1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

*
No. L-48347. October 3, 1978.

SCOUT RAMON V. ALBANO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, petitioner,

vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, and FEDERATION OF FREE
WORKERS (Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College Chapter),
respondents.

Labor Law; Certification Election; Concept and purpose of certification

election.—The same principle was again given expression in language
equally emphatic in the subsequent case of Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions vs. Bureau of Labor Relations: “Petitioner thus appears to be
woefully lacking in awareness of the significance of a certification election
for the collective bargaining process. It is the fairest and most effective way
of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working
force. It is a fundamental postulate that the will of the majority, if given
expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to
make their choice, is controlling. No better device can assure the institution
of industrial democracy with the two parties to a business enterprise,
management and labor, establishing a regime of self-rule.” That is to accord
respect to the policy of the Labor Code, indisputably partial to the holding
of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain
concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in
a collective bargaining unit.
Same; Same; Same; Bureau of Labor Relations may order holding of
certification election despite failure to meet 30% consent

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

495

VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 495

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

requirement; Order for holding certification election valid even if 30%

requirement was not met at the time of filing of petition provided the same
were thereafter met.—Conformably to the above basic concept, this Court, in
the aforesaid Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions decision,
recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of sound
discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

meet the 30% requirement. Once that requisite is complied with, however,
the Code makes clear that “it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct
a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of
the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in
the unit.” Necessarily then, the argument of petitioner as to the inability of
private respondent to come up with the required signatures when the
petition was first filed falls to the ground. At any rate, additional
signatures were subsequently secured. The allegation that there was
thereafter a retraction on the part of a number of such signatories lends
added support to the decision arrived at by respondent Noriel that the only
way of determining with accuracy the true will of the personnel involved in
the bargaining unit is to conduct a certification election. At any rate, that is
a factual matter, the resolution of which by respondent Noriel is entitled to
respect by this Tribunal.
Same; Same; Same; Employer should maintain hands-off policy in
disputes over question of majority union; Ill-effects of intervention of
management to the holding of certification election; Case at bar.—There is
relevance likewise to this excerpt from Monark International, Inc. v. Noriel,
cited in the Comment of Solicitor General Mendoza: “There is another
infirmity from which the petition suffers. It was filed by the employer, the
adversary in the collective bargaining process. Precisely, the institution of
collective bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is
free to choose its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, a
certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of
ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances where the
interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the matter. An obvious
instance is where it invokes the obstacle interposed by the contractbar rule.
This case certainly does not tall within the exception. Sound policy dictates
that as much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off
policy. For if it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it
is partial to one of the contending unions That is repugnant to the concept
of collective bargaining. That is

496

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

against the letter and spirit of welfare legislation intended to protect, labor
and to promote social justice. The judiciary then should be the last to look
with tolerance at such efforts of an employer to take part in the process
leading to the free and untrammeled choice of the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers.”

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court, Certiorari and

prohibition with preliminary injunction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Martiniano A. Valdisimo for petitioner.
     Jaime D. Lauron for private respondent.
          Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
General Reynato S, Puno and Solicitor Jesus V. Diaz for the Public
Respondent.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

FERNANDO, Acting C.J.:

The grave abuse of discretion imputed to respondent Director of

Labor Relations Carmelo C. Noriel, when he ordered a certification
election at the instance of private respondent, Federation of Free
Workers, was his alleged failure to abide by previous rulings of the
Department of Labor. Assuming such to be the case, the point
raised is not decisive of this controversy. As was made apparent
1
in
the Comment of Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, the
challenged order conforms to the decisions of this Court. Where the
law is concerned, it is this Tribunal that speaks authoritatively.
Petitioner has failed to make out a case. We dismiss.
The controversy began with the filing of a petition for
certification election on September 22, 1977 by the Scout Ramon V.
Albano Memorial College Chapter of private respondent labor
union. It alleged that the written consent of 67 employees out of an
alleged total working force of 200, more or less, had been secured.
There was, on October 21, 1977, a motion to dismiss the petition
filed by the employer, the present petitioner. It was based on the
lack of the 30% consent require-

_____________

1 He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Solicitor

Jesus V. Diaz.

497

VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 497

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

ment, as there were 250 employees, the required thirty percent of

the said work force being 75. With the figure of the actual number
of employees in the school establishment thus supplied, private
respondent submitted on October 26, 1977 the additional signatures
of 22 employees in support of its plea for a certification election.
There was an opposition on the part of the present petitioner. It was
filed on November 2, 1977. Then came, fifteen days later, an order
from the Med-Arbiter assigned to the case dismissing the petition
for certification on the ground that the compliance with the 30%
requirement must be shown as of the time of its filing. Private
respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations such order of
the MedArbiter dismissing its petition. Respondent Noriel on
February 8, 1978 sustained the appeal, ordering a certification
election at the Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College within
twenty (20) days from receipt thereof, with the follow-ing as
contending unions: 1. FFW (Scout Ramon V. Aibano Memorial
College Chapter); 2. No Union. Petitioner moved for its
reconsideration, but it did not succeed. An appeal to the Secretary
of Labor was likewise of no avail Hence this petition.
As set forth at the outset, there is no merit to this petition.
1. The
2
present Labor Code did not take effect until November 1,
1974. The day before, on October 31, 1974 this Court, speaking
through Justice E. Fernandez, now retired, in Confederation of
3
Citizens Labor Union v. National Labor Relations Commissions,
held fast to the existing doctrine emphasizing the significance of a
certification election in a regime of collective bargaining. Then in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

the first decision after its effectivity, United Employees Union of

4
Gelmart Industries v. Noriel, it was pointed out: “The institution of
collective bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime manifestation of
industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the relationship,
labor and management, make their own rules by coming to terms
That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. As labor,

_______________

2 Presidential Decree No. 570-A, Sec. 64.

3 L-38955-56, October 31, 1974, 60 SCRA 450.
4 L-40810, October 3, 1975, 67 SCRA 267.

498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable

that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice.
Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification election. So our
decisions from the earliest case of PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT
Co. Free Telephone Workers Union to the latest, Philippine
Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers’ Federation
5
(PCWF) v. Court of Industrial Relations, had made clear.” The
same principle was again given expression in language equally
emphatic in the subsequent case of Philippine Association
6
of Free
Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations: “Petitioner thus
appears to be woefully lacking in awareness of the significance of a
certification election for the collective bargaining process. It is the
fairest and most effective way of determining which labor
organization can truly represent the working force. It is a
fundamental postulate that the will of the majority, if given
expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the
voters to make their choice, is controlling. No better device can
assure the institution of industrial democracy with the two parties
to a business enterprise,
7
management and labor, establishing a
regime of self-rule.” That is to accord respect to the policy of the
Labor Code, indisputably partial to the holding of a certification
election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain
concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the
8
workers in a collective bargaining unit.

_______________

5 Ibid, 273. PLDT Employees Union is reported in 97 Phil. 424, a 1955 decision.
The Philippine Electronics decision, L-34531, promulgated on March 29, 1974, is
found in 56 SCRA 480.
6 L-42115, January 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 132.
7 Ibid, 139.
8 Cf. Federation Obrera v. Noriel, L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; UE
Automotive Employees and Workers Union-Trade Unions of the Philippines and
Allied Services v. Noriel, L-44350, Nov. 25, 1976, 74 SCRA 72; Philippine Labor
Alliance Council v. Bureau of Labor Relations. L-41288, Jan, 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 162;
Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union v. Noriel, L-45057, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA
450; Benguet Exploration Miner’s Union v. Noriel, L-44110, March 29, 1977, 76

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

SCRA 107; Kapisanan v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 414; Rowell Labor
Union-Trade Unions of the Philippines

499

VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 499

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

2. Conformably to the above basic concept, this Court, in the

aforesaid Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions decision,
recognized that the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of
sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding
the failure to meet the 30% requirement. Once that requisite is
complied with, however, the Code makes clear that “it shall be
mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the
purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the
9
unit.” Necessarily then, the argument of petitioner as to the
inability of private respondent to come up with the required
signatures when the petition was first filed falls to the ground. At
any rate, additional signatures were subsequently secured. The
allegation that there was thereafter a retraction on the part of a
number of such signatories lends added support to the decision
arrived at by respondent Noriel that the only way of determining
with accuracy the true will of the personnel involved in the
bargaining unit is to conduct a certification election. At any rate,
that is a factual matter, the resolution of which by respondent
10
Noriel is entitled to respect by this Tribunal.

_______________

v. Ople, L-42270, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 166; Vassar Industries Employees
Union v. Estrella, 44652, March 31, 1978; National Mines and Allied Workers Union
v. Luna, L-46722, June 15, 1978; General Textiles Allied Workers Association v.
Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, L-45719, July 31, 1978.
9 Article 258 of the Labor Code reads in lull: “Requisites for certification election.
—Any petition for certification election filed by any legitimate labor organization
shall be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt and verification of such petition, it
shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose
of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
all the employees in the unit.”
10 Cf. Antipolo Highway Lines v. Inciong, L-38523, June 27. 1975, 64 SCRA 441;
Jacqueline Industries v. National Labor Relations Commission, L-37034, Aug. 29,
1975, 66 SCRA 397; Federa

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

3. There is relevance likewise to this excerpt from Monark

International, Inc. v. Noriel, cited in the Comment of Solicitor

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

General Mendoza: “There is another infirmity from which the

petition suffers. It was filed by the employer, the adversary in the
collective bargaining process. Precisely, the institution of collective
bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free
to choose its representative. To resolve any doubt on the matter, a
certification election, to repeat, is the most appropriate means of
ascertaining its will. It is true that there may be circumstances
where the interest of the employer calls for its being heard on the
matter. An obvious instance is where it invokes the obstacle
interposed by the contract-bar rule. This case certainly does not fall
within the exception. Sound policy dictates that as much as
possible, management is to maintain a strictly hands-off policy. For
if it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it is
partial to one of the contending unions. That is repugnant to the
concept of collective bargaining. That is against the letter and spirit
of welfare legislation intended to protect labor and to promote social
justice. The judiciary then should be the last to look with tolerance
at such efforts of an employer to take part in the process leading to
the free and untrammeled choice of the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers.”11
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed, with
costs. This decision is immediately executory. The restraining order
is hereby lifted. A certification election must be conducted
forthwith.

          Barredo, Antonio, Aquino Concepcion Jr. and Santos, JJ.,

concur.

Petition dismissed.

_____________

cion Obrera v. Noriel. L-41937, July 6, 1976, 72 SCRA 24; Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa v. Noriel, L-45475, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 414; Monark International,
Inc. v. Noriel, L-47570-71, May 11, 1978. was promulgated on May 11, 1978. Cf.
Consolidated Farms, Inc., II v. Noriel, L-47752, July 31, 1978.

501

VOL. 85, OCTOBER 3, 1978 501

Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel

Notes.—Labor union with substantial interest in elections for

choosing the collective bargaining agent have the right to take part
therein provided that the application to intervene is timely filed.
(Federation of Free Workers vs. Paredes 54 SCRA 75)
The law contemplates participation of all employees in a
certification election. (B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B.F.
Goodrich Confedential and Salaried Employees Union-NATU, 49
SCRA 532).
The holding of a certification election is not barred by the
maintenance-of-membership clause in the collective bargaining
agreement. (Philippine Communications Electronics Electricity
Workers Federation vs. C.I.R., 56 SCRA 480).
The minutes of the election which stated that the election was
peaceful may be held sufficient to rebut the pretense that it was

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

characterized with disorder. (Acoji Workers Union vs. National

Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU), 7 SCRA 730).
A union which failed to intervene despite notice of publication of
the filing of the petition for certification elections by another union,
is not entitled to notice of hearing. (National Labor Union vs. Go
Soc & Sons, 23 SCRA 431).
Certification proceeding not a litigation.—A certification
proceeding is not a litigation in the sense the term is commonly
understood, where conventional rules of evidence (such as those on
the proper identification of a non-adversary, fact-finding character
in which the CIR plays the part of a disinterested investigator
seeking merely to ascertain the desires of employees as to the
matter of their representation. Especially is this so where, as here,
the petition for certification and the claim of majority
representation are uncontested.
As such, formality and rigidity are all together lacking. The
proceeding is not technical nor is the investigation required to take
any particular form. (National Labor Union vs. Go Soc & Sons, L-
21260, April 30 1968.)
Significance of petition for certification.—The slightest doubt
cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses significance in
a petition for certification is that through such
502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suarnaba vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission

a device the employees are given the opportunity to make known

who shall have the right to represent them. What is equally
important is that not only some but all of them should have the
right to do so. (Federation of the United Workers Organization
[F.U.W.O] vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-37392, December 19,
1973.)
Employees have constitutional right to choose which labor
organization to join.—Petitioner Labor union was in the past
apparently able to enlist the allegiance of the working force in the
Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, thereafter, a number of such
individuals joined private respondent labor union. That is a matter
clearly left to their sole uncontrolled judgment. x x x “There is both
a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the
right to form unions to take care of their interest vis-a-vis their
employees. Their freedom to form organization would be rendered
nugatory if they could not choose their own leaders to speak on
their behalf and to bargain for them. “It cannot be otherwise, for the
freedom to choose which labor organization to join is an aspect of
the constitutional mandate of protection to labor. (Federacion
Obrera De la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
Filipinas vs. Noriel, 72 SCRA 24.)
Where a labor organization objects to the participation election of
a company-dominated union and as a result, a complaint for unfair
labor practice case against the employer is filed, the status of the
latter union must first be cleared in such a proceeding before the
voting could take place. (B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B.F.
Goodrich Confidential and Salaried Employees Union—NATU, 49
SCRA 532.)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016875fbffd7a1c37231003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8