3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 453

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano

*
G.R. No. 75810. September 9, 1991 .

KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO

(KAMPILKATIPUNAN), petitioner, vs. HON.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, in his capacity as Director,
Bureau of Labor Relations, and VIRON GARMENTS
MFG., CO., INC., respondents.

Labor Law; Labor Organization; The prohibition imposed by

law on the holding of a certification election within one year from
the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification election
result can have no application to the case at bar.—It is evident
that the prohibition imposed by law on the holding of a
certification election “within one year from the date of issuance of
declaration of a final certification election result"—in this case
from February 27, 1981, the date of the Resolution declaring
NAFLU the exclusive bargaining representative of rank-and-file
workers of VIRON—can have no application, to the case at bar.
That one-year period—known as the “certification year” during
which the certified union is required to negotiate with the
employer, and certification election is prohibited—has long since
expired.
Same; Same; Same; Fact that prior to the filing of the petition
for election in this case, there was no such bargaining deadlock
which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had
been become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout
certain.—Again it seems fairly certain that prior to the filing of
the petition for election in this case, there was no such
“bargaining deadlock x x (which) had been submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid
notice of strike or lockout.” To be sure, there are in the record
assertions by NAFLU that its attempts to bring VIRON to the
negotiation table had been unsuccessful because of the latter’s
recalcitrance, and unfulfilled promises to bargain collectively; but
there is no proof that it had taken any action to legally coerce ce
VIRON to comply with its statutory duty to bargain collectively. It
could have charged VIRON with unfair labor practice; but it did

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

not. It could have gone on a legitimate strike in protest against

VIRON’s refusal to bargain collectively and compel it to do so; but
it did not. There are assertions by NAFLU, too, that its attempts
to bargain collectively had been delayed by continuing challenges
to the resolution pronouncing it the sole bargaining
representative in VIRON; but there is no adequate

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

454

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano

substantiation thereof, or of how it did in fact prevent initiation of

the bargaining process between it and VIRON.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION of certiorari to review the

decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Esteban M. Mendoza for petitioner.

R E S O LU T I O N

NARVASA, J.:

The propriety of holding a certification election is the issue

in the special civil action of certiorari at bar.
By virtue of a Resolution of the Bureau of Labor
Relations dated February 27, 1981, the National
Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) was declared the
exclusive bargaining representative of all rank-and-file
employees of Viron Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc.
(VIRON).
More than four years thereafter, or on April 11, 1985,
another union, the Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
(KAMPILKatipunan) filed with the Bureau of Labor
Relations a petition for certification election among the
employees of VIRON. The petition allegedly counted with
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

the support of more than thirty percent (30%) of the

workers at VIRON.
NAFLU opposed the petition, as might be expected, The
MedArbiter however ordered, on June 14, 1985, that a
certification election be held at VIRON as prayed for, after
ascertaining that KAMPIL had complied with all the
requirements of law and that since the certification of
NAFLU as sole bargaining representative in 1981, no
collective bargaining agreement had been executed
between it and VIRON.
NAFLU appealed. It contended that at the time the
petition for certification election was filed on April 11,
1985, it was in process of collective bargaining with
VIRON; that there was in fact a deadlock in the
negotiations which had prompted it to file a notice of strike;
and that these circumstances constituted a bar to the
petition for election in accordance with Section 3, Rule V,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
455

VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 455

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano

1
Code, reading as follows:

“SEC;. 3. 3. When to file.—In the absence of a collective

bargaining agreement submitted in accordance with Article 231 of
the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed at any
time. However, no certification election may be held within one
year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification
election result. Neither may a representation question be
entertained if, before the filing of a petition for certification
election, a bargaining deadlock to which 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.
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered
in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
agreement.”

Finding merit in a NAFLU’s appeal, the Director of Labor

Relations rendered a Resolution on April 30, 1986 setting
aside the Med-Arbiter’s Order of June 14, 1985 and
dismissing KAMPIL’s petition for certification election.
This disposition is justified in the Resolution as follows:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

“x x While it may be true that the one-year period (mentioned in

Section 3 above quoted) has long run its course since intervenor
NAFLU was certified 011 February 27, 1981, it could not be said,
however, that NAFLU slept on its right to bargain collectively
with the employer. If a closer look was made on the history of
labormanagement relations in the company, it could be readily
seen that the delay in the negotiations for and conclusion of a
collective agreement—the object of the one-year period—could be
attributed first, on the exhaustion of all legal remedies in the
representation question twice initiated in the company before the
filing of the present petition and second, to management who had
been resisting the representations of NAFLU in collective
bargaining.
The one-year period therefore, should not be applied literally to
the present dispute, especially considering that intervenor had to
undergo a strike to bring management to the negotiation table. x
x.”

________________

1 As amended by Sec. 3, Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Bilang

130.’

456

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano

KAMPIL moved for reconsideration, and when this was

denied, instituted in this Court the present certiorari
action.
It is evident that the prohibition imposed by law on the
holding of a certification election “within one year from the
date of issuance of declaration of a final certification
election result"—in this case, from February 27, 1981, the
date of the Resolution declaring NAFLU the exclusive
bargaining representative of rank-and-file workers of
VIRON—can have no application to the case at bar. That
one-year period—known as the “certification year” during
which the certified union is required to negotiate2
with the
employer, and certification election is prohibited —has long
since expired.
Thus the question for resolution is whether or not
KAMPIL’s petition for certification election is barred
because, before its filing, a bargaining deadlock between
VIRON and NAFLU, as the incumbent bargaining agent,
had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had
become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout, in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

accordance with Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus

Rules above quoted.
Again it seems fairly certain that prior to the filing of
the petition for election in this case, there was no such
“bargaining deadlock x x (which) had been submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a
valid notice of strike or lockout.” To be sure, there are in
the record assertions by NAFLU that its attempts to bring
VIRON to the negotiation table had been unsuccessful
because of the latter’s recalcitrance,
3
and unfulfilled
promises to bargain collectively; but there is no proof that’
it had taken any action to legally coerce VIRON to comply
with its statutory duty to bargain collectively. It could have
charged VIRON with unfair labor practice; but it did not. It
could have gone on a legitimate strike in protest against
VIRON’s refusal to bargain collectively and compel it to do
so; but it did not. There are assertions by NAFLU, too, that

________________

2 SEE Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1391.

3 Comment filed by public respondent himself dated Sept. 14, 1987
(Rollo, pp. 60, 63) in view of the refusal of the Solicitor General to do so
(Rollo, pp. 34–44).

457

VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 457

Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano

its attempts to bargain collectively had been delayed by

continuing challenges to the resolution pronouncing it the
sole bargaining representative in VIRON; but there is no
adequate substantiation thereof, or of how it did in fact
prevent initiation of the bargaining process between it and
VIRON.
The stark, incontrovertible fact is that from February
27, 1981—when NAFLU was proclaimed the exclusive
bargaining representative of all VIRON employees—to
April 11, 1985—when KAMPIL filed its petition for
certification election—or a period of more than four (4)
years, no collective bargaining agreement was ever
executed, and no deadlock ever arose from negotiations
between NAFLU and VIRON resulting in conciliation
proceedings or the filing of a valid strike notice.
The respondents advert to a strike declared by NAFLU
on October 26, 1986 for refusal of VIRON to bargain and
for violation of terms and conditions of employment, which
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

was settled by the parties’ agreement, and to another strike

staged on December 6,1986 in connection with a claim of
violation of said agreement, a dispute which has since been
certified for compulsory4
arbitration by the Secretary of
Labor & Employment. Obviously, however, these activities
took place after the initiation of the certification election
case by KAMPIL, and it was grave abuse of discretion to
have regarded them as precluding the holding of the
certification election thus prayed for.
WHEREFORE, it being apparent that none of the
proscriptions to certification election set out in the law
exists in the case at bar, and it was in the premises grave
abuse of discretion to have ruled otherwise, the contested
Resolution of the respondent Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations dated April 30, 1986 in BLR Case No. A-7–
139–85 (BZEO-CE-04–004–85) is NULLIFIED AND SET
ASIDE. Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.

     Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Resolution nullified and set aside.

________________

4 Rollo, p. 63.

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Note.—Discretion should be given to the Bureau of

Labor Relations in deciding whether or not to grant a
petition for certification election. (Airtime Specialists, Inc.
vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 180 SCRA 749.)

——oOo——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
3/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017100696ca03a881662003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7