G.R. No. 70185 May 27, 1985
SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA SHOEMART-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR [SMS-NFL], petitioner, vs. HON. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, SHOEMART EMPLOYEES UNION [SMEU] and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS [PAFLU], respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner SMS-NFL filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of SM Shoemart, Inc. The existing bargaining agent, respondent SMEU, and the company opposed the petition on two grounds: first, that the petition lacked the required support of at least 30% of the employees, and second, that a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) executed in October 1983 barred the election under the contract bar rule. Respondent PAFLU also moved to intervene. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition, ordering an election with choices for SMS-NFL, SMEU, and “No Union.” The Med-Arbiter ruled the CBA was prematurely executed and thus no bar, and that the petition was supported by more than 30% of the workforce even after scrutinizing the signatures. PAFLU’s intervention was denied for lack of proper substantiation.
Respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) reversed the Med-Arbiter’s order and remanded the case for further hearing. The Director acted on allegations from the company regarding forgeries and duplicate signatures in the petition, which allegedly impaired the 30% requirement, and to give PAFLU an opportunity to prove its right to intervene. Petitioner SMS-NFL elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent BLR Director committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case for further hearing instead of ordering the immediate holding of a certification election.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the BLR Director’s resolution, and directed the immediate holding of a certification election. The Court found the remand to be a grave abuse of discretion constituting an unjustified delay. The legal issues had already been squarely resolved by the Med-Arbiter after due hearing. The factual issue of compliance with the 30% subscription requirement was already determined, with the Med-Arbiter finding sufficient support even after discounting questionable signatures. Remanding for a re-litigation of this settled factual matter was unnecessary.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the fundamental policy of promoting employees’ right to self-organization. It noted that no certification election had been held in the company for thirteen years. To further delay the election to accommodate PAFLU’s belated attempt to intervene, which lacked the required showing of support, would frustrate this policy. Critically, the Court cited its precedent in Scout Albano vs. Noriel, which holds that the BLR, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may order a certification election even if the strict 30% requirement is not met. Thus, the Director’s order for remand based on technical compliance was an overly rigid and improper exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court ordered an election with four choices: SMS-NFL, SMEU, PAFLU, and “No Union.”