GR L 53907; (May, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988
MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, MODERN FISHING GEAR WORKERS UNION (MFGWU) and MODERN FISHING GEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over representation among the rank-and-file employees of Modern Fishing Gear Development Corporation. On May 21, 1979, two unions—the petitioner Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union (MFGLU) and the respondent Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union (MFGWU)—entered into an agreement to conduct a consent election. Pursuant to this, MFGWU filed a petition for certification election on June 1, 1979. However, on the very same day, MFGLU and the company filed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for certification with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), which was subsequently certified on July 26, 1979. The company later invoked the contract-bar rule to oppose the certification election petition, leading the Med-Arbiter to dismiss MFGWU’s petition. MFGWU appealed to the BLR, which reversed the Med-Arbiter, ordered the holding of a certification election, and decertified the CBA between MFGLU and the company. MFGLU then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that MFGWU’s appeal to the BLR was procedurally defective for lack of service of the appeal memorandum.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Bureau of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to MFGWU’s appeal and in ordering a certification election despite alleged procedural defects in the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the BLR’s decision. The Court ruled that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural matter, the Court emphasized that technical rules of procedure should not be strictly applied in labor cases to the detriment of substantial justice. The absence of service of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party within the reglementary period is not a jurisdictional defect that justifies the dismissal of the appeal. Labor law determinations should be secundum rationem et caritatem (according to reason and charity). Dismissing an appeal on purely technical grounds is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the BLR’s authority to order a certification election and decertify the CBA. The holding of a certification election is a fundamental statutory policy and a crucial right of employees to choose their bargaining representative freely. This right should not be circumvented by procedural technicalities or by the hasty certification of a CBA filed precisely to block a pending petition for election. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that a certification election is the best means to ascertain the employees’ will and is an investigation of a non-adversarial character. Therefore, the BLR acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside the contract-bar rule under the circumstances and in directing the conduct of a certification election to determine the true representative of the bargaining unit.