4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

VOL.214,SEPTEMBER18,1992 129
HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor
*
G.R.No.96255.September18,1992.

HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE

SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO
E.LAQUESMA,MEDARBITERMELCHORS.LIMANDTHE
NATIONALFEDERATIONOFLABOR,respondents.

Labor Relations Bargaining Representative Employer not party to

certification election.In a long line of decisions, this Court has
undeviatinglyruledthattheemployerisnotapartytoacertificationelection
whichisthesoleorexclusiveconcernoftheworkers(RizalWorkersUnion
vs. FerrerCalleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective
bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His
participation, to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement (Consolidated
Farms,Inc.vs.Noriel,84SCRA469FilipinoMetalsCorp.vs.Ople,107
SCRA 211). The only instance when the employer may be involved in that
processiswhenitisobligedtofileapetitionforcertificationelectiononits
workersrequesttobargaincollectivelypursuanttoArticle258oftheLabor
Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the employers
involvementceases,anditbecomesaneutralbystander.

PETITIONforcertioraritoreviewthedecisionoftheNational
LaborRelationsCommission.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
DemosthenesS.Babanforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforpublicrespondents.

GRIOAQUINO,J.:
** ***
Thispetitionforcertiorari seekstosetasidetheresolution dated
September 17, 1990 of the Undersecretary of Labor in the case
entitled,NationalFederationofLaborvs.HerculesIndustries,Inc.
denyingthehereinpetitionersappealfromre

__________________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

** Atty. Demosthenes S. Baban for petitioner and the Solicitor General for the

publicrespondents.
***IssuedbyUndersecretaryofLabor,BienvenidoE.Laquesma.

130

130 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor

spondent MedArbiters Order dated May 25, 1990 declaring the

National Federation of Labor (NFL) as the sole and exclusive
bargainingagentoftherankandfileworkers/employeesofHercules
Industries,Inc.
HerculesIndustries,Inc.,hereinpetitioner,isacorporationduly
registered under Philippine laws which employs more or less one
hundredeighty(180)workers.
On July 30, 1987, private respondent National Federation of
Labor (NFL), a legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for
certificationelectionallegingthattheexistingcollectivebargaining
agreement would expire in August, 1987 and that it enjoys the
support of more than twenty per cent (20%) of the rank and file
employeesinthebargainingunit.
OnAugust21,1987,byagreementoftheparties,theMedArbiter
issued an order for the conduct of a certification election with the
followingchoices:

(1) NationalFederationofLabor(NFL)
(2) HerculesEmployeesLaborUnion(HELU)and
(3) NoUnion.

On September 21, 1987, a preelection conference was conducted.

Theparties,however,couldnotagreeonthelistofqualifiedvoters
who would participate in the election. Specifically, Hercules
Industries,Inc.chargedthatthelistincludedninetyeight(98)scabs
sixteen (16) capatazes eight (8) security guards and nine (9)
managerialemployees.
On October 26, 1987, the MedArbiter issued an order, the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, judgment should be, as it is

hereby promulgated, ordering the immediate conduct of the Certification
Election within fifteen (15) days from date hereof, at the premises of the
HerculesIndustries,Inc.,Laih,Siay,ZamboangadelSur,withalltheregular
rankandfileworkersappearinginthepayrollofJuly,1987,andthestrikers,
who have not executed Quitclaim and voluntarily accepted separation pay,
are eligible participants in the Certification Election, except those that are
hereinbelow expressly and categorically excluded by virtue of their being

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

classified as managerial employees, legally separated and barred under the

contemplationoflaw.

131

VOL.214,SEPTEMBER18,1992 131
HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor

A. MANAGERIALEMPLOYEES(Excluded)
xxxxxxxxx
B. SECURITYFORCEDEPARTMENT(Excluded)
xxxxxxxxx
C. STRIKES EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED DEED OF
QUITCLAIMANDVOLUNTARILYACCEPTEDSEPARATION
PAY(Excluded)
xxxxxxxxx

The representation officerdesignate is hereby ordered to post immediately

withinfive(5)dayspriortothedateofelectionthenoticesofCertification
Electiontogetherwiththemasterlistofeligiblevotersinconspicuousplaces
atthepremisesoftherespondent.(pp.2728,Rollo.)

On November 4, 1987, NFL appealed the order to the Bureau of

LaborRelations(BLRCaseNo.A11088LRDCaseNo.01487)
onthefollowinggrounds:

1. The MedArbiter erred in unqualifiedly accepting all the names

appearingintheJuly1987payrollaseligiblevotersandinallowing
the98contractreplacementworkerstovoteand
2. TheMedArbitererredindisregardingthefactthatanearlierorder
forcertificationelectionhadalreadybeenhandeddownandthatthe
workerswereonstrike.(p.29,Rollo.)

Pending the resolution of the NFLs appeal, a certification election

wasconductedonNovember7,1990.
On January 6, 1988, BLR Director Pura FerrerCalleja of the
DOLErenderedadecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted and the

certificationelectionheldon7November1987declarednullandvoid.
Let a new certification election among the rank and file workers of
Hercules Industries, Inc. be held. The payroll of July 1987 excluding the
[ninetyeight]98scabreplacement,shallbethebasisofthevoterslist.(p.
32,Rollo.)

132

132 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor

On April 4, 1990, a preelection conference attended by the

management of Hercules Industries, Inc. and NFLs representatives
was held at the Department of Labor and Employment Regional
Office in Zamboanga City. The NFL asked that a certification
election be immediately scheduled on May 4, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to
beheldintheBarangayHall,Bato,Siay,ZamboangadelSur.
Accordingly, a certification election was held on May 4, 1990
withthefollowingresults:

1. NATIONALFEDERATIONOFLABOR................. 89 Votes
2. HERCULESLUMBER&EMPLOYEESLABOR 0 (Zero)
UNION.....................................................
3. MANAGEMENT(NOUNION) 0 (Zero)
.................................
4. SPOILED/INVALID 2 (Votes)
VOTES......................................
TOTALVOTESCAST:............................ 91 Votes
(p.188,Rollo.)

OnMay25,1990,MedArbiterMelchorS.Limissuedaresolution
declaringandcertifyingtheNationalFederationofLaborasthesole
andexclusivebargainingagentoftherankandfileemployeesofthe
petitioner.
On July 5, 1990, the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration/appealwiththeDOLE.ItwasdeniedonSeptember
17, 1990 by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laquesma on the
groundsthatSections3and4,Rule6,BookVoftheImplementing
RulesoftheLaborCodeonprotestshadnotbeenfollowedthatthe
records disclose that no protest was made before the election, nor
formalizedwithinfive(5)daysaftertheelection,asprovidedforby
the rules and the DOLE has not found any legal obstacle to the
proclamation of the NFL as the collective bargaining agent of
petitionersworkers.
On September 29, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied on October 26, 1990 by
UndersecretaryLaquesma.
Hence,thepresentrecourse.
OnJanuary21,1991,ZamboangaRubberWorkersUnion,aduly
organized labor union affiliated with the Philippine Integrated
IndustriesLaborUnion,filedamotionforinterventioninthisCourt
allegingthatithadrequestedthepetitionerin

133

VOL.214,SEPTEMBER18,1992 133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor

writingtorecognizeitasthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentof
itsworkers.ThemotionwasnotedbythisCourtwithoutaction.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner,
HerculesIndustries,Inc.,asemployer,mayquestionthevalidityof
the certification election among its rankandfile employees. The
answerisno.
Inalonglineofdecisions,thisCourthasundeviatinglyruledthat
the employer is not a party to a certification election which is the
soleorexclusiveconcernoftheworkers(Rizal Workers Union vs.
FerrerCalleja, 186 SCRA 431). In the choice of their collective
bargainingrepresentative,theemployerisdefinitelyanintruder.His
participation, to put it mildly, deserves no encouragement
(ConsolidatedFarms,Inc.vs.Noriel,84SCRA469FilipinoMetals
Corp.vs.Ople,107SCRA211).
The only instance when the employer may be involved in that
process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification
election on its workers request to bargain collectively pursuant to
Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification
electionissues,theemployersinvolvementceases,anditbecomesa
neutralbystander.(RizalWorkersUnionvs.Calleja,supra.)
In this case, the Solicitor General correctly observed that while
the employees themselves never requested the petitioner to bargain
collectively,still,theydidnotobjecttotheresultsofthecertification
election.Hence,petitionersappealtotheBureauofLaborRelations
from the MedArbiters Order certifying the NFL as the exclusive
bargainingagentofitsrankandfileemployees,anditsfilingofthis
petition for certiorari with us, must be rejected. The employers
intervention in the certification election of its workers is frowned
uponbylaw.
In any event, petitioners challenge against the validity of the
certification election of May 4, 1990 is devoid of merit. Its
allegations that no notice of the certification election had been
issued,hence,nocopiesofsaidnoticeweregiventoit,norpostedin
conspicuousplaceswithinthecompanyspremisesthatthepayroll
of July 1987 was not used as the basis of the voters list and that
only fifteen (15) out of the ninety eight (98) voters signed their
namesshowingthattheyactuallyvoted,werebeliedbytheminutes
ofthepreelectionconference(An

134

134 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
HerculesIndustries,Inc.vs.SecretaryofLabor

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

nex A of Comment of private respondent) which showed that

petitionerwasdulynotifiedoftheconferenceandattendedthesame,
andthatduringsaidconferencetheMedArbitersetthecertification
electiononMay4,1990.
The minutes of the certification election (Annex C of private
respondentsComment)alsoshowthatthelistofthenamesofthe
voters were (sic) copied from the payroll of 1987 per order of the
Director,BureauofLaborRelations,Manila,xxx(p.188,Rollo).
Finally, the same minutes certified that: The certification
electionjustconcluded was conductedin the most just, honest and
freely(sic)mannerwithoutuntowardhappening.Further,wecertify
that the result above is true and correct (p. 188, Rollo) thereby
refuting petitioners allegation that only fifteen (15) out of ninety
eight(98)workerssignedthemasterlisttoshowthattheyactually
votedagain.
Besides, neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the
certification election show that petitioner protested the conduct of
the certification election as provided in Section 3 of Rule VI
(ELECTIONS)ofBookVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingthe
LaborCodewhichstates:

Sec.3.Representationofficermayruleonanyonthespotquestions.The
Representationofficermayruleonanyonthespotquestionarisingfromthe
conductoftheelection.Theinterestedpartymayhowever,fileaprotestwith
therepresentationofficerbeforethecloseoftheproceedings.
Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be
containedintheminutesoftheproceedings.(Italicsours.)

Onthebasisoftheelectionminutes,whicharetheonlyrelevantand
competentevidenceontheconductoftheelection,theMedArbiter
did not err in declaring the NFL as the duly elected exclusive
bargaining agent of the petitioners rank and file workers. That
findingshouldbeaccordednotonlyrespectbutalsofinalitybythis
Court for it is supported by substantial evidence (Chuavs.NLRC,
182SCRA354).
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
assailed decision of the NLRC, the petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED,withcostsagainstthepetitioner.

135

VOL.214,SEPTEMBER18,1992 135
MabuhayVinylCorporationvs.NLRC

SOORDERED.

MedialdeaandBellosillo,JJ.,concur.
Cruz,J.,(Chairman),Onleave.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
4/17/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME214

Petitiondismissed.

Note.An employer has no standing to question a certification

election, such concern must come from the employees themselves
(Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. vs. FerrerCalleja, 174
SCRA477).

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b7c7ac28494c14938003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7