G.R. NO.

62386, NOVEMBER 9, 1988

BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE LABOR UNION VS. BLR

G.R. NO. 70880, NOVEMBER 9, 1988

BATANGAS-II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC. VS. BLR

G.R. NO. 74560, NOVEMBER 9, 1988

ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS.
BLR
FACTS:
G.R. No. 62386
Batelec I Union filed with Dole a petition for
certification election. The Union alleged that it is
a legitimate labor organization. Med arbiter
ordered the holding of a certification of election.
Batelec filed a motion for reconsideration
contending that the formation of a union in a
cooperative is illegal and invalid , the officers and
members of the union being the members.
CASE HISTORY:
August 20, 1981-
Med-arbiter ordered the holding of a certification
of election
November 27, 1981-

Bureau of Labor Relations revoked the Med-

arbiters order.
FACTS:
G.R. No. 70880
Federation of Free workers filed with the Dole a
petition for certification election. BECO-II
contended that the petition does not comply the
the 30% jurisdictional requirement considering
only 37 employees belonging to the rank and file.
CASE HISTORY:
October 14, 1982-
Chief Med-Arbiter dismissed the holding of a
certification election
January 16, 1985-

Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the order of

Med-Arbiter.
FACTS:
G.R. No. 74560
Federation of Free Workers ALECO I Chapter
filed a petition for certification of election.
ALECO I filed its position seeking the dismissal
of the petition on the alleged that 30% written
consent requirement has not complied with.
CASE HISTORY:
February 26, 1986-
Med-Arbiter finding there was compliance with
the 30% subscription requirement issued an
order calling for a certification election.
May 15, 1986-

Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations

dismissed the Alecos appeal.
ISSUE:
Are the employees of electric cooperative qualified
to form or assist labor organization for purposes
of collective bargaining?
LAWS:
Article 243 and 258 of the Labor Code
RULING:
G.R. No. 62386
There is sufficient evidence showing that all
those who supported the petition were such
members. Petitioner UNION admitted in its
petition that its officers and members are also
members consumers of the cooperative. Such
being the case, the employees belonging to
petitioner UNION are not qualified to form a
labor organization and bargain collectively.
 G.R. No. 70880
No clear evidence was adduced by petitioner to
prove that 28 of its employees are managerial
employees. However 24 employees are members
of the cooperative . Assuming all of them are to
be deducted from the 73 employees, there still
remain 49, a sufficient compliance with the 30%
jurisdictional requirement.
 G.R. No. 74560
Petitioner ALECO I has 141 rank and file
employees, hence, there are 90 rank and file
employees, non-members of the cooperative who
may validly form, join or assist labor organization
for purposes of collective bargaining. Only the 12
rank and file employees who were qualified to
form, join, or assist labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining signed the
petition which is a number of the 30 %
jurisdictional requirement.
OPINION:
The Supreme Court ruling was correct because
employees of a cooperative who are not members
are entitled to exercise the right of all workers to
form, join or assist labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining. However this is
subject to the compliance with the 30%
jurisdictional requirement.