G.R. No. L-41937 July 6, 1976
FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA TABAQUERA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE FILIPINAS (FOITAF-ASSOCIATED ANGLO AMERICAN CHAPTER), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CARMELO NORIEL, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, all officers acting in his behalf, and FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW-ANGLO AMERICAN EMPLOYEES CHAPTER), respondents.

FACTS

The Federation of Free Workers (FFW) filed a petition for a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, submitting signatures alleged to represent over 30% of the workforce. The company initially opposed, claiming the union lacked the required support. At the hearing, the company submitted a list of 941 employees. The Med-Arbiter found that FFW’s 283 signatures satisfied the 30% requirement under the Labor Code and ordered an election, including FOITAF as an intervenor and the “no union” option.
FOITAF, the incumbent union, appealed the order to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), arguing the 30% requirement was no longer met due to the alleged retraction of signatures by thirteen employees. These retractions, contained in unsworn letters, claimed the employees were forced to sign the petition. The BLR Director, Carmelo Noriel, affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s order, directing the holding of the certification election. FOITAF then filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion for proceeding despite the retractions.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the submission of retraction letters from some employees who had initially supported the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the primacy of the certification election as the most democratic method to ascertain the true will of the employees regarding their collective bargaining representative. The Court emphasized that unsworn retractions, especially when the signatories were not presented to confirm their allegations under oath, are inherently unreliable and insufficient to nullify a valid petition. To allow such retractions to bar an election would permit a minority to frustrate the statutory mechanism and the constitutional right of employees to self-organization.
The ruling upholds the doctrine that doubts regarding the support for a certification petition are best resolved in favor of holding the election. The true sentiments of the employees are best expressed through the secret ballot, which protects them from coercion and ensures a free choice. The Court found that the BLR Director correctly applied this principle. His order was a sound exercise of discretion aimed at effectuating the policy of the Labor Code, not an arbitrary or capricious act. The petition was merely a dilatory tactic by the incumbent union to avoid testing its majority status in a democratic election.