Paflu vs. BLR, 72 Scra 396

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
1. Malayang Samahan ng mga

Manggagawa sa Hundred Island
Chemical Corporation;
SECOND DIVISION
2. Philippine Association of Free

Labor Unions (September
Convention) and 3. Kalipunan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino.
G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNIONS (SEPTEMBER
CONVENTION), petitioner,
vs.
DIRECTOR PURA FERRER CALLEJA of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, Kalipunan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino Malayang Samahan ng
mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical
Corporation and Hundred Island Chemical
Corporation, respondents.
Apolinar Sevilla for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Dominguez, Armamento, Cabana & Associates for
respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Hundred Island Chemical Corp., Inc.
Isidro D. Amoroso for respondent Hundred Island
Chemical Corp.
PARAS, J.:
Before Us is a special civil action for certiorari,
questioning the order of respondent Director dated
27, July 1987,.which in part states:
xxx
Without going into the merits of the
above-entitled case this office finds
that the best forum to determine
once and for all whether or not
herein appellant-intervenor
commands support of the rank-andfile in the unit is through the
process of a certification election.
WHEREFORE, in view thereof,
Appellant-Intervenor, Kalipunan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino is hereby
included as one of the contending
unions.
Let, therefore, a certification
election proceed without any
further delay, with the following
choices:
SO ORDERED. (pp. 26-27, Rollo)

The basic facts of this case are undisputed:
A petition for certification election among the rankand-file workers of the Hundred Island Chemical
Corporation was filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) by respondent Malayang Samahan
ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical
Corporation (Samahan, for short) and was docketed
as BLR Case No. A-6-201-87. A motion to intervene,
accompanied by the written consent of twenty
percent (20%) of the rank-and-file employees of the
said corporation was filed by petitioner Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions (September
Convention), or PAFLU, on 27 April 1987, Likewise
the Katipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
(KAMAPI, for brevity) flied its motion to intervene
on 1 June 1987 but unaccompanied by a similar
written consent of the employer's workers. Due to
such want of a written consent, PAFLU moved for
the striking out of KAMAPI's motion for
intervention. Acting on said motion, Med-Arbiter
Renato D. Parungo issued an order dated 8 June 1987
denying KAMAPI's motion for intervention and
allowing PAFLU's inclusion in the certification
election. On 17 June 1987, KAMAPI appealed the
said Med-Arbiter's order to the respondent Director
of the BLR, who issued the afore-quoted order. Thus,
on 17 August 1987, this petition was filed. And as
prayed for in the said petition, We issued a temporary
restraining order dated 24, August 1987. Respondent
Samahan has contested the issuance of said
restraining order and has prayed that it be lifted since
the delay of the certification election only defeats the
constitutional right of labor to organize.
The main issue in this petition was aptly deposited by
the Solicitor General in his consolidated comment;
Whether or not KAMAPI should be allowed to
participate in a certification election thru a motion for
intervention without a prior showing that it has the
required support expressed in the written consent of
at least twenty (20%) percent of all employees in the
collective bargaining unit. In taking the negative
stance, petitioner cites Section 6, Rule V of the Rules
Implementing Executive Order No. 111, which reads:
SEC. 6. PROCEDURE. Upon
receipt of a petition, the Regional
Director shall assign the case to a

Med-Arbiter for appropriate action.
The Med-Arbiter shall have twenty
(20) working days within which to
grant or dismiss the petition. In a
petition filed by a legitimate
organization involving an
unorganized establishment, the
Med-Arbiter shall grant the petition
upon verification that the same is
supported by the written consent of
at least twenty (20%) of all the
employees in the collective
bargaining unit, the twenty (20%)
support shall be satisfied upon the
filing of the petition for
certification election, otherwise, the
petition shall be dismissed. In
either case, he shall cite the ground.
Pertinent to the above rule is Section 7 of E.O. 111 to
which the former relates, and which provides:
SEC. 7. Articles 257 and 258 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines are
hereby amended to read as follows:
xxx
Art. 258. Petitions in unorganized
establishments. In any
establishment where there is no
certified bargaining agent, the
petition for certification election
filed by a legitimate labor
organization shall be supported by
the written consent of at least
twenty (20%) percent of all the
employees in the bargaining unit.
Upon receipt of such petition, the
Med-Arbiter shall automatically
order the conduct of a certification
election.
Considering the above provisions of law, We rule to

dismiss the instant petition for certiorari. The
respondent Director did not abuse her discretion in
issuing the contested order. It is crystal clear from the
said provisions that the requisite written consent of at
least 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit
applies to petitioners for certification election only,
and not to motions for intervention. Nowhere in the
aforesaid legal provisions does it appear that a
motion for intervention in a certification election
must be accompanied by a similar written consent.
Not even in the Implementing Rules of the Labor
Code (see Rule V, Rules Implementing the Labor
Code). Obviously, the percentage requirement
pertains only to the petition for certification election,
and nothing else.
This leads Us to the question of purpose. the reason
behind the 20% requirement is to ensure that the
petitioning union has a substantial interest in the
representation proceedings ** and, as correctly
pointed out by the Solicitor General, that a
considerable number of workers desire their
representation by the said petitioning union for
collective bargaining purposes. Hence, the mere fact
that 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit signify
their support to the petition by their written consent,
it becomes mandatory on the part of the Med-Arbiter
to order the holding of a certification election in an
unorganized establishment (Samahang Manggagawa
ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152). The
20% requirement, thereof, is peculiar to petitions for
certification election.
In the light of the foregoing, KAMAPI must be
allowed to participate in the certification election
since the essence of such proceeding is to settle once
and for all which union is preferred by the workers to
represent them (PAFLU vs. BLR, 69 SCRA 132;
PAFLU vs. BLR, 72 SCRA 396). As long as the
motion for intervention has been properly and timely
filed and the intervention would not cause any
injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this is
so even if the eventual purpose of the motion for
intervention is to participate in the certification
election. After all the original applicant had already
met the 20% requirement.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED and the Temporary Restraining Order
dated 24 August 1987 LIFTED. With costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Padilla,
Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
** Pascual C. "Labor and Tenancy
Relations Law." 4th ed., G. Rangel
and Sons, 1975. p. 77.

Paflu vs. BLR, 72 Scra 396

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paflu vs. BLR, 72 Scra 396

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paflu vs. BLR, 72 Scra 396

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

1. Malayang Samahan ng mga

2. Philippine Association of Free

G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989

SO ORDERED. (pp. 26-27, Rollo)

Director shall assign the case to a

Considering the above provisions of law, We rule to

You might also like