G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991
KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN), petitioner, vs. HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, and VIRON GARMENTS MFG., CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of Viron Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s rank-and-file employees on February 27, 1981. More than four years later, on April 11, 1985, the Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) filed a petition for a certification election, supported by over 30% of the workers. The Med-Arbiter ordered the election, noting no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had been executed since NAFLU’s certification.
NAFLU appealed, contending its petition was barred. It argued that before KAMPIL filed its petition, a bargaining deadlock existed with VIRON, which had prompted NAFLU to file a notice of strike. The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations set aside the Med-Arbiter’s order and dismissed KAMPIL’s petition. The Director reasoned that the one-year period for NAFLU to negotiate should not be applied literally due to delays from prior representation challenges and management resistance, including a strike to bring management to negotiations.

ISSUE

Whether KAMPIL’s petition for a certification election is barred under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

RULING

No, the petition is not barred. The Supreme Court nullified the BLR Director’s Resolution, finding grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules. First, the one-year certification-year bar, which prohibits an election within one year from a final certification result, had long expired since NAFLU was certified in February 1981. Second, the other legal bar—where a petition cannot be entertained if, before its filing, a bargaining deadlock involving the incumbent agent had been submitted to conciliation/arbitration or was the subject of a valid strike notice—was not present.
The Court found no proof that such a deadlock or valid strike notice existed prior to KAMPIL’s filing on April 11, 1985. NAFLU’s assertions of management recalcitrance were unsubstantiated by legal actions like an unfair labor practice charge or a legitimate strike to compel bargaining. The “stark, incontrovertible fact” was that for over four years, no CBA was executed and no deadlock arose leading to conciliation or a valid strike notice before April 1985. Subsequent strikes in late 1986 occurred after KAMPIL’s petition and thus could not retroactively bar it. Therefore, no legal prohibition existed, and the certification election should proceed.