CASE DIGEST: PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS V LAGUESMA

PORT WORKERS UNION OF THE PHILS

VS

LAGUESMA

207 SCRA 392

[March 18, 1992]

FACTS

-The CBA between the workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI and Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU) was about to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA and were already plotting their moves.

-Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted 11 days after the petition.

-Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.

-Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted 35 days after the filing of the petition. The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which requires that the signatures be submitted upon filing of petition. This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter.

-PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election.

-DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissed PWUP’s appeal.

-Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.

ISSUE/S

WON respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in application of Art 256 of the Labor Code (On Submission: WON simultaneous submission is required)

-PWUP argues that under A256, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition.

-PWUP complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees.

HELD:

-Doctrine in Western Agusan Workers Union-Local 101 of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines vs. Trajano: “it has long been settled that the policy of the Labor Code is indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit. Conformably to said basic concept, this Court recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement”.

-SC: In line with the policy, we feel that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate thedetermination of thelegitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, we hold that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of theconsent signatures within a reasonable period from suchfiling.