GR 111245; (January, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111245 . January 31, 1997.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic (SAMAHAN), petitioner, vs. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma, Undersecretary of Labor, and Malayang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific Plastic (MNMPP), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner SAMAHAN and respondent MNMPP are rival unions at Pacific Plastic Corporation (PPC). MNMPP filed a petition for certification election in August 1990. SAMAHAN opposed this by seeking the cancellation of MNMPP’s registration and later by citing a newly executed Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as a bar. The Secretary of Labor ordered the holding of a certification election. During pre-election conferences, PPC repeatedly failed to submit the required list of employees from company payrolls. Consequently, the parties eventually agreed to use a list from the Social Security System (SSS). SAMAHAN later objected to this list and to the intervention of a third union, KAMAPI. Despite these objections, the election proceeded on October 6, 1992, with MNMPP winning. SAMAHAN filed an election protest, which was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter and later by the Undersecretary of Labor.
ISSUE
Whether the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the certification election and dismissing SAMAHAN’s protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Undersecretary of Labor did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is threefold. First, regarding the voters’ list, the use of the SSS list was justified due to the employer’s persistent failure to provide the payroll list as required. The Court emphasized that the Omnibus Rules allow for alternative methods to determine eligibility when the employer is uncooperative. SAMAHAN’s general objection to alleged discrepancies in the SSS list, raised only after the election, was deemed waived under the rules, which require protests to be formalized promptly.
Second, the CBA executed by SAMAHAN during the pendency of the representation case did not bar the election. Applying Rule V of the Omnibus Rules, a CBA registered during the pendency of a representation case does not adversely affect it. The Court cited precedent establishing that a prematurely renewed CBA cannot stifle the employees’ right to choose their representative.
Third, the pending petition for cancellation of MNMPP’s registration was not a prejudicial question. The Court reiterated that a certification election can proceed despite such a pending petition, as the union retains its legal personality to seek certification until a cancellation order is final. Therefore, the certification election was validly conducted, and MNMPP was properly certified as the exclusive bargaining agent. The petition for certiorari was denied.