Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Local No. 56 vs. Ferrer-Calleja

In an unorganized establishment, a union’s request for voluntary recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative is in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction; the employer may therefore petition for a certification election under Article 258 of the Labor Code, since the employer has no authority to certify the union and the choice of bargaining representative is the employees’ prerogative.

Petitioner Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Local No. 56 is a local union of the national union Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM), formerly registered with the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau of Labor Relations as the San Miguel Corporation Sales Force Union Calasiao Beer Region-IBM Local No. 56. Private respondent San Miguel Corporation operates the Calasiao Beer Region, whose territorial coverage embraces a regional sales office and six sales offices in Calasiao, Carmen, Alaminos, Tarlac, Cabanatuan, and San Isidro. The dispute concerns the process for selecting the bargaining representative of the sales personnel in that region under Article 258 of the Labor Code, which governs an employer’s petition for certification election when requested to bargain collectively.

On September 7, 1987, petitioner Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Local No. 56, formerly registered with the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau of Labor Relations as the San Miguel Corporation Sales Force Union Calasiao Beer Region-IBM Local No. 56, requested San Miguel Corporation for voluntary recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all covered employees, consisting of monthly and daily-paid employees of the Calasiao Sales Office, now Dagupan Sales Office. The territorial coverage of the Calasiao Beer Region embraced the regional sales office and six sales offices in Calasiao, Carmen, Alaminos, Tarlac, Cabanatuan, and San Isidro. SMC denied the union’s request and instead suggested that it avail itself of a certification election.

On November 27, 1987, SMC, through its North-Central Luzon Sales Operations Manager, filed a petition for certification election among the sales personnel of the Region only, excluding the daily-paid and monthly-paid employees, but including the sales offices of the entire beer region. The union filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the petition for certification election was premature as it did not ask SMC to bargain collectively with it. It cited Article 258 of the Labor Code.

On February 22, 1988, the Med-Arbiter issued an order directing a certification election among the sales force personnel of the SMC-North Central Luzon Beer Region covering the sales offices in Dagupan City, Carmen, Alaminos, Tarlac, Cabanatuan, and San Isidro, within twenty days from receipt, with the choices of the union and “No union.” The parties were directed to attend a pre-election conference one week before the actual conduct of the election.

Petitioner appealed the order to the Bureau of Labor Relations. On June 23, 1988, the BLR denied the appeal for lack of merit. The certification election was actually conducted on September 19, 1988, resulting in “NO UNION” as the winner. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari alleging that the Director of the BLR gravely abused her discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election.

• Prematurity of the Certification Election Petition: Petitioner maintained that SMC’s petition for certification election was premature because SMC had not first been requested to bargain collectively, citing Article 258 of the Labor Code.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner alleged that the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations gravely abused her discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election.

• Voluntary Recognition as Request to Bargain Collectively: Whether the union’s request for voluntary recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative was in effect a request to bargain collectively under Article 258 of the Labor Code.
• Prematurity of the Certification Election Petition: Whether SMC’s petition for certification election was premature for lack of a prior request to bargain collectively.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations gravely abused her discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election.

• Voluntary Recognition as Request to Bargain Collectively: Yes. A union’s request for voluntary recognition is in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction, because the employer has no authority to certify the union as bargaining representative.
• Prematurity of the Certification Election Petition: No. Because the union’s request was a request to bargain collectively, SMC’s petition for certification election was in accordance with Article 258 of the Labor Code.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The public respondents did not abuse their discretion in granting the request for certification election.

• Voluntary Recognition as Request to Bargain Collectively: The Court explained that in an unorganized establishment like the SMC Calasiao Beer Region, ordinarily the union files a petition for certification election if there is no certified bargaining agent. When a union instead asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the bargaining agent, it in effect asks the employer to certify it as the bargaining representative. The employer has no authority to give that certification because it is the employees’ prerogative, not the employer’s, to determine whether they want a union and which one should represent them. The union’s request was therefore in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction.
• Prematurity of the Certification Election Petition: Because the union’s request for voluntary recognition was a request to bargain collectively, the condition in Article 258 for an employer’s petition for certification election was satisfied. The employer’s request for a certification election was thus in accordance with Article 258. The petition was not premature.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Since the employer’s petition was authorized by Article 258 and the Med-Arbiter and the Bureau of Labor Relations acted pursuant to that provision, the public respondents did not abuse their discretion in granting the request for certification election. The Court found no merit in the petition for certiorari.

• Voluntary Recognition as Request to Bargain Collectively — In an unorganized establishment, a union’s request for voluntary recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative is in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction. The employer cannot itself certify the union as bargaining representative; that choice belongs to the employees. Because such a request triggers the employer’s right to petition for certification election under Article 258, the employer’s petition is not premature. Applied here: IBM Local No. 56’s request for voluntary recognition was treated as a request to bargain collectively, validating SMC’s petition for certification election.
• Employees’ Prerogative to Choose Bargaining Representative — The employer has no authority to certify a union as the bargaining representative of its employees; it is the employees’ prerogative to determine whether they want a union and which one should represent them. Applied: SMC could not grant voluntary recognition, hence the certification election was proper.
• Certification Election in Unorganized Establishments — Ordinarily, in an unorganized establishment with no certified bargaining agent, it is the union that files a petition for certification election. Where the union instead requests voluntary recognition, however, the employer may file the petition under Article 258. Applied: SMC’s petition was proper.

• "Ordinarily, in an unorganized establishment like the SMC Calasiao Beer Region, it is the union that files a petition for a certification election if there is no certified bargaining agent for the workers in the establishment." — This states the general rule for unorganized establishments and frames the Court’s analysis of why the employer’s petition was nonetheless proper in this case.
• "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." — This is the core rationale: voluntary recognition is not a valid employer act because the choice of bargaining representative belongs to the employees.
• "The petitioner's request for voluntary recognition as the bargaining representative of the employees was in effect a request to bargain collectively, or the first step in that direction, hence, the employer's request for a certification election was in accordance with Article 258 of the Labor Code, and the public respondents did not abuse their discretion in granting the request." — This passage applies the doctrine to the facts and resolves the principal issue of whether the employer’s petition was premature.

• Article 258, Labor Code — “When an employer may file petition. — When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.” The Court applied this provision to hold that because the union’s voluntary recognition request was in effect a request to bargain collectively, SMC’s petition for certification election was proper.

Narvasa, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred. Cruz, J., took no part.