G.R. No. 89609. January 27, 1992.
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP, petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations; and the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW)-FGT-KMU, respondents.
FACTS
The National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) and Dacongcogon Sugar and Rice Milling Co. entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from November 14, 1984, to November 14, 1987. Upon its expiry, the parties negotiated for renewal and extended the CBA for another three years, subject to further negotiations on specific terms. However, a deadlock ensued on wage increases and optional retirement. To resolve this, the parties agreed to a suspension of negotiations and established a Labor Management Council.
On December 5, 1988, petitioner NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition for a certification election among Dacongcogon’s rank-and-file employees. NFSW moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was filed out of time as it was submitted outside the 60-day “freedom period” prior to the CBA’s expiry. The Med-Arbiter denied the motion and ordered an election. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations Director, respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja, reversed the Med-Arbiter and dismissed NACUSIP’s petition for being time-barred.
ISSUE
Whether or not a petition for certification election may be validly filed after the expiration of the 60-day freedom period provided by law, considering the ongoing negotiations and extension of the previous CBA.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations Director. The legal logic is anchored on the contract-bar rule under the implementing rules of the Labor Code. This rule prohibits the filing of a certification election petition during the life of a certified CBA, except during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding its expiry date. The purpose is to promote industrial stability by preventing frequent challenges to an existing bargaining agreement.
The Court rejected NACUSIP’s argument that the petition was timely because no new CBA had been concluded after the old one expired. Applying Article 253 of the Labor Code, the Court held that the terms and conditions of an expired CBA are deemed to continue in full force and effect until a new agreement is reached. Therefore, the contract-bar rule remains applicable during the negotiation period. Since NACUSIP filed its petition on December 5, 1988—more than a year after the CBA’s original expiry date of November 14, 1987, and clearly outside the prescribed 60-day window—it was correctly dismissed as filed out of time. The respondent Director did not commit grave abuse of discretion in her ruling.
