G.R. No. L-47752 July 31, 1978
CONSOLIDATED FARMS, INC., II, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE CARMELO C. NORIEL, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor, and NEGROS UNION OF THE SUGAR INDUSTRY (NUSI)-PAFLU, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Negros Union of the Sugar Industry (NUSI) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole bargaining agent for the employees of petitioner Consolidated Farms, Inc., II. The petitioner employer moved to dismiss the petition, also seeking the cancellation of NUSI’s registration. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the certification petition. On appeal, respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Med-Arbiter’s order. The Director ruled that since NUSI was an affiliate of the legitimate labor federation PAFLU, the petition could be considered as filed by the parent federation. He thus ordered the holding of a certification election, substituting PAFLU for NUSI as the petitioner.
The employer, Consolidated Farms, Inc., II, filed this certiorari petition, challenging the Director’s order. It argued the order was an improvident exercise of authority and a denial of due process. It also raised a constitutional objection, contending that a Labor Code implementing rule declaring Bureau of Labor Relations decisions as “final and unappealable” violated the President’s power of control and the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the employer has the legal standing to actively oppose and challenge the order for a certification election among its employees. A secondary issue is the validity of the rule making decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations final.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the main issue, the Court held that the choice of an exclusive bargaining representative is a matter exclusively for labor to decide. An employer’s excessive interest and active resistance to a certification election is an unwarranted intrusion into labor’s internal affairs. Such interference deserves no encouragement from the courts, as it can create the legitimate suspicion that management is partial to one union, which is repugnant to the principles of free collective bargaining. The certification election is the fairest and most expeditious method to ascertain the employees’ will, and management should generally maintain a hands-off policy.
Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court found the employer’s fears exaggerated. The rule declaring Bureau decisions “final and unappealable” does not preclude an aggrieved party from appealing to the Secretary of Labor as the President’s alter ego, as established in prior jurisprudence. Furthermore, the rule is not a bar to judicial review by the Supreme Court in appropriate cases, such as those involving lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, or error of law. The order of respondent Director, which adhered to the policy favoring certification elections, was valid and carried no constitutional infirmity.