G.R. No. L-11273; November 21, 1958
ACOJE MINES EMPLOYEES and ACOJE UNITED WORKERS UNION, petitioners-appellants, vs. ACOJE LABOR UNION (PELTA) and ACOJE MINING CO., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In August 1955, 334 employees of Acoje Mines Inc. filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for a certification election. They alleged there were two legitimate labor unions—the Acoje United Workers Union (Workers Union) and the Acoje Labor Union (PELTA)—and an election was necessary to determine the true bargaining representative. The Workers Union agreed to the election. PELTA objected, citing two grounds: (1) the existence of a four-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between PELTA and the Acoje Mining Company effective from 1954 to 1958, and (2) a pending unfair labor practice case (Case No. 255-ULP) before the CIR where the Mining Company was charged with assisting in and controlling the organization of the Workers Union. The Mining Company acknowledged the CBA but raised the question of whether it could prevent an election given that no certification election had been held in the prior twelve months. PELTA moved to suspend the certification proceedings. The CIR granted the suspension, adhering to its established practice of suspending certification election cases until the resolution of pending unfair labor practice cases alleging company domination. The petitioners (the employees and the Workers Union) moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted correctly in suspending the proceedings for a certification election due to a pending unfair labor practice charge alleging company domination of one of the contending unions.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations acted correctly and legally. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension order. The Court held that the mandatory language of Section 12(c) of Republic Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act), which requires the CIR to order an election upon a petition by at least ten percent of employees, is not absolute. Judicial and administrative precedents have established exceptions to this mandate. One such recognized exception is when there is a pending charge of company domination against one of the unions seeking to participate in the election. The reason for this exception is that if a union is company-dominated, an election would not reflect the true and free sentiment of the workers, as the votes of members of the dominated union would not be free. The pending unfair labor practice case (No. 255-ULP) raised a prejudicial question that must be resolved first to ensure a fair and valid election. The Court found no indication that PELTA’s complaint was flimsy or made in bad faith to delay the election. Therefore, the suspension was prudent to avoid a potentially futile election that could be nullified if the Workers Union were later found to be company-dominated and ordered dissolved. Given this disposition, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to rule on the additional issue of whether the existing four-year CBA was another obstacle to the certification election. The petition for review was denied.