24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED rendered nugatory if they could not choose their own

Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de leaders to speak on their behalf and to bargain for them.” It
Filipinas vs. Noriel cannot be otherwise, for the freedom to choose which labor
organization to join is an aspect of the constitutional
No. L-41937. July 6, 1976. *

mandate of protection to labor.

FEDERACION OBRERA DE LA INDUSTRIA Same; Same; Labor must be represented by a union
TABAQUERA Y OTROS TRABAJADORES DE that can express its collective will.—It is thus of the very
FILIPINAS (FOITAF-ASSOCIATED ANGLO essence of the regime of industrial democracy sought to be
AMERICAN CHAPTER), petitioner, vs. THE attained through the collective bargaining process that
HONORABLE CARMELO NORIEL, in his capacity as there be no obstacle to the freedom identified with the
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, all officers exercise of the right to self-organization. Labor is to be
acting in his behalf, and FEDERATION OF FREE represented by a union that can express its collective will.
WORKERS (FFW-ANGLO AMERICAN EMPLOYEES In the event, and this is usually the case, that there is more
CHAPTER), respondents. than one such group fighting for that privilege, a
________________ certification election must be conducted.
Same; Same; Where a petition for certification election
* SECOND DIVISION. has the support of more than 30% of the rank-and-file
25
employees, it becomes mandatory to hold a certification
VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 25
election.—There can be no legitimate objection to the
Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de holding of a certification election not only in the light of the
Filipinas vs. Noriel basic theory of labor statutes from C.A. 213 to the present
Labor law; Certification election; Employees have the Labor Code, but also in view of the factual finding that the
constitutional right to choose which labor organization to verified petition by private respondent labor union had the
join.—Petitioner labor union was in the past apparently support of more than thirty percent of the rank and file
able to enlist the allegiance of the working force in the employees. Such being the case, it becomes, in the language
Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, thereafter, a number of the new Labor Code, “mandatory for the Bureau to
of such individuals joined private respondent labor union. conduct a certification election for the purpose of
That is a matter clearly left to their sole uncontrolled determining the representative of the employees in the
judgment. x x x “There is both a constitutional and appropriate collective bargaining unit and certify the
statutory recognition that laborers have the right to form winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
unions to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their of all the employees in the unit.”
employees. Their freedom to form organizations would be
 Same; Same; Alleged retraction of employees to holding Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant
of certification election can not be based on mere affidavit of Solicitor General Reynaldo S. Puno and Solicitor
the union president.—There is persuasiveness, likewise, to Ramon A. Barcelona for respondent Public Official.
the submission of Solicitor General Mendoza in the
comment filed, that the 13 employees who allegedly FERNANDO, J.:
retracted were not even presented before the med-
26
An order of respondent Carmelo Noriel, Director of the
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bureau of Labor Relations, for the holding of a 1

6
certification election is assailed in this certiorari
Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores proceeding for its alleged failure to comply with the
de Filipinas vs. Noriel thirty percent requirement of the new Labor Code. It 2

arbiter and that the alleged additional 45 employees, is admitted by petitioner labor union that
who supposedly likewise change their minds, were also not ________________
called to testify to that effect, petitioner satisfying itself
with their being named in an affidavit executed by its 1 The private respondent is the Federation of Free Workers (FFW-Anglo
American Employees Chapter).
president. That would make, so it is plausibly contended, 2 According to Article 257 of the New Labor Code, Presidential Decree No. 442

such alleged retraction to be highly dubious in character. (1974): “Requisites for certification election.—Any petition for certification election
Same; Same; Factual finding of Director of Bureau of filed by any legitimate labor organization shall be supported by the written
consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Upon receipt
Labor Relations is conclusive on the Supreme Court.—The and verification of such petition, it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a
lack of merit in the petition is equally obvious considering certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the
that what is asked of this Court is, in the final analysis, to exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit.”
set aside a factual finding arrived at by respondent Director 27
after a careful consideration of all the relevant matters VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 27
pertinent to the issue. Again, that is contrary to the Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
constant holding of this Tribunal in a host of cases.
Filipinas vs. Noriel
PETITION for certiorari of an order of the Director of there were enough signatures but it is contended that
the Bureau of Labor. there was a change of mind on the part of a number of
the employees involved resulting in the requirement of
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. the law not being met. There is thus, so it is
Jose T. Maghari for petitioner. submitted, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
F.F. Bonifacio, Jr. for private respondent. arbitrariness. Respondent public official as well as
private respondent labor union were required to of private respondent, was admitted as an answer. It
comment. In such pleading submitted by Solicitor failed to do so.
General Estelito P. Mendoza on behalf of the former,
3 According to the comment of respondent official: “In
characterized by a meticulous and detailed reference to order to afford this Honorable Court with a clear
the background facts, there was an objective narration perspective of what actually transpired, summarized
of what did transpire. It did reduce to the vanishing hereunder are the antecedent
point whatever plausibility there was in the petition. ________________

What clearly emerged was that petitioner labor union 3 The comment submitted by Solicitor General Mendoza was likewise signed

is loathe to have its former members transfer their by Assistant Solicitor General Reynaldo S. Puno and Solicitor Ramon A.
Barcelona.
allegiance to private respondent union, a matter which 4 According to Article IV, Section 7 of the present Constitution: “The right to

could be even more obvious if the certification election form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.”
were held. There is thus no justification for sustaining 28
the stand taken by petitioner. To do so would be to 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
disregard previous authoritative doctrines on the Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
matter, involving the basic constitutional right of Filipinas vs. Noriel
freedom of association, made even more meaningful in
4
and salient facts of the case. 1. On March 20, 1975, the
labor matters by the statutory device of certification Federation of Free Workers (Associated Anglo-
election. That we are not disposed to do. We dismiss American Employees Chapter, hereinafter referred to
the petition. There was barely a mention of the as FFW), filed a verified petition for certification
relevant facts in the petition, the effort being election among the employees and workers of the
concentrated in the attempt to make out a case of Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation (company for
arbitrary and improvident exercise of authority on the brevity), alleging that more than 30% of its rank and
part of respondent Director. It is quite gratifying, file workers support the same. 2. On April 14, 1975,
therefore, as was mentioned above, to have the the company opposed the petition alleging that the
comment of respondent Director setting forth with petitioning union did not have the support of at least
accuracy and particularly the events that led to the 30% of the more than 1,000 workers of the company. 3.
challenged order. That it is impressed with accuracy is At the hearing of the case on April 21, 1975, the
not just an assumption. Petitioner was given a chance company alleged that there are 941 rank and file
to refute the same after such comment, along with that workers under its employ. Since respondent FFW had
then already submitted 283 signatures, the Med- requirement, ordered the certification election with the
Arbiter ruled that FFW had complied with the 30% following contending unions: 1. FFW (Associated
written consent requirement * * *. On the same date, Anglo-American Employees Chapter), 2 Federacion
Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros
Trabajadores de Filipinas (FOITAF for short)- Trabajadores de Filipinas (FOITAF), and, 3. No union
Associated Anglo-American Chapter, moved to desired * * *. 6. On May 9, 1975, petitioner FOITAF
intervene alleging legal interest in the case and the filed a letter
latter was granted time to substantiate its claim by 29
way of employee’s support. 4. Subsequently, at the VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 29
hearing on April 24, 1975, the list of the rank and file Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
employees of the company numbering 941, based on Filipinas vs. Noriel
the payroll as of March 1975, was submitted and it appeal from the aforesaid order of the Med-Arbiter on
was agreed at said hearing that after the petitioner the sole ground that FFW failed to comply with the
therein (FFW) had submitted its position paper, and 30% requirement. This was opposed by FFW
the Intervenor FOITAF its manifestation, the case will contending that the alleged retraction of the 13
be considered submitted for resolution * * *. On the employees can only be determined in a secret balloting
same date, however, FOITAF filed a motion and in a certification election 7. Meanwhile on May 29,
manifestation calling attention to an alleged retraction 1975, acting on a motion to stop the holding of a
or revocation of signatures to the petition coming from certification election filed by FOITAF, the Bureau of
thirteen (13) employees attaching thereto Annexes A, Labor Relations in an order of even date suspended the
B, C, D, and E, the letters of said retracting employees, holding of a certification election * * *. 8. During the
all claiming that they were forced to sign * * *. It is pendency of the appeal, the case was again set for
worthy of note that the letters of retraction by the further hearing on June 10, 1975, whereat four (4)
thirteen (13) employees were not under oath and none additional signatures supporting the petition for
of them was presented during the hearings to confirm certification election were presented by FFW and at
their alleged retractions. 5. Thus, on April 30 1975, the the same time the latter was permitted to submit its
Med-Arbiter assigned to the case, finding that FFW opposition to the list of 941 employees submitted by
had submitted 283 signatures of the company’s labor the company. On the other hand, FOITAF was allowed
force of 941 thereby complying with the 30% consent to submit its reply to FFW’s opposition after which the
matter was considered submitted for resolution * * *.
9. In an addendum, a manifestation to petitioner’s Relations, on August 29, 1975, issueda resolution
(FFW’s) opposition to appeal dated June 11, 1975, sustaining the previous order of the Med-Arbiter for a
FFW prayed for the exclusion of 124 employees from 30
the company’s list of 941 employees on the grounds 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
that some have either resigned, with double name Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
entries, casual employees with less than six months of Filipinas vs. Noriel
service and still others are confidential employees or certification election, the dispositive part of which
are part of management. * * * 10. FOITAF submitted reads. ‘Premises considered, and in order not to delay
its memorandum dated July 2, 1975, reiterating that any further the exercise of the employee’s right to form
the petition be dismissed for FFW’s failure to meet the a labor organization of their own choosing, the
30% requirement and alleging that an additional appealed order is affirmed. The Labor Organization
number of 32 workers have retracted their signatures Division, this Bureau, shall conduct the election and
to the petition for certification election. Still later, on the necessary exclusion and inclusion proceedings
July 9, 1975, FOITAF again filed a motion to dismiss, relative thereto. Accordingly, the company is enjoined
this time attaching merely an affidavit of its president, not to deal with any labor organization until after the
a certain Timbungco, to the effect that a total of 45 election has been conducted and the results have been
workers have retracted their signatures. It is worthy of conclusively determined.’ * * * 13. A motion for
note that the signatures of these alleged 45 retractors reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution, which was
were not presented. 11. Meanwhile, in the subsequent opposed by respondent FFW, was filed by the
hearings of the case, the company was requested to petitioner herein and on October 8, 1975, the Bureau
submit the job descriptions or other proofs relative to of Labor Relations denied the same.” 5

the duties of the 124 employees sought to be excluded The glaring weakness of the petition is thus fully
by FFW from the company’s list of 941 but despite exposed. As mentioned at the outset, it should be
repeated request therefor, the company submitted only dismissed for lack of merit.
the job descriptions of only 9 employees. Likewise, 1. Clearly, what is at stake is the constitutional
FOITAF did not present proof as to the alleged right to freedom of association on the part of
retraction of the 45 workers * * *. 12. On the basis of employees. Petitioner labor union was in the past
the foregoing, therefore, the Bureau of Labor apparently able to enlist the allegiance of the working
force in the Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation.
Thereafter, a number of such individuals joined
private respondent labor union. That is a matter Lovina, it was held that mandamus lies to compel the
12

clearly left to their sole uncontrolled judgment. There registration of a labor organization. There is this apt
is this excerpt from Pan American World Airways, Inc. summary of what is signified in Philippine Land-Air-
v. Pan American Employees Association: “There is 6 Sea Labor Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, “to 13

both a constitutional and statutory recognition that allow a labor union to organize itself and acquire a
laborers have the right to form unions to take care of personality distinct and separate from its members
their interests vis-a-vis their employees. Their freedom and to serve as an instrumentality to conclude
to form organizations would be rendered nugatory if collective bargaining agreements * * *.” It is no 14

they could not choose their own leaders to speak on coincidence that in the first decision of this Court
their behalf and to bargain for them.” It cannot be 7 citing the Industrial Peace Act, Pambujan United 15

otherwise, for the freedom to choose which labor Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Company, the role of 16

organization to join is an aspect of the constitutional a labor union as the agency for the expression of the
mandate of protection to labor. Prior to the 8 collective will affecting its members both present and
________________ prospective, was stressed. That statute certainly was
5 Comment of Respondent Public Official, 1-6. much more emphatic as to the vital aspect of such a
6 L-25094, April 29, 1969, 27 SCRA 1202. right as expressly set forth in the policy of the
7 Ibid, 1209.

8 According to Article II, Section 9 of the present Constitution: “The State shall
law. What is more, there is in such enactment this
17

afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, categorical provision on the right of employees to self-
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex race, or creed, and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The state shall assure the rights of organization: “Employees shall have the right to self-
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and organization and to form, join or assist labor
humane conditions of work. The State may provide for
31
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 31 collective bargaining through representatives of
________________
Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
Filipinas vs. Noriel compulsory arbitration.” In the 1935 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 6,
there is this provision: “The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to
Industrial Peace Act, there was a statute setting forth
9
working women and minors, and shall regulate the relation between landowner
the guidelines for the registration of labor unions. As 10 and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and agriculture.”
9 Republic Act No. 875 (1953).

implied in Manila Hotel Co. v. Court of Industrial 10 Commonwealth Act No. 213 (1936).

Relations, it was enacted pursuant to what is

11
11 80 Phil. 145 (1948).

12 86 Phil. 313 (1950).

ordained in the Constitution. Thus in Umali v. 13 93 Phil. 747 (1953).

 14

15
Ibid, 750.
Republic Act No. 875 (1953).
Cox, a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at
16 94 Phil. 932 (1954). Cf. Isaac Peral Bowling Alley v. United Employees work. The two parties to the relationship, labor and
Welfare Association, 102 Phil. 219 (1957).
17 Section 1(a) of the Industrial Peace Act reads as follows: “To eliminate the
management, make their own rules by coming to
causes of industrial unrest by encouraging and protecting the exercise by terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that
employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being.”
really count. As labor, however, is composed of a
32 number of individuals, it is indispensable that they be
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED represented by a labor organization of their choice.
Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification
Filipinas vs. Noriel election. So our decisions from the earliest case
their own choosing and to engage in concerted of PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Co. Free
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and Telephone Workers Union to the latest, Philippine
other mutual aid or protection.” The new Labor 18
Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers’
Code is equally explicit on the matter. Thus: “The
19
Federation (PCWF) v. Court of Industrial Relations,
State shall assure the rights of workers to self- have made clear.” An even later pronouncement in
22

organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure Philippine Association

________________
and just and humane conditions of work.” 20

2. It is thus of the very essence of the regime of 18 Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875 (1953).
Presidential Decree No. 442 (1974).
industrial democracy sought to be attained through
19

20 Article 3 of the New Labor Code.

the collective bargaining process that there be no 21 L-40810, October 3, 1975, 67 SCRA 267.

22 Ibid, 273. PLDT Employees’ Union case reported in 97 Phil. 424(1955) and
obstacle to the freedom identified with the exercise of Philippine Communications decision, L-34531 in 56 SCRA 480(1974). Reference
the right to self-organization. Labor is to be was also made to Standard Cigarette Workers’ Union in 101 Phil. 126 (1957); LVN
Pictures in 110 Phil. 725 (1961); Federation of United Workers, L-37392 in 54
represented by a union that can express its collective SCRA 305 (1973). Other cases mentioned in such opinion follow: Bacolod-Murcia
will. In the event, and this is usually the case, that Milling Co. v. National Employees-Workers Security Union, 100 Phil.
516 (1956); Philex Miners Union v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union, L-
there is more than one such group fighting for that 18019, Dec. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 992; Acoje Workers’ Union v. National
privilege, a certification election must be conducted. 33
That is the teaching of a recent decision, under the VOL. 72, JULY 6, 1976 33
new Labor Code, United Employees Union of Gelmart Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
Industries v. Noriel. There is this relevant excerpt:
21
Filipinas vs. Noriel
“The institution of collective bargaining is, to recall
of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor duty thus imposed on respondent Director, to ignore
Relations, speaks similarly: “Petitioner thus appears
23 the demand that it be held. It would follow, therefore,
to be woefully lacking in awareness of the significance that no grave abuse of discretion, much less
of a certification election for the collective bargaining arbitrariness, could be imputed to the rejection of the
process. It is the fairest and most effective way of plea
determining which labor organization can truly ________________

represent the working force. It is a fundamental Mines and Allied Workers’ Union, L-18848, April 23, 1963, 7 SCRA 730; Allied
postulate that the will of the majority, if given Workers Association v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-22580, June 6, 1967, 20
SCRA 364; Compania Maritima v. Compania Maritima Labor Union, L-29504,
expression in an honest election with freedom on the Feb. 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 464; Philippine American Association of Free Labor
part of the voters to make their choice, is controlling. Unions v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-33781, Oct. 31, 1972, 47 SCRA
390; Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino v. Benguet Consolidated Inc., L-35075,
No better device can assure the institution of Nov. 24, 1972, 48 SCRA 169; B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. v. B. F. Goodrich
industrial democracy with the two parties to a Confidential and Salaried Employees Union, L-34069, Feb. 28, 1973, 49 SCRA
532; Federation of Free Workers v. Paredes, L-36466, Nov. 26, 1973, 54 SCRA 75.
business enterprise, management and labor, 23 L-42115, January 27, 1976.

establishing a regime of selfrule.”24 24 Ibid.

25 Article 257 of the New Labor Code.

3. There can then be no legitimate objection to the 34

holding of a certification election not only in the light 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of the basic theory of labor statutes from Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
Commonwealth Act 213 to the present Labor Code, but Filipinas vs. Noriel
also in view of the factual finding that the verified of petitioner to set aside the challenged order, there is
petition by private respondent labor union had the persuasiveness, likewise, to the submission of Solicitor
support of more than thirty percent of the rank and General Mendoza in the comment filed, that the
file employees. Such being the case, it becomes, in the thirteen employees who allegedly retracted were not
language of the new Labor Code, “mandatory for the even present before the medarbiter and that the
Bureau to conduct a certification election for the alleged additional forty-five employees who supposedly
purpose of determining the representative of the likewise changed their minds, were also not called to
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and testify to that effect, petitioner satisfying itself with
certify the winner as the exclusive collective their being named in an affidavit executed by its
bargaining representative of all the employees in the president. That would make, so it is plausibly
unit.” It would run counter to the law then, with the
25
contended, such alleged retraction to be highly dubious
in character. There is this reinforcement to the 26

27
Comment of Respondent Public Official, 8.
98 Phil. 649 (1956).
contention of respondent public official in this closing 28 L-33221, April 28, 1975, 63 SCRA 469. In between, there are thirty-four

paragraph of such comment: “Besides, the best forum other decisions.

35
for determining whether there were indeed retractions
VOL. 72, JULY 7, 1976 35
from some of the laborers is in the certification election
Shell Chemical Company (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service
itself wherein the workers can freely express their
Notes.—Any labor union with substantial interest
choice in a secret ballot. If, therefore, petitioner herein
in the election of union bargaining representative has
is confident that it commands the majority of the
the right to take part therein provided application
workers in the collective bargaining unit, why then
therefor is timely filed. (Federation of Free Workers vs.
does it vigorously oppose a certification election.”26

Paredes, 54 SCRA 75).

4. The lack of merit in the petition is equally
When a labor organization objects to the
obvious considering that what is asked of this Court is,
participation in a certification election of a company-
in the final analysis, to set aside a factual finding
dominated union and as a result, a complaint for
arrived at by respondent Director after a careful
unfair tabor practice case against the employer is filed,
consideration of all the relevant matters pertinent to
the status of the latter union must first be cleared in
the issue. Again, that is contrary to the constant
such a proceeding before the voting could take place.
holding of this Tribunal in a host of cases starting
(B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich
from National Labor Union v. Dinglasan to Adame v.
27

Confidential and Salaried Employees Union-NATU, 49

Court of Industrial Relations. 28

SCRA 532).
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. This
The fact that substantial benefits are being given to
decision is immediately executory so as to enable the
the employees under an existing collective bargaining
holding forthwith of the certification election. The
agreement does not preclude the holding of a
restraining order issued on November 26, 1975 is
certification election. (Confederation of Citizens Labor
hereby lifted. No costs.
Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 60
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Martin, JJ.,
SCRA 450).
concur.
The participation of nuns and priests in a
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.
certification election contest is not a valid ground for
Petition dismissed.
________________ invalidating the results of the election. (United
Employees Union of Gelmart Industries
Philippines (UEUGIP) vs. Noriel, 67 SCRA 267).

——o0o——