CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF CONCERNED EMPLOYEES-UNIFIED FILIPINO SERVICE

WORKERS, (CMC-ACE-UFSW) vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of

the Department of Labor and Employment; CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS AND CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER
INCORPORATED AND DRA. THELMA CLEMENTE, President, respondents.,  
G.R. No. 118915,; Feb 4, 1997.

Doctrine: If the law proscribes the conduct of a certification election when there is a
bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration, with more reason should it
not be conducted if, despite attempts to bring an employer to the negotiation table by the
certified bargaining agent, there was no reasonable effort in good faith on the employer to
bargain collectively. 

Facts: Respondent union was declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of the rank-and filed employees of CMC. However, CMC refused to bargain with respondent
on the ground that CMC had filed a separate petition for the cancellation of respondent
union’s registration. A period of 12 months has lapsed but no has been concluded yet due
to CMC refusal. It was only after more than 12 months that respondent union was declared
by final judgment as the certified bargain agent.
Then, another union (petitioner union), filed another certification election. It alleged
that 331 out of 400 employees signed the petition to conduct certification election and they
withdraw their authorization for respondent union to represent them as they have another
petitioner union.
Respondent union opposed said petition on the ground that it is the certified
bargaining agent of the employees which was certified by the sec of labor, and that it was
not remiss in asserting its rights as the certified bargaining agent despite CMC’s refusal to
bargain. Petitioner union claimed that there is no legal impediment to conduct certification
election as more than 12 months had elapsed since respondent union was certified and no
CBA was yet concluded.
Med-arbiter granted petition for certification election. On appeal by respondent
union, such decision was reversed. Separate motions for reconsideration were initiated by
CMC and petitioner union, but were denied on the basis that failure to conclude a CBA was
not respondent union’s fault but CMC’s. Hence, this petition by petitioner union.

Issue: Should the petition for certification election be dismissed?

Ruling: Yes. For the conduct of certification election, Sec 3, Rule V, Book V of the Rule
Implementing the Labor Code prescribes: 1) that 1 year had lapsed since the issuance of a
final certification result, and 2) that there is no bargaining deadlock to which the
incumbent bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration, or
had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.
While it is true that, in the present case, the above-mentioned requirements have
been met, the decision in favor of the respondent union cannot be questioned since the
delay in forging of a CBA could not be attributed to fault of the respondent union.
Although there is no       deadlock       in its strict sense as there is
no       counteraction       of forces present in this case nor       reasonable effort at good faith
bargaining, such can be attributed to CMC      s fault as the bargaining proposals of
respondent union were never answered by CMC. In fact, what happened in this case is
worse than a bargaining deadlock for CMC employed all legal means to block the
certification of respondent union as the bargaining agent; and use it as its leverage for its
failure to bargain with respondent union.
If the law proscribes the conduct of a certification election when there is a
bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration, with more reason should it
not be conducted if, despite attempts to bring an employer to the negotiation table by the
certified bargaining agent, there was no reasonable effort in good faith on the employer to
bargain collectively.