G.R. No. L-40810 - United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines vs. Carmelo Noriel, et al.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-40810 October 3, 1975
UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION OF GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES (UEUGIP),petitioner,
vs.
HON. CARMELO NORIEL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS; GEORGE A. EDUVALA, REPRESENTATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS; and NATIONAL UNION OF GARMENTS, TEXTILE, CORDAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (GATCORD),respondents.
Benito P. Fabie for petitioner.
Assistant Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno and Solicitor Romeo C. de la Cruz for respondents Carmelo Noriel, etc., et al.
Hermon C. Lagman for respondents Unions.
FERNANDO,J.:
The plea for setting aside a certification election earnestly and vigorously pressed by petitioner in thiscertiorariand prohibition proceeding is predicated on the proposition that it was held under circumstances that manifested lack of fairness, thus raising a procedural due process question. There was an equally firm and vehement denial in a comprehensive comment filed on behalf of private respondent, National Union of Garments, Textile, Cordage and Allied Workers of the Philippines. The stress in the comment of respondent Director Carmelo Noriel1was on the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. As will be more fully discussed, a careful scrutiny of what transpired as revealed not only in the pleadings but in the oral argument will disclose that the attack on the certification election cannot succeed. The petition lacks merit.
The petition sought to have the certification election declared null and voidab initioand thus unenforceable, alleging that the contending parties in a pre-election conference conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations agreed that petitioner would be listed in the ballot as United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries Philippines (UEUGIP).2In the notice of the certification election, however, it was wilfully deleted and replaced by "a non-contending party, namely, Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), which, although an existing labor federation ... has nothing to do and has no interest or right of participation [therein]."3So it did appear likewise in the sample ballot.4As a result, there was confusion in the minds of independent voters and demoralization in the ranks of those inclined to favor petitioner.5There was a protest but it was not based on this ground; instead the grievance complained of referred to the alleged electioneering of nuns and a priest as observers or inspectors on behalf of private respondent.6The above notwithstanding, the certification election took place "on the scheduled date, May 24, 1975 and respondent GATCORD garnered the highest number of votes ...."7It was then set forth that despite such defect in the mode of conducting the election which for petitioner sufficed to cause "the nullity of the election in question," respondent Director Carmelo Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations "[was] about to certify respondent GATCORD as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the rank and file employees [and] workers of Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc."8Hence this petition with its overtones as indicated of an alleged violation of procedural due process.
The comment to the petition filed on behalf of private respondent National Union of Garments, Textile, Cordage and Allied Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) denied the imputation of irregularity and sought to clarify matters by a factual presentation of what did transpire. At the outset, however, it made clear that the petitioner, which garnered only 291 votes or 4.5% of the total number of votes cast as against the 3,970 or 63% of the votes in its favor, certainly could not be heard to challenge the validity of the certification election. Thus: "1. Pursuant to an order of the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor, a certification election was conducted on 24 May 1975 in Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc., South Superhighway, Parañaque, Rizal, to choose the collective bargaining agent of the company's rank and file employees; 2. The certification election was conducted and supervised by the Bureau of Labor Relations; it took almost the entire personnel of the Bureau, including the Director himself, to man the election, there were 11 precincts, each of which was presided over by a med-arbiter of the Bureau, as chairman, and another representation officer of the Bureau; there was also created a central election committee composed of four top personnel of the Bureau for optimum supervision; 3. There were some 8,900 eligible voters out of about10,000employees of the company; out of the 8,900 eligible voters, duly agreed upon by all the parties and approved by the Bureau,6,309or79.7%voted; out of the 6,309 eligible voters cast,3970or63%went to GATCORD, [with UEUGIP placing] onlyfifthwith a measly 291 votes or barely 4.5% of the total number of votes cast. It may be noted that even if the votes of all seven losing unions[were added], their total would only be 2,057, which is still 1,823 votes short of GATCORD's 2,970 votes. It is thus clear that GATCORD won by an overwhelming majority:"
At any rate, after the Court considered the comments as answers and set the case for hearing, with arguments coming from both counsel Benito Fabie for petitioner and Jose W. Diokno for private respondent, and with the labor leader Antonio Diaz referred to in the comment of private respondent being questioned and presenting petitioner's side of the controversy, a much clearer picture emerged. It was none too favorable for petitioner.
As noted at the outset, we find for respondents.ℒαwρhi৷The petition lacks merit.
1. The institution of collective bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. As labor, however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification election. So our decisions from the earliest case ofPLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Co. Free Telephone Workers Union14to the latest,Philippine Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers' Federation (PCWF) v. Court of Industrial Relations,15have made clear. Thus is one of the earliest cases, TheStandard Cigarette Workers' Union v. Court of Industrial Relations,16it was made clear in the opinion of Justice J. B. L. Reyes that "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."17For it is easily understandable how essential it is, in the language of former Chief Justice Concepcion, in the leading case ofLVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians Guild18"to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees."19There must be such an opportunity to determine which labor organization shall act on their behalf.20It is precisely because respect must be accorded to the will of labor thus ascertained that a general allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate a certification election; it must be shown by competent and credible proof.21That is to give substance to the principle of majority rule, one of the basic concepts of a democratic polity.22The matter is summarized thus in one of the latest decisions of this Court,Federation of the United Workers Organization v. Court of Industrial Relations:23"The slightest doubt cannot therefore be entertained that what possesses significance in a petition for certification is that through such a device the employees are given the opportunity to make known who shall have the right to represent them. What is equally important is that not only some but all of them should have the right to do so."24If heed be paid to the above well-settled principle and applied to the facts disclosed in the present petition, it would be apparent that the grievance spoken of is more fancied than real, the assertion of confusion and demoralization based on conjecture rather than reality. The mode and manner in which Antonio Diaz demonstrated how militant and articulate he could be in presenting his side of the controversy could hardly argue for the accuracy of his claim that his men did lose heart by what appeared at the most to be an honest mistake, if it could be characterized as one. Certainly then, the accusation that there was abuse of discretion, much less a grave one, falls to the ground.
2. Nor need this Court pass upon the ground of protest based on the alleged participation by nuns and a priest who presumably aided the cause of private respondent. Petitioner did not choose to press this point. It is understandable why. In the leading case ofVictoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union,25this Court, through Justice Zaldivar, left no doubt as to the privacy of religious freedom, to which contractual rights, even on labor matters, must yield, thus removing any taint of nullity from the amendment to the Industrial Peace Act,26which would allow exemption from a closed shop on the part of employees, members of a given religious sect prohibiting its devotees from affiliating with any labor organization. Subsequently, inBasa v. Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera,27such doctrine was reaffirmed, thus emphasizing that one's religious convictions may be the basis for an employee joining or refusing to join a labor union. Certainly, the wide latitude accorded religious groups in the exercise of their constitutional freedom would caution against reliance on such aground to invalidate a certification election. It thus appears that such an approach is reflected in the attitude adopted by petitioner, which in effect amounts to an abandonment of such a possible ground of protest, not at all lodged with this Court but merely mentioned in its recital of background facts.
3. During the hearing of this case, reference was made to the registration of private respondent allegedly having been revoked. As the pleadings do not touch upon the matter at all, this Court is not in a position to rule on such a question. The decision therefore leaves that particular aspect of the litigation open.
WHEREFORE,the petition forcertiorariand prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order issued by this Court is lifted. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur.
Concepcion Jr., J, is on leave.
Footnotes