G.R. No. L-48347 October 3, 1978
SCOUT RAMON V. ALBANO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, and FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College Chapter), respondents.

FACTS

The private respondent, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) chapter at Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College, filed a petition for certification election on September 22, 1977, alleging it had secured the written consent of 67 employees from an estimated workforce of 200. The petitioner college moved to dismiss the petition, contending the actual workforce was 250 employees, thus requiring 75 consents to meet the 30% statutory threshold. In response, the union submitted 22 additional signatures on October 26, 1977. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on November 17, 1977, ruling that compliance with the 30% requirement must be extant at the time of the petition’s filing.
On appeal, respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Med-Arbiter’s order on February 8, 1978, and directed the holding of a certification election. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal to the Secretary of Labor were denied. The college then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Director Noriel for ordering an election despite the union’s initial failure to meet the consent requirement and for disregarding alleged prior rulings of the Department of Labor.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the union’s initial failure to submit the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of the employees at the time of filing its petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental policy favoring certification elections as a cornerstone of industrial democracy. The Court emphasized that a certification election is the fairest mechanism to ascertain the true representative of the workforce for collective bargaining. Citing its jurisprudence, the Court held that the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may order a certification election even if the 30% consent requirement under Article 258 of the Labor Code was not fully satisfied at the precise moment of filing, provided it is subsequently met.
The Court ruled that the subsequent submission of additional signatures by the union cured any initial deficiency. The petitioner’s argument regarding some employees’ alleged retraction of their consent was deemed a factual matter, the resolution of which by the Bureau is entitled to respect. Moreover, the Court noted the petition’s inherent infirmity as it was initiated by the employer, an adversary in the collective bargaining process. The policy of the law is to ensure labor’s free choice of representation without employer interference. Therefore, Director Noriel’s order conformed to the legal mandate and prevailing doctrine, and his discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The certification election was ordered to proceed forthwith.