Title of the Case: PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS,

petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR CARMELO C. NORIEL, of the Bureau of Labor Relations;

MANILA JOCKEY CLUB RACE DAY OPERATION EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-
PTGWO and MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., respondents.

Topics: Effect of Private Agreement

Facts: Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers (PLUM) filed a petition, praying that it
be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey
Club, Inc.

Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion to
intervene and opposition to said petition and alleged that it is the recognized collective bargaining
representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of negotiating a
modification of the collective bargaining agreement.

Another supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the
"No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of Ethics" adopted by the members of the Trade Union
Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members, and
claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law. The entire record of the
case was forwarded to the Office of the President of the TUCP for the purpose of submitting the
matter to the Congress for decision.

TUCP’s decision: MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent,
thus dismissing the petition of PLUM

Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations predicated on the ground that
TUCP has no authority in law to grant or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the
secret ballot to elect the true union representative.

BLR Director: dismissed PLUM’s the appeal. The ratio of the BLR was “While it may be true that
the facts of the case may warrant the holding of a certification election in the bargaining unit
concerned, to sustain first the decision arrived at by the National Executive Board of TUCP appears
of indispensable importance. Contenders in the case at bar are both members of TUCP. Undeniably,
there are internal rules including their Code of Ethics to keep them intact, to govern their actions and
finally to preserve the Congress. It is therefore, a matter of utmost necessity that a decision arrived at
by the National Executive Board be respected and enforced not only by the members of the Congress
themselves but also by this Bureau and the Department if necessity arises”.

Issue: W/N TUCP (here both PLU and PTGWO) has the authority to supersede or impair the holding
of a certification election or deny the majority employees of their right to elect their own union.

Held: NO. Certification election is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the win of the
majority if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to make
their choice, is controlling. Protection to labor and freedom of peaceful assembly and association are
guaranteed by the Constitution.

A letter from the president of respondent union reveals the present state of affairs of the employees
wherein they are deprived of the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement, for management
refused to bargain with the union. If this situation continues, the employees would stand to lose a
long-line of cases that the workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process.

As to the issue of whether or not the 30% minimum subscription requirement was met, it was held
that the Director is still empowered to call for a certification election provided there was no abuse of
discretion. However, in the case at bar, instead of ordering an election, respondent Director
dismissed the appeal of PLUM based on the decision of the TUCP, which the Court considers an
impairment of the freedom of the workers to voice out their choice of the union to represent them. If
there is any doubt as to the required number having met, there would be no better way than the
holding of a certification election to ascertain which union really commands the allegiance of the
rank-and-file employees. If the desired goal is for the execution of a collective bargaining contract to
protect the workers, then certification election is the most appropriate means to attain said end.

Since there has been no certification election for the past three (3) years as well as a certified
collective bargaining agreement which should govern the economic and working conditions of the
workers, a certification election should immediately be ordered.
Title of the Case: JISSCOR INDEPENDENT UNION, petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN TORRES
and BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, in their capacity as Secretary and Undersecretary of
Labor, respectively; ASSOCIATED LABOR UNI0N (ALU) and SAMAHANG
MANGGAGAWA NG JISSCOR, respondents.

Topics: Posting Notice; Waiver; Grounds / Allegations

Facts: JISSCOR Independent Union (JIU) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-
and-file employees of Jacinto Iron and Steels Corporation (JISSCOR) before the DOLE on June 27,
1990. By agreement, JIU, the intervenor Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU (SMJ-ALU)
and the JISSCOR management, an Order was issued setting the certification election.

However, on the date, instead of election, another pre-election conference was held and another
agreement was entered providing that the election would be conducted and that the mandatory 5 days
posting is waived by agreement of the parties.

As a result of the election, SMJ-ALU won and JIU came second. JIU registered a protest in the
minutes of the election stating that they filed a protest the grounds of using visor, emblem. JIU filed
a formal protest before the DOLE on the grounds of:

1. Election was with no compliance with mandatory posting of notice of election;

2. Lack of posting misled the voters of the manner of voting;
3. Escorting of workers by SMJ-ALU from place to election registration;
4. Forcing the workers to vote for SMJ-ALU by posting a bit streamer to vote SMJ-ALU; and
5. Forcing the workers to vote for SMJ-ALU by wearing sunvisors and pins.

Med-Arbiter declared that the certification election null and void. On appeal, SMJ-ALU prayed that
they be declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. A decision was rendered by the Secretary
of Labor granting the petition. SMJ-ALU was declared the sole & exclusive bargaining agent of the
JISSCOR. Thus, this petition for certiorari was filed.

Issue: Whether the DOLE committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
in certifying SMJ-ALU as the sole & exclusive bargaining agent of the company.

Held: Petition has no merit. Sec. 3 of the Rule VI of the IRR provides that the grounds of a protest
may be filed on the spot or in writing with the representation officer and shall be contained in the
minutes of the proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived.

JIU only protested against the use of emblem, visor, pin. JIU is estopped from raising the issue of
non-posting of the notice of the certification election for it signed an agreement with the private
respondent to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. The doctrine of estoppel is
based on the grounds of public policy, for dealing good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid
one to speak against the own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they
were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.

Results belie JIU's allegation that the workers were misinformed. Only 3 ballots spoiled out of 99.
On the alleged use of sun visors, pins, emblems: DOLE Undersecretary found that nothing in the
records shows that the alleged wearing of sun visors etc., the posting of huge streamers, as well as
the alleged escorting of voters by SMJ-ALU have unduly pressured/influenced/vitiated/affected the
choice of the workers of their bargaining agent. Finding of fact of head of admin agency conclusive
upon SC.
Title of the Case: ACOJE WORKERS' UNION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL MINES AND
ALLIED WORKERS' UNION (NAMAWU), ACOJE MINES COMPANY and COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

(ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION V. TORRES per Case Syllabus can’t be found, SCRA number
provided same with Jisscor case, hence, found this case with same parties and under same topic)

Topics: Voting List; Voters

Facts: Department of Labor, through the BLR, conducted on June 9, 1961, a “consent election”
among the workers of the Acoje Mining Company at Santa Cruz, Zambales, in which 5 labor unions
participated, namely, the Acoje United Workers’ Union, the Acoje Labor Union (PELTA), the Acoje
Labor Union (PLUM), respondent National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU), and
petitioner Acoje Workers’ Union. NAMAWU won in the said election.

Petitioner Union — which had been defeated by respondent Union by a margin of 282 votes — had
filed a motion to invalidate said election upon several grounds. After hearing, the lower court issued,
on July 21, 1961, the order appealed from holding that said motion was without merit, and certifying
respondent Union NAMAWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers of the
Company. MR of petitioner was denied, hence this present appeal by certiorari, and petitioner now
maintains that the lower court should have invalidated the aforementioned election for the same was
“the result of acts of terrorism, force, threat and intimidation employed by” agents of respondent
Union. The petitioner also questioned the list of qualified voters that was used during the election
which was based on the payroll of the employees.

Issue: Can a payroll be used as the basis for qualified employee-voters?

Held: YES. It appears that labor unions concerned agreed, not only to the holding of the
aforementioned election, but also to the use of the Company payroll of March 31, 1961, as the
basis for determining who are qualified to vote subject to the approval of the lower court. The
Company presented its aforementioned payroll to said court and stated that the labor unions had been
furnished copy thereof, at least 3 days prior thereto. Said labor unions were given an opportunity to
make their comments and observations on the list of workers contained in the payroll and to ask or
suggest the inclusion or exclusion of names therein or therefrom. Petitioner’s representative then
stated that it would abide by whatever ruling the court may make on the matter of inclusion and
exclusion of voters. Indeed, on May 19, 1961, the court issued the corresponding order for the
holding of the election and made its ruling on the question as to who were qualified to vote, and
petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of said ruling. Hence, petitioner may no longer contest
the accuracy of the aforementioned voters list.

As to the allegation of petitioner that there are many cases where the workers were threatened,
coerced and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU, is but a general allegation, without anything to
indicate the number of workers involved, without the supporting affidavit of any of them, and
without an offer to introduce their testimony or the testimony of any of them was. Petitioner’s
contention is insufficient to warrant the invalidation of the aforementioned election.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.