Samahan ng Manggagawa Sa Pacific Plastic v.

Laguesma (USEC-DOLE) and Malyang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pacific

Plastic (January 31, 1997) Mendoza

Case: Certiorari of by USEC Laguesma of affirming election of MNMPP as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of rank-and-file
employees of Pacific Plastic Corp and dismissing election protest of SAMAHAN.

Facts
1. SAMAHAN and MNMPP are labor unions of rank-and-file- employees in PPC
2. August 24, 1990, MNMPP filed a Petition for Certification Election, alleging 130 members it sought to represent
3. SAMAHAN filed petition to cancel MNMPPs registration. Denied. PPC filed opposition to certification election.
Denied.
4. At pre-election conference,
a. PPC failed to submit list of employees. Given stern warning by DOLE. PPC again failed to appear at the
conference, prompting the Department of Labor Industrial Relations Division (DOLE-IRD) to issue a final
warning.
b. SAMAHAN also failed to appear. Moved to defer conference alleging that cancellation of union registration
was still ongoing AND that there existing a CBA between PPC and SAMAHAN under contract bar rule.
5. PPC did not comply with DOLE final order to provide list.
6. September 23, 1991, SAMAHAN and MNMPP agreed to hold the certification election on the basis of the list of
employees submitted by MNMPP, without prejudice to the submission by petitioner SAMAHAN of its own list.
7. Despite the agreement,
a. SAMAHAN objected to certification election which was finally set on October 6, 1992. It also objected to the
participation of a third labor union, Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI)
i. No notice of the certification as required by law;
ii. opposition to KAMAPIs motion to intervene and its opposition to setting the date of the certification
election had not been resolved;
iii. discrepancies in the list of voters submitted by the SSS; and
iv. SAMAHANs President moved to strike out his signature at the back of the official ballot.
8. Elections went ahead October 6, 1992. Voting Results:
a. Total eligible 98 | Total Votes Cast 63
b. MNMPP 56
c. SAMAHAN - 2
d. KAMAPI 0
e. No Union 1
f. Spoiled 3
9. Samahan protested the election results. Med-Arbiter denied. MNMPP upheld as sole and exclusive CB agent.
Laguesma affirmed.

Petition for certiorari

1. Election null and void because only 62 out of 130 employees participated in the activity.
2. SSS lists indicating 98 covered employees cannot be used as substitute for three (3) monthly payrolls required for the
purpose of determining the qualified voters and the majority vote needed in an election.
3. There was an existing CBA

Syllabus issue: WON the existing CBA barred the holding of certification elections (NO)
Case issues:
WON the election was invalid because only 62 of 130 employees voted. (NO, it was valid)
WON the decision to use the list of employees from the SSS was proper. (YES)
WON filing of petition to cancel MNMPPs registration was a prejudicial question (NO)

Regarding Existing CBA Premature CBA; does not bar representation case.
Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Section 4 provides:
The representation case shall not, however, be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered before or
during the last 60 days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case.
ALU-TUCP v. Trajano: representation case will not be adversely affected by a CBA registered before or during the freedom
period or during the pendency of the representation case.
ALU v. Calleja: A CBA, which was prematurely renewed, is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.

Regarding Employee List

1. Majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. SSS list only showed 98 62 of 98 = majority.
2. 130 came from MNMPP allegation and was only an estimate.
 3. Ideally payroll should be used. However, the unjustified refusal of a company to submit the payroll in its custody,
despite efforts to make it produce it, compelled resort to the SSS list as the next best source of information. SSS is a
matter of public record and validity is presumed.

Regarding prejudicial question

Certification election can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to cancel the union registration certificate. When the
union filed its petition for certification, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing its
cancellation.