G.R. No. 77282 . May 5, 1989.
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU), petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment; PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNION (PSSLU); SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (SPFL) and GAW TRADING, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading, Inc. on May 7, 1986, that it represented the majority of the company’s employees and requested CBA negotiations. GAW recognized ALU on May 12, 1986, and a CBA was executed on May 15, 1986, and filed with the Regional Office on May 27, 1986. However, on May 19, 1986, prior to the CBA’s filing, the Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU) had filed a petition for a certification election, though it lacked the required 30% employee signatures at the time. Meanwhile, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) staged a strike on May 9, 1986, later declared illegal. The Med-Arbiter initially ordered a certification election, but Bureau of Labor Relations Director Cresencio Trajano reversed this, applying the contract bar rule due to the existing CBA.
Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, upon motion for reconsideration, reversed Director Trajano’s decision. She ordered a certification election, ruling the contract bar rule inapplicable because the CBA was defective. She found no proof that the CBA had been posted in conspicuous places for five days before ratification or that it was ratified by a majority of the employees, as required by implementing rules. She also considered evidence submitted on appeal showing the employees had repudiated the CBA.

ISSUE

Whether or not public respondent Director Ferrer-Calleja committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election, thereby ruling that the Collective Bargaining Agreement between ALU and GAW Trading, Inc. does not constitute a bar to such an election.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court found no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the order for a certification election. The legal logic rests on the invalidity of the CBA and the consequent inapplicability of the contract bar rule. For a CBA to bar a certification election, it must be duly ratified in accordance with the law and its implementing rules. The Court agreed with the respondent Director that petitioner ALU failed to substantiate that the CBA was posted in at least two conspicuous places for five days prior to ratification and that it was ratified by the majority of employees in the bargaining unit. These procedural requirements are essential to ensure the CBA genuinely represents the employees’ will.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the employees’ freedom of choice is paramount. Evidence of the employees’ repudiation of the CBA, even if first presented on appeal, was properly considered, as technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor cases. A CBA lacking proper ratification does not establish the industrial peace necessary to invoke the contract bar rule. Additionally, the pendency of the certification election petition filed on May 19, 1986, prior to the CBA’s filing on May 27, 1986, further supported the directive to hold an election to ascertain the true bargaining representative. The temporary restraining order was lifted.