Part V - UNION REPRESENTATION: ESTABLISHING UNION MAJORITY STATUS all the laborers doing the arrastre and stevedoring

the arrastre and stevedoring work in connection

A. Pre-Condition: Employer-Employee Relationship with MARITIMA’s vessels in Iligan City. 

68. Allied Free Workers’ Union vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. (LACAP) 9. MARITIMA answered, alleging lack of ER-EE relationship between the parties.

G.R. No. L-22971. January 31, 1967. 10. On Aug. 1954, MARITIMA informed AFWU of the termination of
the CONTRACT because of the inefficient service rendered by the latter which
TOPIC: UNION REPRESENTATION: ESTABLISHING UNION MAJORITY STATUS (Pre- had adversely affected its business. The termination was to take effect as of
Condition: Employer-Employee Relationship) September 1, 1954. 
FACTS: 11. MARITIMA then contracted with the Iligan Stevedoring Union for the arrastre
1. MARITIMA is a local corporation engaged in the shipping business. and stevedoring work.
a. Teves is its branch manager in the port of Iligan City. a. The latter agreed to perform the work subject to the same terms and
conditions of the CONTRACT. 
2. Petitioner AFWU is a duly registered legitimate labor organization with 225
members. b. The new agreement was to be carried out on September 1, 1954.
3. MARITIMA, through Teves, entered into an arrastre and 12. ULP CASE: AFWU filed a case of ULP against MARATIMA but the latter
stevedoring CONTRACT with AFWU in Aug. 1952. answered denying the ER-EE relationship between the parties. As such, AFWU
formed a picket line at the wharf of Iligan City
a. Par. 2 stated that Maratima shall not be liable for they payment of the
services of AFWU for such is to be paid by the owners and consignees 13. CIVIL CASE: MARATIMA, in turn, filed an action to rescind the CONTRACT with
of the cargoes AFWU
b. Par. 4 stated that the contract is good for 1 month but renewable by a. CFI: ordered the rescission of the CONTRACT and permanently
agreement of the parties enjoined AFWU members from performing work in connection
with MARITlMA’s vessel
4. During the first month of the existence of the CONTRACT, AFWU rendered
satisfactory service. So, MARITIMA, through Teves, verbally renewed the same. 14. As regards the ULP case, after 10 years of handing the case, the Industrial Court
dismissed the case for lack of merit. It also ordered that a certification election
5. This harmonious relations between MARITIMA and AFWU lasted up to the
be conducted among all workers and stevedores working in the wharf of Iligan
latter part of 1953 when the former complained to the latter of unsatisfactory
City for Maratima to determine their representative.
and inefficient service by the laborers doing the arrastre and stevedoring work. 
ISSUE: Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between MARITIMA
6. To remedy the situation—since MARITIMA’s business was being adversely
and AFWU  NO
affected—Teves was forced to hire extra laborers from among “stand-by”
workers not affiliated to any union to help in the stevedoring and arrastre ULP CASE: NO ER-EE RELATIONSHIP = NO ULP
work.  MARITIMA admits that it did not answer AFWU’s proposal for CBA. From this it
a. The wages of these extra laborers were paid by MARITIMA through does not necessarily follow that it is guilty of unfair labor practice.
separate vouchers and not by AFWU.  Under the law, the duty to bargain collectively arises only between the
7. In 1954, AFWU presented to MARITIMA a written proposal for a CBA “employer” and its “employees”. Where neither party is an “employer” nor
an “employee” of the other, no such duty would exist. 
a. This demand embodied certain terms and conditions of employment
different from the provisions of the CONTRACT.   Needless to add, where there is no duty to bargain collectively the refusal to
bargain violates no right.
b. No reply was made by MARITIMA.
 So, the question is: Under the CONTRACT, was MARITIMA the “employer”
8. AFWU instituted proceedings in the Industrial Court praying that it be certified
and AFWU and/or its members the “employees” with respect to one another?
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the bargaining unit composed of
NO. The Court considered the ffg circumstances
 o AFWU operated as a labor contractor under the ‘cabo’ system
o The personnel of the petitioner were all appointed by the general
manager of the union and are paid in accordance with the union
payroll exclusively prepared by the union in the office.
o The union members who were hired by the union to perform arrastre
and stevedoring work on respondents’ vessels were being supervised
and controlled by the general foreman of the petitioner union
o Erring laborers and/or workers who are affiliates of the union were
directly responsible to the union and never to the
respondent. Respondent cannot, therefore, discipline and/ or dismiss
these erring workers of the union.
 From the foregoing circumstances and findings, the Court is of the opinion that
no substantial evidence has been presented to sustain the charge of unfair
labor practice acts as alleged to have been committed by herein respondent.  
 The Court finds no interference in the union activities, if any, of the members of
the AFWU as these persons engaged in the stevedoring and arrastre service
were employed by the AFWU as independent contractor subject to the terms
and conditions of their then’ existing labor contract
 The petitioner is an independent contractor as defined in the contract and in
the evidence submitted by the parties.
 The clear implication of the decision of the SC is that if the defendant has no
power of control—which, according to the Supreme Court, is the ‘most
important element’—there is no employer-employee relationship
 Neither is there any direct employment relationship between MARITIMA and
the laborers. The latter have no separate individual contracts with MARITIMA.
 The facts very succinctly show that it was AFWU, through its officers, which (1)
selected and hired the laborers, (2) paid their wages, (3) exercised control and
supervision over them, and (4) had the power to discipline and dismiss them.
These are the very elements constituting an employer-employee relationship.
 Of course there is no legal impediment for a union to be an “employer"
TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT: VALID
 The evidence does not show substantially any act of interference in the union
membership or activities of the petitioner union. The rescission of their
contract is not a union interference contemplated in the law.
 We are equally satisfied that the real reason for the termination of
the CONTRACT was AFWU’s inefficient service. 
 There was a showing that the laborers employed by the union were inefficient
in performing their jobs, and the business of the respondent company in Iligan
City suffered adversely during the year 1954.
CERTIFICATION ELECTION:
 The SC pointed out that the CIR ordered the certification election because the
renewal of the contract constitute as an implied ER-EE relationship by the
parties.
 SC held that to uphold the court a quo’s conclusion would be tantamount to
the imposition of an employer-employee relationship against the will
of MARITIMA. 
o This cannot be done, since it would violate MARITIMA’s exclusive
prerogative to determine whether it should enter into an employment
contract or not, i.e., whether it should hire others or not.
Therefore, even if the AFWU laborers continued to perform arrastre and
stevedoring work after August 31, 1954, it cannot be correctly concluded—as
did the court a quo—that an employer-employee relationship—even impliedly
at that—arose when before there never had been any. 
 Indeed, it would appeal unreasonable and unjust to force such a relationship
upon MARITIMA when it had clearly and continuously manifested its intention
not to have any more business relationship whatsoever with AFWU because of
its inefficient service. 
 The remaining question at bar is whether the certification election must be
sustained. Since the only function of a certification election is to determine,
with judicial sanction, who this official representative or spokesman of the
“employees” will be, the order for certification election in question cannot be
sustained.
 There being no ER-EE relationship between the parties disputants, there is
neither a “duty to bargain collectively” to speak of. And there being no such
duty, to hold certification elections would be pointless.
 There is no reason to select a representative to negotiate when there can be no
negotiations in the first place. We therefore hold that where—as in this case—
there is no duty to bargain collectively, it is not proper to hold certification
elections in connection therewith.
 ULP dismissed and order for CERT. ELECTION set aside.
B. Methods of Establishing Majority Status
1. Policy/Rationale
IR, Book V, Rule VI, Sec. 1
SECTION 1. Policy. — It is the policy of the State to promote free trade unionism
through expeditious procedures governing the choice of an exclusive bargaining
agent. The determination of such exclusive bargaining agent is a non-litigious
proceeding and, as far as practicable, shall be free from technicalities of law and
procedure, provided only that in every case, the exclusive bargaining agent enjoys
the majority support of all the employees in the bargaining unit.
LC, Art. 218 (b)
ART. 218. [211] Declaration of Policy- A. It is the policy of the State:
(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of
democracy and the promotion of social justice and development;
CONST., Art. XIII, Sec. 3
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by
law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing
the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
69 REYES v. TRAJANO (supra)
1. The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Relations among the employees of TriUnion Industries Corporation.
2. The challenged votes of the INK members were segregated and excluded from
the final count because INK members should not be allowed to vote since they
are not members of any union and refused to participate in the previous
certification elections.
3. The INK employees protested. Filed a petition to cancel the election alleging
that it was not fair and the results did not reflect the true sentiments of the
majority of the employees.
4. TUEU opposed saying that the INK members do not have legal personality to
protest because they are not members of either unit.
a. INK prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or
forming any labor organization.
ISSUE: Whether INK employees had the right to vote in the certification election.
YES.
 The INK employees, as employees in the same bargaining unit, do have the
right of self-organization. As well as the fact that when they voted that the
employees in their bargaining unit should be represented by "NO UNION," they
were simply exercising that right of self- organization, albeit in its negative
aspect.
 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.
RE: Rationale of methods establishing majority status
 The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the
wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to
be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case,
by which particular labor organization.
 If the results of the election should disclose that the majority of the workers do
not wish to be represented by any union, then their wishes must be respected,
and no union may properly be certified as the exclusive representative of the
workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer regarding wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
 The minority employees, who wish to have a union represent them in collective
bargaining, can do nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition for
a certification election and hope that the results will be different.
 They may not and should not be permitted, however, to impose their will on
the majority· who do not desire to have a union certified as the exclusive
workers' benefit in the bargaining unit, upon the plea that they, the minority
workers, are being denied the right of self-organization and collective
bargaining.
 As repeatedly stated, the right of self- organization embraces not only the right
to form, join or assist labor organizations, but the concomitant, converse right
NOT to form, join or assist any labor union.
Nat’l Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF) v. Sec. of Labor and  Attached to the original petition for certification election was a list of 141
Federation of Free Workers-Samahang Manggagawa sa Quality Container Corp supporting signatures out of the 300 employees belonging to the
(FFW-SMQCC). appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFW. 
G.R. No. 106446. Nov. 16, 1993. Quiason, J.  Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was disowned, this
TOPIC: Methods of Establishing Majority Status- Policy Rationale leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75 — i.e.,
25% of the total number of company employees required by law to
FACTS: support a petition for certification election.
1. Before the expiration of the CBA between NAMAWU and Quality  Moreover, the fact that the list of signatures is undated does not
Container Corp., FFW, through de Pedro filed with DOLE a petition for necessarily mean that the signatures were obtained prior to the 60-day
certification election. period before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining
2. The petition was accompanied by a list of signatures of employees who agreement. What is important is that the petition for certification election
signified their consent to a certification election among rank and file must be filed during the freedom period and that the 25% requirement of
employees of QCC. supporting signatures be met upon the filing thereof. 
3. NAMAWU filed a MTD on the ground that: 1.) the required consent of 25% When all the requirements have been complied, it is incumbent upon the Med-
of EE had not been met; 2.) petition was not verified; and 3.) de Pedro Arbiter to order a certification election to be conducted.
(President of NAMAWU) had no personality to file the petition on behalf of If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refused to be represented
FFW. by FFW, with all the more reason should a certification election be held where the
4. When FFW-SMQCC filed the second petition (this time signed and verified employees themselves can freely and voluntarily express by secret ballot their
by de Pedro), the Med Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that a choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most effective
certification election be conducted. (Choices are: FFW, NAMAWU and No and expeditious way to determine which labor organization can truly represent
Union) the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company
5. The Sec. of Labor denied the appeal of NAMAWU.
6. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the petition for certification for election of FFW should be granted-
YES
HELD:
Re: de Pedro’s personality to file the petition
 de Pedro disaffiliated himself from NAMAWU and joined FFW before the
petition for certification election was filed and the petition for certification
election was filed before his dismissal.
Re: Verification
 Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor
cases; and this rule is specifically applied in certification election
proceedings, which are non-litigious but merely investigative and non-
adversarial in character.
 Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in the first petition were
cured and corrected in the second petition for certification election.
Re: Signatures
71 SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP-PIILUTUCP) v. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER
CORPORATION
Topic: Methods of Establishing Majority Status; Policy/Rationale
1. A certification election was conducted among the employees of Permex
Producer.
 It is not enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees.
It is equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given the
opportunity to express himself.
 This is especially so because, in this case, the recognition given to the union
came barely ten (10) months after the employees had voted “no union” in the
certification election conducted in the company.

a. NFL (235); No Union (466); Spoiled Ballots (18); Marked Ballots (9);  As pointed out by the Secretary of Labor in his decision, there can be no
Challenged Ballots (7). determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the proclamation
of the results of the certification election.
2. However, some employees formed SMP which they registered with DOLE. It
later on affiliated with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU) o Here the results, which showed that 61% of the employees voted for
“no union,” were certified only on February 25, 1991 but on December
3. SMP-PIILU requested recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining 1, 1991 Permex Producer already recognized the union and entered
representative of the employees of Permez. into a CBA with it.
4. Permex recognized it and entered into a collective bargaining agreement.  There is something dubious about the fact that just ten (10) months after the
5. The CBA was ratified by the majority of the employees. employees had voted that they did not want any union to represent them, they
would be expressing support for SMP.
6. It was then certified by DOLE.
o The doubt is compounded by the fact that in sworn affidavits some
7. NFL filed a petition for certification election but the MA dismissed it.
employees claimed that they had either been coerced or misled into
8. NFL appealed. Sec of Labor set aside decision, and ordered a certification signing a document which turned out to be in support of SMP as its
election with the ff choices: collective bargaining agent.
a. National Federation of Labor RE: Voluntary Recognition of Permex Producer
b. Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex  Permex Producer should not have given its voluntary recognition to SMP-PIILU-
c. No Union TUCP when the latter asked for recognition as exclusive collective bargaining
agent of the employees of the company.
9. SMP, MR. Denied. Hence this petition.
 The company did not have the power to declare the union the exclusive
10. SMP: It was recognized by the majority of the employees as the sole CB
representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining.
agent.
 By virtue of EO 111, the direct certification previously allowed under the Labor
a. When a group of employees organizes and claims to represent a
Code had been discontinued as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining
majority of the work force requests the employer to bargain
agents of the workers.
collectively:
o Certification election is the most effective and the most democratic
i. If the er is satisfied with the ee’s claim, the er may voluntarily
way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the
organize the union by merely bargaining collectively with it
working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of a company.
ii. If the er refuses to recognize the union voluntarily, it or the
Union may petition with BLR to conduct certification election.
b. Out of the 763 employees, 479 supported the application for
registration while 542 ratified the CBA. 2. Voluntary Recognition
i. Such support made the CBA valid and binding. LC, Art. 251(c)
ISSUE: Whether support by the majority of the employees makes a CBA entered by Art. 251. [242] Rights of Legitimate Labor Organlzations. - A legitimate labor
a union valid and binding. NO. organization shall have the right:
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary recognition shall be
financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, certified under oath by the employer representative and president of the
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the recognized labor union.
union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and SECTION 3.Action on the Notice. — Where the notice of voluntary recognition is
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or sufficient in form, number and substance and where there is no other registered
within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective labor union operating within the bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office,
bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation; through the Labor Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (bbb) notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor
(bbb)"Voluntary Recognition" refers to the process by which a legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. SEIDAC
union is recognized by the employer as the exclusive bargaining representative or Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form, number and
agent in a bargaining unit, reported with the Regional Office in accordance with substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same period, notify the labor union
Rule VII, Section 2 of these Rules. of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements. Where
Rule VI, Sec. 2 neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete the requirements for
voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from
SECTION 2.Determination of Representation Status; Modes. — The determination of receipt of the advisory, the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary
an exclusive bargaining agent shall be through voluntary recognition in cases where recognition together with all its accompanying documents without prejudice to its
there is only one legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit, re-submission.
or through certification, run-off or consent election as provided in these Rules.
SECTION 4.Effect of Recording of Fact of Voluntary Recognition. — From the time of
Rule VII recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the
RULE VII rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees
in the bargaining unit.
Voluntary Recognition
Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for certification
SECTION 1. When and Where to File. — In unorganized establishments with only
election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year from the date of
one legitimate labor organization, the employer may voluntarily recognize the
entry of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration of this one- year period, any
representation status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition,
legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the
the employer and union shall submit a notice of voluntary recognition with the
same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union, unless a
Regional Office which issued the recognized labor union's certificate of registration
collective bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily recognized
or certificate of creation of a chartered local.
labor union was executed and registered with the Regional Office in accordance
SECTION 2. Requirements for Voluntary Recognition. — The notice of voluntary with Rule XVII of these Rules.
recognition shall be accompanied by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies
of the following documents:
(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition attesting to the fact of
voluntary recognition;
(b)certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary recognition for fifteen
(15) consecutive days in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment or
bargaining unit where the union seeks to operate;
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit, accompanied by
the names of those w ho support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a
majority of the members of the bargaining unit; and
(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization
operating within the bargaining unit.
Effects
IR, Book V, Rule VII, Sec. 4
SECTION 4.Effect of Recording of Fact of Voluntary Recognition. — From the time of
recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the
rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees
in the bargaining unit.
Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for certification
election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year from the date of
entry of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration of this one- year period, any
legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the
same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union, unless a
collective bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily recognized
labor union was executed and registered with the Regional Office in accordance
with Rule XVII of these Rules.
3. Elections
a. Certification election
LC, Art. 268
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions
is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the
petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (h)
(h)"Certification Election" or "Consent Election" refers to the process of determining
through secret ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. A
certification election is ordered by the Department, while a consent election is
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the intervention by the
Department. T
(ll) "Organized Establishment" refers to an enterprise where there exists a
recognized or certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
Rule VIII
RULE VIII
Certification Election
SECTION 1. Who May File. — Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition
for certification election.
When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for
certification election with the Regional Office. If there is no existing registered
collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall,
after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election.
SECTION 2. Where to File. — A petition for certification election shall be filed with
the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of
registration/certificate of creation of chartered local.
The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter.
Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one
Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter
who first acquired jurisdiction. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional
Offices, the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all
others; in which case, the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for
consolidation.
SECTION 3. When to File. — A petition for certification election may be filed
anytime, except:
(a) when a fact of voluntary recognition has been entered or a valid certification,
consent or run-off election has been conducted within the bargaining unit within
one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition for certification election. Where an
appeal has been filed from the order of the Med-Arbiter certifying the results of the
election, the running of the one year period shall be suspended until the decision
on the appeal has become final and executory; SEIDAC
(b) when the duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations in
good faith with the employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code
within the one year period referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph;
(c) when a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent
is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout;
(d) when a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and a duly
recognized or certified bargaining agent has been registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the Labor Code. Where such collective bargaining agreement is
registered, the petition may be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry.
SECTION 4. Form and Contents of Petition. — The petition shall be in writing,
verified under oath by the president of petitioning labor organization. Where the
petition is filed by a federation or national union, it shall verified under oath by the
president or its duly authorized representative. The petition shall contain the
following:
(a) the name of petitioner, its address, and affiliation if appropriate, the date and
number of its certificate of registration. If the petition is filed by a federation or
national union, the date and number of the certificate of registration or certificate
of creation of chartered local;
(b) the name, address and nature of employer's business;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit;
(d) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit;
(e) the names and addresses of other legitimate labor unions in the bargaining unit;
(f) a statement indicating any of the following circumstances:
1) that the bargaining unit is unorganized or that there is no registered collective
bargaining agreement covering the employees in the bargaining unit;
2)if there exists a duly registered collective bargaining agreement, that the petition
is filed within the sixty-day freedom period of such agreement; or
3) if another union had been previously recognized voluntarily or certified in a valid
certification, consent or run-off election, that the petition is filed outside the one-
year period from entry of voluntary recognition or conduct of certification or run-off
election and no appeal is pending thereon. SEIDAC
(g) in an organized establishment, the signature of at least twenty- five percent
(25%) of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be attached to the
petition at the time of its filing; and
(h) other relevant facts.
SECTION 5. Raffle of the Case. — Upon the filing of the petition, the Regional
Director or any of his/her authorized representative shall allow the party filing the
petition to personally determine the Med-Arbiter assigned to the case by means of
a raffle. Where there is only one Med-Arbiter in the region, the raffle shall be
dispensed with and the petition shall be assigned to him/her.
SECTION 6. Notice of Preliminary Conference. — Immediately after the raffle of the
case or receipt of the petition, the same shall be transmitted to the Med-Arbiter,
who shall in the same instance prepare and serve upon the petitioning party a
notice for preliminary conference. The first preliminary conference shall be
scheduled within ten (10) days from receipt of the petition.
Within three (3) days from receipt of the petition, the Med-Arbiter shall cause the
service of notice for preliminary conference upon the employer and incumbent
bargaining agent in the subject bargaining unit directing them to appear before
him/her on a date, time and place specified. A copy of the notice of preliminary
conference and petition for certification election shall be posted in at least two
conspicuous places in the establishment.
SECTION 7. Forced Intervenor. — The incumbent bargaining agent shall
automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced
intervenor.
SECTION 8. Motion for Intervention. — When a petition for certification election
was filed in an organized establishment, any legitimate labor union other than the
incumbent bargaining agent operating within the bargaining unit may file a motion
for intervention with the Med-Arbiter during the freedom period of the collective
bargaining agreement. The form and contents of the motion shall be the same as
that of a petition for certification election.
In an unorganized establishment, the motion shall be filed at any time prior to the
decision of the Med-Arbiter. The form and contents of the motion shall likewise be
the same as that of a petition for certification election. The motion for intervention
shall be resolved in the same decision issued in the petition for certification
election.
SECTION 9. Preliminary Conference; Hearing. — The Med-Arbiter shall conduct a
preliminary conference and hearing within ten (10) days from receipt of the petition
to determine the following:
(a) the bargaining unit to be represented;
(b) contending labor unions;
(c) possibility of a consent election; SEIDAC
(d) existence of any of the bars to certification election under Section 3 of this Rule;
and
(e) such other matters as may be relevant for the final disposition of the case.
SECTION 10. Consent Election; Agreement. — In case the contending unions agree
to a consent election, the Med-Arbiter shall not issue a formal order calling for the
conduct of certification election, but shall enter the fact of the agreement in the
minutes of the hearing. The minutes of the hearing shall be signed by the parties
and attested to by the Med-Arbiter. The Med- Arbiter shall, immediately thereafter,
forward the records of the petition to the Regional Director or his/her authorized
representative for the determination of the Election Officer by the contending
unions through raffle. The first pre-election conference shall be scheduled within
ten (10) days from the date of entry of agreement to conduct consent election.
SECTION 11. Number of Hearings; Pleadings. — If the contending unions fail to
agree to a consent election during the preliminary conference, the Med- Arbiter
may conduct as many hearings as he/she may deem necessary, but in no case shall
the conduct thereof exceed fifteen (15) days from the date of the scheduled
preliminary conference/hearing, after which time the petition shall be considered
submitted for decision. The Med-Arbiter shall have control of the proceedings.
Postponements or continuances shall be discouraged.
Within the same 15-day period within which the petition is heard, the contending
labor unions may file such pleadings as they may deem necessary for the immediate
resolution of the petition. Extensions of time shall not be entertained. All motions
shall be resolved by the Med-Arbiter in the same order or decision granting or
denying the petition.
SECTION 12. Failure to Appear Despite Notice. — The failure of any party to appear
in the hearing(s) when notified or to file its pleadings shall be deemed a waiver of
its right to be heard. The Med-Arbiter, however, when agreed upon by the parties
for meritorious reasons may allow the cancellation of scheduled hearing(s). The
cancellation of any scheduled hearing(s) shall not be used as a basis for extending
the 15-day period within which to terminate the same.
SECTION 13. Order/Decision on the Petition. — Within ten (10) days from the date
of the last hearing, the Med-Arbiter shall issue a formal order granting the petition
or a decision denying the same. I n organized establishments, however, no order or
decision shall be issued by the Med- Arbiter during the freedom period.
The order granting the conduct of a certification election shall state the following:
(a) the name of the employer or establishment;
(b) the description of the bargaining unit;
(c) a statement that none of the grounds for dismissal enumerated in the
succeeding paragraph exists;
(d) the names of contending labor unions which shall appear as follows: petitioner
union/s in the order in which their petitions were filed, forced intervenor, and no
union; and SEIDAC
(e) a directive upon the employer and the contending union(s) to submit within ten
(10) days from receipt of the order, the certified list of employees in the bargaining
unit, or where necessary, the payrolls covering the members of the bargaining unit
for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of the order.
SECTION 14. Denial of the Petition ; Grounds. — The Med-Arbiter may dismiss the
petition on any of the following grounds:
(a) the petitioner is not listed in the Department's registry of legitimate labor unions
or that its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in
accordance with Rule XIV of these Rules;
(b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement; provided that the sixty-day period based on the
original collective bargaining agreement shall not be affected by any amendment,
extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement;
(c)the petition was filed within one (1) year from entry of voluntary recognition or a
valid certification, consent or run-off election and no appeal on the results of the
certification, consent or run-off election is pending;
(d)a duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations with the
employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code within the one-year
period referred to in Section 14.c of this Rule, or there exists a bargaining deadlock
which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject
of a valid notice of strike or lockout to which an incumbent or certified bargaining
agent is a party; SEIDAC
(e) in case of an organized establishment, failure to submit the twenty-five percent
(25%) support requirement for the filing of the petition for certification election.
SECTION 15.Prohibited Grounds for the Denial/Suspension of the Petition. — All
issues pertaining to the existence of employer-employee relationship, eligibility or
mixture in union membership raised before the Med- Arbiter during the hearing(s)
and in the pleadings shall be resolved in the same order or decision granting or
denying the petition for certification election. Any question pertaining to the
validity of petitioning union's certificate of registration or its legal personality as a
labor organization, validity of registration and execution of collective bargaining
agreements shall be heard and resolved by the Regional Director in an independent
petition for cancellation of its registration and not by the Med-Arbiter in the
petition for certification election, unless the petitioning union is not found in the
Department's roster of legitimate labor organizations or an existing collective
bargaining agreement is unregistered with the Department.
SECTION 16. Release of Order/Decision within Ten (10) Days from the Last Hearing.
— The Med-Arbiter shall release his/her order or decision granting or denying the
petition personally to the parties on an agreed date and time.
SECTION 17. Appeal. — The order granting the conduct of a certification election in
an unorganized establishment shall not be subject to appeal. Any issue arising
therefrom may be raised by means of protest on the conduct and results of the
certification election.
The order granting the conduct of a certification election in an organized
establishment and the decision dismissing or denying the petition, whether in an
organized or unorganized establishment, may be appealed to the Office of the
Secretary within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
The appeal shall be verified under oath and shall consist of a memorandum of
appeal, specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the appellant with the
supporting arguments and evidence.
SECTION 18. Where to File Appeal. — The memorandum of appeal shall be filed in
the Regional Office where the petition originated, copy furnished the contending
unions and the employer, as the case may be. Within twenty- four (24) hours from
receipt of the appeal, the Regional Director shall cause the transmittal thereof
together with the entire records of the case to the Office of the Secretary.
SECTION 19.Finality of Order/Decision. — Where no appeal is filed within the ten-
day period, the Med-Arbiter shall enter the finality of the order/decision in the
records of the case and cause the transmittal of the records of the petition to the
Regional Director.
SECTION 20. Period to Reply. — A reply to the appeal may be filed by any party to
the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of the memorandum of appeal. The
reply shall be filed directly with the Office of the Secretary.
SECTION 21.Decision of the Secretary. — The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the entire records of the petition within which to decide the appeal.
The filing of the memorandum of appeal from the order or decision of the Med-
Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election.
The decision of the Secretary shall become final and executory after ten (10) days
from receipt thereof by the parties. No motion for reconsideration of the decision
shall be entertained.
SECTION 22. Transmittal of Records to the Regional Office . — Within forty-eight
(48) hours from notice of receipt of decision by the parties and finality of the
decision, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the Regional Office of
origin for implementation. Implementation of the decision shall not be stayed
unless restrained by the appropriate court.
SECTION 23.Effects of Consent Election. — Where a petition for certification election
had been filed, and upon the intercession of the Med- Arbiter, the parties agree to
hold a consent election, the results thereof shall constitute a bar to the holding of a
certification election for one (1) year from the holding of such consent election.
Where an appeal has been filed from the results of the consent election, the
running of the one-year period shall be suspended until the decision on appeal has
become final and executory.
Where no petition for certification election was filed but the parties themselves
agreed to hold a consent election with the intercession of the Regional Office, the
results thereof shall constitute a bar to another petition for certification election.
SECTION 24. Effects of Early Agreements. — The representation case shall not be
adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or during
the last sixty (60) days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
representation case.
SECTION 25. Non-availability of Med-Arbiter. — Where there is no Med- Arbiter
available in the Regional Office by reason of vacancy, prolonged absence, or
excessive workload as determined by the Regional Director, he/she shall transmit
the entire records of the case to the Bureau, which shall within forty-eight (48)
hours from receipt assign the case to any Med-Arbiter from any of the Regional
Offices or from the Bureau.
RULE IX
Conduct of Certification Election
SECTION 1. Raffle of the Case. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
notice of entry of final judgment granting the conduct of a certification election, the
Regional Director shall cause the raffle of the case to an Election Officer who shall
have control of the pre-election conference and election proceedings.
SECTION 2. Pre-election Conference. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt
of the assignment for the conduct of a certification election, the Election Officer
shall cause the issuance of notice of pre-election conference upon the contending
unions and the employer, which shall be scheduled within ten (10) days from
receipt of the assignment.
The pre-election conference shall set the mechanics for the election and shall
determine, among others, the following:
(a) date, time and place of the election, which shall not be later than forty-five (45)
days from the date of the first pre-election conference, and shall be on a regular
working day and within the employer's premises, unless circumstances require
otherwise;
(b) list of eligible and challenged voters;
(c) number and location of polling places or booths and the number of ballots to be
prepared with appropriate translations, if necessary;
(d) name of watchers or representatives and their alternates for each of the parties
during election;
(e) mechanics and guidelines of the election.
SECTION 3. Waiver of Right to be Heard. — Failure of any party to appear during the
pre-election conference despite notice shall be considered as a waiver to be present
and to question or object to any of the agreements reached in said pre-election
conference. Nothing herein, however, shall deprive the non-appearing party or the
employer of its right to be furnished notices of subsequent pre-election conferences
and to attend the same.
SECTION 4. Minutes of Pre-election Conference. — The Election Officer shall keep
the minutes of matters raised and agreed upon during the pre- election conference.
The parties shall acknowledge the completeness and correctness of the entries in
the minutes by affixing their signatures thereon. Where any of the parties refuse to
sign the minutes, the Election Officer shall note such fact in the minutes, including
the reason for refusal to sign the same. In all cases, the parties shall be furnished a
copy of the minutes.
The pre-election conference shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the
date of the first hearing.
SECTION 5.Qualification of Voters; Inclusion-Exclusion. — All employees who are
members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the
petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a
certification election shall be eligible to vote. An employee who has been dismissed
from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate
jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification
election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared
valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election.
In case of disagreement over the voters' list or over the eligibility of voters, all
contested voters shall be allowed to vote. But their votes shall be segregated and
sealed in individual envelopes in accordance with Sections 10 and 11 of this Rule.
SECTION 6. Posting of Notices. — The Election Officer shall cause the posting of
notice of election at least ten (10) days before the actual date of the election in two
(2) most conspicuous places in the company premises. The notice shall contain:
(a) the date and time of the election;
(b) names of all contending unions;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit and the list of eligible and challenged
voters.
The posting of the notice of election, the information required to be included
therein and the duration of posting cannot be waived by the contending unions or
the employer.
SECTION 7. Secrecy and Sanctity of the Ballot. — To ensure secrecy of the ballot, the
Election Officer, together with the authorized representatives of the contending
unions and the employer, shall before the start of the actual voting, inspect the
polling place, the ballot boxes and the polling booths.
SECTION 8. Preparation of Ballots. — The Election Officer shall prepare the ballots in
English and Filipino or the local dialect, corresponding to the number of voters and
a reasonable number of extra ballots. All ballots shall be signed at the back by the
Election Officer and authorized representative of each of the contending unions and
employer. Failure or refusal to sign the ballots shall be considered a waiver thereof
and the Election Officer shall enter the fact of such refusal or failure in the records
of the case as well as the reason for the refusal or failure to sign.
SECTION 9. Marking of Votes. — The voter must put a cross (x) or check (Ö) mark in
the square opposite the name of the union of his choice or "No Union" if he/she
does not want to be represented by any union.
If a ballot is torn, defaced or left unfilled in such a manner as to create doubt or
confusion or to identify the voter, it shall be considered spoiled. If the voter
inadvertently spoils a ballot, he/she shall return it to the Election Officer who shall
destroy it and give him/her another ballot.
SECTION 10. Challenging of Votes. — An authorized representative of any of the
contending unions and employer may challenge a vote before it is deposited in the
ballot box only on any of the following grounds:
(a) that there is no employer-employee relationship between the voter and the
company;
(b) that the voter is not a member of the appropriate bargaining unit which
petitioner seeks to represent.
SECTION 11. Procedure in the Challenge of Votes. — When a vote is properly
challenged, the Election Officer shall place the ballot in an envelope which shall be
sealed in the presence of the voter and the representatives of the contending
unions and employer. The Election Officer shall indicate on the envelope the voter's
name, the union or employer challenging the voter, and the ground for the
challenge. The sealed envelope shall then be signed by the Election Offi cer and the
representatives of the contending unions and employer. The Election Officer shall
note all challenges in the minutes of the election and shall be responsible for
consolidating all envelopes containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be
opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon only if the number of
segregated voters will materially alter the results of the election.
SECTION 12. On-the-Spot Questions. — The Election Officer shall rule on any
question relating to and raised during the conduct of the election. In no case,
however, shall the election officer rule on any of the grounds for challenge specified
in the immediately preceding section.
SECTION 13. Protest; When Perfected. — Any party-in-interest may file a protest
based on the conduct or mechanics of the election. Such protests shall be recorded
in the minutes of the election proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed
waived.
The protesting party must formalize its protest with the Med-Arbiter, with specific
grounds, arguments and evidence, within five (5) days after the close of the election
proceedings. If not recorded in the minutes and formalized within the prescribed
period, the protest shall be deemed dropped.
SECTION 14. Canvassing of Votes. — The votes shall be counted and tabulated by
the Election Officer in the presence of the representatives of the contending unions.
Upon completion of the canvass, the Election Officer shall give each representative
a copy of the minutes of the election proceedings and results of the election. The
ballots and the tally sheets shall be sealed in an envelope and signed by the Election
Officer and the representatives of the contending unions and transmitted to the
Med-Arbiter, together with the minutes and results of the election, within twenty-
four (24) hours from the completion of the canvass.
Where the election is conducted in more than one region, consolidation of results
shall be made within fifteen (15) days from the conduct thereof.
SECTION 15. Conduct of Election and Canvass of Votes . — The election precincts
shall open and close on the date and time agreed upon during the pre-election
conference. The opening and canvass shall proceed immediately after the precincts
have closed. Failure of any party or the employer or his/her/their representative to
appear during the election proceedings shall be considered a waiver to be present
and to question the conduct thereof.
SECTION 16. Certification of Collective Bargaining Agent. — The union which
obtained a majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit within five
(5) days from the day of the election, provided no protest is recorded in the
minutes of the election.
SECTION 17. Failure of Election. — Where the number of votes cast in a certification
or consent election is less than the majority of the number of eligible voters and
there are no material challenged votes, the Election Officer shall declare a failure of
election in the minutes of the election proceedings.
SECTION 18.Effect of Failure of Election. — A failure of election shall not bar the
filing of a motion for the immediate holding of another certification or consent
election within six (6) months from date of declaration of failure of election.
SECTION 19. Action on the Motion. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of
the motion, the Election Officer shall immediately schedule the conduct of another
certification or consent election within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the motion
and cause the posting of the notice of certification election at least ten (10) days
prior to the scheduled date of election in two (2) most conspicuous places in the
establishment. The same guidelines and list of voters shall be used in the election.
SECTION 20.Proclamation and Certification of the Result of the Election. — Within
twenty-four (24) hours from final canvass of votes, there being a valid election, the
Election Officer shall transmit the records of the case to the Med-Arbiter who shall,
within the same period from receipt of the minutes and results of election, issue an
order proclaiming the results of the election and certifying the union which
obtained a majority of the valid votes cast as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent in the subject bargaining unit, under any of the following conditions:
(a) no protest was filed or, even if one was filed, the same was not perfected within
the five-day period for perfection of the protest;
(b) no challenge or eligibility issue was raised or, even if one was raised, the
resolution of the same will not materially change the results of the elections.
The winning union shall have the rights, privileges and obligations of a duly certified
collective bargaining agent from the time the certification is issued.
Where majority of the valid votes cast results in "No Union" obtaining the majority,
the Med-Arbiter shall declare such fact in the order.
RULE X
Run-Off Elections
SECTION 1. When Proper. — When an election which provides for three (3) or more
choices results in none of the contending unions receiving a majority of the valid
votes cast, and there are no objections or challenges which if sustained can
materially alter the results, the Election Officer shall motu propio conduct a run-off
election within ten (10) days from the close of the election proceedings between
the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes; provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty (50%) percent of the
number of votes cast.
"No Union" shall not be a choice in the run-off election.
Notice of run-off elections shall be posted by the Election Officer at least five (5)
days before the actual date of run-off election.
SECTION 2. Qualification of Voters. — The same voters' list used in the certification
election shall be used in the run-off election. The ballots in the run-off election shall
provide as choices the unions receiving the highest and second highest number of
the votes cast. The labor union receiving the greater number of valid votes cast
shall be certified as the winner, subject to Section 20, Rule IX.
b. Consent election –
IR, Book V, Rules I, Sec. 1 (h)
(h)"Certification Election" or "Consent Election" refers to the process of determining
through secret ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. A
certification election is ordered by the Department, while a consent election is
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the intervention by the
Department.
Rule VIII, Secs. 10, 11, 23
SECTION 10. Consent Election; Agreement. — In case the contending unions agree
to a consent election, the Med-Arbiter shall not issue a formal order calling for the
conduct of certification election, but shall enter the fact of the agreement in the
minutes of the hearing. The minutes of the hearing shall be signed by the parties
and attested to by the Med-Arbiter. The Med- Arbiter shall, immediately thereafter,
forward the records of the petition to the Regional Director or his/her authorized
representative for the determination of the Election Officer by the contending
unions through raffle. The first pre-election conference shall be scheduled within
ten (10) days from the date of entry of agreement to conduct consent election.
SECTION 11. Number of Hearings; Pleadings. — If the contending unions fail to
agree to a consent election during the preliminary conference, the Med- Arbiter
may conduct as many hearings as he/she may deem necessary, but in no case shall
the conduct thereof exceed fifteen (15) days from the date of the scheduled
preliminary conference/hearing, after which time the petition shall be considered
submitted for decision. The Med-Arbiter shall have control of the proceedings.
Postponements or continuances shall be discouraged.
SECTION 23. Effects of Consent Election. — Where a petition for certification
election had been filed, and upon the intercession of the Med- Arbiter, the parties
agree to hold a consent election, the results thereof shall constitute a bar to the
holding of a certification election for one (1) year from the holding of such consent
election. Where an appeal has been filed from the results of the consent election,
the running of the one-year period shall be suspended until the decision on appeal
has become final and executory.
Where no petition for certification election was filed but the parties themselves
agreed to hold a consent election with the intercession of the Regional Office, the
results thereof shall constitute a bar to another petition for certification election.
Effects
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 23
SECTION 23. Effects of Consent Election. — Where a petition for certification
election had been filed, and upon the intercession of the Med- Arbiter, the parties
agree to hold a consent election, the results thereof shall constitute a bar to the
holding of a certification election for one (1) year from the holding of such consent
election. Where an appeal has been filed from the results of the consent election,
the running of the one-year period shall be suspended until the decision on appeal
has become final and executory.
Where no petition for certification election was filed but the parties themselves
agreed to hold a consent election with the intercession of the Regional Office, the
results thereof shall constitute a bar to another petition for certification election.
c. Run-off election
LC, Art. 268, par. 1, penultimate sentence
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending
unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where
the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (ss)
(ss)"Run-off Election" refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the
two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with three (3)
or more choices, where such a certified or consent results in none of the three (3)
or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the
total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the
number of votes cast.
RULE X
Run-Off Elections
SECTION 1. When Proper. — When an election which provides for three (3) or more
choices results in none of the contending unions receiving a majority of the valid
votes cast, and there are no objections or challenges which if sustained can
materially alter the results, the Election Officer shall motu propio conduct a run-off
election within ten (10) days from the close of the election proceedings between
the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes; provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty (50%) percent of the
number of votes cast.
"No Union" shall not be a choice in the run-off election.
Notice of run-off elections shall be posted by the Election Officer at least five (5)
days before the actual date of run-off election.
SECTION 2. Qualification of Voters. — The same voters' list used in the certification
election shall be used in the run-off election. The ballots in the run-off election shall
provide as choices the unions receiving the highest and second highest number of
the votes cast. The labor union receiving the greater number of valid votes cast
shall be certified as the winner, subject to Section 20, Rule IX.
4. Venue of Petition
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 2
SECTION 2. Where to File. — A petition for certification election shall be filed with
the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of
registration/certificate of creation of chartered local.
The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter.
Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one
Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter
who first acquired jurisdiction. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional
Offices, the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all
others; in which case, the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for
consolidation.
Cruzvale v Laguesma 238 SCRA 389 (1994)
FACTS:
1. Union of Filipino Workers filed with the DOLE a petition for certification
election among the rank and file workers of Cruzvale Inc.
2. Cruzvale sought the denial of the petition because Regional Office No. 4 (RO) of
DOLE has no jurisdiction over the petition since Cruzvale’s place of business is
located at Cubao, QC, which is outside the jurisdiction of the RO; and that it is
the National Capital Region of DOLE which has jurisdiction over the petition.
3. Med-Arbiter: gave due course to the petition for certification election.
4. DOLE: upheld the Med-Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE: WON the petition was filed in the proper venue.- YES
RULING:
1. Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides that a petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional
Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer.
a. Refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the
place of the principal office of the employer are within the same
territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for
certification election is filed.
2. The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the
petition for certification must be filed; it touches more the convenience of the
parties rather than the substance of the case.
3. Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the
place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the
employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different regional
offices.
a. The worker, being the economically disadvantaged party whether as
complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the
nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be
placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be
allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in
another place to the inconvenience of the worker.
4. Cruzvale has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the hearing on the petition
for certification election before the Regional Office No. IV, which has its offices
in Quezon City, the same city where the principal place of business of Cruzvale
is located. Cruzvale is, therefore, being unreasonable in demanding that the
petition for certification election be filed with the National Capital Region
Office, which holds offices in Manila.
5. Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the New
Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission prescribes that
all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch
office which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the
complainant/petitioner."
a. The NLRC Rules provide that for purposes of venue, workplace shall be
understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly
assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place
where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary
detail, assignment or travel.
6. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code has no provision as to when
an objection to improper venue may be raised. The MedArbiter ruled that
where the employer had appeared twice at the hearing of the petition for
certification election without questioning the venue, said employer was barred
 from raising the issue in the subsequent proceedings. There is no reason for the
respondent to delay as it did, the proceedings of the case, only to assail later on
the jurisdiction of the office.
a. No GADLEJ on the part of the Med-Arbiter.
C. Certification Election — Process:
IR, Book V, Rules VIII, IX, X
RULE VIII
Certification Election
SECTION 1. Who May File. — Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition
for certification election.
When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for
certification election with the Regional Office. If there is no existing registered
collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall,
after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election.
SECTION 2. Where to File. — A petition for certification election shall be filed with
the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of
registration/certificate of creation of chartered local.
The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter.
Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one
Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter
who first acquired jurisdiction. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional
Offices, the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all
others; in which case, the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for
consolidation.
SECTION 3. When to File. — A petition for certification election may be filed
anytime, except:
(a) when a fact of voluntary recognition has been entered or a valid certification,
consent or run-off election has been conducted within the bargaining unit within
one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition for certification election. Where an
appeal has been filed from the order of the Med-Arbiter certifying the results of the
election, the running of the one year period shall be suspended until the decision
on the appeal has become final and executory; SEIDAC
(b) when the duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations in
good faith with the employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code
within the one year period referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph;
(c) when a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent
is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout;
(d) when a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and a duly
recognized or certified bargaining agent has been registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the Labor Code. Where such collective bargaining agreement is
registered, the petition may be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry.
SECTION 4. Form and Contents of Petition. — The petition shall be in writing,
verified under oath by the president of petitioning labor organization. Where the
petition is filed by a federation or national union, it shall verified under oath by the
president or its duly authorized representative. The petition shall contain the
following:
(a) the name of petitioner, its address, and affiliation if appropriate, the date and
number of its certificate of registration. If the petition is filed by a federation or
national union, the date and number of the certificate of registration or certificate
of creation of chartered local;
(b) the name, address and nature of employer's business;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit;
(d) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit;
(e) the names and addresses of other legitimate labor unions in the bargaining unit;
(f) a statement indicating any of the following circumstances:
1) that the bargaining unit is unorganized or that there is no registered collective
bargaining agreement covering the employees in the bargaining unit;
2)if there exists a duly registered collective bargaining agreement, that the petition
is filed within the sixty-day freedom period of such agreement; or
3) if another union had been previously recognized voluntarily or certified in a valid
certification, consent or run-off election, that the petition is filed outside the one-
year period from entry of voluntary recognition or conduct of certification or run-off
election and no appeal is pending thereon. SEIDAC
(g) in an organized establishment, the signature of at least twenty- five percent
(25%) of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be attached to the
petition at the time of its filing; and
(h) other relevant facts.
SECTION 5. Raffle of the Case. — Upon the filing of the petition, the Regional
Director or any of his/her authorized representative shall allow the party filing the
petition to personally determine the Med-Arbiter assigned to the case by means of
a raffle. Where there is only one Med-Arbiter in the region, the raffle shall be
dispensed with and the petition shall be assigned to him/her.
SECTION 6. Notice of Preliminary Conference. — Immediately after the raffle of the
case or receipt of the petition, the same shall be transmitted to the Med-Arbiter,
who shall in the same instance prepare and serve upon the petitioning party a
notice for preliminary conference. The first preliminary conference shall be
scheduled within ten (10) days from receipt of the petition.
Within three (3) days from receipt of the petition, the Med-Arbiter shall cause the
service of notice for preliminary conference upon the employer and incumbent
bargaining agent in the subject bargaining unit directing them to appear before
him/her on a date, time and place specified. A copy of the notice of preliminary
conference and petition for certification election shall be posted in at least two
conspicuous places in the establishment.
SECTION 7. Forced Intervenor. — The incumbent bargaining agent shall
automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced
intervenor.
SECTION 8. Motion for Intervention. — When a petition for certification election
was filed in an organized establishment, any legitimate labor union other than the
incumbent bargaining agent operating within the bargaining unit may file a motion
for intervention with the Med-Arbiter during the freedom period of the collective
bargaining agreement. The form and contents of the motion shall be the same as
that of a petition for certification election.
In an unorganized establishment, the motion shall be filed at any time prior to the
decision of the Med-Arbiter. The form and contents of the motion shall likewise be
the same as that of a petition for certification election. The motion for intervention
shall be resolved in the same decision issued in the petition for certification
election.
SECTION 9. Preliminary Conference; Hearing. — The Med-Arbiter shall conduct a
preliminary conference and hearing within ten (10) days from receipt of the petition
to determine the following:
(a) the bargaining unit to be represented;
(b) contending labor unions;
(c) possibility of a consent election; SEIDAC
(d) existence of any of the bars to certification election under Section 3 of this Rule;
and
(e) such other matters as may be relevant for the final disposition of the case.
SECTION 10. Consent Election; Agreement. — In case the contending unions agree
to a consent election, the Med-Arbiter shall not issue a formal order calling for the
conduct of certification election, but shall enter the fact of the agreement in the
minutes of the hearing. The minutes of the hearing shall be signed by the parties
and attested to by the Med-Arbiter. The Med- Arbiter shall, immediately thereafter,
forward the records of the petition to the Regional Director or his/her authorized
representative for the determination of the Election Officer by the contending
unions through raffle. The first pre-election conference shall be scheduled within
ten (10) days from the date of entry of agreement to conduct consent election.
SECTION 11. Number of Hearings; Pleadings. — If the contending unions fail to
agree to a consent election during the preliminary conference, the Med- Arbiter
may conduct as many hearings as he/she may deem necessary, but in no case shall
the conduct thereof exceed fifteen (15) days from the date of the scheduled
preliminary conference/hearing, after which time the petition shall be considered
submitted for decision. The Med-Arbiter shall have control of the proceedings.
Postponements or continuances shall be discouraged.
Within the same 15-day period within which the petition is heard, the contending
labor unions may file such pleadings as they may deem necessary for the immediate
resolution of the petition. Extensions of time shall not be entertained. All motions
shall be resolved by the Med-Arbiter in the same order or decision granting or
denying the petition.
SECTION 12. Failure to Appear Despite Notice. — The failure of any party to appear
in the hearing(s) when notified or to file its pleadings shall be deemed a waiver of
its right to be heard. The Med-Arbiter, however, when agreed upon by the parties
for meritorious reasons may allow the cancellation of scheduled hearing(s). The
cancellation of any scheduled hearing(s) shall not be used as a basis for extending
the 15-day period within which to terminate the same.
SECTION 13. Order/Decision on the Petition. — Within ten (10) days from the date
of the last hearing, the Med-Arbiter shall issue a formal order granting the petition
or a decision denying the same. I n organized establishments, however, no order or
decision shall be issued by the Med- Arbiter during the freedom period.
The order granting the conduct of a certification election shall state the following:
(a) the name of the employer or establishment;
(b) the description of the bargaining unit;
(c) a statement that none of the grounds for dismissal enumerated in the
succeeding paragraph exists;
(d) the names of contending labor unions which shall appear as follows: petitioner
union/s in the order in which their petitions were filed, forced intervenor, and no
union; and SEIDAC
(e) a directive upon the employer and the contending union(s) to submit within ten
(10) days from receipt of the order, the certified list of employees in the bargaining
unit, or where necessary, the payrolls covering the members of the bargaining unit
for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of the order.
SECTION 14. Denial of the Petition ; Grounds. — The Med-Arbiter may dismiss the
petition on any of the following grounds:
(a) the petitioner is not listed in the Department's registry of legitimate labor unions
or that its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in
accordance with Rule XIV of these Rules;
(b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement; provided that the sixty-day period based on the
original collective bargaining agreement shall not be affected by any amendment,
extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement;
(c)the petition was filed within one (1) year from entry of voluntary recognition or a
valid certification, consent or run-off election and no appeal on the results of the
certification, consent or run-off election is pending;
(d)a duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations with the
employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code within the one-year
period referred to in Section 14.c of this Rule, or there exists a bargaining deadlock
which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject
of a valid notice of strike or lockout to which an incumbent or certified bargaining
agent is a party; SEIDAC
(e) in case of an organized establishment, failure to submit the twenty-five percent
(25%) support requirement for the filing of the petition for certification election.
SECTION 15.Prohibited Grounds for the Denial/Suspension of the Petition. — All
issues pertaining to the existence of employer-employee relationship, eligibility or
mixture in union membership raised before the Med- Arbiter during the hearing(s)
and in the pleadings shall be resolved in the same order or decision granting or
denying the petition for certification election. Any question pertaining to the
validity of petitioning union's certificate of registration or its legal personality as a
labor organization, validity of registration and execution of collective bargaining
agreements shall be heard and resolved by the Regional Director in an independent
petition for cancellation of its registration and not by the Med-Arbiter in the
petition for certification election, unless the petitioning union is not found in the
Department's roster of legitimate labor organizations or an existing collective
bargaining agreement is unregistered with the Department.
SECTION 16. Release of Order/Decision within Ten (10) Days from the Last Hearing.
— The Med-Arbiter shall release his/her order or decision granting or denying the
petition personally to the parties on an agreed date and time.
SECTION 17. Appeal. — The order granting the conduct of a certification election in
an unorganized establishment shall not be subject to appeal. Any issue arising
therefrom may be raised by means of protest on the conduct and results of the
certification election.
The order granting the conduct of a certification election in an organized
establishment and the decision dismissing or denying the petition, whether in an
organized or unorganized establishment, may be appealed to the Office of the
Secretary within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
The appeal shall be verified under oath and shall consist of a memorandum of
appeal, specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the appellant with the
supporting arguments and evidence.
SECTION 18. Where to File Appeal. — The memorandum of appeal shall be filed in
the Regional Office where the petition originated, copy furnished the contending
unions and the employer, as the case may be. Within twenty- four (24) hours from
receipt of the appeal, the Regional Director shall cause the transmittal thereof
together with the entire records of the case to the Office of the Secretary.
SECTION 19.Finality of Order/Decision. — Where no appeal is filed within the ten-
day period, the Med-Arbiter shall enter the finality of the order/decision in the
records of the case and cause the transmittal of the records of the petition to the
Regional Director.
SECTION 20. Period to Reply. — A reply to the appeal may be filed by any party to
the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of the memorandum of appeal. The
reply shall be filed directly with the Office of the Secretary.
SECTION 21.Decision of the Secretary. — The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the entire records of the petition within which to decide the appeal.
The filing of the memorandum of appeal from the order or decision of the Med-
Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election.
The decision of the Secretary shall become final and executory after ten (10) days
from receipt thereof by the parties. No motion for reconsideration of the decision
shall be entertained.
SECTION 22. Transmittal of Records to the Regional Office . — Within forty-eight
(48) hours from notice of receipt of decision by the parties and finality of the
decision, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the Regional Office of
origin for implementation. Implementation of the decision shall not be stayed
unless restrained by the appropriate court.
SECTION 23.Effects of Consent Election. — Where a petition for certification election
had been filed, and upon the intercession of the Med- Arbiter, the parties agree to
hold a consent election, the results thereof shall constitute a bar to the holding of a
certification election for one (1) year from the holding of such consent election.
Where an appeal has been filed from the results of the consent election, the
running of the one-year period shall be suspended until the decision on appeal has
become final and executory.
Where no petition for certification election was filed but the parties themselves
agreed to hold a consent election with the intercession of the Regional Office, the
results thereof shall constitute a bar to another petition for certification election.
SECTION 24. Effects of Early Agreements. — The representation case shall not be
adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or during
the last sixty (60) days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the
representation case.
SECTION 25. Non-availability of Med-Arbiter. — Where there is no Med- Arbiter
available in the Regional Office by reason of vacancy, prolonged absence, or
excessive workload as determined by the Regional Director, he/she shall transmit
the entire records of the case to the Bureau, which shall within forty-eight (48)
hours from receipt assign the case to any Med-Arbiter from any of the Regional
Offices or from the Bureau.
RULE IX
Conduct of Certification Election
SECTION 1. Raffle of the Case. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
notice of entry of final judgment granting the conduct of a certification election, the
Regional Director shall cause the raffle of the case to an Election Officer who shall
have control of the pre-election conference and election proceedings.
SECTION 2. Pre-election Conference. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt
of the assignment for the conduct of a certification election, the Election Officer
shall cause the issuance of notice of pre-election conference upon the contending
unions and the employer, which shall be scheduled within ten (10) days from
receipt of the assignment.
The pre-election conference shall set the mechanics for the election and shall
determine, among others, the following:
(a) date, time and place of the election, which shall not be later than forty-five (45)
days from the date of the first pre-election conference, and shall be on a regular
working day and within the employer's premises, unless circumstances require
otherwise;
(b) list of eligible and challenged voters;
(c) number and location of polling places or booths and the number of ballots to be
prepared with appropriate translations, if necessary;
(d) name of watchers or representatives and their alternates for each of the parties
during election;
(e) mechanics and guidelines of the election.
SECTION 3. Waiver of Right to be Heard. — Failure of any party to appear during the
pre-election conference despite notice shall be considered as a waiver to be present
and to question or object to any of the agreements reached in said pre-election
conference. Nothing herein, however, shall deprive the non-appearing party or the
employer of its right to be furnished notices of subsequent pre-election conferences
and to attend the same.
SECTION 4. Minutes of Pre-election Conference. — The Election Officer shall keep
the minutes of matters raised and agreed upon during the pre- election conference.
The parties shall acknowledge the completeness and correctness of the entries in
the minutes by affixing their signatures thereon. Where any of the parties refuse to
sign the minutes, the Election Officer shall note such fact in the minutes, including
the reason for refusal to sign the same. In all cases, the parties shall be furnished a
copy of the minutes.
The pre-election conference shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the
date of the first hearing.
SECTION 5.Qualification of Voters; Inclusion-Exclusion. — All employees who are
members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the
petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a
certification election shall be eligible to vote. An employee who has been dismissed
from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate
jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification
election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared
valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election.
In case of disagreement over the voters' list or over the eligibility of voters, all
contested voters shall be allowed to vote. But their votes shall be segregated and
sealed in individual envelopes in accordance with Sections 10 and 11 of this Rule.
SECTION 6. Posting of Notices. — The Election Officer shall cause the posting of
notice of election at least ten (10) days before the actual date of the election in two
(2) most conspicuous places in the company premises. The notice shall contain:
(a) the date and time of the election;
(b) names of all contending unions;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit and the list of eligible and challenged
voters.
The posting of the notice of election, the information required to be included
therein and the duration of posting cannot be waived by the contending unions or
the employer.
SECTION 7. Secrecy and Sanctity of the Ballot. — To ensure secrecy of the ballot, the
Election Officer, together with the authorized representatives of the contending
unions and the employer, shall before the start of the actual voting, inspect the
polling place, the ballot boxes and the polling booths.
SECTION 8. Preparation of Ballots. — The Election Officer shall prepare the ballots in
English and Filipino or the local dialect, corresponding to the number of voters and
a reasonable number of extra ballots. All ballots shall be signed at the back by the
Election Officer and authorized representative of each of the contending unions and
employer. Failure or refusal to sign the ballots shall be considered a waiver thereof
and the Election Officer shall enter the fact of such refusal or failure in the records
of the case as well as the reason for the refusal or failure to sign.
SECTION 9. Marking of Votes. — The voter must put a cross (x) or check (Ö) mark in
the square opposite the name of the union of his choice or "No Union" if he/she
does not want to be represented by any union.
If a ballot is torn, defaced or left unfilled in such a manner as to create doubt or
confusion or to identify the voter, it shall be considered spoiled. If the voter
inadvertently spoils a ballot, he/she shall return it to the Election Officer who shall
destroy it and give him/her another ballot.
SECTION 10. Challenging of Votes. — An authorized representative of any of the
contending unions and employer may challenge a vote before it is deposited in the
ballot box only on any of the following grounds:
(a) that there is no employer-employee relationship between the voter and the
company;
(b) that the voter is not a member of the appropriate bargaining unit which
petitioner seeks to represent.
SECTION 11. Procedure in the Challenge of Votes. — When a vote is properly
challenged, the Election Officer shall place the ballot in an envelope which shall be
sealed in the presence of the voter and the representatives of the contending
unions and employer. The Election Officer shall indicate on the envelope the voter's
name, the union or employer challenging the voter, and the ground for the
challenge. The sealed envelope shall then be signed by the Election Offi cer and the
representatives of the contending unions and employer. The Election Officer shall
note all challenges in the minutes of the election and shall be responsible for
consolidating all envelopes containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be
opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon only if the number of
segregated voters will materially alter the results of the election.
SECTION 12. On-the-Spot Questions. — The Election Officer shall rule on any
question relating to and raised during the conduct of the election. In no case,
however, shall the election officer rule on any of the grounds for challenge specified
in the immediately preceding section.
SECTION 13. Protest; When Perfected. — Any party-in-interest may file a protest
based on the conduct or mechanics of the election. Such protests shall be recorded
in the minutes of the election proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed
waived.
The protesting party must formalize its protest with the Med-Arbiter, with specific
grounds, arguments and evidence, within five (5) days after the close of the election
proceedings. If not recorded in the minutes and formalized within the prescribed
period, the protest shall be deemed dropped.
SECTION 14. Canvassing of Votes. — The votes shall be counted and tabulated by
the Election Officer in the presence of the representatives of the contending unions.
Upon completion of the canvass, the Election Officer shall give each representative
a copy of the minutes of the election proceedings and results of the election. The
ballots and the tally sheets shall be sealed in an envelope and signed by the Election
Officer and the representatives of the contending unions and transmitted to the
Med-Arbiter, together with the minutes and results of the election, within twenty-
four (24) hours from the completion of the canvass.
Where the election is conducted in more than one region, consolidation of results
shall be made within fifteen (15) days from the conduct thereof.
SECTION 15. Conduct of Election and Canvass of Votes . — The election precincts
shall open and close on the date and time agreed upon during the pre-election
conference. The opening and canvass shall proceed immediately after the precincts
have closed. Failure of any party or the employer or his/her/their representative to
appear during the election proceedings shall be considered a waiver to be present
and to question the conduct thereof.
SECTION 16. Certification of Collective Bargaining Agent. — The union which
obtained a majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit within five
(5) days from the day of the election, provided no protest is recorded in the
minutes of the election.
SECTION 17. Failure of Election. — Where the number of votes cast in a certification
or consent election is less than the majority of the number of eligible voters and
there are no material challenged votes, the Election Officer shall declare a failure of
election in the minutes of the election proceedings.
SECTION 18.Effect of Failure of Election. — A failure of election shall not bar the
filing of a motion for the immediate holding of another certification or consent
election within six (6) months from date of declaration of failure of election.
SECTION 19. Action on the Motion. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of
the motion, the Election Officer shall immediately schedule the conduct of another
certification or consent election within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the motion
and cause the posting of the notice of certification election at least ten (10) days
prior to the scheduled date of election in two (2) most conspicuous places in the
establishment. The same guidelines and list of voters shall be used in the election.
SECTION 20.Proclamation and Certification of the Result of the Election. — Within
twenty-four (24) hours from final canvass of votes, there being a valid election, the
Election Officer shall transmit the records of the case to the Med-Arbiter who shall,
within the same period from receipt of the minutes and results of election, issue an
order proclaiming the results of the election and certifying the union which
obtained a majority of the valid votes cast as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent in the subject bargaining unit, under any of the following conditions:
(a) no protest was filed or, even if one was filed, the same was not perfected within
the five-day period for perfection of the protest;
(b) no challenge or eligibility issue was raised or, even if one was raised, the
resolution of the same will not materially change the results of the elections.
The winning union shall have the rights, privileges and obligations of a duly certified
collective bargaining agent from the time the certification is issued.
Where majority of the valid votes cast results in "No Union" obtaining the majority,
the Med-Arbiter shall declare such fact in the order.
RULE X
Run-Off Elections
SECTION 1. When Proper. — When an election which provides for three (3) or more
choices results in none of the contending unions receiving a majority of the valid
votes cast, and there are no objections or challenges which if sustained can
materially alter the results, the Election Officer shall motu propio conduct a run-off
election within ten (10) days from the close of the election proceedings between
the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes; provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty (50%) percent of the
number of votes cast.
"No Union" shall not be a choice in the run-off election.
Notice of run-off elections shall be posted by the Election Officer at least five (5)
days before the actual date of run-off election.
SECTION 2. Qualification of Voters. — The same voters' list used in the certification
election shall be used in the run-off election. The ballots in the run-off election shall
provide as choices the unions receiving the highest and second highest number of
the votes cast. The labor union receiving the greater number of valid votes cast
shall be certified as the winner, subject to Section 20, Rule IX.
1. The Union as Initiating Party
LC, Art. 251 (b)
Art. 251. [242] Rights of Legitimate Labor Organlzations.- A legitimate labor
organization shall have the right:
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 1
SECTION 1. Who May File. — Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition
for certification election.
When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for
certification election with the Regional Office. If there is no existing registered
collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall,
after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election.
a. Organized Establishment
LC, Arts. 268
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions
is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the
petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.
Art. 264
ART. 264. [253] Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective
Bargaining Agreement - When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty
to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify
such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice
to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration
date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in
full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the
60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (ll)
(ll) "Organized Establishment" refers to an enterprise where there exists a
recognized or certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
i) Petition Before Freedom Period
LC, Arts. 264 & 268
ART. 264. [253] Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective or a decision denying the same. I n organized establishments, however, no order or
Bargaining Agreement - When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty decision shall be issued by the Med- Arbiter during the freedom period.
to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify
such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice
to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration
date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in
full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the
60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.
HINGA
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is 73 ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA v. LAGUESMA (1992)
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the FACTS:
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all 1. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in the construction
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the and fabrication business
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of a. Conducts its construction business in different construction sites here
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more and abroad
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
b. Fabrication operations conducted by its Steel and Marine Structures
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard (BMFY) in Bauan,
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions
Batangas
is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the
petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to 2. Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project EEs when existing fabrication
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members. capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for steel structures and other
heavy construction works.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for a. Covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements –
certification election is filed. indicates the specific assigned projects and duration of employment.
Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 3 (d) b. Upon expiration of agreements, employment is automatically
terminated, unless their assigned projects have not yet been
(d) when a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and a duly
completed – rehired for the remainder of the project.
recognized or certified bargaining agent has been registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the Labor Code. Where such collective bargaining agreement is 3. Positions occupied by the regular rank-and-file EEs and the project EEs are
registered, the petition may be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry. similar in nature and directly related to the main line of business.
Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 13, par. 1 4. Atlantic executed a CBA with URFA – sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
regular rank-and-file EEs. CBA registered with the BLR.
SECTION 13. Order/Decision on the Petition. — Within ten (10) days from the date
of the last hearing, the Med-Arbiter shall issue a formal order granting the petition 5. LAKAS-NFL filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbiter to be
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the regular non-project
 EEs of the Steel and Marine Structure at the BMFY representing approximately
1,000 employees or that a certification be conducted among said employees.
6. Med-Arbiter: Ordered certification election. Atlantic appealed.
7. 691 alleged project EEs sought to be represented by LAKAS-NFL were formally
issued regular employment appointments by Atlantic, which were they
accepted.
8. Undersecretary Laguesma: Denied appeal for lack of merit.
9. Project EEs at its SMSG site who were not given regular employment
appointment went on strike and completely paralyzed Atlantic’s operations in
Bauan, Batangas.
10. Said strike was settled in a conciliation conference convened by the NCMB
Atlantic and LAKAS-NFL reached an agreement wherein Atlantic agreed to
formally regularize all the remaining alleged project EEs with at least 1 year of
service, pending final outcome of the certification election case. 686 additional
regular project EEs were regularized.
11. URFA informed Atlantic about the admission into membership of 410 regular
project EEs who were formally regularized by Atlantic.
12. Atlantic filed an MR, alleging that the employees sought to be represented by
LAKAS-NFL are regular EEs and are deemed included in the existing CBA of the
regular rank-and-file EEs. DENIED.
13. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance
of a writ of prelim injunction and TRO, assailing the Med-Arbiter’s Order.
ISSUE: W/N the Med-Arbiter erred in ordering that a certification election among
the regular project employees at the Steel and Marine Structures Group be
conducted.
RULING: YES. LAKAS-NFL barred from filing a petition for certification election.
Atlantic wins.
Section 1 of Article II of Atlantic’s CBA with URFA states:
Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit — The appropriate bargaining unit covered by
this Agreement consists of those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY
who have remained as such up to the date of execution of this Agreement, as well
as those who may hereafter acquire the same status. It is hereby understood and
agreed that the following are NOT within the appropriate bargaining unit and,
therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:
xxx
b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as contemplated by
existing laws including relievers of regular employees who are sent abroad are not
covered by this Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are
assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this Contract, and provided
further  that relievers who are assigned to regular positions which may become
vacant shall be duly considered for such regular positions after attaining the six
months probationary period.
 Although the aforementioned definition does not include Atlantic’s regular
project EEs in the coverage of the existing CBA between Atlantic and URFA, the
regularization of all the regular project EEs with at least 1 year of service and
the subsequent membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the
alleged regular project EEs whom LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact,
regular EEs by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate bargaining
unit of said CBA.
 Consequently, the bargaining unit which LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has
already ceased to exist.
The Labor Code provides:
Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. — The Bureau shall not entertain any
petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the
administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements
affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.
Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
likewise provides:
If a CBA has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.
 Consequently, the existence of a duly registered CBA between Atlantic and
URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining rep of all the regular rank-and-
file EEs of Atlantic, including the regular project EEs with more than one year of
service, bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification
election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the CBA.
Intent in the enactment of Article 232: To ensure industrial peace between the
employer and its employees during the existence of the CBA.
ii) Petition Beyond Freedom Period
National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Phils. vs. Ferrer-Calleja
G.R. No. 89609 January 27, 1992
Topic: Petition Beyond Freedom Period
PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution of the Department of Labor and
Employment.
MEDIALDEA, J.
FACTS
 National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines
(NACUSIP-TUCP) is a legitimate national labor organization duly registered
with the Department of Labor and Employment. Respondent Honorable
Pura Ferrer-Calleja is impleaded in her official capacity as the Director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor, while private
respondent National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW-FGT-KMU) is a
labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment.
 Dacongcogon Sugar and Rice Milling Co., Inc. (Dacongcogon) employs
about five hundred (500) workers during milling season and about three
hundred (300) on off-milling season. NFSW-FGT-KMU and employer
Dacongcogon entered into a CBA. When the CBA expired, NFSW-FGT-KMU
and Dacongcogon negotiated for its renewal.
 However, a deadlock in negotiation ensued on the matter of wage
increases and optional retirement. The parties agreed on a suspension to
provide a cooling-off period. Hence, a Labor Management Council was set
up with a representative of the Department of Labor and Employment
acting as chairman.
 NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition for direct certification or certification
election among the rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. NFSW-FGT-KMU
moved to dismiss the petition because the same was filed out of time.
 Med-Arbiter: denied the motion to dismiss and directed the conduct of
certification election.
 Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations: rendered a resolution reversing
the order of the MedArbiter, dismissing the petition for being filed out of
time.
ISSUE
 Whether or not a petition for certification election may be filed after the
60-day freedom period.
HELD
 The records of the CBA show that the CBA between Dacongcogon and
NFSW-FGT-KMU had expired, hence, the petition for certification election
was filed too late, that is, a period of more than one (1) year after the CBA
expired.
 Section 6 of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111 commands
that the petition for certification election must be filed within the last sixty
(60) days of the CBA and further reiterates and warns that any petition
filed outside the 60-day freedom period "shall be dismissed outright."
Moreover, Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor
Code enjoins the filing of a representation question, if before a petition for
certification election is filed, a bargaining deadlock to which the bargaining
agent is a party is submitted for conciliation or arbitration.
 Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification
election during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except
within the freedom period, as it is called, when the said agreement is
about to expire. The purpose, obviously, is to ensure stability in the
relationships of the workers and the management by preventing frequent
modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier entered into
by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period.
 All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the respondent
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the order of the Med-Arbiter.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
iii) Filing Party –
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 1
SECTION 1. Who May File. — Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition
for certification election.
When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for
certification election with the Regional Office. If there is no existing registered
collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall,
after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election.
Misrepresentation by Union Officers
DHL PHIL. CO. UNITED RANK AND FILE ASSOC.-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS
(dhl-urfa-ffw) V. bUKLOD NG MANGGAWA NG DHL PHIL. CO.
FACTS:
1. A certification election was concluded among regular rank and file employees
in the main office and regional branches of DHL
a. The contending choices were DHL-UFRA-FFW and “no union”
2. DHL-UFRA-FFW received 546 votes and the “no union” garnering 348 votes.
DHL-UFRA-FFW was certified as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank
and file employees
3. Buklod filed with Industrial Relations a petition for nullification of the
certification election.
 a. Officers were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election
proceedings
i. Misrepresenting that it was an independent union, when in
fact an affiliate of Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
b. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had
misled, withdrew their membership after such discovery and
subsequently formed Buklod
4. Buklod was issued certificate of registration
5. MA Falconitin ordered holding of another election with the following choices:
DHLA-UFRA-FFW, Buklod, and “no choice”
6. DOLE set aside order of MA
a. Issue of representation has already been settled with finality in favor
of DHL-UFRA-FFW
7. CA
a. Withdrawal of 704 out of 894 provided a compelling reason to
conduct election
b. The charges of fraud and deceit, lodged immediately after the election
by DHL-UFRA-FFW former members against their officers, should have
been treated as protests or issues of eligibility within the meaning of
Section 13 of DO 9
ISSUE: Whether or not the certification election was valid. NO.
RATIO:
 Petitioner argues that the CA erred in rendering its decision, considering that
no protest or challenge had been formalized within five days
 Having been misled, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest
within five days from the close of the election proceedings
 Late filing of the Petition for a new election can be excused under the peculiar
facts of this case, considering that the employees concerned did not sleep on
their rights, but promptly acted to protect their prerogatives. Procedural
technicalities should not be allowed to suppress the welfare of labor
False Statements of Union Officers
 The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the
free choice of the employees is a valid ground for protest
 A certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the
campaign, where
o a material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign;
o an opportunity for reply has been lacking; and
o the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the
employees participating in the election
 The fact that the officers of petitioner especially its president, misrepresented
it to the voting employees as an independent union constituted a substantial
misrepresentation of material facts of vital concern to those employees
o Misrepresentation came from petitioner’s recognized representative,
who was clearly in a position to hold himself out as a person who had
special knowledge and was in an authoritative position to know the
true facts
 Furthermore, with the failure of petitioner to rebut the affidavits, more than
just denying the allegations, they give rise to the presumption that [petitioner]
has admitted such allegations in the affidavit and with the admission
 The claim that 704 of the employees are affiliated with respondent is not
sufficiently rebutted by any evidence on record
 Once disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification
election is the most expeditious way of determining which union should be the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
 False statements made by union officers before and during a certification
election -- that the union is independent and not affiliated with a national
federation -- are material facts likely to influence the election results. This
principle finds application in the present case in which the majority of the
employees clearly wanted an independent union to represent them. Thus, after
the members learned of the misrepresentation, and after a majority of them
disaffiliated themselves from the union and formed another one, a new
certification election should be held to enable them to express their true will
iv) Form of Petition
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 4
SECTION 4. Form and Contents of Petition. — The petition shall be in writing,
verified under oath by the president of petitioning labor organization. Where the
petition is filed by a federation or national union, it shall verified under oath by the
president or its duly authorized representative. The petition shall contain the
following:
(a) the name of petitioner, its address, and affiliation if appropriate, the date and
number of its certificate of registration. If the petition is filed by a federation or
national union, the date and number of the certificate of registration or certificate
of creation of chartered local;
(b) the name, address and nature of employer's business;
(c) the description of the bargaining unit;
(d) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit;
(e) the names and addresses of other legitimate labor unions in the bargaining unit;
(f) a statement indicating any of the following circumstances:
1) that the bargaining unit is unorganized or that there is no registered collective
bargaining agreement covering the employees in the bargaining unit;
2)if there exists a duly registered collective bargaining agreement, that the petition
is filed within the sixty-day freedom period of such agreement; or
3) if another union had been previously recognized voluntarily or certified in a valid
certification, consent or run-off election, that the petition is filed outside the one-
year period from entry of voluntary recognition or conduct of certification or run-off
election and no appeal is pending thereon.
(g) in an organized establishment, the signature of at least twenty- five percent
(25%) of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be attached to the
petition at the time of its filing; and
(h) other relevant facts.
Nat’l Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF) v. Sec. of Labor and
Federation of Free Workers-Samahang Manggagawa sa Quality Container Corp
(FFW-SMQCC).
G.R. No. 106446. Nov. 16, 1993. Quiason, J.
TOPIC: Methods of Establishing Majority Status- Policy Rationale
FACTS:
7. Before the expiration of the CBA between NAMAWU and Quality
Container Corp., FFW, through de Pedro filed with DOLE a petition for
certification election.
8. The petition was accompanied by a list of signatures of employees who
signified their consent to a certification election among rank and file
employees of QCC.
9. NAMAWU filed a MTD on the ground that: 1.) the required consent of 25%
of EE had not been met; 2.) petition was not verified; and 3.) de Pedro
(President of NAMAWU) had no personality to file the petition on behalf of
FFW.
10. When FFW-SMQCC filed the second petition (this time signed and verified
by de Pedro), the Med Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that a
certification election be conducted. (Choices are: FFW, NAMAWU and No
Union)
11. The Sec. of Labor denied the appeal of NAMAWU.
12. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the petition for certification for election of FFW should be granted-
YES
HELD:
Re: de Pedro’s personality to file the petition
 de Pedro disaffiliated himself from NAMAWU and joined FFW before the
petition for certification election was filed and the petition for certification
election was filed before his dismissal.
Re: Verification
 Generally, technical and rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor
cases; and this rule is specifically applied in certification election
proceedings, which are non-litigious but merely investigative and non-
adversarial in character.
 Nevertheless, whatever formal defects existed in the first petition were
cured and corrected in the second petition for certification election.
Re: Signatures
 Attached to the original petition for certification election was a list of 141
supporting signatures out of the 300 employees belonging to the
appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by respondent FFW. 
 Granting that 36 signatures were falsified and that 13 was disowned, this
leaves 92 undisputed signatures which is definitely more than 75 — i.e.,
25% of the total number of company employees required by law to
support a petition for certification election.
 Moreover, the fact that the list of signatures is undated does not
necessarily mean that the signatures were obtained prior to the 60-day
period before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining
agreement. What is important is that the petition for certification election
must be filed during the freedom period and that the 25% requirement of
supporting signatures be met upon the filing thereof. 
When all the requirements have been complied, it is incumbent upon the Med-
Arbiter to order a certification election to be conducted.
If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refused to be represented
by FFW, with all the more reason should a certification election be held where the
employees themselves can freely and voluntarily express by secret ballot their
choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most effective
and expeditious way to determine which labor organization can truly represent
the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company

v) Substantial Support
LC, Art. 268
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions
is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the
petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 4(g)
(g) in an organized establishment, the signature of at least twenty- five percent
(25%) of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit shall be attached to the
petition at the time of its filing; and
Sec. 14(f) (CORRECTION: Sec. 4 (f))
(f) a statement indicating any of the following circumstances:
1) that the bargaining unit is unorganized or that there is no registered collective
bargaining agreement covering the employees in the bargaining unit;
2)if there exists a duly registered collective bargaining agreement, that the petition
is filed within the sixty-day freedom period of such agreement; or
3) if another union had been previously recognized voluntarily or certified in a valid
certification, consent or run-off election, that the petition is filed outside the one-
year period from entry of voluntary recognition or conduct of certification or run-off
election and no appeal is pending thereon.
(Note: If Correction provided above is wrong, Sec. 14 is provided below)
SECTION 14. Denial of the Petition ; Grounds. — The Med-Arbiter may dismiss the
petition on any of the following grounds:
(a) the petitioner is not listed in the Department's registry of legitimate labor unions
or that its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in
accordance with Rule XIV of these Rules;
(b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement; provided that the sixty-day period based on the
original collective bargaining agreement shall not be aff ected by any amendment,
extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement;
(c)the petition was filed within one (1) year from entry of voluntary recognition or a
valid certification, consent or run-off election and no appeal on the results of the
certification, consent or run-off election is pending;
(d)a duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations with the
employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code within the one-year
period referred to in Section 14.c of this Rule, or there exists a bargaining deadlock
which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject
of a valid notice of strike or lockout to which an incumbent or certified bargaining
agent is a party;
(e) in case of an organized establishment, failure to submit the twenty-five percent
(25%) support requirement for the filing of the petition for certification election.
1997 IR, Rule XI, Sec. 11, ll(e)
II.The Med-Arbiter shall dismiss the petition on any of the following grounds:
(e) In case of an organized establishment, failure to submit the twenty-five percent
(25%) support requirement upon the filing of the petition; or
Port Workers Union of the Phils. (PWUP) vs. Laguesma
G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992
Topic: Substantial Support
PETITION for review of the order of the Undersecretary of Labor and Employment.
CRUZ, J.
FACTS
 There was muffled excitement among the workers of the International
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) because its CBA with Associate
Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due
to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers.
 The first challenge to APCWU was when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa
Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent
signatures were submitted eleven 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). The consent signatures were
submitted thirty-five days after the filing of the petition
 APCWU filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they did not comply
with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the
Implementing Rules for non-compliance with the requirement for the 25%
consent signatures at the time of filing.
 Med-Arbiter: dismissed the consolidated petitions.
 Secretary of Labor: affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter.
 Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement, which was concluded, ratified, and subsequently
registered with the DOLE.
 The petitioner argues that under Article 256, 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.
o ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.—In
organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed
before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining
agreement, the MedArbiter shall automatically order an election
by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the
written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. x x x.
ISSUE
 Whether under Article 256, 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. YES.
HELD
 In his own Comment, the Solicitor General agrees with the petitioner that
there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.
He submits that Article 256 should be liberally interpreted pursuant to
Article 4 of the Labor Code, stating as follows:
o Article 4. Construction in favor of labor.—All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code
including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved
in favor of labor.
 We have held that pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing
workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, “the
constant and unwavering policy of this Court” has been “to require a
certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor
organization should be the collective bargaining representative.”
 In line with this 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
the determination of the legitimate 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 the consent signatures
within a reasonable period from such filing.
 Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct
ascertainment of the labor union that has the support or confidence of the
majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their
dealings with management.
 The private respondents contend that the overwhelming ratification of the
CBA is an affirmation of their membership in the bargaining agent,
rendering the representation issue moot and academic and conclusively
barring the holding of a certification election thereon. That conclusion
does not follow. Even Tupas did not say that the mere ratification of the
 CBA by the majority of the workers signified their affirmation of
membership in the negotiating union. That case required, first, ratification
of the CBA, and second, affirmation of membership in the negotiating
union. The second requirement has not been established in the case at bar
as the record does not show that the majority of the workers, besides
ratifying the new CBA, have also formally affiliated with APCWU.
 Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor
Code provides that the representation case shall not be adversely affected
by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a
subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.
As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation case
was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final
agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.
 In sum, it is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real
representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the
certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of
the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt
procedure over substantial justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
78. Oriental Tin Can Labor Union vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment (LACAP)
G.R. No. 116751. August 28, 1998
TOPIC: Certification Election — Process; Substantial Support
FACTS:
1. Oriental Tin Can and Metal Sheet Manufacturing Company, Inc. is engaged in
the manufacture of tin can containers and metal sheets.
2. On March 1994, Oriental entered into a CBA with petitioner OTCLU as the
current CBA was set to expire on April.
3. Four days later, 248 of the company’s rank-and-file employees authorized the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW) to file a petition for certification election
4. However, this petition was repudiated via a written waiver by 115 of the
signatories
a. These 115 members also ratified the CBA between OTCLU and the
company on the same date
b. 897 employees in total ratified the CBA
5. Armed with a charter certificate, Oriental Tin Can Workers Union-FFWW
(OTCLU-FFW) filed with the DOLE a petition for Certification Election
a. They claim to represent the regular rank-and-file employees of the
company
b. the petition was accompanied by the “authentic signatures” of 25% of
the employees/workers in the bargaining unit.
6. OTCLU filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% of the bargaining unit since
some of the employees who initially signed the petition had allegedly
withdrawn in writing such support prior to the filing of the same.
7. OTCWU-FFW claimed that the retraction of support for the petition was not
verified under oath, and therefore had no legal effect.
8. The Company filed a comment stating that a new CBA with OTCLU had been
ratified by 897 out of 1,020 rank-and-file employees.
a. OTCLU also claimed that the new CBA was a bar to the certification
election.
9. OTCWU-FFW filed a consolidated reply, alleging that “an employer has no legal
personality to oppose a petition for certification election
10. In the meantime, DOLE issued a certification of registration of the new CBA
11. Thereafter, officers of OTCWU-FFW walked out of their jobs and filed a notice
to strike
MED-ARBITER: dismissed the certification election for lack of merit. It was noted
that the petition was filed after the retractions were made. Therefore, due to the
the withdrawal of support to the petition by 115 workers, the remaining 133 of the
1,020 employees were clearly less than the 25% subscription requirement.
DOLE U-Sec: it was found that the CBA was concluded during the freedom period.
Consequently, said CBA cannot bar the election being prayed for. 
 RE the 25% requirement: The rule being followed in case of alleged retractions
and withdrawals, is that the best forum for determining whether there was
indeed retractions is the certification election itself wherein the workers can
freely express their choice in a secret ballot.
 He added that even if there were 1,020 rank-and-file employees in the
bargaining unit, the signatures gathered sufficed to meet the 25% support
requirement
COMPANY: assailed the resolution of the U-Sec and claimed that in its desire to
maintain industrial peace, the company deemed it necessary to challenge the
propriety of holding a certification election.
OTCLU: claims that the U-Sec erred in ordering for the certification despite the
ratification of the new CBA and the lack of the required support of 25% of the
employees.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the employer has legal personality to challenge the certification
election. NO
2. Whether OTCWU-FFW complied with the 25% requirement need for the
petition for certification election to prosper. YES
EMPLOYER NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO CHALLENGE CERTIFICATION ELECTION
 It is a well-established rule that certification elections are exclusively the
concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to
challenge the same
 The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee
representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification
election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to
bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code.
 After filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere
bystander.
U-SEC CORRECT IN RULING THAT CERTIFICATION ELECTION WAS PROPER
 Secretary of the DOLE, was exercising the function of the Department to
“(e)nforce social and labor legislation to protect the working class and regulate
the relations between the worker and his employer”when he issued the
resolution being assailed in the instant petition.
 the filing of a petition for certification election by one of the two unions in the
bargaining unit is enough basis for the DOLE, through its authorized official, to
implement the law by directing the conduct of a certification election.
 The filing of a petition for certification election during the 60-day freedom
period gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a
new CBA has been entered into within that period.
o The reason behind this rule is obvious. A petition for certification
election is not necessary where the employees are one in their choice
of a representative in the bargaining process
o the agreement prematurely signed by the union and the company
during the freedom period does not affect the petition for certification
election filed by another union
25% REQUIREMENT COMPLIED WITH
 As regards the 25% support requirement, we concur with public respondent’s
finding that said requisite has been met in this case.
 With regard to the finding that the “waiver” document executed by the
employees “was the product of duress, force and intimidation employed by the
company after it learned of the petition for certification election” the following
pronouncement of the Court is relevant:
o once the required percentage requirement has been reached, the
employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place after the
filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the
petition.
 The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed in
determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating the same.
 The administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25%
consent signatures upon the filing of the petition for certification election
should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate
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 the consent
signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
 All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of a
certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such
procedure.
 It is judicially settled that a certification election is the most effective and
expeditious means of determining which labor organization can truly represent
the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company
 The fear expressed by the OTCLU that granting the petition for certification
election would be prejudicial to all the employees since the new CBA would run
the risk of being nullified and the employees would be required to restitute
whatever benefits they might have received under the new CBA, is to be
dismissed as being baseless and highly speculative.
vi) Forced Intervention/ Motion for Intervention
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Secs. 7 & 8
SECTION 7. Forced Intervenor. — The incumbent bargaining agent shall
automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced
intervenor.
SECTION 8. Motion for Intervention. — When a petition for certification election
was filed in an organized establishment, any legitimate labor union other than the
incumbent bargaining agent operating within the bargaining unit may file a motion
for intervention with the Med-Arbiter during the freedom period of the collective
bargaining agreement. The form and contents of the motion shall be the same as Considering the above provisions of law. The BLR Director did not abuse her
that of a petition for certification election. discretion in issuing the contested order. It is crystal clear from the said provisions
In an unorganized establishment, the motion shall be filed at any time prior to the that the requisite written consent of at least 20% of the workers in the bargaining
decision of the Med-Arbiter. The form and contents of the motion shall likewise be unit applies to petitioners for certification election only, and not to motions for
the same as that of a petition for certification election. The motion for intervention intervention. Nowhere in the aforesaid legal provisions does it appear that a
shall be resolved in the same decision issued in the petition for certification motion for intervention in a certification election must be accompanied by a similar
election. written consent. Not even in the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (see Rule V,
Rules Implementing the Labor Code). Obviously, the percentage requirement
Phil. Assoc. of Free Labor Union v. Ferrer-Calleja pertains only to the petition for certification election, and nothing else.
G.R. No. 79347. Jan. 26, 1989. Paras, J. The mere fact that 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit signify their support to
TOPIC: Certification Election – Process 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
FACTS:
establishment). The 20% requirement, thereof, is peculiar to petitions for
1. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical certification election.
Corportion (SAMAHAN) filed a petition for certification election with the
As long as the motion for intervention has been properly and timely filed and the
BLR.
intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and
2. PAFLU file a motion to intervene, accompanied by the written consent of this is so even if the eventual purpose of the motion for intervention is to
20% of the EE of the Hundred Island. participate in the certification election. After all the original applicant had already
3. Likewise, KAMAPI filed its motion to intervene but unaccompanied by a met the 20% requirement.
similar written consent of the employer's workers.
4. Since the motion to intervene of KAMAPI does not contain a written
consent of EE, PAFLU moved to strike out the motion for intervention filed
by KAMAPI.
5. The Med-Arbiter denied KAMAPI’s motion for intervention and allowed
PAFLU’s inclusion in the certification election.
6. The BLR Director (WOWA), included KAMAPI as one of the contending
unions.
PAFLU cites Sec. 6m Rule V of the Implementing Rules of EO No. 11, which requires
the verification of the petition, accompanied by a written consent of 20% of all the
EE in the bargaining unit.
ISSUE: Whether KAMAPI should be allowed to participate in the certification
election through motion for intervention without the written consent of 20% of all
EE in the collective bargaining unit- YES
HELD:
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.
b. Unorganized Establishment
LC, Arts. 247 & 262
ART. 247. [239] Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. - The following may
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Art. 262
ART. 262. [251] Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Absence of Collective Bargaining
Agreements. - In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement
providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the
duty of employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
80 SUGBUANON RURAL BANK (SRBI) v. LAGUESMA
Topic: Certification Election — Process; The Union as Initiating Party; Unorganized
Establishment
1. SRBI is a baking institution. SRBI-Association of Professional, Supervisory,
Office, and Technical Employees Union (APOSTEU) is a labor organization
affiliated with Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).
2. DOLE granted a Certification of Registration to the Union.
3. The Union filed a certification election of the supervisory employees of SRBI.
a. Alleged that it was duly registered; SRBI has 5 or more supervisory ees;
majority supported; no existing CBA; no cert election had been held
during the past 12 months prior to the petition.
4. MA: Set the pre-certification election conference.
5. SRBI, MTD:
a. Members of the Union were managerial and confidential ees
b. ALU-TUCP was representing the union (and since ALU-TUCP also seeks
to represent the R&F ees of SRBI, there was a violation of the principle
of separation of unions.
6. MA: Denied MTD. He scheduled the inclusion-exclusion proceedings in
preparation for the Cert Election
7. Sec of Labor: Denied appeal. Cert Election was ordered.
8. SRBI with the MA: Urgent Motion to suspend proceedings. Denied.
9. SRBI, MR. MA cancelled the Cert Election.
10. MA later on denied the MR.
11. SRBI, DOLE: Sought the cancellation of the Union’s registration. Denied.
a. Undersecretary: Unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU-
TUC’s registration certificate, it had the legal right to represent its
members for collective bargaining purposes.
12. SRBI, MR, Denied.
13. MA scheduled the holding of the certification elections.
ISSUE: Whether the MA may validly order the holding of a certification election
upon the filing of a Petition by a registered Union despite the SRBI’s pending appeal
before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the union’s registration.
 Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, the Union is a legitimate
labor union.
 Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by
a legitimate labor organization.
o Nothing prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election
if the management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union’s
registration.
o SRBI’s appeal was correctly dismissed.
RE: Separation of Unions Doctrine
 The petition was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization.
 It was not filed by ALU.
 Nor was it filed by TUCP, which is a national labor federation with which
respondent union is affiliated.
 SRBI says that the Union is a mere alter ego of ALU.
o The records show nothing to this effect.
o What the records instead reveal is that the Union was initially assisted
by ALU during its preliminary stages of organization.
 A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger
national federation.
 SRBI: ALU seeks to represent both respondent union and the rank-and-file
union.
o Again, we find nothing in the records to support this bare assertion.

RE: Union membership
 The law frowns on a union where the membership is composed of both
supervisors and rank-and-file employees, for fear that conflicts of interest may
arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining, and strikes.
o But in the present case, none of the members of the respondent union
came from the rank-and-file employees of the bank.
2. The Employer as Initiating Party/ Bystander Rule
LC, Arts. 270 & 271
Art. 270. [258] When an Employer May File Petition.- When requested to bargain
collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no
existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after
hearing, order a certification election.
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
ART. 271. [258-A] Employer as Bystander.-ln all cases, whether the petition for
certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the
employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to
oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation in such
proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such
nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference
should the Mad- Arbiter act favorably on the petition.
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2
When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for
certification election with the Regional Office. If there is no existing registered
collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall,
after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election.
Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 214 SCRA 129 (1992)
FACTS:
1. National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for certification election.
2. By agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter issued an order for the conduct
of a certification election, with the following choices: a) NFL, b) Hercules
Employees Labor Union (HELU), and c) no union.
3. A pre-election conference was conducted. The parties, however, could not
agree on the list of qualified voters who would participate in the election.
4. Med-Arbiter: all regular rank and file workers appearing in the payroll of July
1987, and the strikers who have not executed quitclaims and voluntarily
accepted separation pay, are eligible participant in the certification election,
except managerial employees, security force department, strikers who
executed quitclaims and voluntarily accepted separation pay.
a. NFL appealed the above-mentioned order.
5. A certification election was conducted.
6. BLR: certification election is null and void; ordered a new certification election.
7. A pre-election conference attended by the management of Hercules Industries
Inc. and NFL’s representatives was held at the DOLE Regional Office. NFL asked
for the immediate conduct of a new certification election.
8. Certification election was held where NFL won; it was thereafter declared and
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of rank and file employees
of Hercules Industries Inc.
9. Hercules Industries Inc. filed an appeal with the DOLE; denied. MR also denied.
ISSUE: WON Hercules Industries Inc., as employer, may question the validity of the
certification election among its rank and file employees.- NO
RULING:
1. The employer is not a party to a certification election which is the sole or
exclusive concern of the workers. In the choice of their collective bargaining
representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His participation, to put
it mildly, deserves no encouragement.
2. The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when
it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to
bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order
for a certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it
becomes a neutral bystander.
3. In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while the employees
themselves never requested Hercules Industries Inc. to bargain collectively,
still, they did not object to the results of the certification election. Hence,
Hercules Industries Inc.’s appeal to the BLR from the MedArbiter’s Order
certifying the NFL as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file
employees, and its filing of this petition for certiorari, must be rejected. The
employer’s intervention in the certification election of its workers is frowned
upon by law.
4. In any event, petitioner’s challenge against the validity of the certification
election is devoid of merit. The minutes of the preelection conference showed
that: a) petitioner was duly notified of the conference and attended the same,
and that during said conference the MedArbiter set the certification election on
 May 4, 1990, b) the list of the names of the voters was copied from the payroll
of 1987 per order of the Director of the BLR, c) the certification election just
concluded was conducted in the most just, honest and free manner without
untoward happening, and that the result is true and correct
3. Responsible Agency
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 2
SECTION 2. Where to File. — A petition for certification election shall be filed with
the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of
registration/certificate of creation of chartered local.
The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (q)
(q) "Eligible Voter" refers to a voter belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit
that is the subject of a petition for certification election.
Rule IX, Secs. 17, 18, 19
SECTION 17. Failure of Election. — Where the number of votes cast in a certification
or consent election is less than the majority of the number of eligible voters and
there are no material challenged votes, the Election Officer shall declare a failure of
election in the minutes of the election proceedings.

Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one SECTION 18.Effect of Failure of Election. — A failure of election shall not bar the
Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter filing of a motion for the immediate holding of another certification or consent
who first acquired jurisdiction. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional election within six (6) months from date of declaration of failure of election.
Offices, the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all SECTION 19. Action on the Motion. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of
others; in which case, the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for the motion, the Election Officer shall immediately schedule the conduct of another
consolidation. certification or consent election within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the motion
4. Requisite for Validity of Election/ Failure of Election and cause the posting of the notice of certification election at least ten (10) days
prior to the scheduled date of election in two (2) most conspicuous places in the
ART. 268. [256] Representation Issue In Organized Establishments. - In organized establishment. The same guidelines and list of voters shall be used in the election.
establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a
national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its
local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has
been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the
Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the
expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall
automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is
supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the MATATAWAG KA NA GOODLUCK
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the
majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more
choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions
is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the
petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to
disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.
82 BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (BENECO) v. CALLEJA (1989) 9. BENECO filed a Protest. Med-Arbiter dismissed, finding that SC already ruled in
FACTS: a separate case that member-consumers who are EEs of BENECO can form,
assist or join a labor union.
1. BENECO is a non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric
services to its members and patron-consumers in the City of Baguio and 10. BLR Director Calleja: Affirmed. Certified BELU as the sole and exclusive
Benguet Province. bargaining agent of all the rank and file EEs. To deny the members of BENECO
the right to form, assist or join a labor union of their own choice for purposes
2. BWLU- ADLO filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive of CB would amount to a patent violation of their right to self-organization.
bargaining rep of all the rank and file EEs of BENECO at Alapang, La Trinidad,
Benguet alleging: 11. BENECO filed instant PetCert, alleging that BLR director committed GADLEJ.

a. That BENECO has 214 rank and file EEs 12. BENECO: That the cert election was null and void since its members-employees
who are not eligible to form and join a labor union for purposes of CB were
b. That 198 or 92.5% of these EEs have supported this filing allowed to vote therein.
c. That no certification election has been conducted for the last 12 13. Director Calleja and BELU: That members of a cooperative who are also rank
months and file employees are ELIGIBLE to form, assist or join a labor union
d. That there is no existing CB rep of the rank and file EEs sought to a. That a person assuming a dual capacity as rank and file employee and
represented by BWLU-ADLO as member of a certain cooperative does not militate against his/her
e. That there is no CBA in the cooperative. exercise of the right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
guaranteed by the Constitution and Labor Code because, while so
3. BELU opposed, contending, among others that it was certified as the sole and
doing, he/she is acting in his/her capacity as rank and file EE thereof.
exclusive bargaining rep of the subject workers pursuant to a previous order of
the Med-Arbiter. b. That while the EEs concerned became members of BENECO, their
status employment as rank and filers who are hired for fixed
4. BENECO filed a MTD the petition claiming that the EEs sought to be
compensation had not changed. They still do not actually participate in
represented by BWLU-ADLO are NOT ELIGIBLE to form, join or assist labor
the management of the cooperative as such is entrusted to the Board
organizations of their own choosing because they are members and joint
of Directors and to the officers. They are not vested with the powers
owners of the cooperative.
and prerogatives to lay down and execute managerial policies.
5. Med-Arbiter: Gave due course to the petition for cert election. Limited the
ISSUE: W/N Director Calleja committed GAD in certifying BELU as the sole and
election among the 37 rank and file EEs of BENECO who are non-members and
exclusive bargaining rep of the rank and file EEs of BENECO.
w/o any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative.
RULING: YES. Petition granted. Regional Office directed to immediately conduct
6. BELU and BENECO appealed – dismissed.
new certification election proceedings among the rank and file EEs of BENECO who
7. BENECO filed with this Court a petition for certiorari with prayer for prelim are not members of the cooperative.
injunction and TRO – dismissed in a minute resolution.
In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Calleja, the Court stated that the
8. Prior to the conduct of cert election, BENECO's counsel manifested that "the right to collective bargaining is NOT available to an employee of a cooperative
cooperative is protesting that EEs who are members-consumers are being who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof.
allowed to vote when they are not eligible to be members of any labor union
With respect, however, to employees who are neither members nor co-owners of
for purposes of CB, much less, to vote in this certification election.
the cooperative, they are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization,
a. BENECO submitted a certification showing that only 4 EEs are not collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and
members of BENECO and insisted that only these employees are applicable statutes.
eligible to vote in the cert election.
 The fact that the members-employees of BENECO do not participate in the
b. BELU garnered 49 of 83 votes cast. actual MANAGEMENT of the cooperative does NOT make them eligible to form,
 assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with
BENECO.
The Court's ruling in the Davao City case that members of cooperative CANNOT join
a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that as
members of the cooperative they are CO-OWNERS thereof. As such, they cannot
invoke the right to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner cannot bargain with
himself or his co-owners."
It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and NOT involvement in the
management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor
organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their
participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof
cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of CB.
BELU: That if nominal ownership in a cooperative is enough to take away the
constitutional protections afforded to labor, then there would be no hindrance for
ERs to grant stock bonuses to their EEs and thereafter claim that since their EEs are
now stockholders of the corporation, albeit in a minimal and involuntary manner,
they are now also co-owners and thus disqualified to form unions.
 This contention is based on the erroneous presumption that membership in a
cooperative is the same as ownership of stocks in ordinary corporations.
A cooperative is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run
either by persons, partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are
the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its EEs. Irrespective
of the number of shares owned by each member, they are entitled to cast one vote
each in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. Their share capital earns
limited interest. They enjoy special privileges: exemption from income tax and sales
taxes, preferential right to supply their products to State agencies, and exemption
from the minimum wage laws.
Therefore, an employee of a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof
cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot
bargain with himself or his co-owners.
 Therefore, the only EEs of BENECO eligible to form/join a union for purposes of
CB are the 37 EEs found by the Med-Arbiter to be non-members.
 The cert election conducted is null and void because even those who were
already members of the cooperative at the time of the issuance of the med-
arbiter's order were allowed to vote.
 It cannot be determined W/N BELU was duly elected by the eligible voters of
the bargaining unit since even EEs who are ineligible to join a labor union were
allowed to vote in the cert election.
 Hence, Director Calleja committed GAD in certifying BELU as the sole and
exclusive bargaining rep of the rank and file EEs.
5. Nature of Proceeding
Port Workers Union of the Phils. (PWUP) vs. Laguesma
G.R. Nos. 94929-30 March 18, 1992
Topic: Substantial Support
PETITION for review of the order of the Undersecretary of Labor and Employment.
CRUZ, J.
FACTS
 There was muffled excitement among the workers of the International
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) because its CBA with Associate
Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due
to expire. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers.
 The first challenge to APCWU was when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa
Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent
signatures were submitted eleven 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). The consent signatures were
submitted thirty-five days after the filing of the petition
 APCWU filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they did not comply
with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the
Implementing Rules for non-compliance with the requirement for the 25%
consent signatures at the time of filing.
 Med-Arbiter: dismissed the consolidated petitions.
 Secretary of Labor: affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter.
 Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement, which was concluded, ratified, and subsequently
registered with the DOLE.
 The petitioner argues that under Article 256, 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.
o ART. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments.—In
organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed
before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-
 day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining  The private respondents contend that the overwhelming ratification of the
agreement, the MedArbiter shall automatically order an election CBA is an affirmation of their membership in the bargaining agent,
by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the rendering the representation issue moot and academic and conclusively
written consent of at least twenty-five (25%) percent of all the barring the holding of a certification election thereon. That conclusion
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the does not follow. Even Tupas did not say that the mere ratification of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. x x x. CBA by the majority of the workers signified their affirmation of
ISSUE membership in the negotiating union. That case required, first, ratification
of the CBA, and second, affirmation of membership in the negotiating
 Whether under Article 256, the Med-Arbiter should automatically order union. The second requirement has not been established in the case at bar
election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of as the record does not show that the majority of the workers, besides
all employees in the bargaining unit. YES. ratifying the new CBA, have also formally affiliated with APCWU.
HELD  Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor
 In his own Comment, the Solicitor General agrees with the petitioner that Code provides that the representation case shall not be adversely affected
there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last 60 days of a
He submits that Article 256 should be liberally interpreted pursuant to subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.
Article 4 of the Labor Code, stating as follows: As the new CBA was entered into at the time when the representation case
was still pending, it follows that it cannot be recognized as the final
o Article 4. Construction in favor of labor.—All doubts in the
agreement between the ICTSI and its workers.
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code
including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved  In sum, it is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real
in favor of labor. representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the
certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of
 We have held that pursuant to the constitutional provision guaranteeing the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will exalt
workers the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, “the procedure over substantial justice.
constant and unwavering policy of this Court” has been “to require a
certification election as the best means of ascertaining which labor WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
organization should be the collective bargaining representative.”
 In line with this 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
the determination of the legitimate 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 the consent signatures
within a reasonable period from such filing.
 Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct
ascertainment of the labor union that has the support or confidence of the
majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their
dealings with management.