G.R. No. L-8138; August 20, 1955
PLDT EMPLOYEES’ UNION, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS’ UNION, (PAPLU), respondents.

FACTS

On September 30, 1953, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for a certification proceeding under Republic Act No. 875 . PLDT alleged it had received a collective bargaining notice from the Free Telephone Workers’ Union (respondent union), while it already had an existing collective bargaining agreement with the PLDT Employees’ Union (petitioner union) set to expire on September 14, 1954, but with an automatic renewal clause. PLDT, unable to determine which union represented the majority of its employees, requested an investigation and, if necessary, a certification election. The petitioner union intervened and moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that allowing a certification election during the life of its existing collective bargaining agreement would constitute an impairment of contracts. The Presiding Judge of the CIR dismissed the petition in December 1953, primarily because the existing agreement was still in force. However, on August 9, 1954, the CIR en banc, by majority vote, set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for determination of the appropriate collective bargaining unit and, if necessary, the holding of a certification election. The petitioner union filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the order of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, which set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for determination of the proper bargaining agency, is appealable; and whether the existing collective bargaining agreement bars the holding of a certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review. First, the appealed order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not completely dispose of the case but left something to be done (the determination of the bargaining agency or the holding of an election). Therefore, the appeal was premature. Second, on the substantive issue, the existing collective bargaining agreement did not constitute a legal bar to the certification proceeding. The Court noted that the agreement, signed on December 1, 1951, had been in operation for more than two years by August 1954. Citing American labor relations principles, the Court indicated that contracts of such duration are not considered an undue obstacle to determining bargaining representatives, as employees are entitled to change their representatives at reasonable intervals. The Court clarified that it was not establishing a fixed two-year rule but was considering relevant factors. Furthermore, the Court found no impairment of contract, as the CIR’s order contemplated that any new bargaining agreement would take effect only after the expiration of the existing one on September 14, 1954. The Court also referenced the Civil Code principle that labor contracts are subject to special laws on labor relations. The case was remanded to the CIR for a speedy hearing to determine the proper bargaining representative.