When the petition for certification election had already been filed and was then

pending resolution
http://www.ustcivillaw.com/Jurisprudence/1988/gr_75321_1988.php
The Court will not rule on the merits and/or defects of the new CBA and shall only consider the fact
that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by
TUPAS and was then pending resolution. The said CBA cannot be deemed permanent, precluding
the commencement of negotiations by another union with the management. In the meantime
however, so as not to deprive the workers of the benefits of the said agreement, it shall be
recognized and given effect on a temporary basis, subject to the results of the certification
election. The agreement may be continued in force if ATU is certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers or may be rejected and replaced in the event that TUPAS emerges as the
winner.
This ruling is consistent with our earlier decisions on interim arrangements of this kind where we
declared:
... we are not unmindful that the supplemental collective bargaining contract, entered into in
the meanwhile between management and respondent Union contains provisions beneficial to
labor. So as not to prejudice the workers involved, it must be made clear that until the
conclusion of a new collective bargaining contract entered into by it and whatever labor
organization may be chosen after the certification election, the existing labor contract as thus
supplemented should be left undisturbed. Its terms call for strict compliance. This mode of
assuring that the cause of labor suffers no injury from the struggle between contending labor
organization follows the doctrine announced in the recent case of Vassar Industries
Employees v. Estrella (L-46562, March 31, 1978). To quote from the opinion. "In the
meanwhile, if as contended by private respondent labor union the interim collective
bargaining agreement which it engineered and entered into on September 26, 1977 has,
much more favorable terms for the workers of private respondent Vassar Industries,
then it should continue in full force and effect until the appropriate bargaining
representative is chosen and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement
thereafter concluded." 10

When it is a case of pendency of a petition for cancellation of

union registration
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/18490304.pdf
The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does
not preclude collective bargaining.

The 2005 case of Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Hon. Trajano13 is apropos. The
respondent union therein sent a letter to petitioner requesting a negotiation of
their CBA. Petitioner refused to bargain and instead filed a petition for
cancellation of the unions certificate of registration. Petitioners refusal to
bargain forced the union to file a notice of strike. They eventually staged a strike.
The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor. 13 501 Phil. 144
(2005).
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 184903-04 dispute and ordered all striking workers to return
to work. Petitioner challenged said order by contending that its petition for
cancellation of unions certificate of registration involves a prejudicial question
that should first be settled before the Secretary of Labor could order the parties
to bargain collectively. When the case eventually reached this Court, we agreed
with the Secretary of Labor that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of
union registration does not preclude collective bargaining, thus:
That there is a pending cancellation proceeding against the
respondent Union is not a bar to set in motion the
mechanics of collective bargaining. If a certification election
may still be ordered despite the pendency of a petition to
cancel the unions registration certificate (National Union of
Bank Employees vs. Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274), more
so should the collective bargaining process continue
despite its pendency. We must emphasize that the
majority status of the respondent Union is not
affected by the pendency of the Petition for
Cancellation pending against it. Unless its certificate
of registration and its status as the certified
bargaining agent are revoked, the Hospital is, by express
provision of the law, duty bound to collectively bargain with
the Union.14
Trajano was reiterated in Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang
Manggagawa ng Legenda (KML-Independent). 15 Legend International Resorts
reiterated the rationale for allowing the continuation of either a CBA process or a
certification election even during the pendency of proceedings for the
cancellation of the unions certificate of registration. Citing the cases of
Association of Court of Appeals Employees v. FerrerCalleja16 and Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma,17 it was pointed out at the
time of the filing of the petition for certification election or a CBA process as in
the instant case the union still had the personality to file a petition for
certification or to ask for a CBA negotiation as in the present
case.

14 Id. at 150. 15 G.R. No. 169754, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 94, 106. 16 G.R.
No. 94716, 15 November 1991, 203 SCRA 596. 17 334 Phil. 955 (1997).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/155690.htm
In order to allow an employer to validly suspend the bargaining
process, there must be a valid petition for certification election. The
mere filing of a petition does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation
by the employer (Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Association of Employees
and Faculty of Letran and Eleanor Ambas, G.R. No. 141471, September 18,
2000). If pending a petition for certification, the collective bargaining is allowed
by the Supreme Court to proceed, with more reason should the collective
bargaining (in this case) continue since the High Court had recognized the
respondent as the certified bargaining agent in spite of several petitions for
cancellation filed against it.
We are also not convinced by the arguments raised by the petitioner with
respect to its third assigned error. This Court fails to see any supervening event
that would render the execution of the decision of public respondent impossible.
The petitioner asserts that the respondent union has lost its legitimacy, but at
every turn it has been ruled by the various labor administrative officials that the
respondent union is legitimate. It has failed to convince the labor administrative
officials, We are likewise not persuaded. Unless and until the Certificate of
Registration of the union is cancelled, it (union) remains the certified
bargaining agent and the Hospital has the duty to enter into a
collective bargaining agreement with it.
As aptly stated by the Solicitor General in his comment on the petition, the
Secretary of Labor correctly ruled that the pendency of a petition for
cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective
bargaining, thus:
That there is a pending cancellation proceedings against the
respondent Union is not a bar to set in motion the mechanics of
collective bargaining. If a certification election may still be ordered
despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the unions registration

certificate (National Union of Bank Employees vs. Minister of Labor, 110

SCRA 274), more so should the collective bargaining process continue
despite its pendency.
We must emphasize that the majority status of the respondent Union is not
affected by the pendency of the Petition for Cancellation pending against it.
Unless its certificate of registration and its status as the certified
bargaining agent are revoked, the Hospital is, by express provision of
the law, duty bound to collectively bargain with the Union. Indeed, no
less than the Supreme Court already ordered the Hospital to collectively bargain
with the Union when it affirmed the resolution of this Office dated November 18,
1994 directing the management of the Hospital to negotiate a collective
bargaining agreement with the Union. That was the categorical directive of the
High Court in its Resolution dated February 4, 1997 in Capitol Medical Center
Alliance of Concerned Employees-United Filipino Service Worker vs. Hon.
Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al., G.R. No. L-118915.