NACUSIP-TUCP vs. Trajano

A petition for certification election is barred while a bargaining deadlock to which the incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration, and an order calling a certification election in disregard of that bar constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The purpose of the rule is to ensure stability in labor-management relations.

NACUSIP-TUCP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file workers of Calinog Refinery Corporation. FUR-TUCP is a labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, while Calinog Refineries Employees Union (CREU)-NACUSIP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the same rank-and-file workers by virtue of a certification election held on March 30, 1981. The dispute is governed by Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which restrict when a petition for certification election may be filed.

NACUSIP-TUCP was the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file workers of Calinog Refinery Corporation, while CREU-NACUSIP had been certified as exclusive bargaining representative of the same employees through a certification election held on March 30, 1981. On June 21, 1982, petitioner union filed a petition for deadlock in collective bargaining with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. To obviate friction and tension, the parties agreed on July 14, 1982 to submit the deadlock petition to compulsory arbitration, and it was docketed as RAB Case No. VI-0220-82.

While the deadlock petition was pending, FUR-TUCP filed on July 21, 1982 a petition for certification election with Regional Office No. VI, MOLE in Iloilo City among the rank-and-file employees of the company. The petition alleged that about forty-five percent (45%) of the company's employees had disaffiliated from petitioner union and joined FUR-TUCP, that no election had been held for the past twelve months, and that although petitioner had been certified as sole collective bargaining agent, it had failed for over a year to conclude a collective bargaining agreement with the company. Petitioner union filed a motion to intervene in that petition.

On July 23, 1982, Acting Med-Arbiter Pacifico V. Militante dismissed the certification election petition for lack of merit on the sole ground that it was barred by the pending bargaining deadlock. FUR-TUCP appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations on August 25, 1982, and on September 30, 1982 Director Trajano set aside the dismissal and remanded the case to Regional Office VI for hearing and reception of evidence. On May 2, 1983, Med-Arbiter Demetrio Correa, in LRD Case No. 4293, gave due course to the petition and ordered that an election be held within 20 days; petitioner appealed this order to the Bureau of Labor Relations.

During the pendency of that appeal, on September 10, 1983, a collective bargaining agreement was entered into and executed between the management of the National Sugar Refineries Co., Inc. and petitioner union, and it was subsequently ratified by a majority of the rank-and-file employees. On the basis of the concluded CBA, Executive Labor Arbiter Celerino Grecia II issued an award dated September 12, 1983 adopting the submitted agreement as the CBA between the parties. Notably, a certification had earlier been issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Grecia II on October 21, 1982 certifying that the deadlock petition in RAB Case No. VI-0220-82 had been forwarded to him for compulsory arbitration.

On November 18, 1983, Director Trajano rendered a decision affirming with qualification the Med-Arbiter's order. He found that the incumbent union no longer commanded the support of the majority, since more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the workers had disaffiliated from the intervenor and joined FUR-TUCP, making its status as sole and exclusive bargaining representative of doubtful validity; he therefore ordered a certification election as the most expeditious, practical, and democratic option, with the qualification that the winning union shall administer the September 10, 1983 collective agreement. He also held that the company, as a mere bystander in the representation dispute, was erroneously included as a contending party. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated December 6, 1983 was denied on March 21, 1984, prompting this petition for certiorari.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that respondent Director Trajano committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he rendered a decision affirming the order of Med-Arbiter Correa finding that the deadlock was "nothing but a mere subterfuge to obstruct the exercise of the workers of their legitimate right to self-organization, a last minute maneuver to deny the workers the exercise of their constitutional rights," and ordering a certification election among the rank-and-file workers of the company.
• Deadlock Bar Rule: Petitioner stressed that the finding that the contract (deadlock) bar rule has no room for application in the case runs counter to the provision of Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, which prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election during the pendency of a bargaining deadlock.

• Arbitrariness of the Assailed Ruling: The Solicitor General, in conformity with petitioner's contentions, insisted that the respondent Director acted arbitrarily in issuing the assailed decision and order.
• CBA as Bar to the Petition: The Solicitor General argued that the CBA concluded on September 10, 1983 has a life span of three years and constitutes a bar to the petition for certification election pursuant to Section 3 of the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.

• Deadlock Bar Rule: Whether a petition for certification election may be filed during the pendency of a bargaining deadlock submitted to arbitration or conciliation.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether respondent Director Trajano committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the order calling a certification election despite the pending bargaining deadlock.

• Deadlock Bar Rule: No. Under Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, a representation question may not be entertained if, before the filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The Director gravely abused his discretion when he affirmed the order calling a certification election despite the then pending bargaining deadlock already submitted to arbitration; the assailed decision and order were tainted with arbitrariness and are nullified.

• Deadlock Bar Rule: The controlling law is Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which provides that in the absence of a duly registered CBA a petition for certification election may be filed at any time, but that no representation question may be entertained if, before the filing of the petition, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The section thus prohibits the filing of a certification election petition in three cases: (1) during the existence of a CBA except within the freedom period; (2) within one year from the date of issuance of a declaration of a final certification election result; and (3) during the existence of a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party and which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The Deadlock Bar Rule ensures stability in the relationship of the workers and the management. In the case at bar, a bargaining deadlock had already been submitted to arbitration when FUR-TUCP filed its petition; the petition was dismissed by the Acting Med-Arbiter on the sole ground of the pending deadlock, yet the respondent Director set aside that order and subsequently affirmed an order giving due course to the petition and ordering an election. The law demands that the petition for certification election should fail in the presence of a then pending bargaining deadlock. The Director also erred in finding that the Med-Arbiter's dismissal was irregular and merely based on information, since a certification issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Grecia II on October 21, 1982 showed that the deadlock petition in RAB Case No. VI-0220-82 had been forwarded for compulsory arbitration.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: A director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, by the nature of his functions, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and his decision is not beyond the SC's review; administrative officials are presumed to act in accordance with law, but the SC will pass upon their work where there is a showing of abuse of authority or discretion in their official acts or when their decisions or orders are tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness. After a careful review of the records, the SC found the assailed decision and order tainted with arbitrariness amounting to grave abuse of discretion, and accordingly granted the petition.

• Deadlock Bar Rule — A petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or which has become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout; its principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management. Applied here, the deadlock petition filed June 21, 1982 and submitted to compulsory arbitration on July 14, 1982 (RAB Case No. VI-0220-82) barred FUR-TUCP's July 21, 1982 certification election petition.
• Three prohibitions on filing a certification election petition — Under Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, a petition for certification election is prohibited: (1) during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except within the freedom period; (2) within one (1) year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification election result; or (3) during the existence of a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party and which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The SC applied the third prohibition to annul the election order.
• Review of quasi-judicial administrative officials — Administrative officials such as the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations act in a quasi-judicial capacity and are presumed to act in accordance with law, but the SC will review their work where there is a showing of abuse of authority or discretion or where their decisions or orders are tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness. The Director's disregard of the pending arbitration amounted to such arbitrariness.

• "The Deadlock Bar Rule simply provides that a petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management." — This passage states the rule and its rationale, and is the basis for nullifying the certification election order.
• "The law demands that the petition for certification election should fail in the presence of a then pending bargaining deadlock." — This is the SC's categorical application of the bar to the facts, since the deadlock had already been submitted to arbitration when FUR-TUCP filed its petition.
• "Administrative officials, like the director of the Bureau of Labor Relations are presumed to act in accordance with law but this Court will not hesitate to pass upon their work where there is a showing of abuse of authority or discretion in their official acts or when their decisions or orders are tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness." — This defines the scope of the SC's certiorari review over the quasi-judicial acts of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

• Section 3, Book V, Rule V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — The controlling provision on when a petition for certification election may be filed; the SC applied its third prohibition to hold that the petition was barred by the pending bargaining deadlock submitted to arbitration, and noted that with a duly registered CBA a petition or motion for intervention may only be entertained within 60 days prior to the agreement's expiry date.
• Article 231, Labor Code — Cited within the quoted rule as the provision governing the registration of a collective bargaining agreement, which triggers the 60-day freedom-period restriction on certification election petitions.
• Section 3, Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 — Invoked by petitioner and the Solicitor General as the provision prohibiting the filing of a petition for certification election during the pendency of a bargaining deadlock.