SAMAHAN vs. LAGUESMA and MNMPP bargaining unit.

In Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services

G.R. No. 111245 World Federation of Trade Unions v. Laguesma, 16 we reiterated this
January 31, 1997 policy thus:

It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding of

FACTS: Petitioner SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC
certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be
(SAMAHAN) and respondent MALAYANG NAGKAKAISANG circumvented. We have held that whenever there is doubt as to
MANGGAGAWA NG PACIFIC PLASTIC (MNMPP) are labor unions of
whether a particular union represents the majority of the rank and file
rank and file employees at the Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC) in employees, in the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
certification election is the most democratic method of determining
MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election. Accordingly, the
the employees’ choice of their bargaining representative. It is the
representation officer of the Secretary of Labor held a pre-election
appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on
conference, during which the PPC was required to submit the list of its
representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the
rank and file employees based on the company payroll 3 months prior employees themselves. Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial
to the filing of the petition. Respondent company failed to submit the
democracy.
list.
The certification election was held, using as voter’s list the list of PPC Insistence on the application of the Omnibus Implementing Rules
employees requested from the SSS. MNMPP won.
could defeat this policy. Worse, it could facilitate fraud by employers
who can easily suppress the payroll to prevent certification elections
ISSUE: Was the use of the SSS list in violation of the Omnibus Rules from being held.
Implementing the Labor Code which prescribe the use of the company
payroll as basis for the voter’s list? Considering all the arguments presented above, we find no substantial
reason to nullify the certification election conducted on the basis of a
mere technicality which finds no justification considering the facts of
HELD: NO. It should ideally be the payroll which should have been the case nor upon close examination of the true intent of the law to
used for the purpose of the election. However, the unjustified refusal remove all impediments to the conduct of certification elections.
of a company to submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts to
make it produce it, compelled resort to the SSS list as the next best RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION – Extent and Scope of Right
source of information. After all, the SSS list is a public record whose
regularity is presumed. ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and
138 others,
vs
It is the policy of the Labor Code to encourage the holding of a
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor
certification election as the definitive and certain way of ascertaining
Relations, Med. Arbiter PATERNO
the choice of employees as to the labor organization in a collective
ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, Et. Al.
INK members filed a petition to cancel the election alleging that it
G.R. No. 84433 "was not fair" and the result thereof did "not reflect the true
June 02, 1992 sentiments of the majority of the employees.
Ponente: Narvasa, C.J.
Med-Arbiter saw no merit on the petition because INK members do
not possess any legal personality to institute this present cause of
NATURE OF CASE action since they were not parties to the petition for certification
Special Civil Action of Certiorari (to set aside the Decision of Officer- election. INK members appealed to Bureau of Labor Relations.
in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated July 22, 1988)
Bureau of Labor Relations sustained the decision of Med-Arbiter.
BRIEF Hence, this case.

The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. ISSUE/s of the CASE
Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the Whether or not the INK members have the right to vote in the
right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia certification election?
ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification
election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the ACTION OF THE COURT
right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the YES. The INK members have the right to vote in the certification
bargaining unit. That denial is assailed as having been done with grave election (for labor union).
abuse of discretion in the special civil action of certiorari at bar,
commenced by the INK members adversely affected thereby. COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE

FACTS Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the "right to self-

organization and to form, join, or assist labor rganizations of
The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
Bureau of Labor Relations on Oct 20, 1987.
Art 243 of Labor Code provides All persons employed in commercial,
The “CHALLENGED” votes of 141 INK members were segregated and industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable,
excluded from the final count in virtue of an agreement between the medical, or educational institutions whether operating for profit or
competing unions, reached at the pre-election conference, that the INK not, shall have the right to selforganization and to form, join, or assist
members should not be allowed to vote "because they are not labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
members of any union and refused to participate in the previous bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
certification elections. employed people, rural workers and those without any definite
employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and counted and tallied for the choices written therein. Costs against
protection. private respondents.
Article 248 (a) declares it to be an unfair labor practice for an
employer, among others, to "interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Article 249 (a) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization to "restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization.
Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only
employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a
certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible
intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide
employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a
labor organization or not.
The right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in
the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor
organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be
denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be
compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the Decision of
the then Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated
December 21, 1987 (affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated July
22, 1988) is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; and the petitioners are
DECLARED to have legally exercised their right to vote, and their
ballots should be canvassed and, if validly and properly made out,