G.R. No. 77415 June 29, 1989
ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR KILUSANG MAYO UNO (KMU), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) operates a rattan furniture factory. A certification election was scheduled for May 21, 1986, a regular business day, upon petition by a labor union. On May 19, 1986, a strike commenced at ADMACOR’s premises without a prior notice of strike. ADMACOR filed a petition to reset the election, but the Labor Relations Division proceeded. The election was held as scheduled amidst the strike, resulting in the selection of respondent Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) as the exclusive bargaining agent. ADMACOR subsequently filed complaints for illegal strike and illegal picketing with the Labor Arbiter.
On May 23, 1986, ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification election null and void, arguing that the strike rendered May 21 not a “regular business day” as required by the implementing rules. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the complaint and certified SPFL. This was affirmed by respondent Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). ADMACOR then filed this special civil action for certiorari, challenging the BLR’s jurisdiction and the validity of the election.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Bureau of Labor Relations acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the validity of the certification election conducted during a strike.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the BLR’s resolutions. The legal logic is twofold. First, on jurisdiction, the Court clarified that the issue of a certification election’s validity falls squarely within the BLR’s exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to the Labor Code’s implementing rules. The separate issue of the strike’s legality is an independent matter within the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under Article 217. The Court found no jurisdictional overlap, as the BLR’s resolutions confined themselves strictly to the election’s procedural regularity and did not make any determination on the strike’s legality.
Second, on the substantive challenge, the Court rejected ADMACOR’s argument that the strike invalidated the “regular business day” requirement. The BLR correctly found that the date was agreed upon during a pre-election conference when it was determined to be a regular business day. The occurrence of a strike later did not automatically alter this character. Moreover, the election was conducted peacefully and orderly, with an overwhelming majority (413 out of 423 voters) choosing SPFL, and no protest was lodged during the proceedings. Crucially, the Court reiterated the fundamental doctrine that an employer generally lacks standing to question a certification election, as it is the sole concern of the workers. Since the petition for election was filed by a legitimate union, ADMACOR’s intervention was improper, making it a mere bystander without legal right to challenge the employees’ collective choice.