ATLANTIC GULF v LAGUESMA

GR NO 96635
AUGUST 6, 1992
Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees when existing fabrication capacity
cannot absorb increases in job orders for steel structures and other heavy construction works.
Said project employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements
which indicate the specific projects to which they are assigned and the duration of their
employment. Upon the expiration of their contracts/agreements, the employment of these
employees is automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assigned have not
yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for the remainder of the project. Atlantic
executed a CBA with URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the regular
rank-and-file employees.
Thereafter, another labor org LAKAS-NFL filed a Petition for Certification Election with the
Med-Arbitration Unit to be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the regular
non-project employees of Atlantic. Med-Arbiter granted the petition. Atlantic appealed alleging
that the project employees sought to be represented by LAKAS-NFL were formally issued
regular employment appointments by Atlantic which were accepted by said project employees.
And that Atlantic agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project employees
with at least one year of service pending the final outcome of the certification election case.
DOLE Usec Laguesma denied the appeal.
Argument of Atlantic: The bargaining unit of the alleged regular project workers has ceased to
exist by virtue of the regularization of all the alleged project workers with at least one year of
service.
ISSUE: Can LAKAS-NFL file a pet for cert elections even though there is an existing CBA
between Atlantic and URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the
regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular project employees with
more than one year of service?
RULING: NO. The regularization of all the regular project employees with at least one year of
service and the subsequent membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the
alleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact,
regular employees by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate bargaining unit of
said Collective Bargaining Agreement consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent
LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.
Art. 232 Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for
certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly

registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles
253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.
Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations likewise
provides: If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only
be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.
Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
petitioner and URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular
rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular project employees with more
than one year of service, bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification
election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNION v FERRER-CALLEJA

GR NO 89609
JANUARY 27, 1992
NFSW-FGT-KMU and employer Dacongcogon entered into a CBA for a term of 3 years, which
was to expire on November 14, 1987. When the CBA expired, NFSW-FGT-KMU and
Dacongcogon negotiated for its renewal. However, a deadlock in negotiation ensued on the
matter of wage increases and optional retirement. In order to obviate friction and tension, the
parties agreed on a suspension to provide a cooling-off period to give them time to evaluate and
further study their positions. On December 5, 1988, petitioner NACUSIP-TUCP filed a petition
for direct certification or certification election among the rank and file workers of Dacongcogon.
NFSW moved to dismiss the petition arguing that it was filed out of time. MedArbiter - denied
the motion to dismiss and directed the conduct of CE. BLR Director Wowa reversed the order
of the MedArbiter and explained that the CBA between Dacongcogon and private respondent
NFSW-FGT-KMU had expired on November 14, 1987, hence, the petition for certification
election was filed too late, that is, a period of more than one (1) year after the CBA expired.
ISSUE: Can a petition for CE be filed after the 60-day freedom period?
RULING: No. Rule V, Section 6, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended
by the rules implementing Executive Order No. 111 provides that:
In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status of
the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned by a legitimate labor organization, the
Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election if the petition is filed
during the last sixty (60) days of the collective bargaining agreement. Any petition filed before
or after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright.
The sixty-day freedom period based on the original collective bargaining agreement shall not be
affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement for
purposes of certification election.
It is a rule in this jurisdiction that only a certified collective bargaining agreement i.e., an
agreement duly certified by the BLR may serve as a bar to certification elections. It is noteworthy
that the Bureau of Labor Relations duly certified the November 14, 1984 collective bargaining
agreement. Hence, the contract-bar rule as embodied in Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the rules
implementing the Labor Code is applicable.
This rule simply provides that a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention
can only be entertained within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective
bargaining agreement. Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification

election during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except within the freedom
period, as it is called, when the said agreement is about to expire. The purpose, obviously, is to
ensure stability in the relationships of the workers and the management by preventing frequent
modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier entered into by them in good faith
and for the stipulated original period.