G.R. No. 118915 . February 4, 1997.
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF CONCERNED EMPLOYEES-UNIFIED FILIPINO SERVICE WORKERS (CMC-ACE-UFSW), petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment; CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS and CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER INCORPORATED AND DRA. THELMA CLEMENTE, President, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (the Union) was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of Capitol Medical Center (the Hospital) after a certification election on December 9, 1992. The Hospital repeatedly challenged the Union’s legitimacy through appeals and a petition for cancellation of its registration, all of which were ultimately dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the Union’s status in a final Resolution. Despite this certification, the Hospital refused to bargain collectively, contending the Union’s registration was void due to a since-reversed Med-Arbiter order. The Union filed a notice of strike and eventually staged a strike on April 15, 1993, leading the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction and certify the dispute for compulsory arbitration.
On March 24, 1994, petitioner union CMC-ACE-UFSW filed a petition for a new certification election. It alleged that more than twelve months had lapsed since the last election, no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had been concluded, and a majority of employees supported the petition. The Union opposed, arguing it remained the certified agent actively seeking to bargain, and the failure to secure a CBA was due solely to the Hospital’s unlawful refusal to negotiate, a matter pending in compulsory arbitration.

ISSUE

Whether a new certification election may be held on the ground that more than twelve months have elapsed since the certification of the incumbent bargaining agent without a CBA being concluded, despite the employer’s refusal to bargain collectively.

RULING

No. The petition for a new certification election was correctly dismissed. The legal logic hinges on the interpretation of the “certification year” rule and the principle of majority representation. Under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules, a certified bargaining agent enjoys a one-year period of stability from its certification within which to negotiate a CBA, and a certification election cannot be held within twelve months of a prior election. The petitioner invoked the rule that if no CBA is concluded within twelve months from certification, a new election may be filed. However, this rule presupposes good faith bargaining by both parties.
The Court distinguished this case from Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Trajano, where inaction by the certified agent justified a new election. Here, the Union was not remiss; it persistently demanded negotiations and undertook legal actions, including filing a notice of strike and conducting an actual strike, to compel the Hospital to bargain. The Hospital’s bad faith refusal, not the Union’s inaction, caused the CBA deadlock. To allow a new election under these circumstances would permit an employer to circumvent its duty to bargain by simply refusing to negotiate, waiting out the twelve-month period, and fostering a rival union. This would undermine the stability of bargaining units and reward unlawful conduct. The period where the dispute was under compulsory arbitration, initiated by the Union’s actions to enforce its rights, is akin to a bargaining deadlock that tolls the application of the twelve-month rule for filing a new election. Therefore, the Union’s certification status remained valid, and the Hospital was correctly ordered to negotiate with it.