G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991
CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENECO), petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, and CENECO UNION OF RATIONAL EMPLOYEES (CURE), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner CENECO entered into a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with respondent union CURE, representing its rank-and-file employees, effective until March 31, 1990. In December 1989, CURE proposed to renegotiate a new CBA. CENECO refused, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Batangas I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Young which held that employees who are simultaneously members of the electric cooperative cannot form or join a union for collective bargaining, as an owner cannot bargain with himself. Prior to this proposal, CURE members, in a general assembly, ratified a resolution wherein 259 union members agreed to withdraw their membership from CENECO to avail of full CBA benefits, and furnished copies to CENECO and the DOLE. CENECO’s board denied the withdrawal requests.
CURE subsequently filed a petition for direct recognition or certification election, supported by 72% of the rank-and-file employees. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition for a certification election. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor modified this order by directly certifying CURE as the exclusive bargaining representative without holding an election, prompting CENECO to file this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in directly certifying CURE as the exclusive bargaining agent without conducting a certification election.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the Secretary’s order. The legal logic proceeds from the fundamental principle that the choice of a collective bargaining representative is primarily for the employees themselves to decide through the democratic process of a certification election. While the Court acknowledged the preliminary issue regarding the application of the Batangas doctrine—which prohibits cooperative member-employees from unionizing—it found that the employees’ act of withdrawing their cooperative membership, which CENECO itself contested before the Med-Arbiter, potentially removed the legal impediment to their right to self-organization. However, this factual circumstance concerning the validity of the withdrawals did not justify bypassing the certification election procedure.
The Court emphasized that direct certification is an extraordinary remedy, and the amendment to the Labor Code had discontinued it as a regular method for selecting a bargaining agent. A union’s claim of majority support, even if substantiated by a significant percentage of employees, is not a sufficient substitute for a certification election. The holding of an election ensures that all employees in the bargaining unit are given a democratic opportunity to express their choice. The Secretary’s order deprived the employees of this right and effectively imposed a bargaining representative upon them without the requisite electoral mandate. Consequently, the Med-Arbiter was ordered to conduct a certification election with “CURE” and “No Union” as choices.