CERTIFICATION ELECTION – Process and Procedure Issue: Whether or not certification election should be ordered. YES.

 A letter from the president of respondent union reveals the present state of
a. Effect of Private Agreement affairs of the employees wherein they are deprived of the benefits of a
collective bargaining agreement, for management refused to bargain with the
84 PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS V. NORIEL union. If this situation continues, the employees would stand to lose a long-line
of cases that the workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining
1. Plum filed a petition praying that is be certified as the sole and exclusive process. Certification election is the fairest and most effective way of
bargaining agent of the rank and file workers of Manila Jockey Club determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force
2. Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO  Whether or not the 30% minimum subscription requirement was met, it was
(Manila Jockey Union), invoking the “No Union Raiding Clause” of the Code of held that the Director is still empowered to call for a certification election
Ethics adopted by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines provided there was no abuse of discretion. However, in the case at bar, instead
TUCP (wherein both are members) of ordering an election, respondent Director dismissed the appeal of PLUM
a. That the petition failed to satisfy 30% requirement based on the decision of the TUCP, which the Court considers an impairment of
b. Entire case was forwarded to the TUCP the freedom of the workers to voice out their choice of the union to represent
3. TUCP forwarded it to the Sec. of Labor, which in turn transmitted it to BLR them. If there is any doubt as to the required number having met, there would
a. The Pres.of TUCP stated therein that in a National Executive Board be no better way than the holding of a certification election to ascertain which
Meeting of TUCP, it was duly approved that Manila Jockey Union be union really commands the allegiance of the rank-and-file employees
declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent – and to dismiss  Since there has been no certification election for the past three (3) years as well
the petition of PLUM as a certified collective bargaining agreement which should govern the
4. BLR endorsed the case the officer in charge of Region IV for action economic and working conditions of the workers, a certification election should
5. MA dismissed the case pursuant to the letter of the TUCP Pres. immediately be ordered
6. PLUM filed an appeal with BLR
a. TUCP had no authority to grant or deny election Aquino, J., concurring:
7. BLR dismissed the appeal I concur. The practice of the BLR of referring certification election cases to the
a. Both are members of TUCP – they have internal rules that must be TUCP, a private entity, is utterly wrong. It is not sanctioned by the Labor Code. It is
followed an abdication of its functions
b. Regardless of the note of the TUCP Pres., decision was handed down
by the National Executive Board and not by him alone
c. Other recourse could have been taken
i. Could have asked recon from the National Board
8. PLUM argues
a. Nowhere in the LC or in the new Constitution has TUCP been granted
any authority to impair the holding of a certification election
b. That it is not within the Code of Ethics to suppress the employee’s
freedom to choose their own union
c. TUCP did not call the parties involved for conference, to submit
evidence, or to make a fair judicious and rational evaluation
9. Dir. Noriel of BLR: that he was ready to hold such election. However, the TUCP
Code of Ethics and General Council Resolution are clear expressions of consent
by the signatory members, to settle disputes among themselves in accordance
with the decision of the National Executive Board
10. Manila Jockey Union: petition was not supported by the written consent of at
least 30% of all the employees
b. Posting Notice 85 JISSCOR UNION vs TORRE, 1993

IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (o) 1. Jisscor Union filed a petition for certification election among the rank and file
(o) "Election Officer" refers to an officer of the Bureau of Labor Relations Division in employees of JIsscor
the Regional Office authorized to conduct certification elections, election of union a. Jisscor and SMJ-ALU intervened. By agreement, they all scheduled the
officers and other forms of elections and referenda in accordance with Rule XII, elections set the election on Sept. 4, 1990
Sections 2-5 of these Rules. SEIDAC b. However, on Sept. 4, instead of an election, they agreed that the election
be held on Sept. 6, and that the 5-day posting is waived.
Rule IX, Sec. 6 2. On the elections, SMJ-ALU won by 4 votes
SECTION 6. Posting of Notices. — The Election Officer shall cause the posting of a. Jisscor Union protested and filed a formal protest before the DOLE:
notice of election at least ten (10) days before the actual date of the election in two i. That there was no posting of notice of certification election and
(2) most conspicuous places in the company premises. The notice shall contain: necessary list of qualified voters
ii. Because of such lack of notice, the voters are misled
(a) the date and time of the election; 3. Med Arbiter – the elections was void
4. SOLE – reversed and held SMJ-ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit
(b) names of all contending unions;
ISSUE: WON the elections are valid. YES
(c) the description of the bargaining unit and the list of eligible and challenged
voters. SEID 1. the grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the
AC representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.
The posting of the notice of election, the information required to be included a. Protests not so raised are deemed waived
therein and the duration of posting cannot be waived by the contending unions or b. Here, the protest raised by Jisscor during the elections was against the use
the employer. of emblem, visor, pin
i. Also, wearing of pins, sunvisors, posting of streamers have not unduly
influenced the voters
2. The non-positing of the notice of certification election did not mislead and
confuse the workers
a. Jisscor Union is estopped from questioning such because it signed the
agreement waiving the 5-day mandatory notice
b. Estoppel is because of public policy, good faith, and the purpose is to
forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments
to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied
thereon
3. Also, the allegation is belied by the fact that 99 voted out of 104 eligible voters
a. Only 3 were spoiled ballots
c. Voters’ List
IR, Book V, Rule IX, Sec. 5
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.
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.
d. Dismissed employees
86. Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. vs. Yokohama Employees Union
G.R. No. 159553. December 10, 2007
TOPIC: Certification Election; Process – Dismissed Employees
FACTS:
1. Yokohama Employees Union (Union) filed a petition for certification election
among rank and file employees of the petitioner.
2. Med Arbiter dismissed the petition
3. Upon appeal, the DOLE secretary ordered an election with the union and no
union as choice.
4. Results:
a. Counted Votes: Union – 131, No Union, 117, Spoiled – 2 (total 250)
b. Challenged Votes: by Yokohama – 78, by the Union – 73 (total 151)
c. Total votes cast: 401
5. Yokohama challenged 78 votes cast by dismissed employees
6. Union challenged votes cast by 68 new rank and file employees and 5
supervisory-trainees.
7. MED ARB decision:
a. As regards 65 dismissed employees who contested their dismissal, the
appreciation of votes shall be suspended until final disposition of their
illegal dismissal complaint
b. As regards the 68 newly regularized rank and file employees, their votes
shall be counted in the final tabulation
8. DOLE Acting Sec:
a. the votes of the dismissed employees who contested their dismissal shall
be counted
b. the votes of 68 newly regularized rank and file employees shall be
excluded.
9. CA: affirmed the decision of the DOLE
a. Upheld that the employees who contested their dismissal should be
allowed to vote under Art. 212(f) of the LC and the IRR
b. Disallowed the inclusion of the 68 newly regularized employees because
they were not in the voters list submitted in the pre-elec conference
YOKOHAMA: posits that “employees who have quit or have been dismissed for just
cause prior to the date of the certification election are excluded from participating
in the certification election.”
UNION: Section 2, Rule XII of the rules implementing Book V of the Labor Code
allows a dismissed employee to vote in the certification election if the case
contesting the dismissal is still pending.
ISSUE: Whether the votes of the dismissed employees who contested their votes
should be included in the final tabulation. YES
HELD:
 Section 2, Rule XII, the rule in force during the November 23, 2001 certification
election clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously allows dismissed employees
to vote during the certification election if the case they filed contesting their
dismissal is still pending at the time of the election
 Here, the votes of employees with illegal dismissal cases were challenged by
petitioner although their cases were still pending at the time of the certification
election.
 Even the new rule1 has explicitly stated that without a final judgment
declaring the legality of dismissal, dismissed employees are eligible or
qualified voters.
 IRR: Rule IX – CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
o Section 5. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion.—. . . 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.
 SC held that it need not resolve the other issues for being moot. The 68 votes
of the newly regularized rank-and-file employees, even if counted in favor of
“No Union,” will not materially alter the result. There would still be 208 votes in
favor of respondent and 189 votes in favor of “No Union.”
1
D.O. 40-03 S. of 2003: Rules Amending Book V of the Labor Code
e. Voting Day/Venue
IR, Book V, Rule IX, Sec. 2
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; SEIDAC
(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.
 87 Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. (ADMACOR) v. Calleja employees, but did not necessarily make said date an irregular business day of
G.R. No. 77415. June 29, 1989 the company to go against the aforesaid Rule 

1. ADMACOR operates a rattan furniture in Cebu.

2. A certification of was scheduled on May 21, 1986, a regular business day.
3. On May 19, 1986, several workers held a strike without a previous notice of
strike.
4. On May 20, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition for indefinite resetting of the
scheduled certification election. However, the petition was not acted upon by
the Lab Rel Division.
5. On May 21, 1986, the scheduled certification election was conducted, despite
the strike. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) was elected as the
exclusive bargaining agent.
6. On the same day, ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike and for illegal
picketing with Regional Arbitration Branch.
7. On May 23, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification election
conducted on May 21 as null and void.
8. According to ADMACOR, since there was a strike in the premises of the factory
on the day of the certification election, such day cannot be considered a
regular business day, pursuant to the Implementing Rules, which requires
that the certification election must be conducted during the regular business
day.
9. The Med Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR’s complaint to annul the certification
election. While the BLR dismissed the appeal.
10. Meanwhile, the LA ruled in favor of ADMACOR in its complaint for illegal strike
and picketing.

ISSUE: Whether the procedural requirement set by Sec. 2, Rule VI, Book VI of the
Rules to Implement the LC (that the election shall be set during a regular business
day has been complied – YES

 The SC agreed with the ruling of the BLR Director in upholding the validity of
the certification election despite the strike.
 The records further show that during the pre- election conference the
contending parties agreed that the election should be conducted on May 21,
1986 winch was, on that time, a determined regular business day of the
company. This was in accordance with Section 2, Rule VI Book V, of the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code which explicitly provides:
The election shall be set during the regular business day of the company
unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
 The alleged strike and/or picketing of some employees at the company's
premises which coincided with the actual conduct of certification election
might, perhaps have affected the actual performance of works by some
f. Conduct of Election mildly, deserves no encouragement.
IR, Book V, Rule IX, Secs. 1 & 15 2. The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when
SECTION 1. Raffle of the Case. — Within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers’ request to
notice of entry of final judgment granting the conduct of a certification election, the bargain collectively pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order
Regional Director shall cause the raffle of the case to an Election Officer who shall for a certification election issues, the employer’s involvement ceases, and it
have control of the pre-election conference and election proceedings. becomes a neutral bystander.
3. In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while the employees
SECTION 15. Conduct of Election and Canvass of Votes . — The election precincts themselves never requested Hercules Industries Inc. to bargain collectively,
shall open and close on the date and time agreed upon during the pre-election still, they did not object to the results of the certification election. Hence,
conference. The opening and canvass shall proceed immediately after the precincts Hercules Industries Inc.’s appeal to the BLR from the MedArbiter’s Order
have closed. Failure of any party or the employer or his/her/their representative to certifying the NFL as the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank and file
appear during the election proceedings shall be considered a waiver to be present employees, and its filing of this petition for certiorari, must be rejected. The
and to question the conduct thereof. SEIDAC employer’s intervention in the certification election of its workers is frowned
upon by law.
88 HERCULES INDUSTRIES INC v. SECRETARY OF LABOR 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
1. National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for certification election. that: a) petitioner was duly notified of the conference and attended the same,
2. By agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter issued an order for the conduct and that during said conference the MedArbiter set the certification election on
of a certification election, with the following choices: a) NFL, b) Hercules May 4, 1990, b) the list of the names of the voters was copied from the payroll
Employees Labor Union (HELU), and c) no union. of 1987 per order of the Director of the BLR, c) the certification election just
3. A pre-election conference was conducted. The parties, however, could not concluded was conducted in the most just, honest and free manner without
agree on the list of qualified voters who would participate in the election. untoward happening, and that the result is true and correct
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

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
g. Protest’ Period
IR, Book V, Rule IX, Secs. 12 and 13
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.
Rule I, Sec. 1 (p)
(p) "Election Proceedings" refer to the period during a certification election, consent
or run-off election and election of union officers, starting from the opening to the
closing of the polls, including the counting, tabulation and consolidation of votes,
but excluding the period for the final determination of the challenged votes and the
canvass thereof.
89/98 SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC v. LAGUESMA and
MALAYANG NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAWA NG PACIFIC PLASTIC
Topics: Certification Election – Process and Procedure: Protest Period; Contract Bar
Rule; Effect of Petition for Cancellation of Trade Union Registration
1. SAMAHAN and MNMPP are labor unions of the RFE of Pacific Plastic Corp (PPC).
2. MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election.
3. SAMAHAN countered by seeking MNMPP’s union registration cancellation.
4. MNMPP’s petition to be certified as bargaining agent was dismissed by the MA.
5. Sec of Labor: Reversed. Ordered the holding of certification election.
6. PPC filed an MR. Denied.
7. The representation officer of the Secretary of Labor held a pre-election
conference.
a. PPC was required to submit the list of RFE based on the company
payroll 3 months prior to the filing of the petition.
b. PPC failed to submit, and was warned that should it fail to appeal next
conference, the list that MNMPP would submit will be used as basis
for determining the eligible voters.
c. PPC still failed to appear. Final warning issued.
8. SAMAHAN also failed to appear.
a. It moved to defer the conference since the proceedings for the
cancellation of the union registration of MNMPP was still pending and
it was a prejudicial question.
b. There is an existing CBA between PPC and SAMAHAN which bars the
certification election.
9. MNMPP opposed. The cancellation case was already decided by DOLE and the
CBA did not bar the holding of a certification election.
10. SAMAHAN and MNMPP agreed to hold the certification election on the basis of
the list of employees submitted by MNMPP, without prejudice to the
submission by SAMAHAN of its own list.
11. The certification election was finally set but SAMAHAN objected despite its
agreement with MNMPP to hold an election using the list furnished by the SSS.
a. It also objected to the participation of a third labor union, Kalipunan
ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI) which in the meantime had filed
a motion for intervention.
12. SAMAHAN filed a Manifestation/Motion that it was not participating in the
certification election and asked that the certification election held on the same
day be nullified for the following reasons:
a. it did not receive notice of the certification as required by law;
b. its opposition to KAMAPI’s motion to intervene and its opposition to
setting the date of the certification election had not been resolved;
c. there were discrepancies in the list of voters submitted by the SSS; and
d. SAMAHAN’s President moved to strike out his signature at the back of
the official ballot.
13. The certification election was held.  KAMAPI was allowed to participate. 
a. 98 eligible voters. 56 for MNMPP; 2 for SAMAHAN; 0 for KAMAPI; 1 for
No Union; 3 spoiled.
14. SAMAHAN protested the result of the certification election alleging the same
grounds alleged by it in its Manifestation/Motion.
15. MNMPP opposed the petition raising the following arguments:
a. that the mere filing of a motion for intervention will not suspend the
holding of a certification election under Rule V, 5 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code;
b. that the results of the election showed that intervenor was
resoundingly repudiated by the employees;
c. that it failed to specify the alleged discrepancies in the list of
employees furnished by the SSS; and
d. that matters not raised during the election are deemed waived
pursuant to Rule VI, §3 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code.
16. MA dismissed the election protest of SAMAHAN and upheld the election of
MNMPP as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file
employees at the PPC.  
17. Undersecretary Laguesma denied the appeal of SAMAHAN and affirmed the
decision of the Med-Arbiter.  SAMAHAN moved for a reconsideration, but its
motion was denied.  Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the certification election was void on the ground that only 62/130
employees participated. NO.
 Art. 256 of the Labor Code provides that in order to have a valid election, at
least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes.
o The certification election results show that more than a majority, 62
out of a total of 98 eligible voters included in the list of employees
obtained from the SSS, cast their votes.
ISSUE: Whether the utilization of the SSS list as basis for determining the total
number of eligible voters was proper. YES.
 SAMAHAN: It should be the payroll 3 months preceding the petition according
to the IRR. The payroll would indicate that 130 employees are eligible to vote.
 SC: It should ideally be the payroll which should have been used for the
purpose of the election. However, the unjustified refusal of a company to
submit the payroll in its custody, despite efforts to make it produce it,
compelled resort to the SSS list as the next best source of information.
 SAMAHAN’s objection to the use of the SSS list should have been raised during
the elections and formalized in its election protest.
o Under the Implementing Rules, grounds of protests not raised before
the close of the proceedings and duly formalized within five (5) days
after the close of the election proceedings are deemed waived.
ISSUE: Whether the CBA signed during the pendency of the representation
proceedings rendered the certification election moot and academic. NO.
 The representation case shall not, however, be adversely affected by a
collective bargaining agreement registered before or during the last 60 days of
a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.
ISSUE: Whether the cancellation proceedings of MNMPP’s union registration was a
prejudicial question.
 A certification election can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to
cancel the union registration certificate.
 At the time the respondent union filed its petition or certification, it still had
the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing its
cancellation.
h. Appeal; Period
LC, Art. 272
ART. 272. [259] Appeal from Certification Election Orders. - Any party to an election
may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Mad- Arbiter
directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided
within fifteen (15) calendar days.
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Secs. 17-21
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. SE
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.
i. Nullification of Election results
90 United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v Noriel
1. This petition seeks to have the certification election declared null and void,
alleging that the contending parties in a pre-election conference conducted by
the BLR agreed that United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines
(UEUGIP) would be listed in the ballot as “United Employees Union of Gelmart
Industries Philippines (UEUGIP).” In the notice of certification election,
however, it was deleted and replaced by a non-contending party. As a result,
there was confusion in the minds of independent voters and demoralization in
the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner.
2. UEUGIP, however, did not lodge any protest concerning the alleged misprinting
or omission of its name in the Notice of Certification Election in the Sample
Ballot before the election, during the election or shortly after the election, but
merely questioned the presence of the priests and nuns, over which it filed a
protest with the BLR.
3. The certification election took place on the scheduled date, and National Union
of Garments, Textile, Cordage and Allied Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD)
garnered the highest number of votes.
4. GATCORD denied the imputation of irregularity and sought to clarify matters by
a factual presentation of what did transpire. At the outset, however, it made
clear that the UEUGIP, which garnered only 291 votes or 4.5% of the total
number of votes cast as against the 3,970 or 63% of the votes in its favor, out of
8,900 eligible voters, certainly could not be heard to challenge the validity of
the certification election.
a. It may be noted that even if the votes of all seven losing unions were
added, their total would only be 2,057, which is still 1,823 votes short
of GATCORD's 2,970 votes. It is thus clear that GATCORD won by an
overwhelming majority
that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be
discerned how crucial is a certification election. There must be such an
opportunity to determine which labor organization shall act on their behalf, for
it is easily understandable how essential it is to insure the fair and free choice
of bargaining representatives by employees.
3. It is precisely because respect must be accorded to the will of labor thus
ascertained that a general allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate a
certification election; it must be shown by competent and credible proof. That
is to give substance to the principle of majority rule, one of the basic concepts
of a democratic polity.
4. The slightest doubt cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses
significance in a petition for certification is that through such 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. If heed be paid to the above wellsettled
principle and applied to the facts disclosed in the present petition, it would be
apparent that the grievance spoken of is more fancied than real, the assertion
of confusion and demoralization based on conjecture rather than reality.
5. The mode and manner in which Antonio Diaz demonstrated how militant and
articulate he could be in presenting his side of the controversy could hardly
argue for the accuracy of his claim that his men did lose heart by what
appeared at the most to be an honest mistake, if it could be characterized as
one. Certainly then, the accusation that there was abuse of discretion, much
less a grave one, falls to the ground.

ISSUE: WON the certification election is null and void.- NO

1. The institution of collective bargaining is 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.
2. As labor, however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable
D. Certification of Designated Majority Union
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.
Art. 269
ART. 269. [257] Petitions in Unorganized Establlshments. - In any establishment
where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition 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. 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.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(t)
(t) "Exclusive Bargaining Representative" refers to a legitimate labor union duly
recognized or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative or agent
of all the employees in a bargaining unit.
Rule IX, Secs. 16 & 20
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.
91 MILITANTE ET AL. v. NLRC, GOLDEN TAXI CAB COMPANY, and THE ZAMORAS
(1995)
 
1. GTEWU-ANGLO, represented by Serrano as union president, on behalf of all
the workers, filed a case against Golden Taxi Cab Co and the Zamoras for illegal
lock-out, violation of BP130, as amended by RA 6715, ULP, and damages.
2. LA Libo-on found that the closure of the company and the Zamoras was
ILLEGAL, and ordered it to pay the union members P22.9M as separation pay
and 10% AF.
3. GTEWU-ANGLO appealed, but herein petitioners Militante et al. were no longer
included.
4. NLRC REVERSED. Directed the company and the Zamoras to pay, as financial
assistance, the workers named in the list attached to its decision P5.6M plus
10% AF.
5. The plaintiffs in the succeeding facts (petitioners Militante et al), are members
of the rival union PACIWU-TUCP, not of GTEWU-ANGLO. They are EXCLUDED
from the “list” mentioned in the preceding NLRC decision.
6. Militante filed a complaint against the Zamoras again for illegal lockout, illegal
dismissal, non-remittance of SSS deduction, deduction for burial benefits, non-
payment of premium pay for rest day, 13th-month pay and separation pay with
a prayer for reinstatement, upgrading of SSS payments, payment of separation
pay, 13th-month pay and premium pay for rest day.
7. Another complaint was filed by Salonga against the Company for the same
causes of action.
8. The company and the Zamoras filed a MTD on the grounds of res judicata and
prescription, arguing that the NLRC decision (fact no. 3) barred these
subsequent complaints.
9. Another complaint was filed against by Tejada.
10. LA Reyes DISMISSED the 3 consolidated cases on the ground of bar by prior
judgment.
11. NLRC DISMISSED the appeal for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
12. Petitioners Militante et al: That NLRC acted with GADLEJ in holding that their
causes of action are barred by the prior final judgment; That they, being
members of PACIWU-TUCP, were NOT parties in the first case filed by GTEWU-
ANGLO.
ISSUE: W/N the NLRC committed GAD in applying the principles of res judicata.
RULING: NO.
Article 255 of the LC provides:
Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and
decision making. — The labor organization designated or selected by the
majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be
the EXCLUSIVE representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
 When the company filed its notice of closure with DOLE in 1990, GTEWU-
ANGLO was ALREADY CERTIFIED as the exclusive bargaining agent of ALL the
rank and file employees" of the company, for having won the Consent
Election held in 1989.
 The effect of such a certification brought about the legal mandate that
GTEWU-ANGLO shall be the exclusive representative of all the "rank and file
employees (not just the union members) of the company not only for the
purpose of entering into a CBA on terms and conditions of employment, but
also in the matter of rights, benefits and welfare of the said represented
workers.
The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
accorded not only respect but, at times, finality, if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the
evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and,
therefore, arrived at with GAD.
 In the first case, NLRC resolved 2 issues: (1) the determination of the
employees who are to receive financial assistance; and (2) the amount they are
entitled to receive.
 NLRC took out those who no longer worked with the company before its
closure, and favored only those who actively pursued the case. It limited the
award of financial assistance only to those mentioned in the list attached to its
decision resulting in the exclusion from the benefits of petitioners.
 The Court cannot simply disregard the factual findings made by the LA, and the
conclusion arrived at by NLRC, as these are supported by the records and in
accord with law and jurisprudence.
 Since GTEWU-ANGLO was already certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in
the consent election, petitioners cannot now claim that they were not parties
in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO.
Res Judicata has the following elements: (1) that the previous judgment has become
final; (2) that the prior judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) that the first judgment was rendered on the
merits; and (4) that there was substantial identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action, as between the prior and subsequent actions.
 It is undisputed that the prior NLRC decision (fact 3) was decided on the merits
and has already become final.
 All the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to
apply, thus barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases
subject of this petition.
 However, the monetary claims, such as non-remittance of SSS deduction and
deductions for burial benefits, non-payment of holiday pay and thirteenth-
month pay were neither raised nor determined in the first case. Hence,
petitioners are not precluded from filing and pursuing these claims.
92 Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. (Manila Diamond Hotel) vs. Manila
Diamond Hotel Employees Union (2006)
Topic: Certification of Designated Majority Union
Main Case:
 The union, which was registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), filed a Petition for Certification Election. DOLE-NCR denied
the union’s petition.
 Through its president Kimpo, the union later notified petitioner of its intention
to negotiate a CBA for its members. Acting on the notice, the Hotel, through its
Human Resource Development Manager, advised the union that since it was
not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining agent, it could not be
recognized as such.
 The union clarified that it sought to bargain “for its members only,” and
declared that the Hotel’s refusal to bargain would prompt the union to engage
in concerted activities to protect and assert its rights under the Labor Code.
 The union went on to file a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) due to unfair labor practice (ULP) in that the Hotel
refused to bargain with it and the rank-and-file employees. Conciliation
conferences were immediately conducted by the NCMB during which the union
insisted on the adoption of a CBA for its members.
 In one of the conference held, the union demanded the holding of a consent
election. Petitioner then requested that the election be held in January 1998.
 The parties agreed to meet again on December 1 but in the early morning of
November 29, however, the union suddenly went on strike. The following day
NUWHRAIN joined the strike and openly extended its support to the union.
 An NLRC representative who conducted an ocular inspection of the Hotel
premises confirmed that the strikers obstructed the free ingress to and egress
from the Hotel. The NLRC issued a TRO directing the strikers to immediately
“cease and desist from obstructing the free ingress and egress from the Hotel
premises.”
 Nonetheless, the strikers refused to dismantle the tent they put up at the
employee’s entrance to the Hotel, prompting the Hotel’s security guards to
dismantle the same during which the strikers as well as the guards were hit by
rocks coming from the direction of the construction site at the nearby Land
Bank Plaza, resulting to physical injuries to some of them.
 Petitioner then filed a petition to declare the strike illegal.
Side Cases:
 Union President Kimpo
o Mendoza, one of the Hotel’s outlet cashiers, was discovered to have
failed to remit to the Hotel the amount of P71,692.50 at the end of his
duty. He claimed that after accomplishing his daily cash remittance
 report, the union president Kimpo signed the same and dropped his
remittances. Kimpo was thus directed to explain why no administrative
sanction should be imposed on him.
o Kimpo then filed before the Arbitration Branch a complaint for ULP
against petitioner.
 Hotel supervisors Agustin and Rowena, and another supervisor, Mary Grace
o The three were seen participating in and supporting the strike.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for injunction before the NLRC to enjoin
further commission of illegal acts by the strikers.
o Mary Grace alleged that she was merely trying “to pacify the group.”
Petitioner, finding her explanation “arrogant” and unsatisfactory as
her active participation in the strike was confirmed by an eye witness,
terminated her services, drawing her to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioner.
o Agustin, who was also terminated, filed a similar complaint against the
Hotel.
o Rowena, whose services were terminated, also filed a complaint
against petitioner for illegal dismissal.
 DOLE Secretary: issued an order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration, and directing the striking officers and members to
return to work within 24 hours and the Hotel to accept them back
 NLRC: declared that the strike was illegal and that the union officers and
members who were reinstated to the Hotel’s payroll were deemed to have lost
their employment status. And it dismissed the complaints filed by Mary Grace,
Agustin, and Rowena as well as the union’s complaint for ULP.
 Court of Appeals: affirmed the NLRC Resolution dismissing the complaints of
Mary Grace, Agustin and Rowena and of the union. It modified the NLRC
Resolution, however, by ordering the reinstatement with back wages of union
members.
 In so ruling, the appellate court noted that petitioner failed to establish that the
union members who participated in the illegal strike committed illegal acts, and
although petitioner presented photographs of the striking employees, the
strikers who allegedly committed illegal acts were not named or identified.
ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal. – YES.
The union was not the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of
the employees
 Article 255 of the Labor Code provides:
o EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION AND WORKERS’
PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING. The labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees
in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of
employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers
shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the
Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to
participate in policy and decision-making process of the
establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes
will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this
purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management
councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in
such labor management councils shall be elected by at least the
majority of all employees in said establishment.
 Only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
 The union is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the
employees of petitioner, hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right
to bargain collectively in their behalf. The union insists, however, that it could
validly bargain in behalf of “its members,” relying on Article 242 of the Labor
Code. Such reliance is misplaced, for not every legitimate labor organization
possesses the rights mentioned therein. Article 242 (a) must be read in relation
to above-quoted Article 255.
 On the union’s contention that it was bargaining in behalf only of its members,
that the same would only “fragment the employees” of petitioner, held that
“what [respondent] will be achieving is to divide the employees. The other
workers who are not members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the
same shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their terms and
conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence and reason of collective
bargaining, which is an effective safeguard against the evil schemes of
employers in terms and conditions of work.”
 It bears noting that the goal of the DOLE is geared towards “a single employer
wide unit which is more to the broader and greater benefit of the employees
working force.” The philosophy is to avoid fragmentation of the bargaining unit
so as to strengthen the employees’ bargaining power with the management. To
veer away from such goal would be contrary, inimical and repugnant to the
objectives of a strong and dynamic unionism.
Petitioner’s refusal to bargain
 Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent cannot be considered a
ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
 While the Union continues to accuse the Hotel of violating their constitutional
right to organize by busting the Union, the Court cannot overlook the events
that transpired prior to the strike that the Union staged. It is beyond argument
that a conciliatory meeting was still scheduled to be held on December 1. In
this conciliatory meeting, the Union could have substantiated and presented
additional evidences.
 It is also evident from the records of the instant petition that their principal
ground for the strike was the “refusal of the Hotel Management to bargain
collectively with the Union for the benefit of the latter’s members.” It is not
disputed, however, that the petitioner UNION is not a certified bargaining unit
to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with private respondent
Hotel.
Illegal Strike
 Further, the photographs taken during the strike, as well as the Ocular
Inspection Report of the NLRC representative, show that the strikers, with the
use of ropes and footed placards, blockaded the driveway to the Hotel’s points
of entrance and exit, making it burdensome for guests and prospective guests
to enter the Hotel, thus violating Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code which
provides:
o ART. 264 (e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of
violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or
egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct
public thoroughfares.
 Furthermore, the photographs indicate that indeed the strikers held noise
barrage and threatened guests with bodily harm. Finally, the police reports
mention about the strikers’ exploding of firecrackers, causing the guests to
panic and transfer to other areas of the Hotel.
 It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector employees to strike
is not absolute. Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be
held illegal where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities
which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike illegal. And so is
picketing or the obstruction to the free use of property or the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property, when accompanied by intimidation, threats,
violence, and coercion as to constitute nuisance.
 An ordinary striking worker cannot, thus be dismissed for mere participation in
an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a
strike, unlike a union officer who may be dismissed by mere knowingly
participating in an illegal strike and/or committing an illegal act during a strike.
 The court found no convincing and substantial proof, however, that the
strikers-members of respondent who participated in the illegal strike
committed illegal acts. Consequently, they cannot be terminated from service
for their participation in an illegal strike.
 Moreover, the Hotel presented as evidence photographs of the striking
employees which show that some of the workers-strikers who joined the strike
indeed committed illegal acts—blocking the free ingress to and egress from the
Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, and the like. The strikers
were, in a list attached to petitioner’s Position Paper filed with the NLRC,
named.
 The list failed to specifically identify the ones who actually committed illegal
acts, however. Such being the case, a remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter,
through the NLRC, is in order for the purpose only of determining the
respective liabilities of the strikers listed by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is, in light of the foregoing
ratiocinations, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that only those members of the
union who did not commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should
be reinstated but without backwages. The case is, therefore, REMANDED to the
Labor Arbiter, through the NLRC.

Dismissal of Union Officers

 As the appellate court correctly held, the union officers should be dismissed for
staging and participating in the illegal strike, following paragraph 3, Article
264(a) of the Labor Code which provides that “. . .any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during strike may be
declared to have lost his employment status . . .”
E. Bars to Certification Election
1. One Year Bar/Certification year Rule
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 3(a) & 14(c)
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; SEIDA
SECTION 14. Denial of the Petition ; Grounds. — The Med-Arbiter may dismiss the
petition on any of the following grounds:
(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;
93 R. TRANSPORT CORP. V. LAGUESMA
1. Christian Labor Organization of the Philipines (CLOP), filed with MA a petition
for certification election among the rank and file employees of R. Transport
2. MA dismissed the petition
a. bargaining unit sought to be represented by CLOP did not include all
the eligible employees of R. Transport but only the drivers,
conductors, and conductresses
b. excluded: inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers, dispatcheress (haha
joke), mechanics and washerboys
3. CLOP filed 2nd pet. Cert. elec. which included all the rank and file who hold non-
managerial and non-supervisorial positions
4. R. Transport filed MtoD
a. Res judicata – CLOP should have interposed an appeal to the 1 st
dismissal
b. Failure to do so barred it from filing another petition
5. MA ordered election
6. Associated Labor Unions filed a Motion to Intervene and alleged that it had
members in the proposed bargaining unit
7. National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a separate petition for
certification election
8. R. Transport appealed the order holding election
9. DOLE Sec. Laguesma affirmed MA
a. Res judicta does not apply
i. no final judgment yet regarding the issue
ii. further, there are other parties now
10. R. Transport alleged that the 2 nd petition by CLOP, NAFLU and ALU-TUCP were
barred at least one year from the time of the 1 st petition of CLOP was dismissed
11. Laguesma denied the MR
12. Motion to suspend based on Prejudicial Questions was filed by R. Transport due
to other pending cases with the NLRC
13. Laguesma denied such petition
a. Pendency of NLRC cases not a valid ground for suspension of election
b. They employees legally remain as employees until motion to declare
them as having lost their employment status by reason of illegal strike
is finally resolved
Issue: Whether certification election should be granted. YES.
No res judicata
 Different parties
 In the absence of collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance
with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed
 any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year from
the date of the issuance of a final certification election result
 The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an actual
conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of votes. In
this case, there was no certification election conducted precisely because the
first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a defective petition which did not
include all the employees who should be properly included in the collective
bargaining unit
 Employees of petitioner who participated in the strike, legally remain as such,
until either the motion to declare their employment status legally terminated
or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC
 It should be noted that it is the petitioner, the employer, which has offered the
most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election. This must
not be so for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of
the employees. The employer has no right to interfere in the election and is
merely regarded as a bystander
94 Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Trajano, 201 SCRA 453 (1991)
1. 1981 NAFLU is the sole and exclusive bargaining unit of rank and fil employees
of VIRON
a. 4 years later, 1985 KAMPIL filed a petition for certification election,
supported by 30% of workers of VIRON
b. NAFLU opposed saying it was in the process of collective bargaining with
Viron, there was a deadlock and a notice of strike has been filed
c. Med Arbiter – ordered a certification election
d. Director of BLR – reversed
ISSUE: WON a certification election may be held. NO
1. Certification Year Bar – A certification election cannot be held within 1 year
from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification election result
a. It had already been 4 years since the certification of NAFLU
2. As to the alleged pending negotiations and deadlock between NAFLU and Viron
a. Omnibus Rules provide that a petition for certification election is barred
when there is a bargaining deadlock between the company and the union
and it had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout
b. SC said that it believes that there is no such pending negotiation and
deadlock
c. Even if there was, there is no proof NAFLU has not taken any action to
coerce Viron to comply with its duty to bargain collectively
d. There was a strike made by NAFLU but it was only made after the petition
was filed by KAMPIL
2. Negotiation Bar Rule
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Secs. 3(b) & 14(d)
(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;
(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; SEIDA
3. Deadlock Bar Rule
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 3(c) &14(d)
95. Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment
G.R. No. 91915. September 11, 1992
TOPIC: DEADLOCK BAR RULE
1. Divine Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) was certified as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner.
2. Initially, DWUEU submitted its collective bargaining proposals with the
petitioner but it was later withdrawn
3. After 3 years, DWUEU became affiliated with Associated Labor Union (ALU).
New name: DWUEU-ALU
4. The union then requested a conference with the petitioner for the purpose of
continuing the collective bargaining negotiations the latter remained silent
5. The union, thereafter, filed a notice to strike on the ground of bargaining
deadlock and ULP, specifically refusal to bargain
6. The conference ensued after the filing of notice to strike. The University and
the union reached an agreement on how the collective bargaining will be
conducted.
7. However, it turned out that an hour before the agreement was concluded, the
University had filed a petition for certification election.
8. On the other hand, DWUEU-ALU, consonant with the agreement, submitted its
collective bargaining proposals. These were ignored by the University.  persons or of factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill.”
9. MED-ARB ruling on the University’s petition for certification election, ordered
for it to be conduction. (Choices: DWUEU-ALU or No Union)
10. This prompted the Union to enjoin the med-arb in acting further on the petition
for certification election
a. This was granted by the DOLE Sec and ordered the med-arb to hold in
abeyance any and all certification election proceedings at the
University pending the resolution of the labor dispute
i. He held that: to allow a certification election to proceed at
this point in time might further rupture the already strained
labor-management relations pervading at the University.
11. While the hearings on the ULP case was pending, Divine Word University
Independent Faculty and Employees Union (DWEIFEU), which was registered
earlier that day, filed a motion for intervention, alleging that it had “at least
20% of the rank and file employees” of the University.
12. The DOLE Sec. consolidated all the issues and ruled that:
a. a bargaining deadlock exists and as a matter of fact this is being
conciliated by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board at the
time the University filed its Petition for Certification Election
b. Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the IRR bars the Med-Arbiter from further
entertaining the petition for certification election.
c. Motion for intervention was denied.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner for certification election cannot be conducted due to
the bargaining deadlock. YES
THE PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION CANNOT BE GRANTED
 The provisions (Art. 258 LC and Sec. 3, Rule 5 of IRR) make it plain that in the
absence of a collective bargaining agreement, an employer who is requested to
bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election any time except
upon a clear showing that one of these two instances exists:
a. the petition is filed within one year from the date of issuance of a final
certification election result or
b. when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
lockout.
 While there is no question that the petition for certification election was filed
by the herein petitioner after almost four years from the time of the
certification election and, therefore, there is no question as to the timeliness of
the petition, the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Secretary of Labor
had found that a bargaining deadlock exists.
 A “deadlock” is defined as the “counteraction of things producing entire
stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization caused by the opposition of
 A thorough study of the records reveals that there was no “reasonable effort
at good faith bargaining” specially on the part of the University.
o Its indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining inevitably resulted
in the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement.
o As it was evident that unilateral moves were being undertaken only by
the DWUEU-ALU, there was no “counteraction” of forces or an
impasse to speak of.
o While collective bargaining should be initiated by the union, there is a
corresponding responsibility on the part of the employer to respond in
some manner to such acts. 
 Art. 250: Outlined the procedure on collective bargaining
 Considering Art. 250, the Court cannot help but notice that the DWUEU was
not entirely blameless in the matter of the delay in the bargaining process.
o The records do not show that during three-year period after it
withdrew its ignition proposal, it exerted any effort to pursue
collective bargaining as a means of attaining better terms of
employment.
 o It was only after its affiliation with the ALU that the same union,
through the ALU Director for Operations, requested an “initial
conference” for the purpose of collective bargaining
 Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to rule that there has been a
deadlock or an impasse in the collective bargaining process. As the Court
earlier observed, there has not been a “reasonable effort at good faith
bargaining” on the part of the University.
o While DWUEU-ALU was opening all possible avenues for the
conclusion of an agreement, the record is replete with evidence on the
University’s reluctance and thinly disguised refusal to bargain with the
duly certified bargaining agent, such that the inescapable conclusion is
that the University evidently had no intention of bargaining with it.
o Thus, while the Court recognizes that technically, the University has
the right to file the petition for certification election as there was no
bargaining deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer that the herein
assailed Orders be annulled would put an unjustified premium on
bad faith bargaining.
 SC’s decision shows that although there was no bargaining deadlock in this
case, it did not allow the petition for certification election because of the bad
faith of the University during the bargaining process.
o The was delay in the bargaining process but there was no deadlock.
o Both parties are to be blamed for the delay.
4. Contract Bar Rule
LC, Arts. 238
ART. 238. [232] Prohibition on Certification Electlon. - 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.
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.
Art. 265, 2nd Sentence
ART. 265. [253-A] Terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. - Any Collective
Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be
entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of
Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date
of expiry of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later
than three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the
date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective
Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If
any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on
the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this
Code.
Art. 261
ART. 261. [250] Procedure in Collective Bargainlng. - The following procedures shall
be observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice
upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a
reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice;
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply, either party may
request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (1 0) calendar days
from the date of request.
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon request of either or
both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation
meetings. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to
participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call;
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are prohibited from
doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes;
and
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the
parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.
IR, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 3(d), 14(b) & Sec. 24
(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.
(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;
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.
96 Colegio De San Juan De Letran v. Assoc. of Employees & Faculty of Letran and
Ambas
G.R. No. 141471. Sept. 18, 2000. Kapunan J.
1. Abtria, the former President of the Union, initiated the renegotiation of its CBA
with Letran.
2. Ambas, the newly elected President of the Union, wanted to continue the
renegotiation. However, Letran claimed that the CBA was already prepared for
signing by the parties.
3. When the disputed CBA was submitted for referendum, the union members
rejected the said CBA.
4. Letran accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.
The LA ruled in favor of Letran. However, the LA was reversed on appeal before
the NLRC.
5. The union notified the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of its
intention to strike because of refusal to bargain.
6. After several days, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and to
start negotiations on a new CBA. The Union submitted its proposal to Letran.
7. Meanwhile, Ambas was informed that her work schedule was changed from
“Mon. to Friday” to “Friday to Saturday.” Because of this, Ambas protested and
requested the management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery under
the old CBA.
8. Due to petitioner’s inaction, the union filed a notice of strike. However, during
the negotiations in the NCMB, Ambas was dismissed for alleged
insubordination. Hence, the union amended its notice of strike to include
Amber’s dismissal.
9. When the union finally stuck, the Sec. of Labor assumed jurisdiction and
ordered the EEs including Ambas to return to work and for Letran to accept
them back.
10. Letran readmitted the striking EEs except Ambas.
11. The Sec. of Labor issued an order declaring Letran guilty of ULP and directed
the reinstatement of Ambas.
12. The CA affirmed the findings of the Sec. of Labor.
Letran argues that the proposed CBA was already submitted the union's proposals
to the Board of Trustees and that the authority of the union to negotiate on behalf
of the employees was challenged when a rival union filed a petition for certification
election.  only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day
ISSUES:
1. Whether Letran is guilty of ULP by refusing to bargain- YES, Letrain guilty of
unfair labor practice by its stern refusal to bargain in good faith with
respondent  would fight for the right of her co-workers at the bargaining table. Ms. Ambas,
2. Whether the termination of the Union President amounts to an interference of
the EEs right to self organization- YES.
HELD:
1. Letran’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its
failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More
than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still
had not made any counter-proposals. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of
the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, to wit:
Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures shall be
observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written
notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals.  The other party
shall make a reply  to the proposal not later than ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of such notice.
 As held in Kiko Loy v. NLRC, he company's refusal to make counter-proposal to
the union's proposed CBA is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer
did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the
union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. In the case at
bar, petitioner's actuation show a lack of sincere desire to negotiate rendering
it guilty of unfair labor practice.
 In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process there
must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate
representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification
election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the
employer. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification
election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period. The "Contract Bar
Rule" under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code, provides that: " . If a collective bargaining agreement 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."
 In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. The
petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a legitimate labor
organization, was filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
freedom period. Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid
and existing collective bargaining agreement. 
2. The factual backdrop of the termination of Ms. Ambas leads us to no other
conclusion that she was dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who
at the time of her dismissal, had been working for the petitioner for ten (10)
years already. In fact, she was a recipient of a loyalty award. Moreover, for the
past ten (10) years her working schedule was from Monday to Friday. However,
things began to change when she was elected as union president and when she
started negotiating for a new CBA. Thus, it was when she was the union
president and during the period of tense and difficult negotiations when her
work schedule was altered from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to Saturdays.
When she did not budge, although her schedule was changed, she was
outrightly dismissed for alleged insubordination
97 SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP-PIILUTUCP) v. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER
CORPORATION
Topic: Contract Bar Rule
1. A certification election was conducted among the employees of Permex
Producer.
a. NFL (235); No Union (466); Spoiled Ballots (18); Marked Ballots (9);
Challenged Ballots (7).
2. However, some employees formed SMP which they registered with DOLE. It
later on affiliated with the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU)
3. SMP-PIILU requested recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees of Permez.
4. Permex recognized it and entered into a collective bargaining agreement.
5. The CBA was ratified by the majority of the employees.
6. It was then certified by DOLE.
7. NFL filed a petition for certification election but the MA dismissed it.
8. NFL appealed. Sec of Labor set aside decision, and ordered a certification
election with the ff choices:
a. National Federation of Labor
b. Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex
c. No Union
9. SMP, MR. Denied. Hence this petition.
10. SMP: Invoked the contract-ber rule.
a. Arts. 253, 253-A and 256 of the LC and Book V, Rule 5, Sec 3 of the IRR
provide that a petition for certification election or motion for
intervention may be entertained only within 60 days prior to the date
of expiration of an existing CBA.

ISSUE: Whether the order of holding a certification elections was proper. YES.

 The Contract Bar Rule is not applicable in this case.

o The purpose of the rule 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.
 Excepted from the contract-bar rule are certain types of contracts which do not
foster industrial stability, such as contracts where the identity of the
representative is in doubt. Any stability derived from such contracts must be
subordinated to the employees’ freedom of choice because it does not
establish the kind of industrial peace contemplated by the law.
o SMP entered into a CBA with Permex Producer when its status as
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees had not been established
yet.
NOTE:
 Certification election is the most effective and the most democratic way of
determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force in
the appropriate bargaining unit of a company.
 But 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.

98 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 303 (1997)

(supra at 89)

F. Effect of Petition For Cancellation of Trade Union Registration

IR, Book V, Rule XI, Sec. 3, 2nd par.

The filing or pendency of any inter/intra-union dispute and other related labor
relations dispute is not a prejudicial question to any petition for certification
election and shall not be a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification
election or suspension of proceedings for certification election.

98 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 303 (1997)

(supra at 89)