GR 93016; (July, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93016 & 93079 July 3, 1992
UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, and KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN), respondents. / UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRESENCIANO F. TRAJANO, DIRECTOR LUNA C. PIEZAS, REPRESENTATION OFFICERS EUSEBIO JIMENEZ & ADELAIDA GREGORIO, KAISAHAN NG MANGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN) & UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS, respondents.
FACTS
The United Aluminum Fabricators Workers’ Union (UAFWU) was the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of United Aluminum Fabricators. They had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective from April 1, 1986, to April 29, 1989. Before its expiration, and with no petition for certification election filed during the freedom period, UAFWU and United Aluminum executed a new five-year CBA on April 3, 1989, to take effect on April 29, 1989, which was registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On July 7, 1989, sixty-nine days after the freedom period expired, Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN) filed a petition for direct certification/certification election. United Aluminum moved to dismiss, citing the existing CBA as a bar. The Med-Arbiter dismissed KAMPIL’s petition. On appeal, Secretary of Labor Franklin M. Drilon reversed the Med-Arbiter and ordered a certification election. Motions for reconsideration by UAFWU and United Aluminum were denied by Secretary Ruben D. Torres. Hence, these consolidated petitions for certiorari were filed. During the pendency of the case, KAMPIL filed a manifestation that its members were no longer interested in prosecuting the case due to an agreement with United Aluminum.
ISSUE
Whether or not public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the conduct of a certification election notwithstanding the existence of a valid collective bargaining agreement.
RULING
Yes, public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulled and set aside the assailed decision and orders of the public respondents, and reinstated the Med-Arbiter’s order dismissing the petition for certification election. The Court ruled that a petition for certification election can only be entertained within the sixty-day freedom period prior to the expiry of an existing CBA, as provided under Article 232 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. KAMPIL’s petition was filed sixty-nine days after the freedom period had expired. Furthermore, a valid and duly registered five-year CBA was already in effect between UAFWU and United Aluminum, constituting a bar to any certification election. The Court also noted that KAMPIL’s petition was not supported by the written consent of at least 20% of the employees, and KAMPIL had subsequently manifested its withdrawal from the case.