G.R. No. 82260 . July 19, 1989.
Associated Labor Unions (ALU), petitioner, vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment and National Federation of Labor (NFL), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) was the incumbent bargaining agent with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Soriano Fruits Corporation set to expire on September 30, 1987. On June 22, 1987, prior to the expiration, ALU and management signed a new CBA to take effect on September 1, 1987, which was ratified by the union members. On August 10, 1987, within the 60-day “freedom period” before the old CBA’s expiry, respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for certification election questioning ALU’s majority status.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed NFL’s petition for failure to prosecute after NFL representatives did not appear at scheduled hearings. ALU submitted petitions from members reaffirming loyalty. NFL appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). The BLR Director, respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja, reversed the Med-Arbiter and ordered a certification election with choices between ALU and NFL. ALU’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the BLR Director committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the new CBA and NFL’s non-appearance at hearings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the BLR Director’s order. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order 111, governing organized establishments. The Court clarified that Article 257, requiring 20% support for a petition, applies only to unorganized establishments without a certified bargaining agent and was thus inapplicable here.
Article 256 provides that in organized establishments, a petition questioning the incumbent’s majority status filed within the 60-day freedom period before CBA expiration shall result in the Med-Arbiter automatically ordering a certification election. The Court emphasized that the provision is clear and mandatory (“shall automatically order”). The mere filing of a petition within this period is sufficient; no prior hearing to ascertain the petition’s veracity is required. NFL’s failure to appear at hearings was immaterial and did not justify dismissal of its petition.
The Court rejected ALU’s argument that the new CBA, ratified before the freedom period, rendered the election moot. While it found no violation of Article 254 (which prohibits CBA modification during its term) since the new agreement took effect after the old one expired, the core principle remained the employees’ constitutional right to self-organization. The order for a certification election was proper to ascertain the current will of the employees, which the hastily concluded new CBA could not preempt. The BLR Director did not abuse her discretion but correctly implemented the law’s mandate to ensure workers’ free choice of representation.