You are on page 1of 2

FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS v.

NORIEL the benefits and other conditions of employment for the second and third year of
Oct. 30, 1978|Fernando, J. | Discretionary Question the contract within three (3) months from receipt of this Resolution and to submit
Digester: Africa, Mabel the renegotiated benefits to the workers for acceptance and ratification through a
secret balloting to be supervised by this Office,"
SUMMARY: Universal textile mills workers union ALU (current union) and
Universal Textile Mills Inc (company) has an existing collective bargaining agreement. RULING: Writ of certiorari granted.
Federation of free workers (another union) filed a petition for certification election even
before the 60-day freedom period. The med-arbiter called for a certification election. WON the director Noriel abused his discretion in directing UTWU-ALU to
BLR reversed saying that a certification election is not needed. SC reversed BLR, a renegotiate with the management the benefits and other conditions of
certification election should be conducted. SC explained that the first and fundamental employment for the second and third year of the contract YES; Director Noriel
duty of the courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it is possessed with the discretionary power to determine whether or not a
has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. They certification election should be held, however, it is not without bounds.
are the very last functions which a court should exercise. Where the law sets limits to Once it has been verified that the petition for certification election has the support
the exercise of discretion, such must be observed. Art. 258 of the Labor Code is clear of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit, it must be granted. The
on the matter. Once it has been verified that the petition for certification election has specific word used can yield no other meaning.
the support of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit, it must be granted. It becomes under the circumstances, "mandatory" for respondent Noriel as
Hence, in the case at bar, it becomes mandatory under the circumstances for Noriel to Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order such certification election
order such certification election precisely to ascertain which labor organization should precisely to ascertain which labor organization should be the exclusive bargaining
be the exclusive bargaining representative. It was clear from the facts that even Noriel representative.
acknowledged that there was at least 30% employees that supported the Federation of To paraphrase People v. Mapa, as the law cannot be any clearer, the task of the
free workers. judiciary is equally clear, its first and fundamental duty being to yield obedience to
DOCTRINE: The discretionary power granted to the director of NLRC is not without what is ordained. So it has been since Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions
bounds if the law is clear and mandatory. v. Bureau of Labor Relations.
It can trace its origin to the leading case of Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, a
FACTS: 1913 decision. As so emphatically expressed by its ponente, Justice Moreland: "The
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa UTEX filed for a petition for certification election. United first and fundamental duty of courts, in our judgment, is to apply the law.
Textiles Workers Union - ALU opposed on the ground that the union failed to Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
meet the two requirements established by law (1) it must be signed by 30% of all application is impossible or inadequate without them. They are the very last
employees and (2) the petition must be filed within 60 days of the expiration of the functions which a court should exercise. The majority of the laws need no
CBA. interpretation or construction. They require only application, and were there more
The med-arbiter granted the petition of UTWU-ALU denying the petition for application and less construction, there would be more stability in the law, and
certification election more people would know what the law is. Such a thought was reiterated by Justice
reversed by NLRC director Noriel Laurel in Director of Lands v. Abejas. 1Where "the law is clear," according to him,
UTWU-ALU filed a motion for reconsideration but it was unavailing, Noriel ruled this Court "cannot over-emphasize the [necessity that there be] adherence." 16
that "the ratification of the collective agreement ... is being protested and the same This is not to deny that an administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement of
can be threshed out in an appropriate hearing before a Med-Arbiter, and that the a regulatory statute is vested with discretion.
issue on the consent requirement can best be resolved by an appreciation of FFW's Such discretion, however, is not unbounded. Where, as in this case, the labor code
evidence." itself sets limits, they must be observed. That is the only way to manifest fealty to
As a result, an order was issued by the Med-Arbiter on May 3, 1977 calling for a the rule of law. The last sentence of Article 258 of the labor code specifically
certification election. It came as a surprise to respondent Union, therefore, that defines what must be done by the Bureau of Labor Relations once the certification
notwithstanding such a finding of the 30% requisite having been satisfied, the election is conducted; it must "certify the winner as the exclusive collective
assailed decision of September 29, 1977 recognized "the effectivity and validity of bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit."
the May 28, 1976 agreement between [respondent Union] and Universal Textile That is the extent and scope of the authority entrusted to respondent Noriel as
Mills for the first year of its duration covering 1977" and at the same time directed Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. He cannot go further than that. Yet, in
respondent Union "to renegotiate with the management at Universal Textile Mills the assailed order, he would direct respondent Union "to renegotiate with the


management at universal Textile Mills the benefits and other conditions of
employment for the second and third year of the contract within three (3) months
from receipt of this Resolution and to submit the renegotiated benefits to the
workers for acceptance and ratification through a secret balloting to be supervised
by this Office."
And this, too, without the benefit of a certification election mandated by law. The
failure to abide by what the Labor Code categorically requires is thus plain and
manifest. What was done by respondent Noriel is bereft of support in law.

You might also like