G.R. No. 104692 September 5, 1997
KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA DAUNGAN (KAMADA), petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA and ASSOCIATED SKILLED AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION (ASTEUO), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Katipunan ng mga Manggagawa sa Daungan (KAMADA) claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all workers in Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI). After a certification election, it concluded a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company. Subsequently, in September 1990, private respondent Associated Skilled and Technical Employees Union (ASTEUO), allegedly composed also of OTSI workers, was registered. KAMADA filed a suit to cancel ASTEUO’s registration, arguing that its members were already covered by the existing CBA. ASTEUO claimed its registration was valid as it occurred during the freedom period when no CBA had been concluded yet. The med-arbiter cancelled ASTEUO’s registration, finding the organization of another union for the same workers was not a labor protective activity under P.D. 1391 and was against the policy of one union in one company. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Director, public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja, reversed the med-arbiter’s resolution and reinstated ASTEUO’s certificate of registration. KAMADA’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a new labor union may be organized and granted registration during the lifetime of a CBA between the company and another union. Specifically, the petition assails the BLR Order on grounds that: (1) there was already an existing certified bargaining agent when ASTEUO obtained its registration; (2) the registration cannot be considered a labor productive activity under P.D. 1391; and (3) it is against the policy of one union in one company.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for utter lack of merit.
1. On Timeliness of Registration: The Court upheld the BLR’s factual findings, which are accorded finality if supported by substantial evidence. The BLR found that ASTEUO’s union registration was issued in September 1990. The prohibition on union registration in relation to certification elections starts from the final proclamation of certification election results. In this case, the Secretary of Labor’s Order on the certification election results was issued on October 31, 1990, a month after ASTEUO’s registration. Thus, there was no certified bargaining agent when ASTEUO registered. Furthermore, KAMADA’s previous CBA expired on March 23, 1989, and its new CBA was not signed until April 25, 1991. The law (Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules) prohibits holding a certification election within one year from a final certification election result, not the registration of a new union.
2. On Labor Productive Activity: The Court ruled that P.D. 1391, paragraph 6, which states that no petitions for certification election, intervention, or disaffiliation shall be entertained except within the 60-day freedom period preceding a CBA’s expiration, has nothing to do with the registration of a union. It deals only with petitions for certification election, intervention, or disaffiliation, not applications for registration of a new union.
3. On One Union in One Company: The Court clarified that the one company-one union policy is not absolute and has exceptions. Article 245 of the Labor Code allows supervisory employees to form separate unions. Furthermore, Section 2(c), Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules recognizes exceptions, such as craft or plant units, to assure employees the fullest freedom in exercising their rights. The issue of which union truly represents the workforce should be raised during a certification election, not during the registration period. The grounds for denial of union registration under the Omnibus Rules do not include the existence of another union.
The Court emphasized that a certification election is the proper mechanism to determine the real representatives of the workforce, and the registration of ASTEUO was valid.