PAFLU vs. Director Calleja

The statutory requirement of written consent from at least twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the collective bargaining unit applies only to the petition for certification election in an unorganized establishment, and not to motions for intervention filed by other legitimate labor organizations seeking to participate in the representation proceedings.

The case arose from a representation dispute among three labor organizations vying to represent the rank-and-file workers of Hundred Island Chemical Corporation, an unorganized establishment. The controversy centered on the interpretation of the 20% support requirement under Article 258 of the Labor Code and whether this procedural prerequisite extends to intervening unions in certification election proceedings.

• Respondent Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation (Samahan) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file workers of Hundred Island Chemical Corporation with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), docketed as BLR Case No. A-6-201-87.
• Petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (September Convention) or PAFLU filed a motion to intervene in the certification election proceedings on 27 April 1987, accompanied by the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of the rank-and-file employees of the corporation.
• Respondent Katipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI) likewise filed a motion to intervene on 1 June 1987, but its motion was unaccompanied by the written consent of twenty percent (20%) of the employer's workers.
• PAFLU moved for the striking out of KAMAPI's motion for intervention due to the lack of the requisite written consent.
• Acting on the motion, Med-Arbiter Renato D. Parungo issued an order dated 8 June 1987 denying KAMAPI's motion for intervention and allowing PAFLU's inclusion in the certification election.
• On 17 June 1987, KAMAPI appealed the Med-Arbiter's order to respondent Director Pura Ferrer Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
• Respondent Director issued the contested order dated 27 July 1987, finding that the best forum to determine whether KAMAPI commands support of the rank-and-file is through the certification election process, and thereby included KAMAPI as one of the contending unions along with Samahan and PAFLU.
• PAFLU filed the instant petition for certiorari on 17 August 1987, assailing the Director's order as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
• The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order dated 24 August 1987 enjoining the conduct of the certification election.
• Respondent Samahan opposed the issuance of the restraining order, arguing that the delay defeats the constitutional right of labor to organize.

• Petitioner PAFLU argued that Section 6, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111 requires that a petition for certification election involving an unorganized establishment must be supported by the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of all employees in the collective bargaining unit.
• Petitioner contended that this 20% support requirement should apply not only to the original petition but also to motions for intervention filed by other labor organizations seeking to participate in the certification election.
• Petitioner asserted that KAMAPI should not be allowed to participate in the certification election without first showing that it has the required support expressed in the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of all employees in the collective bargaining unit.

• The Solicitor General, representing the public respondent, argued that the 20% written consent requirement applies only to petitions for certification election, not to motions for intervention.
• The Solicitor General explained that the purpose of the 20% requirement is to ensure that the petitioning union has a substantial interest in the representation proceedings and that a considerable number of workers desire representation by the said union for collective bargaining purposes.
• The Solicitor General maintained that once the original petitioning union has satisfied the 20% requirement, other unions should be allowed to intervene in the certification election to determine which union the workers actually prefer, as the essence of the proceeding is to settle representation issues.
• Respondent Samahan argued that the delay caused by the petition defeats the constitutional right of labor to organize and that the certification election should proceed without further delay.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the order of the Bureau of Labor Relations Director including KAMAPI in the certification election.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a motion for intervention in a certification election must be accompanied by the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of all employees in the collective bargaining unit.
  • Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations Director committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing KAMAPI to participate in the certification election despite not having submitted the requisite 20% written consent.

• Procedural:
  • The Court implicitly recognized certiorari as the proper remedy to challenge the Director's order interpreting the statutory requirements for certification elections, proceeding to resolve the case on its merits.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the 20% written consent requirement under Section 6 of Rule V of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111 and Article 258 of the Labor Code applies exclusively to the petition for certification election itself, and not to motions for intervention filed by other legitimate labor organizations.
  • The Court ruled that the purpose of the 20% requirement is to ensure that the petitioning union has a substantial interest in the representation proceedings and that a considerable number of workers desire its representation; hence, it is peculiar to petitions for certification election and mandatory only upon the filing of such petition.
  • The Court found that since the original petition filed by Samahan had already met the 20% requirement, KAMAPI must be allowed to participate in the certification election as an intervenor, provided its motion was properly and timely filed and would not cause injustice to anyone.
  • The Court emphasized that the essence of a certification election is to determine once and for all which union is preferred by the workers to represent them, and allowing intervention facilitates this determination.
  • The Court concluded that respondent Director did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contested order, and accordingly dismissed the petition for certiorari and lifted the temporary restraining order.

• Substantial Interest Requirement in Certification Elections — The requirement of written consent from 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit is designed to ensure that the petitioning union has a substantial interest in the representation proceedings and that a considerable number of workers desire its representation. This requirement is peculiar to and applies exclusively to the filing of the petition for certification election, not to ancillary proceedings such as motions for intervention.
• Liberal Allowance of Intervention in Certification Elections — Intervention in certification election proceedings should be liberally allowed as long as the motion is properly and timely filed and would not cause injustice to anyone, even if the intervenor has not shown independent 20% support, provided the original petition has satisfied the statutory requirement. This facilitates the essential purpose of certification elections: to determine which union the workers actually prefer.

• "The reason behind the 20% requirement is to ensure that the petitioning union has a substantial interest in the representation proceedings and, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, that a considerable number of workers desire their representation by the said petitioning union for collective bargaining purposes."
• "The 20% requirement, thereof, is peculiar to petitions for certification election."
• "As long as the motion for intervention has been properly and timely filed and the intervention would not cause any injustice to anyone, it should not be denied and this is so even if the eventual purpose of the motion for intervention is to participate in the certification election."
• "After all the original applicant had already met the 20% requirement."

• Samahang Manggagawa ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152 — Cited for the principle that once 20% of the workers signify their support through written consent, it becomes mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a certification election in an unorganized establishment.
• PAFLU vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 69 SCRA 132 — Cited for the principle that the essence of a certification election is to settle once and for all which union is preferred by the workers to represent them.
• PAFLU vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 72 SCRA 396 — Cited alongside the 69 SCRA 132 case for the same principle regarding the purpose of certification elections.

• Section 6, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111 — Provides the procedure for filing petitions for certification election, specifically requiring that petitions involving unorganized establishments must be supported by written consent of at least 20% of all employees in the bargaining unit upon filing, otherwise the petition shall be dismissed.
• Section 7 of Executive Order No. 111 — Amends Articles 257 and 258 of the Labor Code; specifically pertinent is the amendment to Article 258 regarding petitions in unorganized establishments.
• Article 258 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (as amended by Executive Order No. 111) — Mandates that in unorganized establishments, a petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization must be supported by the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of all employees in the bargaining unit, and upon receipt of such petition, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order the conduct of a certification election.