G.R. No. L-45057 February 28, 1977
TODAY’S KNITTING FREE WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR CARMELO C. NORIEL of the Bureau of Labor Relations, TODAY’S KNITTING COMPANY, INC., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL UNION COUNCIL, respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine National Union Council (PNUC) filed a petition for a certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations on April 1, 1976, claiming majority representation among the employees of Today’s Knitting Company, Inc. It submitted resolutions with over 200 employee signatures authorizing the petition. The Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union (petitioner) intervened, opposing the election by asserting it was already the voluntarily recognized bargaining agent with an existing collective bargaining contract. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition for a certification election. Petitioner appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations, but respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel denied the appeal and ordered the election. Petitioner then filed this certiorari and prohibition suit, alleging arbitrariness and a violation of due process. It contended that the order disregarded a pre-Labor Code memorandum circular and that it was denied the right to examine the signatures supporting the PNUC’s petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Director committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the respondent Director’s order was in strict compliance with Article 257 of the Labor Code. This provision mandates that upon receipt of a petition supported by the written consent of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit, it is mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election. The Director verified that the PNUC’s petition was supported by over 200 signatures, satisfying the statutory requirement. The law does not grant a rival union the right to examine or verify the supporting signatures; the Director’s verification is sufficient. Petitioner’s reliance on a Department of Labor memorandum circular issued prior to the effectivity of the present Labor Code was misplaced, as such circulars were superseded by the codal mandate. Furthermore, the Court cited a prior analogous case, Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations, which upheld the mandatory nature of certification elections upon compliance with the 30% support requirement. No arbitrariness was found, as the Director merely performed a ministerial duty under the clear language of the law. The petition, therefore, lacked merit.