G.R. No. 96425 February 4, 1992 (case #4) PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-ARBITER EDGARDO DELA CRUZ and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN)-TUCP FACTS: Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union, was issued charter certificate. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit. Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II Section 3, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and by-laws; (b) names, addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of accounts. Respondent Kilusan submitted a rejoinder to PDC's motion to dismiss claiming that it had submitted the necessary documentary requirements for registration, such as the constitution and by-laws of the local union, and the list of officers/members with their addresses. Kilusan further averred that no books of accounts could be submitted as the local union was only recently organized. In its "Supplemental Position Paper" the petitioner insisted that upon verification with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), it found that the alleged minutes of the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list of members did not bear the corresponding signatures of the purported members, and the constitution and by-laws did not bear the signature of the members and was not duly subscribed. It argued that the private respondent therefore failed to substantially comply with the registration requirements provided by the rules. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not said petition should be granted. HELD: YES. In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, and attested to by president is apparent. The submission of the required documents (and payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's basis for approval of the application for registration. Upon approval, the labor union acquires legal personality and is entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization. The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona fide organization, one which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay these apprehensions of management. Not only is the issuance of any false statement and misrepresentation a ground for cancellation of registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury. In the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted in the BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president, were not certified under oath by the secretary of the PDEU KILUSAN. Hence, failure of the latter to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.

CASE NO. 5
G.R. No. 89609 January 27, 1992 NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP)-TUCP vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations; and the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW)-FGT-KMU FACTS: On November 14, 1984, private respondent National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSWFGT-KMU) and employer Dacongcogon Sugar and Rice Milling Co., Inc entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for a term of three (3) years, which was to expired on November 14, 1987. When the CBA expired, private respondent NFSW-FGT-KMU and Dacongcogon negotiated for its renewal. The CBA was extended for another three (3) years with reservation to negotiate for its amendment, particularly on wage increases, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment. Petitioner NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition for direct certification or certification election among the rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. Private respondent NFSW-FGT-KMU moved to dismiss the petition. The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss filed by private respondent NFSW-FGT-KMU and directed the conduct of certification election among the rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. Respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not said petition is meritorious. HELD: The Court finds the petition devoid of merit. The petition for certification election filed by the petitioner NACUSIP-TUCP should be dismissed outright, having been filed outside the 60-day freedom period or a period of more than one (1) year after the CBA expired. It is a rule in this jurisdiction that only a certified collective bargaining agreement i.e., an agreement duly certified by the BLR may serve as a bar to certification elections. It is noteworthy that the Bureau of Labor Relations duly certified the November 14, 1984 collective bargaining agreement. Hence, the contract-bar rule as embodied in Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the rules implementing the Labor Code is applicable. This rule simply provides that a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except within the freedom period, as it is called, when the said agreement is about to expire. The purpose, obviously, is to ensure stability in the relationships of the workers and the management by preventing frequent modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period.

CASE NO.6
G.R. No. L-59167 August 31, 1984 VICMICO INDUSTRIAL WORKERS ASSOCIATION (VIWA), represented herein by ts President, PAQUITO V. ANDO vs. THE HONORABLE CARMELO NORIEL, in his capacity as BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS DIRECTOR, represented by his Officer-in-Charge ROMEO A. YOUNG, and the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW)
FACTS:

The National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) filed a petition for a certification election among the rank and file members of the Victories Milling Company, Inc. The petitioner alleged, among others, that more than 30% of the total work force supported its petition, attaching the signatures of said union members. Vicmico Industrial Workers Association (VIWA) filed a "Motion to Dismiss" alleging that the petition for certification election filed by NFSW failed to comply with the 30% requirement of the employees of the bargaining unit because the signatures submitted by NFSW are either forgeries, duplications, obtained thru misrepresentation and/or signed by managerial employees, extra laborers and security guards. The Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss after finding that "there are 1,323 signatures which all appear to be genuine and ordered "a certification election be made among the rank and file workers/employees of VICMICO within 20 days after receipt of this order by the parties. VIWA filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that 605 bona fide rank and file members of the VIWA have disaffiliated with NFSW. NFSW appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations sustained NFSW's appeal from the order dated August 12, 1981, of the MedArbiter and ordered a certification election at VICMICO. Hence, this petition by VIWA assailing the decision of respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed decision should be dismissed. HELD: The Court states that there is no showing of arbitrary or improvident exercise of authority to justify the granting of a writ of certiorari. The petition must be dismissed. The factual finding arrived at by respondent director that the 1,323 signatures submitted and attached to the petition at the time it was filed constitute more than 30% of the total 3,017 rank and file is conclusive to the Court. To set aside this finding "is contrary to the constant holding of this Tribunal in a host of cases.