G.R. No. L-21260 April 30, 1968
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. GO SOC and SONS and SY GUI HUAT INC. and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), respondents.

FACTS

On January 25, 1963, respondent Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) filed a verified petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for a certification election among the employees of Go Soc & Sons and Sy Gui Huat, Inc. PAFLU claimed it represented a majority, that no certification election had been held in the past 12 months, and that another union, the United Employees Mutual Aid Association (UNEMA), existed but had no collective bargaining contract. The CIR issued an order directing the company to allow the posting of copies of the order for employees’ information and requiring the company and UNEMA to file answers. After answers were filed, the CIR held a hearing on February 9, 1963, and on February 11, 1963, issued an order certifying PAFLU as the exclusive bargaining representative. On the same day, petitioner National Labor Union (NLU) filed a motion to intervene and reopen the case, claiming it failed to appear due to an excusable oversight and a strike at the company, and that PAFLU intentionally omitted mention of NLU in its petition. The CIR denied the motion for intervention on February 19, 1963. NLU’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. NLU then filed this petition for certiorari, challenging the certification order and the denial of its motion to intervene.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the posting of a notice of the pendency of a certification petition, without personal service on all interested parties, satisfies the hearing requirements under Section 12(b) of the Industrial Peace Act. Secondary issues include whether the CIR’s certification order was supported by substantial evidence and whether the CIR properly denied NLU’s motion to intervene.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the CIR. On the principal issue, the Court held that the posting of the CIR’s order (which was a summons to answer the petition, not a notice of hearing) in the company’s premises satisfied the requirement of due notice. The CIR rules required such posting to inform those who could not be personally served because they were unknown. The CIR enjoys great latitude in working out the details of notice, and there was no clear abuse of discretion. Since NLU chose not to intervene after the posted notice, the CIR properly presumed only those who filed answers were interested and notified them of subsequent hearings. On the secondary issues, the Court ruled that the certification order was supported by substantial evidence. Certification proceedings are non-adversarial, fact-finding investigations where formality and conventional rules of evidence are not strictly required. PAFLU’s submission of membership applications from 101 out of 150 employees, uncontested at the time, constituted adequate proof of majority representation. Regarding the denial of intervention, the Court held the CIR properly denied NLU’s motion as it was filed after the investigation concluded and on the day the certification order was issued. The motion contained no claim that NLU had majority support and offered no affidavit of merit to support its excuse for not intervening earlier. Furthermore, the order denying intervention became final because NLU’s motion for reconsideration failed to serve a copy of the supporting memorandum on PAFLU as required by CIR rules.