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

Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed GAW Trading, Inc. on May 7, 1986, that it represented the majority of the company’s employees and requested a conference to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). GAW Trading recognized ALU and, following negotiations, both parties executed a CBA on May 15, 1986. This CBA was filed with the Ministry of Labor on May 27, 1986. However, prior to this, on May 19, 1986, the GAW Lumad Labor Union (affiliated with PSSLU) had filed a petition for a certification election, though it initially lacked the required 30% subscription support. Meanwhile, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) had also presented demands and staged a strike on May 9, 1986, which was later declared illegal.
The Med-Arbiter initially ordered a certification election. On appeal, Bureau of Labor Relations Director Cresencio Trajano reversed this order, applying the “contract bar rule” due to the existence of the ALU-GAW CBA. However, upon motions for reconsideration by SPFL and PSSLU, respondent Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja reversed Director Trajano’s decision. She ordered the holding of a certification election, ruling the contract bar rule inapplicable because the CBA was defective for non-compliance with procedural requirements for submission and ratification.

ISSUE

Whether or not public respondent Director Ferrer-Calleja committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election, thereby disregarding the contract bar rule based on the CBA executed between ALU and GAW Trading.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Director Ferrer-Calleja, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the ruling that the contract bar rule did not apply to bar a certification election. The legal logic is anchored on the defective nature of the CBA, which failed to meet jurisdictional preconditions for serving as a bar. For a CBA to constitute a valid bar to a certification election, it must be duly ratified by the majority of employees in the bargaining unit and properly submitted in accordance with the Implementing Rules. The records showed no proof that the CBA was posted in conspicuous places five days before ratification or that it was ratified by the majority. Furthermore, evidence presented on appeal indicated that a significant number of employees had repudiated the CBA, casting doubt on ALU’s majority status. The Court emphasized that the contract bar rule aims to foster industrial stability, but such stability cannot be predicated on a doubtful agreement that undermines the employees’ fundamental freedom of choice. Additionally, the certification election petition filed on May 19, 1986, preceded the filing of the CBA on May 27, 1986, further supporting the order for an election. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor disputes, allowing the consideration of the repudiation evidence on appeal. Thus, the order for a certification election was proper to ascertain the true bargaining representative of the employees.