Reyes vs. Trajano

The right to self-organization under the Labor Code includes not only the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations but also the converse right not to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and all bona fide employees in the appropriate bargaining unit — regardless of union membership — are entitled to vote in a certification election; non-participation in prior certification elections does not forfeit that right.

Alexander Reyes, Alberto M. Nera, Edgardo M. Geca, and 138 others were members of the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) employed at Tri-Union Industries Corporation. The INK prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor organization. A certification election was authorized by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation, with two labor organizations — TUEU-OLALIA and TUPAS — contesting the right to be the exclusive bargaining representative. The competing unions had reached a pre-election agreement that INK members should not be allowed to vote because they were not members of any union and had refused to participate in previous certification elections.

A certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. Two labor organizations contested the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit: Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election. Among the 240 who cast their votes were 141 members of the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK).

The ballots provided three choices: TUPAS, TUEU-OLALIA, and "NO UNION," conformably with established rule and practice. The final tally showed TUPAS receiving 1 vote, TUEU-OLALIA receiving 95, "NO UNION" receiving 1, 1 spoiled ballot, and 141 challenged ballots. The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK members. They were segregated and excluded from the final count pursuant to an agreement between the competing unions, reached at the pre-election conference, that the INK members should not be allowed to vote "because they are not members of any union and refused to participate in the previous certification elections."

The INK employees promptly protested the exclusion of their votes, filing a petition to cancel the election on the ground that it "was not fair" and its result did "not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees." TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners lacked legal personality to protest the results because they were not members of either contending union but of the INK, which prohibits its followers on religious grounds from joining or forming any labor organization. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition by Order dated December 21, 1987, and certified TUEU-OLALIA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, declaring that the petitioners were not possessed of legal personality since they were not parties to the petition for certification election. On appeal, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Cresenciano B. Trajano, denied the appeal in his Decision of July 22, 1988, opining that the petitioners were "bereft of legal personality to protest their alleged disenfranchisement" since they were not constituted into a duly organized labor union and had not participated in previous certification elections due to religious belief.

• Disenfranchisement: Petitioners argued that the Med-Arbiter had "practically disenfranchised petitioners who had an overwhelming majority," and that the TUEU-OLALIA certified union could not legally be said to have been the result of a valid election where at least fifty-one percent of all eligible voters in the appropriate bargaining unit had cast their votes.
• Right to Vote: Petitioners assailed the denial of their right to vote as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, contending that the certification election was not fair and did not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees.

• Lack of Legal Personality: Respondents countered that the petitioners "do not have legal personality to protest the results of the election" because they were not members of either contending union but members of the INK, which prohibits its followers on religious grounds from joining or forming any labor organization, and hence were not one of the unions which vied for certification.
• Non-Participation in Prior Elections: Respondents argued that the petitioners should be denied the right to vote because they "did not participate in previous certification elections in the company for the reason that their religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor organizations."
• Rights of Other Employees: The NLRC, in its comment, insisted that if the INK workers opted not to join any labor organization as a consequence of their religious belief, then the right to be represented by a bargaining agent should not be denied to other members of the bargaining unit.

• Right to Vote in Certification Election: Whether employees who are not affiliated with any labor organization, by reason of religious belief, have the right to vote in a certification election.
• Right Not to Join a Union: Whether the right to self-organization under the Labor Code includes the concomitant right not to form, join, or assist any labor organization.
• Forfeiture by Non-Participation: Whether failure to participate in previous certification elections constitutes a ground for disqualification from voting in a subsequent certification election.

• Right to Vote in Certification Election: Yes. All bona fide employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote in a certification election, regardless of whether they are members of a labor organization, pursuant to Article 255 of the Labor Code.
• Right Not to Join a Union: Yes. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the converse right not to form, join, or assist any labor organization; no law may compel an employee to exercise a conferred right.
• Forfeiture by Non-Participation: No. No law, administrative rule, or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of failure to exercise that right in past certification elections.

• Right to Vote in Certification Election: The Court examined Article 243 of the Labor Code, which guarantees to all persons employed in commercial, industrial, and agricultural enterprises the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Section 1, Rule II, Book V, similarly provides that all persons employed in such enterprises shall have the right to self-organization. The Court found that the intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of a labor organization. Citing Airtime Specialists, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, the Court noted that Article 255 of the Labor Code refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit and makes no distinction as to union membership; all rank-and-file employees have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative because the resulting collective bargaining agreement binds all employees in the unit. The respondents' argument that the petitioners were disqualified because they were not constituted into a duly organized labor union was therefore specious, as neither law, administrative rule, nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with a labor organization may participate in a certification election.

• Right Not to Join a Union: The Court reasoned that the right not to join, affiliate with, or assist any union is logically subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising that right. Just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. Drawing on Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, the Court explained that the Constitution and labor statutes recognize and guarantee the "right" to form or join associations — a right that comprehends both liberty (the absence of legal restraint) and power (the ability to join or refrain from joining as one pleases). When the INK employees voted for "NO UNION," they were simply exercising the right of self-organization in its negative aspect. The Court further noted that the implementing rules, while no longer explicitly requiring a "NO UNION" option on the ballot, do not bar its inclusion, and that the provision allowing a "YES" or "NO" vote when only one union is involved is clear acknowledgment that a majority may choose not to be represented by any union. Whether such a choice is inspired by religious belief or discipline is beside the point and may not be inquired into.

• Forfeiture by Non-Participation: The Court found that no law, administrative rule, or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections. The respondents' contention that the petitioners should be denied the right to vote because they had not participated in previous certification elections was therefore without legal basis. In denying the petitioners' right to vote upon these grounds, the public respondents exercised their discretion whimsically, capriciously, and oppressively, thereby gravely abusing the same.

• Right to Self-Organization as a Two-Way Right — The right to self-organization under the Labor Code comprehends not only the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations of one's own choosing but also the concomitant, converse right not to form, join, or assist any labor organization. Just as no one may be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, no one may be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union, and the right to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization at any time. This principle was first expounded by the Court in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (59 SCRA 54, 1974) and was applied in this case to hold that INK members who voted for "NO UNION" were validly exercising their right to self-organization in its negative aspect.

• Eligibility to Vote in Certification Elections — All bona fide rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote in a certification election, regardless of whether they are members of any labor organization. The law makes no distinction as to union membership; it refers to "all" employees in the bargaining unit. The sole requirement for eligibility is that the employee belong to the bargaining unit. This doctrine was drawn from Airtime Specialists, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja (180 SCRA 749, 1989) and applied to invalidate the exclusion of INK members who were not affiliated with any competing union.

• Purpose of Certification Elections — The purpose of a certification election is to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. If the results disclose that the majority do not wish to be represented by any union, their wishes must be respected, and no union may be certified as the exclusive representative. The minority who desire union representation may not impose their will on the majority upon the plea that they are being denied the right of self-organization.

• "Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi: that the right to self-organization is inherently bilateral, encompassing both the affirmative right to join and the negative right to abstain.

• "The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization." — This defines the fundamental purpose of certification elections and explains why the majority's choice — including a choice for no union — must be respected.

• "Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not." — This directly refutes the respondents' argument and establishes the broad eligibility standard for certification election voters.

• "In denying the petitioners' right to vote upon these egregiously fallacious grounds, the public respondents exercised their discretion whimsically, capriciously and oppressively and gravely abused the same." — This is the Court's finding of grave abuse of discretion, which is the jurisdictional basis for the grant of the certiorari petition.

• Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974) — Controlling precedent on the nature of the right to self-organization as encompassing both the right to join and the right to abstain from joining a labor organization. The Court quoted extensively from this decision to establish that the Constitution and labor statutes guarantee a "right," not a duty, to form or join associations.

• Airtime Specialists, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 180 SCRA 749 (1989) — Followed as authority for the proposition that all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote in a certification election, and that the Labor Code makes no distinction as to union membership for purposes of eligibility.

• Pagkakaisa Samahang Manggagawa ng San Miguel Brewery vs. Enriquez, 108 Phil. 1010 — Cited within the Victoriano quotation for the principle that an employee retains the liberty and power to leave and cancel membership in a labor organization at any time.

• Abo vs. PHILAME (KG) Employees Union, 13 SCRA 120 (1965) — Cited within the Victoriano quotation for the principle that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union.

• Article 243, Labor Code of the Philippines — Guarantees the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of one's own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining to all persons employed in commercial, industrial, and agricultural enterprises. Applied as the statutory foundation for the right to self-organization, which the Court held includes the concomitant right not to join any union.

• Article 248(a), Labor Code — Declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Cited to reinforce the statutory protection of the right to self-organization.

• Article 249(a), Labor Code — Declares it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. Cited to show that labor organizations themselves are prohibited from coercing employees in the exercise of self-organization rights.

• Article 255, Labor Code — Provides that the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Cited via Airtime Specialists to establish that all employees in the bargaining unit have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative.

• Section 1, Rule II, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — Provides that all persons employed in commercial, industrial, and agricultural enterprises shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. Cited as implementing rule confirming the statutory right.

• Section 8, Rule VI, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — Governs the marking and canvassing of votes in certification elections, providing that if only one union is involved, the voter marks "YES" or "NO." The Court interpreted this provision as implicit acknowledgment that a majority may choose not to be represented by any union, and noted that neither this provision nor any other expressly bars the inclusion of a "NO UNION" choice on the ballot.

• Section 4(a), Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 3350 — Provides an exception to closed-shop agreements for members of religious sects prohibiting affiliation with labor organizations. Cited in a footnote as a qualification on the right not to join a union.

Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concurred. Nocon, J., was on leave.