
● Due to such inaction, AEFL filed a notice of strike in March. Subsequently, the
parties met before the NCMB to discuss ground rules for negotiation. However, 2
days after this meeting, the union received petitioner's letter dismissing Ambas
for insubordination. The union amended its notice of strike to include such
issue.
● June 1996 – the union conducted their strike.
● July 1996 – the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) assumed
jurisdiction and ordered all striking employees to return to work and for petitioner
to accept them
● Petitioner readmitted the striking members EXCEPT Ambas. Parties submitted
their pleadings and position papers.
● December 1996 – the SOLE issued an order declaring petitioner guilty of unfair
labor practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of Ambas with back
wages
but was also denied. Hence this petition.
Ruling:
W/N Colegio de San Juan de Letran is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing
to bargain with the union upon mere information that a petition for certification
was filed by another legitimate labor organization – YES. Filing of the certification
election DID NOT bar the on going negotation since there was no representation
issue involved, also, bad faith on the petitioner in clearly refusing to negotiate with the
union.
● Art. 252 of the Labor Code states that both parties have the "mutual obligation" to
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith to negotiate an
agreement.
● Petitioner's lack of interest in bargaining is obvious in its failure to make a timely
reply to the proposals presented by the AEFL. More than a month after the
proposals were submitted to petitioner, there was still no action from the same.
● Art. 250 states that in collective bargaining, the other party shall make a reply not
later than 10 calendar days from receipt.
● KIOK LOY V. NLRC
○ Company's refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union's proposed
CBA is an indication of bad faith
○ Employer not bothering to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals
is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively
● In the case at bar, the way petitioner acted shows a lack of sincere desire to
negotiate which is an unfair labor practice in itself
● The petitioner is also guilty of various 'delaying tactics':
○ The work schedule of the union president was changed from Mon-Fri to
Tue-Sat which prompted the president to request that such issue be
submitted to the grievous machinery (but this request was denied)
○ Then, the petitioner and the union met to discuss grounds for the
negotiation, however, just after TWO DAYS, the union president was
DISMISSED for alleged insubordination
○ In a final attempt to thrwart the bargaining process, petitioner
suspended the negotiation on the ground that a new group of
employees called the Association of Concerned Employees of Colegio
(ACEC) had filed a petition for certification election.
● The SC also held that the fact that the petitioner already submitted the union's
proposals to the Board of Trustees is not enough to indicate its intention to
bargain. Evidence on record belie the assertions of petitioner.
● The SC also held that petitioner's assertion that the pendency of the petition of
certification election means that it has no duty to bargain collectively with the
union is INCORRECT.
○ For the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process, there must
be a valid petition for certification raising a legitimate
representation issue.
○ Mere filing of the certification election does not ipso facto justify the
suspension of the negotiations by the employer. The petition must first
comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its IRR.
■ Must follow the "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3, Rule XI,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
that is, if a CBA has been duly registered "…a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
 entertained within 60 days prior to the expiry date of such WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
agreement"
■ This means that despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of Notes
the CBA, the law considers the same as continuing in force
and in effect until a new CBA is validly executed, hence, the
contract bar rule still applies. The purpose is to ensure the
stability of the relationship of the workers and the company by
preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered
into in good faith within the stipulated original period.
● In this case: the original CBA was from 1989 – 1994. ACEC filed its certification
election with the DOLE only on May 26, 1996 which is obviously outside the 60
day freedom period. Thus the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a
valid and existing CBA (contract bar rule). Moreover, there is no legitimate
representation issue, thus the filing of the certification election did not constitute
a bar to the ongoing negotiation. (Digerster's Note: I think this is an exception
to the contract bar rule, i.e. even with a valid existing CBA, if there is a
representation issue, the filing of a certification election would BAR the ongoing
negotiation until such representation issue is resolved)
● Reliance by petitioner on the case of Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v.
Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced because that case involved a legitimate
representation issue which is not present here.

W/N the termination of the union president (Ms. Ambas) amounts to an

interference of the employees' right to self-organization – YES. The factual
backdrop of the termination of the union president would show that obvoiusly she was
dismissed to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the union at the bargaining
table.
● Though the employer has the right to terminate employees for just/ authorized
cause, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of the
law and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play.
● Such dismissal must not amount to interfering with/ restrainng employees in their
exercise of their right to self-organization.
● In this case, it is obvious that the petitioner dismissed the union president in an
attempt to cripple the union.
○ At the time of Ms. Ambas' dismissal, she had been working for 10 years
with Letran, with the same Mon-Fri schedule.
○ Things began to change when she was elected as a union president
and it was during the difficult negotiations that her schedule was
changed. When she did not budge, she was outrightly dismissed.
○ Assuming arguendo that Ms. Ambas was guilty, such disobedience was
not a valid ground to terminte her employment.
○ Admittedly, management has the prerogative to discipline its
employees for insubordination. But when the exercise of such
management right tends to interfere with the employees' right to
self-organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a
prohibited act.

Dispositive
In this case, the totality of conduct of the employer shows an evident attempt to
restrain the employees from fully exercising their rights under the law. This cannot be
done under the Labor Code.