CASE DIGEST: COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc. V OPLE

COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc.

VS

OPLE

163 SCRA 323

[June 30, 1988]

NATURE

Petition for certiorari

FACTS

-The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union.

-After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.

-Respondent Minister rendered a decision finding no merit in the Union’s Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism and at the same time respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.

-Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent

ISSUE

WON respondent Minister exceeded his power when he certified respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company’s salesmen since the case is not a representation proceeding as described under the Labor Code and the Union did not pray for certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to petitioner-company.

HELD

YES.

-The procedure for a representation case is outlined in Arts. 257-260 of the Labor Code, in relation to the provisions on cancellation of a Union registration under Arts. 239-240 thereof, the main purpose of which is to aid in ascertaining majority representation.

-The requirements under the law, specifically Secs. 2, 5, and 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining representative is the true choice of the employees against all contenders. The Constitutional mandate that the State shall “assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work,” should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.

-When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.

-When respondent Minister directly certified the Union, he in fact disregarded this procedure and its legal requirements. There was therefore failure to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation.

-Contrary to the respondent Minister’s observation, the holding of a certification election at the proper time is not necessarily a mere formality as there was a compelling legal reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union whose legitimacy is precisely the object of litigation in a pending cancellation case filed by certain “concerned salesmen,” who also claim majority status.

-Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections, the mere fact that no opposition is made does not warrant a direct certification.

-More so, when the records of the suit show that the required proof was not presented in an appropriate proceeding and that the basis of the direct certification was the Union’s mere allegation in its position paper that it has 87 out of 117 regular salesmen.

-Respondent Minister merely relied on the self-serving assertion of the respondent Union that it enjoyed the support of the majority of the salesmen, without subjecting such assertion to the test of competing claims. As pointed out by petitioner in its petition, what the respondent Minister achieved in rendering the assailed orders was to make a mockery of the procedure provided under the law for representation cases.

Disposition

Order REVERSED and SET ASIDE