[Admin] | [Question of Discretion] 1

[Digest maker]

Federation of Free Workers (Bisig ng

Manggagawa sa Utex) v Carmelo Noriel, Dir
of BLR, DOLE; Universal Textile Mills Workers
Union-ALU and Universal Textile Mills, Inc
[GR NO. L-47182-83] | [30 October 1978] | [Fernando, J.]

FACTS
The controversy of this case could be traced to the dispute between a labor
union with a CBA and another union wanting to hold a certification election.
Petitioner labor union filed a petition to hold a certification election before the
60-day freedom period. Meanwhile, a supplemental contract was executed
between respondent union and the company, extending the existing CBA, which
was ratified by more than a majority of the workers in UTex.
Med-Arbiter denied the certification but this was reversed by respondent Noriel.
The case was subsequently remanded to the Med-Arbiter for the reception and
evaluation of the supporting signatures of at least 30% of the employees which
petitioner may present and for the resolution of all other pending issues.
Respondent Unions motion for reconsideration was denied, with Noriel ruling
that the ratification of the CBA is being protested and the same can be threshed
out in an appropriate hearing before a Med-Arbiter and that the issue can best
be resolved by an appreciation of FFWs evidence.
Med-Arbiter then ordered a certification election. However, respondent union,
despite a finding that the 30% requirement was satisfied, assailed the Med-
Arbiter decision where the latter recognized the effectivity and validity of the
agreement between respondent Union and UTex, subsequently directing the
respondent Union to renegotiate with the management the benefits and other
conditions of employment for the 2nd and 3rd year of the contract within 3
months from receipt of the Resolution and to submit the same for ratification of
workers through secret ballot.

ISSUE and RATIO

1. WON respondent Carmelo Noriel acted in grave abuse of discretion for
reversing the order of the Med-Arbiter YES
a. Article 258 of the Labor Code expressly mandates that once the petition
for certification election has been verified that it has the support of at
least 30% of the employees of the employees in the bargaining unit, the
petition must be granted. The provision is categorical and mandatory. It is
incumbent upon respondent Noriel to order the certification election to
ascertain which labor organization should be the exclusive bargaining
representative.
b. In People v Mapa, the Court held that the task of the judiciary is equally
clear, the first and fundamental duty to yield obedience to what is
ordained. Justice Moreland in Lizarraga Hermanos v Yap Tico enunciated
that the first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law.
Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated
that application is impossible or inadequate without them. Justice Laurel
 reiterated this in Dir of Lands v Abejas where he said, Where the law is
clear, this Court cannot over-emphasize the necessity that there be
adherence.
c. Although an administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement of a
regulatory statute is vested with discretion, such is not unlimited. In the
case at hand, the Labor Code itself sets limits which must be observed.
The last sentence of Article 258 specifically defines what must be done by
the BLR once the certification election is conducted: to certify the winner
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit.
Noriels failure to abide by the requirement of the law is plain and
manifest. There can be no other conclusion except that his assailed order
is tainted with jurisdictional defect.
d. So as not to prejudice the workers, until the conclusion of the new CBA
and whatever labor organization was chosen after the certification
election, the extended labor contract should be left undisturbed.

DECISION
Petition denied. BLR decision is nullified, reversed and set aside. A
certification election must be conducted.