Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991
CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. CENECO!, petitioner,
vs.
"ONORA#LE SECRETAR$, %EPARTMENT O& LA#OR AN% EMPLO$MENT, '() CENECO
UNION O& RATIONAL EMPLO$EES CURE!, respondents.
Enrique S. Tabino for petitioner.
Edmundo G. Manlapao for private respondent.

REGALA%O, J.:p
In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner Central Neros Electric Cooperative, Inc.
!CENECO" see#s to annul the order
1
issued b$ then %ctin Secretar$ of &abor 'ienvenido E.
&aues(a on )une *, +,,-, declarin the pro.ected certification election unnecessar$ and directin
petitioner CENECO to continue reconi/in private respondent CENECO 0nion of Rational
E(plo$ees !C0RE" as the sole and e1clusive barainin representative of all the ran#2and2file
e(plo$ees of petitioner3s electric cooperative for purposes of collective barainin.
It appears fro( the records that on %uust +4, +,56, CENECO entered into a collective barainin
aree(ent 7ith C0RE, a labor union representin its ran#2and2file e(plo$ees, providin for a ter(
of three $ears retroactive to %pril +, +,56 and e1tendin up to March 8+, +,,-. On Dece(ber 95,
+,5,, C0RE 7rote CENECO proposin that neotiations be conducted for a ne7 collective
barainin aree(ent !C'%".
On )anuar$ +5, +,,-, CENECO denied C0RE3s re:uest on the round that, under applicable
decisions of the Supre(e Court, e(plo$ees 7ho at the sa(e ti(e are (e(bers of an electric
cooperative are not entitled to for( or .oin a union.
*
Prior to the sub(ission of the proposal for C'% reneotiation, C0RE (e(bers, in a eneral
asse(bl$ held on Dece(ber ,, +,5,, approved Resolution No. 84 7hereb$ it 7as areed that 3tall
union (e(bers shall 7ithdra7, retract, or recall the union (e(bers3 (e(bership fro( Central
Neros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order to avail !of" the full benefits under the e1istin Collective
'arainin %ree(ent entered into b$ and bet7een CENECO and C0RE, and the supposed
benefits that our union (a$ avail !of" under the rene7ed C'%.
3
;his 7as ratified b$ 94, of the 8*9
union (e(bers. CENECO and the Depart(ent of &abor and E(plo$(ent, 'acolod District, 7ere
furnished copies of this resolution.
<o7ever, the 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership 7as denied b$ CENECO on =ebruar$ 96, +,,- under
Resolution No. ,- >for the reason that the basis of 7ithdra7al is not a(on the rounds covered b$
'oard Resolution No. 4-98, dated Nove(ber 99, +,5, and that said re:uest is contrar$ to 'oard
Resolution No. 4-88 dated Dece(ber +8, +,5,, ...>
4
'$ reason of CENECO3s refusal to reneotiate a ne7 C'%, C0RE filed a petition for direct
reconition or for certification election, supported b$ 959 or 69? of the 855 ran#2and2file e(plo$ees
in the barainin unit of CENECO.
CENECO filed a (otion to dis(iss on the round that there are leal constraints to the filin of the
certification election, citin the rulin laid do7n b$ this Court in Batangas I Electric Cooperative
Labor Union vs. omeo !. "oung,
5
!'%;%N@%S case" to the effect that >e(plo$ees 7ho at the
sa(e ti(e are (e(bers of an electric cooperative are not entitled to for( or .oin unions for purposes
of collective barainin aree(ent, for certainl$ an o7ner cannot barain 7ith hi(self or his co2
o7ners.>
Med2%rbiter =eli/ardo ;. Serapio issued an order,
+
rantin the petition for certification election
7hich, in effect, 7as a denial of CENECO3s (otion to dis(iss, and directin the holdin of a
certification election bet7een C0RE and No 0nion.
CENECO appealed to the Depart(ent of &abor and E(plo$(ent 7hich issued the :uestioned order
(odif$in the aforestated order of the (ed2arbiter b$ directl$ certif$in C0RE as the e1clusive
barainin representative of the ran#2and2file e(plo$ees of C0RE.
<ence, this petition.
Petitioner CENECO arues that respondent Secretar$ co((itted a rave abuse of discretion in not
appl$in to the present case the doctrine enunciated in the '%;%N@%S case that e(plo$ees of an
electric cooperative 7ho at the sa(e ti(e are (e(bers of the electric cooperative are prohibited
fro( for(in or .oinin labor unions for purposes of a collective barainin aree(ent. Ahile
CENECO reconi/es the e(plo$ees3 riht to self2orani/ation, it avers that this is not absolute.
;hus, it opines that e(plo$ees of an electric cooperative 7ho at the sa(e ti(e are (e(bers thereof
are not allo7ed to for( or .oin labor unions for purposes of collective barainin. <o7ever, petitioner
does not hesitate to ad(it that the prohibition does not e1tend to e(plo$ees of an electric
cooperative 7ho are not (e(bers of the cooperative.
;he issue, therefore, actuall$ involves a deter(ination of 7hether or not the e(plo$ees of CENECO
7ho 7ithdre7 their (e(bership fro( the cooperative are entitled to for( or .oin C0RE for purposes
of the neotiations for a collective barainin aree(ent proposed b$ the latter.
%s culled fro( the records, it is the sub(ission of CENECO that the 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership in
the cooperative and, as a conse:uence, the e(plo$ees3 ac:uisition of (e(bership in the union
cannot be allo7ed for the follo7in reasonsB
+. It 7as (ade as a subterfue or to subvert the rulin in the '%;%N@%S caseB
9. ;o allo7 the 7ithdra7al of the (e(bers of CENECO fro( the cooperative 7ithout
.ustifiable reason 7ould reatl$ affect the ob.ectives and oals of petitioner as an
electric cooperativeC
8. ;he Secretar$ of &abor, as 7ell as the Med2%rbiter, has no .urisdiction over the
issue of the 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership 7hich is vested in the National
Electrification %d(inistration !NE%" 7hich has direct control and supervision over the
operations of electric cooperativesC and
D. %ssu(in that the Secretar$ has .urisdiction, C0RE failed to e1haust
ad(inistrative re(edies b$ not referrin the (atter of (e(bership 7ithdra7al to the
NE%.
;he petition is destitute of (eritC certiorari 7ill not lie.
Ae first rule on the alleed procedural infir(ities affectin the instant case. CENECO avers that the
(ed2arbiter has no .urisdiction to rule on the issue of 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership of its e(plo$ees
in the cooperative 7hich, it clai(s, is properl$ vested in the NE% 7hich has control and supervision
over all electric cooperatives.
=ro( a perusal of petitioner3s (otion to dis(iss filed 7ith the (ed2arbiter, it beco(es readil$
apparent that the sole basis for petitioner3s (otion is the illealit$ of the e(plo$ees3 (e(bership in
respondent union despite the fact that the$ alleedl$ are still (e(bers of the cooperative. Petitioner
itself adopted the aforesaid aru(ent in see#in the dis(issal of the petition for certification election
filed 7ith the (ed2arbiter, and the findin (ade b$ the latter 7as (erel$ in ans7er to the aru(ents
advanced b$ petitioner. <ence, petitioner is dee(ed to have sub(itted the issue of (e(bership
7ithdra7al fro( the cooperative to the .urisdiction of the (ed2arbiter and it is no7 estopped fro(
:uestionin that sa(e .urisdiction 7hich it invo#ed in its (otion to dis(iss after obtainin an adverse
rulin thereon.
0nder %rticle 94* of the &abor Code, to have a valid certification election at least a (a.orit$ of all
eliible voters in the unit (ust have cast their votes. It is apparent that incidental to the po7er of the
(ed2arbiter to hear and decide representation cases is the po7er to deter(ine 7ho the eliible
voters are. In so doin, it is a1io(atic that the (ed2arbiter should deter(ine the lealit$ of the
e(plo$ees3 (e(bership in the union. In the case at bar, it obviousl$ beco(es necessar$ to consider
first the propriet$ of the e(plo$ees3 (e(bership 7ithdra7al fro( the cooperative before a
certification election can be had.
&astl$, it is petitioner herein 7ho is actuall$ :uestionin the propriet$ of the 7ithdra7al of its
(e(bers fro( the cooperative. Petitioner could have brouht the (atter before the NE% if it 7anted
to and. if such re(ed$ had reall$ been available, and there is nothin to prevent it fro( doin so. It
7ould be absurd to fault the e(plo$ees for the nelect or la1it$ of petitioner in protectin its o7n
interests.
;he aru(ent of CENECO that the 7ithdra7al 7as (erel$ to subvert the rulin of this Court in the
'%;%N@%S case is 7ithout (erit. ;he case referred to (erel$ declared that e(plo$ees 7ho are at
the sa(e ti(e (e(bers of the cooperative cannot .oin labor unions for purposes of collective
barainin. <o7ever, no7here in said case is it stated that (e(ber2e(plo$ees are prohibited fro(
7ithdra7in their (e(bership in the cooperative in order to .oin a labor union.
%s discussed b$ the Solicitor @eneral, %rticle I, Section , of the %rticles of Incorporation and '$2
&a7s of CENECO provides that >an$ (e(ber (a$ 7ithdra7 fro( (e(bership upon co(pliance 7ith
such unifor( ter(s and conditions as the 'oard (a$ prescribe.> ;he sa(e section provides that
upon 7ithdra7al, the (e(ber is (erel$ re:uired to surrender his (e(bership certificate and he is to
be refunded his (e(bership fee less an$ obliation that he has 7ith the cooperative. ;here appears
to be no other condition or re:uire(ent i(posed upon a 7ithdra7in (e(ber. <ence, there is no
.ust cause for petitioner3s denial of the 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership of its e(plo$ees 7ho are also
(e(bers of the union.
,
;he alleed board resolutions relied upon b$ petitioner in den$in the 7ithdra7al of the (e(bers
concerned 7ere never presented nor their contents disclosed either before the (ed2arbiter or the
Secretar$ of &abor if onl$ to prove the ratiocination for said denial. =urther(ore, CENECO never
averred non2co(pliance 7ith the ter(s and conditions for 7ithdra7al, if an$. It appears that the
%rticles of Incorporation of CENECO do not provide an$ round for 7ithdra7al fro( (e(bership
7hich accordinl$ ives rise to the presu(ption that the sa(e (a$ be done at an$ ti(e and for
7hatever reason. In addition, (e(bership in the cooperative is on a voluntar$ basis. <ence,
7ithdra7al therefro( cannot be restricted unnecessaril$. ;he riht to .oin an orani/ation
necessaril$ includes the e:uivalent riht not to .oin the sa(e.
;he riht of the e(plo$ees to self2orani/ation is a co(pellin reason 7h$ their 7ithdra7al fro( the
cooperative (ust be allo7ed. %s pointed out b$ C0RE, the resination of the (e(ber2 e(plo$ees is
an e1pression of their preference for union (e(bership over that of (e(bership in the cooperative.
;he avo7ed polic$ of the State to afford fall protection to labor and to pro(ote the pri(ac$ of free
collective barainin (andates that the e(plo$ees3 riht to for( and .oin unions for purposes of
collective barainin be accorded the hihest consideration.
Me(bership in an electric cooperative 7hich (erel$ vests in the (e(ber a riht to vote durin the
annual (eetin beco(es too trivial and insubstantial vis2a2vis the pri(ordial and (ore i(portant
constitutional riht of an e(plo$ee to .oin a union of his choice. 'esides, the 8,- e(plo$ees of
CENECO, so(e of 7ho( have never been (e(bers of the cooperative, represent a ver$ s(all
percentae of the cooperative3s total (e(bership of DD,---. It is inconceivable ho7 the 7ithdra7al
of a neliible nu(ber of (e(bers could adversel$ affect the business concerns and operations of
CENECO.
Ae rule, ho7ever, that the direct certification ordered b$ respondent Secretar$ is not proper. '$
virtue of E1ecutive Order No. +++, 7hich beca(e effective on March D, +,56, the direct certification
oriinall$ allo7ed under %rticle 946 of the &abor Code has apparentl$ been discontinued as a
(ethod of selectin the e1clusive barainin aent of the 7or#ers. ;his a(end(ent affir(s the
superiorit$ of the certification election over the direct certification 7hich is no loner available no7
under the chane in said provision.
-
Ae have said that 7here a union has filed a petition for certification election, the (ere fact that no
opposition is (ade does not 7arrant a direct certification.
9
In said case 7hich has si(ilar features to
that at bar, 7herein the respondent Minister directl$ certified the union, 7e held thatB
... %s pointed out b$ petitioner in its petition, 7hat the respondent Minister achieved
in renderin the assailed orders 7as to (a#e a (oc#er$ of the procedure provided
under the la7 for representation cases becauseB ... !c" '$ directl$ certif$in a 0nion
7ithout sufficient proof of (a.orit$ representation, he has in effect arroated unto
hi(self the riht, vested naturall$ in the e(plo$ee3s to choose their collective
barainin representative. !d" <e has in effect i(posed upon the petitioner the
obliation to neotiate 7ith a union 7hose (a.orit$ representation is under serious
:uestion. ;his is hihl$ irreular because 7hile the 0nion en.o$s the blessin of the
Minister, it does not en.o$ the blessin of the e(plo$ees. Petitioner is therefore
under threat of bein held liable for refusin to neotiate 7ith a union 7hose riht to
barainin status has not been leall$ established.
Ahile there (a$ be so(e factual variances, the rationale therein is applicable to the present case in
the sense that it is not alone sufficient that a union has the support of the (a.orit$. Ahat is e:uall$
i(portant is that ever$one be iven a de(ocratic space in the barainin unit concerned. ;he (ost
effective 7a$ of deter(inin 7hich labor orani/ation can trul$ represent the 7or#in force is b$
certification election.
10
A<ERE=ORE, the :uestioned order for the direct certification of respondent C0RE as the
barainin representative of the e(plo$ees of petitioner CENECO is hereb$ %NN0&&ED and SE;
%SIDE. ;he (ed2arbiter is hereb$ ordered to conduct a certification election a(on the ran#2and2
file e(plo$ees of CENECO 7ith C0RE and No 0nion as the choices therein.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio#$errera %C&airperson'( )aras and )adilla( **.( concur.
Sarmiento( *.( is on leave.

&oot(ote.
+ %nne1 %, PetitionC Rollo, 9-.
9 %nne1 )., Id.( Ibid., +-5.
8 %nne1 D, Co((ent of C0REC Ibid., +8,.
D %nne1 I, PetitionC Ibid., +-6.
4 +*6 SCR% +8* !+,55".
* %nne1 =, Id.+ Ibid., 5-.
6 Rollo, +*62+6-.
5 National %ssociation of =ree ;rade 0nions !N%=;02;0CP" vs. 'ureau of &abor
Relations !'&R" et al., +*D SCR% +9 !+,55".
, Colate Pal(olive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople, et al., +*8 SCR% 898 !+,55".
+- %ssociated &abor 0nions !%&0" vs. =errer2Calle.a, etc., et al., +6, SCR% !+,5,".