FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 51337. March 22, 1984.]

UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HON. CARMELO NORIEL,
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, (JULY
CONVENTION), respondents.

Jose L. Simon for petitioner.

Wilfredo Y. Guevarra and Edward P. David for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR LAWS; BUREAU OF

LABOR RELATIONS; PENDENCY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE, A
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO CERTIFICATION ELECTION; CASE AT BAR. —
Under settled jurisprudence, the pendency of a formal charge of company
domination is a prejudicial question that, until decided, bars proceedings for
a certification election, the reason being that the votes of the members of
the dominated union would not be free. The ULP Case herein was filed on
August 31, 1978, or anterior to the Certification Case, which was presented
on September 5, 1978. The pendency of the charge was known to
respondent public official by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss filed by
petitioner as intervenor in the Certification Case. No allegation has been
made that said ULP Case was instituted in bad faith to forestall the
Certification Case.

DECISION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J : p

The question to resolve is whether or not public respondent acted with

grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter calling for
a certification election despite: (a) the pendency of an unfair labor practice
case filed by petitioner charging respondent PAFLU as being company-
dominated; (b) the existence of a deadlock in negotiations for renewal of the
collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and the Central Textile
Mills, Inc. (CENTEX, for short); and (c) a reasonable doubt as to whether the
30% requirement for holding a certification election has been met.
Petitioner is a legitimate labor organization, the incumbent collective
bargaining representative of all rank and file workers of CENTEX since 1956.
Respondent PAFLU is also a legitimate labor organization seeking
representation as the bargaining agent of the rank and file workers of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 CENTEX. LLjur

On August 31, 1978, petitioner filed a complaint for Unfair Labor

Practice (R4-LRD-C-8-1493-78) (the ULP Case, for brevity) against CENTEX
and PAFLU alleging that CENTEX had "helped and cooperated in the
organization of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. Local PAFLU by allowing the
organizing members of the PAFLU to solicit signatures of employees of the
company who are members of the complainant union to disaffiliate from
complainant union and join the respondent PAFLU, during company time and
inside the company premises on August 21, 1978 and the following days
thereafter." 1
While the ULP Case was pending, PAFLU, on September 5, 1978, filed a
Petition for Certification Election (R4-LRD-M-9432-78) (the Certification Case,
for short) among the rank and file workers of CENTEX, alleging that: 1) there
has been no certification election during the 12 months period prior to the
filing of the petition; 2) the petition is supported by signatures of 603
workers, or more than 30% of the rank and file workers of CENTEX; 3) the
collective bargaining agreement between CENTEX and petitioner will expire
on October 31, 1978; 4) the petition is filed within the 60-day-freedom-period
immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA, and 6) there is no legal
impediment to the filing of the petition. 2
Petitioner intervened in the Certification Case and filed a Motion to
Dismiss on September 27, 1978 on the grounds that: 1) the ULP Case
charging that PAFLU is a company-dominated union is a prejudicial question
and bars the holding of the certification election; and 2) PAFLU failed to
comply with the 30% requirement for mandatory certification election since
only 440 of the 603 are valid signatures and that 719 signatories are
required as constitutive of 30% of the rank and file workers totalling 2,397
and not 1,900 as alleged by PAFLU. 3
On October 16, 1978, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau
of Labor Relations for deadlock in the CBA negotiations with CENTEX. The
parties having failed to effect a conciliation, the Labor Minister assumed
jurisdiction on November 9, 1978 in Case No. AJML-033-78 4 (referred to
hereafter as the Deadlock Case) LexLib

A Supplemental Motion to Dismiss in the Certification Case was filed by

petitioner on December 7, 1978 alleging that the Labor Minister had already
taken cognizance of the deadlock in the CBA negotiations and constituted an
impediment to the holding of a certification election. 5
On December 18, 1978, in the Deadlock Case, the Deputy Minister of
Labor released a Decision directing petitioner and CENTEX to execute and
sign a CBA to take effect on November 1, 1978 up to October 30, 1981
based on the guidelines enumerated therein, and to furnish the Office of the
Minister of Labor with a signed copy of the renewed agreement not later
than January 31, 1979. 6
On January 23, 1979, in the Certification Case, the Med-Arbiter issued
an Order for the holding of a certification election among CENTEX rank and
file workers, whereby qualified voters could choose either PAFLU or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner as the collective bargaining representative or No Union at all. 7
This was affirmed by respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on
appeal, in the challenged Resolution, dated May 25, 1979, stating that: 1)
the Bureau has discretion to order certification election where several unions
are contending for representation and when there is doubt as to whether the
30% requirement has been met; and 2) to preclude the filing of a petition for
certification election the notice of strike for deadlock in CBA negotiations
must occur prior to the petition. 8
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied for lack of
merit in the Resolution of August 20, 1979 9 , also assailed herein.
Hence, this petition, on the general proposition that public respondent
has committed serious error of law and acted with grave abuse of discretion,
and that petitioner has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
We issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the conduct of the
certification election, and eventually gave the Petition due course.
The issues raised are: (1) is the pendency of the ULP Case charging a
participating union in the certification election proceedings as company-
dominated a prejudicial question to the conduct of the election? (2) Does the
decision in the Deadlock Case directing the parties to execute a CBA have
the effect of barring the certification election? (3) Does respondent Director
have the discretion to call for a certification election even if the 30% consent
requirement is lacking?
The case can be resolved on the basis of the first issue alone, which
must be answered in the affirmative. Under settled jurisprudence, the
pendency of a formal charge of company domination is a prejudicial
question that, until decided, bars proceedings for a certification election 10 ,
the reason being that the votes of the members of the dominated union
would not be free. 11 The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31, 1978, or
anterior to the Certification Case, which was presented on September 5,
1978. The pendency of the charge was known to respondent public official
by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner as intervenor in the
Certification Case. No allegation has been made that said ULP Case was
instituted in bad faith to forestall the Certification Case. The following ruling
is thus squarely in point:
"There is no assertion that such complaint was flimsy, or made in bad
faith or filed purposely to forestall the certification election. So, no
reason existed for the Industrial Court to depart from its established
practice of suspending the election proceeding. And this seems to be
accepted rule in the law of labor relations, the reason being, in the
words of Mr. Justice Montemayor, `if there is a union dominated by the
company, to which some of the workers belong, an election among
workers and employees of the company would not reflect the true
sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees because the
votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free.'
(Manila Paper Mills Employees vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 104
Phil. 10)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "And we have held, through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, that such charge
of company domination is a prejudicial question that until decided,
shall suspend or bar proceedings for certification election. (Standard
Cigarette Workers' Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 101 Phil.
126)
"Indeed, if as a result of the Pelta's complaint in Case No. 255-ULP, the
Workers Union should be ordered dissolved as a company dominated
union, any election held in the meantime would be a waste of energy
and money to all parties concerned." 12

The rationale for the suspension of the election proceedings has been
further amplified as follows:
"What is settled law, dating from the case of Standard Cigarette
Workers' Union v. Court of Industrial Relations (101 Phil. 126), decided
in 1957, is that if it were a labor organization objecting to the
participation in a certification election of a company-dominated union,
as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case
against the employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be
first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place.
In the language of Justice J.B.L. Reyes as ponente: `As correctly
pointed out by Judge Lanting in his dissenting opinion on the denial of
petitioner's motion for reconsideration, a complaint for unfair labor
practice may be considered a prejudicial question in a proceeding for
certification election when it is charged therein that one or more labor
unions participating in the election are being aided, or are controlled,
by the company or employer. The reason is that the certification
election may lead to the selection of an employer-dominated or
company union as the employees' bargaining representative, and
when the court finds that said union is employer-dominated in the
unfair labor practice case, the union selected would be decertified and
the whole election proceedings would be rendered useless and
nugatory.' (Ibid., 128). The next year, the same jurist had occasion to
reiterate such doctrine in Manila Paper Mills Employees and Workers
Association v. Court of Industrial Relations (104 Phil. 10 [1958]), thus:
`We agree with the CIR on the reasons given in its order that only a
formal charge of company domination may serve as a bar to and stop
a certification election, the reason being that if there is a union
dominated by the Company, to which some of the workers belong, an
election among the workers and employees of the company would not
reflect the true sentiment and wishes of the said workers and
employees from the standpoint of their welfare and interest, because
as to the members of the company dominated union, the vote of the
said members in the election would not be free. It is equally true,
however, that the opposition to the holding of a certification election
due to a charge of company domination can only be filed and
maintained by the labor organization which made the charge of
company domination, because it is the entity that stands to lose and
suffer prejudice by the certification election, the reason being that its
members might be overwhelmed in the voting by the other members
controlled and dominated by the Company,' (Ibid., 15). It is easily
understandable why it should be thus. There would be an impairment
of the integrity of the collective bargaining process if a company-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 dominated union were allowed to participate in a certification election.
The timid, the timorous, and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor
could easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of
management. Should it emerge victorious, and it becomes the
exclusive representative of labor at the conference table, there is a
frustration of the statutory scheme. It takes two to bargain. There
would be instead a unilateral imposition by the employer. There is
need therefore to inquire as to whether a labor organization that
aspires to be the exclusive bargaining representative is company-
dominated before the certification election." 13

With the suspension of the certification proceedings clearly called for

by reason of a prejudicial question, the necessity of passing upon the
remaining issues is obviated. prLL

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of August 20, 1979 issued by public

respondent affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter, dated January 23, 1979,
calling for a certification election is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued by this Court shall continue
to be in force and effect until the status is cleared of respondent Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions (July Convention) in Case No. R4-LRD-M-9-
432-78 entitled "In the Matter of Certification Election Among Rank and File
Workers of Central Textile Mills, Inc., Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions, Petitioner, United CMC Textile Workers Union, Intervenor."
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ ., concur.
Teehankee, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes
1. p. 22, Rollo.
2. pp. 11-12, ibid.

3. pp. 15-21, ibid.

4. p. 32, ibid.

5. p. 130, ibid.
6. pp. 32-34, ibid.

7. pp. 35-37, ibid.

8. pp. 47-48, ibid.
9. pp. 49-55, ibid.

10. Standard Cigarette Workers Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 101 Phil.
126 (1.957).

11. Manila Paper Mills Employees vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 104 Phil. 10
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (1958).

12. Acoje Mines Employees and Acoje United Workers Union vs. Acoje Labor
Union and Acoje Mining Co., 104 Phil. 814 at 816 & 817 (1958).
13. B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B. F. Goodrich (Marikina Factory)
Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU, 49 SCRA 532 at 538-540
(1973).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com