G.R. No. L-24320 and L-24421, November 12, 1966.
CITIZENS LABOR UNION-CCLU, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., respondents. (L-24320)

CITIZENS LABOR UNION-CCLU, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., respondents. (L-24421)

FACTS

On January 7, 1965, Malayang Manggagawa sa Esso (MME) filed a petition for certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) among the rank-and-file employees of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO) at its Pandacan Terminal. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Citizens Labor Union (CLU) and ESSO was in effect from April 8, 1963, to July 8, 1966. CLU and ESSO moved to dismiss, arguing the existing CBA was a bar. The CIR, through Judge Tabigne, issued an order on March 6, 1965, denying the motions, holding the CBA was no bar, and requested the Department of Labor to conduct a certification election. CLU and ESSO filed motions for reconsideration. The Department of Labor scheduled the election for March 22, 1965. CLU and ESSO filed motions to suspend the election, which the CIR en banc did not act upon. CLU filed G.R. L-24320 (certiorari and mandamus with injunction) to compel the CIR to act on its motion to suspend and to enjoin the election. No injunction issued, and the election proceeded, with MME obtaining more than half the votes. The CIR en banc, on April 2, 1965, denied the motions for reconsideration of the March 6 order. CLU filed G.R. L-24431 (certiorari) to review the March 6 order and the April 2 resolution. On April 26, 1965, the CIR, based on the election results, certified MME as the exclusive bargaining agent. This Court issued an injunction on May 14, 1965, restraining the CIR from enforcing its April 26 order. Pending adjudication, MME moved for a preliminary injunction on October 13, 1966, alleging CLU and ESSO were negotiating to extend the CBA, which would moot the case. This Court issued an injunction on November 3, 1966, commanding CLU and ESSO to refrain from negotiating a new CBA until the case was decided.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Industrial Relations correctly ordered a certification election despite the existence of an unexpired collective bargaining agreement, and related procedural issues concerning the appeal and the current appropriate bargaining representative given alleged changes in employee composition.

RULING

The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and addressed the jurisdictional objection by MME that CLU failed to timely appeal. The Court held that its resolution giving due course to the petition for review (L-24431) necessarily denied the motion to dismiss and treated the mandamus petition (L-24320) as a petition for review under Rule 43, following the precedent in Cruz vs. Court of Industrial Relations.
On the merits, the Court declined to rule definitively on which union should be the bargaining agent. It noted conflicting assertions from CLU and ESSO that after the March 22, 1965 election, the employee composition at the Pandacan Terminal had substantially changed due to employees leaving, retiring, or being laid off, but these assertions were not based on evidence of record. The Court emphasized that the CIR is empowered by law (Section 12(b) of the Industrial Peace Act) to investigate representation controversies and certify the appropriate bargaining unit.
Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations with instructions to exercise its powers, investigate the current circumstances, and issue such orders as warranted to determine the proper exclusive bargaining representative. No costs were awarded.