G.R. No. 94716 November 15, 1991 Association of CA Employees (ACAE) v.
Union of concerned employees of CA
(UCECA)
On April 4, 1990, the UCECA, a registered union filed a petition for accreditation and/or certification election with the BLR
alleging that ACAE which is the incumbent bargaining representative, no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the
rank-and-file employees. The UCECA alleged that there was a mass resignation of ACAE members on April 14, 1989.
On May 10, 1990, the ACAE filed its Comment and/or Opposition. It stated that the listing by the ACAE of its membership at
three hundred three (303) employees was a product of fraud. It charged the UCECA with misrepresentation, forgery and
perjury in attaching to its (UCECA) petition, a copy of the names of members some of which were twice listed, written
without consent or unsigned, and some of the signatures of which were forged. In addition, the petitioner alleged that some of
the UCECA members, upon learning of the fraudulent act, resigned from the union. In its reply, the UCECA stated that its
registry book was not smeared with fraud and claimed that any mistakes were only clerical errors.
On June 18, 1990, petitioner ACAE filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the UCECA in BLR
Case No. 6-19-90 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation by UCECA in obtaining its Registration Certificate No. 159
and in preparing its Registry Book of members. On June 28, 1990, the ACAE moved for deferment of the resolution of the
case of BLR 4-11-90 pending the case of BLR 6-19-90 (cancellation proceedings). On July 16, 1990, the UCECA filed a
motion to dismiss BLR 6-19-90 for being dilatory, to which ACAE replied that the maxim of res ipsa loquitur should be
applied as the "fraudulent documents submitted by UCECA speak for themselves."
On July 30, 1990, the BLR ruled that BLR 6-19-90 (cancellation proceedings) is not a bar to the holding of a certification
election. It granted the UCECA's prayer for a certification election. The BLR found that UCECA was supported by three
hundred three (303) or forty (40%) percent of the seven hundred sixty two (762) rank-and-file employees of the court.
ACAE's motion for reconsideration was denied.
It is a well-settled rule that "a certification proceeding is not a litigation in the sense that the term is ordinarily
understood, but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact finding character." (Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v.
Ferrer-Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989]; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 [1990])
Thus, the technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to grant it proceeds from an examination of the sufficiency
of the petition as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in position papers and other documents.
The result of the certification election shall determine who between the petitioner and the private respondent is telling the
truth. As we have ruled in Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) v. Ferrer-Calleja, (supra):
Whenever there is doubt as to whether a particular union represents the majority of the rank-and-file
employees, in the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a certification election is the most dramatic
method of determining the employee's choice of their bargaining representative. It is the appropriate means
whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the
employees themselves. (At page 431)
The petitioner likewise argues that the certification proceedings should be suspended pending its petition for the cancellation
of union registration of the UCECA.
The records show that UCECA was registered with the Civil Service Commission on March 16, 1990. (Rollo, p. 45) When
the said union was organized, some of its members allegedly used to be members of the ACAE who tendered mass
resignations on August 14, 1989 and on September 29, 1989. (Rollo, pp. 27-35) On January 30, 1990, the officers of ACAE,
in Board Resolution No. 8 resolved that the resignations tendered were irregular and must be accomplished individually.
(Rollo, p. 55) Thereafter, for some reasons, some of the listed members in the Registry Book of the UCECA wrote individual
letters to UCECA in April, 1990 either questioning the inclusion of their names or tendering their resignations.
On June 18, 1990, the petitioner herein filed its petition to cancel the union registration of UCECA. The act of the petitioner
in charging commissions of fraud and misrepresentation against UCECA only after realizing the rising membership of the
latter and the subsequent petition for certification election raises grave suspicions as to whether or not it wants to subvert the
right of the employees to determine the proper exclusive representative or agent now that they are given two unions from
which to choose. Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner ACAE had lawful grounds to challenge the
existence of the UCECA, it should have done so, soon after the date it had notice or knowledge of the registration of the
latter to protect its own interests and not at a later time when its bargaining position was already at the risk of being lost.
At any rate, the Court applies the established rule correctly followed by the public respondent that an order to hold a
certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the
respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal
personality to perform such act absent an order directing a cancellation.
It is the policy of the State in protecting the rights of labor to ensure and maintain industrial peace. For this reason, all
employees of an appropriate bargaining unit shall be given an opportunity to organize and to determine which labor
organization should be their exclusive bargaining representative. Hence, a petition for certification election filed by an
interested labor organization shall be dealt with accordingly, with a view to attaining this objective.
The freedom of choice given to workers is a constitutional right. Therefore, the holding of a certification election, being a
statutory policy, should not be circumvented. (Associated Trade Unions-ATU v. Noriel, 89 SCRA 264 [1979]; Philippine
Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra; Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra)
