SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 107792. March 2, 1998.]

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP-PIILU-TUCP) ,

petitioners, vs . THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF LABOR, PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER CORPORATION ,
respondents.

Ricardo S. Baban for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Castillo & Castillo Law Offices for NFL.
Cesar M. Jimenez for Permex Producer, etc.

SYNOPSIS

On January 15, 1991, a certi cation election was conducted among the employees
of respondent Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation (Permex). The "No Union" won.
Petitioner union wrote the respondent company requesting recognition as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of employees at the Permex. Permex recognized
petitioner and later entered into a collective bargaining agreement with it. The CBA was
rati ed by the majority of the rank and le employees of Permex. It was certi ed by the
DOLE. TSAHIa

On February 25, 1992, respondent NFL led a petition for certi cation election, but it
was dismissed by the med-arbiter. On appeal, the order of the med-arbiter was set aside
by the Secretary of Labor who ordered a certi cation election to be conducted among the
rank and file employees at the Permex.
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied. Hence, this
petition.
Permex should not have given its voluntary recognition to petitioner when the latter
asked Permex for recognition as exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of
the company. The company did not have the power to declare the union the exclusive
representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Besides, the recognition given to the union came barely ten months after the
employees had voted "no union" in the certi cation election conducted in the company.
There can be no determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the
proclamation of the results of the certi cation election. The petitioner entered into a CBA
with Permex when its status as exclusive bargaining agent of the employees had not been
established yet. THADEI

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR LAW; LABOR RELATIONS; CERTIFICATION ELECTION; A COMPANY

DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE A UNION AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 OF THE WORKERS FOR PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. — The case of Ilaw ng
Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, cited by the Solicitor General in his comment filed
in behalf of the NLRC, is particularly apropos. There, the union also requested voluntary
recognition by the company. Instead of granting the request, the company petitioned for a
certi cation election. The union moved to dismiss on the ground that it did not ask the
company to bargain collectively with it. As its motion was denied, the union brought the
matter to this Court. In sustaining the company's stand, this Court ruled: . . . Ordinarily, in an
unorganized establishment like the Calasiao Beer Region, it is the union that les, a petition
for a certi cation election if there is no certi ed bargaining agent for the workers in the
establishment. If a union asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining
agent of the employees, as the petitioner did, it in effect asks the employer to certify it as
the bargaining representative of the employees — A CERTIFICATION WHICH THE
EMPLOYER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the employees' prerogative (not the
employer's) to determine whether they want a union to represent them, and, if so, which
one it should be. In accordance with this ruling, Permex Producer should not have given its
voluntary recognition to SMP-PIILU-TUCP when the latter asked for recognition as
exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of the company. The company did
not have the power to declare the union the exclusive representative of the workers for the
purpose of collective bargaining. HaAISC

2. ID.; ID.; THERE CAN BE NO DETERMINATION OF A BARGAINING

REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN A YEAR OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE
CERTIFICATION ELECTION. — Petitioner argues that of the 763 quali ed employees of
Permex Producer, 479 supported its application for registration with the DOLE and that
when petitioner signed the CBA with the company, the CBA was rati ed by 542 employees.
Petitioner contends that such support by the majority of the employees justi es its nding
that the CBA made by it is valid and binding. But it is not enough that a union has the
support of the majority of the employees. It is equally important that everyone in the
bargaining unit be given the opportunity to express himself. This is especially so because,
in this case, the recognition given to the union came barely ten (10) months after the
employees had voted "no union" in the certi cation election conducted in the company. As
pointed out by respondent Secretary of Labor in his decision, there can be no
determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the proclamation of the
results of the certi cation election. Here the results, which showed that 61% of the
employees voted for "no union," were certi ed only on February 25, 1991 but on December
1, 1991 Permex Producer already recognized the union and entered into a CBA with it.

DECISION

MENDOZA , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated October 8, 1992 and
order dated November 12, 1992, of Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido
Laguesma, ordering a certi cation election to be conducted among the employees of
respondent company.
The facts of the case are as follows. On January 15, 1991, a certi cation election
was conducted among employees of respondent Permex Producer and Exporter
Corporation (hereafter referred to as Permex Producer). The results of the elections were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 as follows:
National Federation of Labor (NFL) 235
No Union 466
Spoiled ballots 18
Marked ballots 9
Challenged ballots 7

However, some employees of Permex Producer formed a labor organization known

as the Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) which they registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment on March 11, 1991. The union later a liated with
the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU). cdasia

On August 16, 1991, Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex-Philippine Integrated

Industries Labor Union (SMP-PIILU), wrote the respondent company requesting
recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of employees at the
Permex Producer. On October 19, 1991 Permex Producer recognized SMP-PIILU and, on
December 1, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with it. The CBA was rati ed
between December 9 and 10, 1991 by the majority of the rank and le employees of
Permex Producer. On December 13, 1991, it was certified by the DOLE.
On February 25, 1992, respondent NFL led a petition for certi cation election, but it
was dismissed by Med-Arbiter Edgar B Gongalos in an order dated August 20, 1992.
Respondent NFL then appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. On
October 8, 1992, the Secretary of Labor, through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma,
set aside the order of the Med-Arbiter and ordered a certi cation election to be conducted
among the rank and file employees at the Permex Producer, with the following choices:
1. National Federation of Labor
2. Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex
3. No union
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied in an order dated
November 12, 1992. Hence, this petition.
Two arguments are put forth in support of the petition. First, it is contended that
petitioner has been recognized by the majority of the employees at Permex Producer as
their sole collective bargaining agent. Petitioner argues that when a group of employees
constituting themselves into an organization and claiming to represent a majority of the
work force requests the employer to bargain collectively, the employer may do one of two
things. First, if the employer is satis ed with the employees' claim the employer may
voluntarily recognize the union by merely bargaining collectively with it. The formal written
con rmation is ordinarily stated in the collective bargaining agreement. Second, if on the
other hand, the employer refuses to recognize the union voluntarily, it may petition the
Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certi cation election. If the employer does not
submit a petition for certi cation election, the union claiming to represent the employees
may submit the petition so that it may be directly certi ed as the employees'
representative or a certification election may be held.
The case of Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Ferrer-Calleja, 1 cited by the Solicitor
General in his comment led in behalf of the NLRC, is particularly apropos. There, the union
also requested voluntary recognition by the company. Instead of granting the request, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 company petitioned for a certi cation election. The union moved to dismiss on the ground
that it did not ask the company to bargain collectively with it. As its motion was denied, the
union brought the matter to this Court. In sustaining the company's stand, this Court ruled:
. . . Ordinarily, in an unorganized establishment like the Calasiao Beer
Region, it is the union that les a petition for a certi cation election if there is no
certi ed bargaining agent for the workers in the establishment If a union asks the
employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining agent of the employees, as
the petitioner did, it in effect asks the employer to certify it as the bargaining
representative of the employees — A CERTIFICATION WHICH THE EMPLOYER
HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the employees' prerogative (not the
employer's) to determine whether they want a union to represent them, and, if so,
which one it should be. (emphasis supplied)

In accordance with this ruling, Permex Producer should not have given its voluntary
recognition to SMP-PIILU-TUCP when the latter asked for recognition as exclusive
collective bargaining agent of the employees of the company. The company did not have
the power to declare the union the exclusive representative of the workers for the purpose
of collective bargaining.
Indeed, petitioner's contention runs counter to the trend towards the holding of
certi cation election. By virtue of Executive Order No. 111, which became effective on
March 4, 1987, the direct certi cation previously allowed under the Labor Code had been
discontinued as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining agents of the workers. 2
Certi cation election is the most effective and the most democratic way of determining
which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate
bargaining unit of a company. 3
Petitioner argues that of the 763 quali ed employees of Permex Producer, 479
supported its application for registration with the DOLE and that when petitioner signed
the CBA with the company, the CBA was rati ed by 542 employees. Petitioner contends
that such support by the majority of the employees justi es its nding that the CBA made
by it is valid and binding. dctai

But it is not enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees. It
is equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given the opportunity to
express himself. 4
This is especially so because, in this case, the recognition given to the union came
barely ten (10) months after the employees had voted "no union" in the certi cation
election conducted in the company. As pointed out by respondent Secretary of Labor in his
decision, there can be no determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the
proclamation of the results of the certi cation election. 5 Here the results, which showed
that 61% of the employees voted for "no union," were certi ed only on February 25, 1991
but on December 1, 1991 Permex Producer already recognized the union and entered into
a CBA with it.
There is something dubious about the fact that just ten (10) months after the
employees had voted that they did not want any union to represent them, they would be
expressing support for petitioner. The doubt is compounded by the fact that in sworn
a davits some employees claimed that they had either been coerced or misled into
signing a document which turned out to be in support of petitioner as its collective
bargaining agent. Although there were retractions, we agree with the Solicitor General that
retractions of statements by employees adverse to a company (or its favored union) are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 oftentimes tainted with coercion and intimidation. For how could one explain the seeming
ip- opping of position taken by the employees? The gures claimed by petitioner to have
been given to it in support cannot readily be accepted as true.
Second. Petitioner invokes the contract-bar rule. They contend that under Arts. 253,
253-A and 256 of the Labor Code and Book V, Rule 5, § 3 of its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, a petition for certi cation election or motion for intervention may be
entertained only within 60 days prior to the date of expiration of an existing collective
bargaining agreement. The purpose of the rule is to ensure stability in the relationships of
the workers and the management by preventing frequent modi cations of any collective
bargaining agreement earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated
original period. Excepted from the contract-bar rule are certain types of contracts which
do not foster industrial stability, such as contracts where the identity of the representative
is in doubt. Any stability derived from such contracts must be subordinated to the
employees' freedom of choice because it does not establish the kind of industrial peace
contemplated by the law. 6 Such situation obtains in this case. The petitioner entered into
a CBA with Permex Producer when its status as exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees had not been established yet. prLL

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision and order of the respondent Secretary of

Labor are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Melo, Puno and Martinez, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. 182 SCRA 561 (1990).

2. Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 201 SCRA
591 (1991).
3. National Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor, 227 SCRA 821 (1993);
Associated Trade Unions v Trajano, 162 SCRA 319 (1988).
4. Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Secretary of DOLE, 201 SCRA at 592.
5. IMPLEMENTING RULES, Bk V, Rule v, § 3.

6. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Employees Union v. Estrella, 81 SCRA 49 (1978).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com