Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 213 3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 213
and opposed forces; as, the deadlock of a jury or legislature.” The

word is synonymous with the word impasse which, within the
meaning of the American federal labor laws, “presupposes
reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which,
_______________
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 759
* THIRD DIVISION.
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment
*
760
G.R. No. 91915. September 11, 1992.
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN, petitioner,

vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION- Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and
ALU, respondents. Employment
Labor Laws; Bargaining Representatives; Certification despite noble intentions, does not conclude in agreement between
election; Role of employer.—xxx [Petitioner’s undue interest in the the parties.” A thorough study of the records reveals that there
resolution of the DWU-IFEU’s motion for intervention becomes was no “reasonable effort at good faith bargaining” specially on
significant since a certification election is the sole concern of the part of the University. Its indifferent attitude towards
employees except where the employer itself has to file a petition collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the failure of the
for certification election. But once an employer has filed said parties to arrive at an agreement.
petition, as the petitioner did in this case, its active role ceases
and it becomes a mere bystander. Any uncalled-for concern on the PETITION for certiorari to review the orders of the
part of the employer may give rise to the suspicion that it is Secretary of Labor and Employment.
batting for a company union.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Bargaining deadlock presupposes Generosa R. Jacinto for petitioner.
reasonable effort at good faith bargaining.—xxx [A]n employer Joji L. Barrios for private respondent.
who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for
certification election any time except upon a clear showing that ROMERO, J.:
one of these two instances exists: (a) the petition is filed within
one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election Assailed in this petition for certiorari for being violative of
result or (b) when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to the “constitutional right of employees to self-organization
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid which includes the right to form, join or assist labor
notice of strike or lockout. While there is no question that the organizations of their 1
own choosing for purposes of
petition for certification election was filed by the herein petitioner collective bargaining,” are the Orders of May 23, 1989 and
after almost four years from the time of the certification election January 17, 1990 issued by then Secretary of Labor and
and, therefore, there is no question as to the timeliness of the Employment Franklin M. Drilon and Acting Secretary of
petition, the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Secretary Labor and Employment Dionisio D. de la Serna,
of Labor had found that a bargaining deadlock exists. A respectively.
“deadlock” is defined as the “counteraction of things producing Culled from the records are the following facts which led
entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization caused by to the filing of the instant petition:
the opposition of persons or of factions (as in government or a On September 6, 1984, Med-Arbiter Bienvenido C.
voting body): standstill.” There is a deadlock when there is a Elorcha certified the Divine Word University Employees
“complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action of equal Union (DWUEU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the Divine Word University (University for
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/21 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/21
brevity). On March 7, 1985, DWUEU submitted its represent their bargaining unit.
collective bargaining proposals. On March 26, 1985, the 3. Conciliation proceedings is (sic) temporarily
University replied and requested a preliminary conference suspended until the parties inform this office of
to be held on May 28, 1985. However, two days before the further development.
scheduled conference or on May 26, 1985, DWUEU’s 4. The issues of discrimination: re Ms. Colinayo and
resigned vice-president Mr. Brigido Urminita (or Ms. Cinco Flores is settled.
Urmeneta) wrote a letter addressed to the University
5. Issue (sic) on coercion and refusal to bargain shall
unilaterally withdrawing the CBA proposals.
be subject of continuing dialogue.
Consequently, the pre-
______________ _____________
1 Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4. 2 Rollo, p. 101.

3 DWUEU became an affiliate of ALU on February 9, 1988 upon the
761 issuance of Charter Certificate No. 347, Rollo, p. 73.
4 DWUEU-ALU’s Comment, p. 2; Rollo, p. 298.
5 Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, p. 63.
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 761
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor 762
and Employment
2 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

liminary conference was cancelled.
After almost three years, or on March 11, 1988,
and Employment
DWUEU, which 3
had by then affiliated with the Associated
Labor Union, requested a conference with the University
for the purposes of continuing the collective bargaining 6. Atty. Jacinto shall be given6
10 days notice in the
4
negotiations. Not having heard from the University, next conciliation meeting.”
DWUEU-ALU sent a follow-up letter on March 23, 1988
reiterating its request for a conference and warning the However, it turned out that an hour before the May 10,
University against committing acts of interference through 1988 agreement was concluded, the University had filed a
its various meetings with both the academic and non- petition for certification election with the Region
7
VIII office
academic employees regarding their union affiliation and of the Department of Labor and Employment.
activities. Despite the letter, the University persisted in On the other hand, on May 19, 1988, DWUEU-ALU,
maintaining silence. consonant with the agreement, submitted its collective
On April 25, 1988, DWUEU-ALU filed with the National bargaining proposals. These were ignored by the
Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of University. Thereafter, through the National Conciliation
Labor and Employment a notice of strike on the grounds of and Mediation Board (NCMB) of Region VIII, marathon
bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice acts, conciliation conferences were conducted but to no avail.
specifically, refusal5 to bargain, discrimination and coercion Hence, on August 25, 1988, then Secretary of Labor
on (sic) employees. The conferences which were held after Franklin M. Drilon, exercising his powers under Art. 263(g)
the filing of the notice of strike led to the conclusion of an of the Labor Code, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction
agreement between the University and DWUEU-ALU on over the labor dispute and directing all striking workers to
May 10, 1988 with the following terms: report back to work within twenty-four (24) hours and the
management to accept them back under the same terms
“1. Union will submit their (sic) CBA proposals on and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage. The
Friday, May 13, 1988 for whatever action Secretary also designated the 8
NCMB to hear the case and
management will take. to submit its report thereon.
2. Union and management agrees (sic) to sit down and On the same day, Med-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado, acting
determine (sic) the number of employees that will on the University’s petition for certification election, issued
an Order directing the conduct of a certification election to Moreover, to allow a certification election to proceed at this
be participated in by DWUEU-ALU and “no-union,” after point in time might further rupture the already strained labor-
he found
9
the petition to be “well-supported in fact and in management relations pervading at the University. The
law.” assumption order issued by this Office merely served as a
Said Order prompted the DWUEU-ALU to file with the temporary bend to hold together such a fragile relationship. More
Secretary of Labor an urgent motion seeking to enjoin importantly, the projected election hastily decreed would preempt
Milado from further acting on the matter of the the proper resolution of the issues raised and pursued so
certification election. On September 20, 1988, the Labor zealously
11
by the employees that prompted them to stage their
Secretary granted said motion and directed Milado to hold strike.”
in abeyance any and all certification election proceedings at
the University pending the resolution of the labor dispute.
10
The NCMB of Region VIII conducted hearings on the case
The Labor Secretary’s Order, from October 17-18, 1988. On October 26, 1988, the Divine
Word University Independent Faculty and Employees
Union (DWUIFEU), which was registered earlier that day,
______________
filed a motion for intervention alleging that it had “at12least
6 Annex “B-1” of Petition; Rollo, p. 66. 20% of the rank and file employees” of the University.
7 Annex “B” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 64-65. Exercising once again his extraordinary powers under
8 Annex “C” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 67-69. Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary consolidated
9 Annex “D” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 70-77. “the entire
10 Annex “E” of Petition; Rollo, p. 78-79.
______________
763
11 Id.
12 Annex “G” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 97-98.
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 763
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor 764
and Employment
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
predicated on his extraordinary powers under Art. 263(g) of
the Labor Code, conformed with this Court’s Resolution of
and Employment
October 29, 1987 in the Bulletin Today cases (G.R. Nos.
79276 and 79883) where the issue of strong disagreement
among the parties on the question of representation was labor dispute including all incidents arising therefrom, or 13
deemed subsumed in the labor dispute certified for necessarily related thereto” in his Order of May 23, 1989
compulsory arbitration. The Secretary added: and the following cases were “subsumed or consolidated to
the labor dispute”: the petition for certification election
“Underscoring the necessity to conform with this settled doctrine docketed as MED-ARB-Case No. 5-04-88, the DWUEU’s
is the fact that the dispute over which this Office assumed complaint docketed as NLRC Case No. 8-0321-88, and the
jurisdiction arose from the alleged continued refusal by the University’s complaint docketed as NLRC Case No. 8-0323-
University to negotiate a CBA with the Union despite the latter’s 88. Thus, in said Order of May 23, 1989, the Secretary of
certification as exclusive bargaining agent in 1984. Necessarily Labor resolved these issues: “(1) whether there was refusal
related thereto is the representativity issue raised by the to bargain and an impasse in bargaining; (2) whether the
University in its certification election petition. The resolution of complaints for unfair labor practices against each other
these issues in one proceeding is, in the words of the Supreme filed by both parties, including the legality of the strike
Court, ‘meet and proper in view of the very special circumstances with the NLRC, which later on was subsumed by the
obtaining in this case, and will prevent split jurisdiction and that assumption Order, are with merits; and, (3) whether or not
multiplicity of proceedings which the law abhors’ (24 December the certification election can be passed upon by this Office.”
1987 [should be December 17, 1987] resolution of the Supreme On the first issue, the Secretary of Labor said:
Court in the Bulletin Today cases, supra).

“It is a matter of record that when the Union filed its Notice of University’s act of not replying to the Union’s letters of March 11
Strike (Exh. A) two of the issues it raised were bargaining and March 23, 1988.
deadlock and refusal to bargain. It is also worth mentioning that This being the case, Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Rules
the CBA proposals by the Union were submitted on March 7, 1985 Implementing the Labor Code applies and we quote:
(Exh. 9) after Med-Arbiter Bienvenido Elorcha issued a
‘Sec. 3. When to file. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement
certification election Order dated September 6, 1984 (Exh. 4). An
submitted in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
examination of the CBA proposals submitted by the Union to the
certification election may be filed at any time. However, no certification
University showed there was (sic) some negotiations that has (sic)
election may be held within one year from the date of issuance of
taken place as indicated on the handwritten notations made in
declaration of a final certification election result. Neither may a
the CBA proposal (Exh. F). The said proposals include among
representation question be entertained it (sic) before the filing of a
others, union scope, union recognition, union security, union
petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an
rights, job security, practices and privileges, terms and conditions
incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to
of work, leave of absence, hours of work, compensation salary and
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of
wages, workers’ rights and safety, workers’ education, retirement
strike or lockout.’
longevity pay, strike and lockouts and grievance machinery.
The said CBA proposals were indorsed by DWU President to Clearly, a bargaining deadlock exists and as a matter of fact
Atty. Generosa R. Jacinto, Divine Word University legal counsel this is being conciliated by the National Conciliation and
together with a copy of the Union CBA proposals. The submission Mediation Board at the time the University filed its Petition for
of the CBA proposals and the reply letter of the DWU counsel, Certification Election on 10 May 1988. In fact the deadlock
dated March 26, 1985 to the Union indicated that the CBA remained unresolved and was in fact mutually agreed upon to be
negotiations process was set into motion. DWU’s counsel even conciliated further by the NCMB as per items 1 and 5 of the
suggested that the preliminary conference between the union and ‘Agreement’ (Exhibit ‘L’).
the university be sched- The aforequoted rule clearly barred the Med-Arbiter from
further entertaining the petition for certification election.
______________ Furthermore, the various communications sent to the University
by the Union prior to the filing of the notice of strike was enough
13 Annex “H” of Petition; Rollo, pp. 100-104.
opportunity for the former to raise fche issue of representation if
765 it really casts doubt to the majority status of the Union. More
importantly, if DWU indeed doubted the status of the union, how
come it entered into an agreement with the latter on May 10,
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 765
1988. Apparently, the move to file the petition on the same day
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and was an afterthought on the part of the University which
Employment
766
uled on 28 May 1985 at 2:30 P.M. which unfortunately did not
take place due to the alleged withdrawal of the CBA proposals.
Undeniably, the Union and the DWU have not been able to
conclude a CBA since its certification on 6 September 1984 by Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment
then Med-Arbiter Bienvenido Elorcha. But the non-conclusion of a
CBA within one year, as in this case, does not automatically 14
this Office considers as fatal.”
authorize the holding of a certification election when it appears
that a bargaining deadlock issue has been submitted to The same Order dismissed not only the case filed by
conciliation by the certified bargaining agent. The records show DWUEU-ALU for unfair labor practice on the ground of the
that the Notice of Strike was filed by the Union on 25 April 1988, union’s failure to prove the commission of the unfair labor
citing bargaining deadlock as one of the grounds (Annex ‘I’), while practice acts specifically complained of (NLRC Case No. 8-
the Petition for Certification Election was filed by the DWU on 10 0321-88) but also the complaint filed by the University for
May 1988. The filing of the notice of strike was precipitated by the unfair labor practices and illegal strike for “obvious lack of

merit brought about by its utter failure to submit evidence” University agreed to submit its proposals on how to settle
(NLRC Case No. 8-0323-88). amicably the labor dispute on or before July 17, 1989.
Citing the Bulletin Today cases, the said Order On said date, however, the University failed to appear.
pronounced as untenable the University’s claim that the Instead, its representative phoned in a request for the
assumption Order earlier issued by the Office of the resetting of the conference purportedly because its Board of
Secretary of Labor merely held in abeyance the holding of a Directors had failed to muster a quorum. Hence, after so
certification election and that the representation issue was informing ALU’s Eastern Visayas Vice-President, the
not deemed consolidated by virtue of the said assumption conference was rescheduled for July 19, 1989. The
Order. Accordingly, the Order has this dispositive portion: University once again failed to appear.
In view of the University’s intransigence, the DWUEU-
“WHEREFORE, ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES ALU pursued its second notice of strike on November 24,
CONSIDERED, the Divine Word University of Tacloban and the 1989. Four days later, the University filed with the Office
Divine Word University Employees Union are hereby directed to of the Secretary of Labor a motion praying that said Office
enter into a collective bargaining agreement by adopting the assume jurisdiction over the dispute or certify the same to
Union’s CBA proposals sent to the DWU President on 19 May the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on the ground that
1988 (Exhibit ‘6’). DWU is hereby warned that any unwarranted the strike affected not only the University but also its other
delay in the execution of the collective bargaining agreement will academic and non-academic employees, the students and
be construed as an unfair labor practice act. Moreover, the their parents. On December 4, 1989, the Office of the
petition for certification election filed by the University is hereby Secretary of Labor received a Resolution passed by the
dismissed for lack of merit and the Order of Med-Arbiter Rodolfo students of the University urging said Office’s assumption
Milado set aside. Likewise, NLRC CASES Nos. 8-0321-88 and 8- of jurisdiction over the labor dispute and the earliest
0323 filed by the Union and the DWU, respectively, are hereby resolution of the case.
dismissed for lack of15
merit. Consequently, on December 29, 1989, Secretary Drilon
SO ORDERED.” issued an Order reiterating the August 25, 1988 Order
which assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. He
The University filed a motion for the reconsideration of
ordered all striking workers to return to work within 24
said Order. It was opposed by the DWUEU-ALU. However,
hours and the University to accept them back under the
since on May 5, 1989 the DWUEU-ALU had filed a second
same terms and conditions of employment; deemed the
notice of strike charging the University with violation of
issues raised in the May 5, 1989 notice of strike as
the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor and
“subsumed in this case”; ordered the Director of Regional
unfair labor practices
Office No. VIII to hear the issues raised in said noticeof
strike and to submit his findings and recommendations
______________
within ten days from submission of the case by the parties,
14 Ibid., pp. 102-103. and enjoined the parties to cease and desist from any
15 Ibid., p. 104.
______________
767
16 Rollo, p. 177.
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 767 768

and Employment 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
such as dismissal of union
16
officers, coercion of employees and Employment
and illegal suspension, the Office of the Secretary called
for a series of conciliation and mediation conferences
act that may “aggravate the employer-employee
between the parties. At the July 5, 1989 conference, the
relationship.” On January 17, 1990, Acting Secretary of
Labor Dionisio L. de la Serna, “dismissed” for lack of merit
the University’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed

the Order of May 23, 1989. He noted the fact that the Certification with (sic) Regional Office. The surreptitious filing of
March 7, 1985 collective bargaining proposals of the the petition and at the same time cunningly entering into an
DWUEU had not been validly withdrawn as the union’s agreement which required the Union to submit a renewed CBA
vice-president had resigned and the withdrawal was signed proposal, is patently negotiating in bad faith. The University
only by three of the eight members of the Executive Board should have candidly and timely raised the issue of
of said union. Granting that the withdrawal was valid, the representation, if it believed that such issue was valid, not by
Acting Secretary believed that it did not “exculpate the entering into an agreement. The May 10, 1988 Agreement only
University from the duty to bargain with the Union” served to falsely heighten the expectations of the Union and this
because the collective bargaining processes had been “set in Office that a mutually acceptable settlement of the dispute was in
motion from the time the CBA proposals was (sic) received the offing. This
17
Office cannot tolerate such actuations by the
by the University until the impasse took place on account University.”
of its failure to reply to the Union’s letters pursuing its
CBA proposals dated March 11 and 23, 1988.” The Acting Secretary then concluded that for reneging on
On the University’s assertion that no negotiations took the agreement of May 10, 1988 and for its “reluctance and
place insofar as the March 7, 1985 collective bargaining subscription to legal delay,” the University should be
proposals are concerned, the Acting Secretary found that: “declared in default.” He also maintained that since under
the circumstances the University cannot claim deprivation
“x x x. The records indicate otherwise. Conciliation meetings were of due process, the Office of the Secretary of Labor may
conducted precisely to discuss the CBA proposals the Union rightfully impose the Union’s May 19, 1988 collective
submitted to the University on March 7, 1985. As a matter of fact, bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio. On the
the University admitted the existence of the deadlock when a University’s contention that the motion for intervention of
provision was incorporated in the agreement it signed on May 10, the DWU-IFEU was not resolved, the Acting Secretary
1988 with the Union which reads: ruled that said motion was in effect denied when the
petition for certification election filed by the University was
‘a. That on the matter of Bargaining Deadlock—
dismissed in the Order of May 23, 1989.
1. Union will submit their (renewed) CBA proposals on Hence, the University had recourse to instant petition.
Friday May 13,1988 for whatever action management will In its petition for certiorari and prohibition with
take. preliminary injunction filed on February 9, 1990, the
University raises as grounds therefor the following:
2. Union and Management agree to sit down and determine
the number of employees that will represent (constitute)
“A. Respondent Secretary committed grave and patent
their bargaining unit;
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in issuing his order dated 17 January 1990 finally
x x x’
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in
On account of the deadlock regarding the March 7, 1985 CBA the face of the order dated 29 December 1989 and
proposals, it was agreed that the Union submit a renewed CBA subsequent acts of DOLE official subsuming the
proposal which it did on May 19, 1988. The records indicate that second notice of strike with the first notice of strike.
no response was made by the University. The uncooperative B. In the absence of a certified CBA and there having
posture of the University to respond and continue with the been no certification election held in petitioner unit
negotiations could very well be explained when one (1) hour prior for more than five (5) years, a certification election
to the start of the conciliation on May 10, 1988, the University is mandatory.
filed a Petition for C. Respondent Secretary committed grave and patent
abuse of
769
_______________
VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 769
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and 17 Rollo, pp. 201-202.
Employment
770 18 Petition, p. 18; Rollo, p. 19.

19 Petition, p. 19; Rollo, p. 20.
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 771

and Employment VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 771
discretion in issuing his orders dated 23 May 1988 and Employment
and 17 January 1990 disregarding evidence on
record, provisions of law and established 20
jurisprudence. batting for a company union.

18 Petitioner’s contention that the Acting Secretary of
D. Petitioner was denied due process.”
Labor should have deferred the issuance of the Order of
January 17, 1990 until after his receipt of the Regional
Citing the dispositive portion of the December 29, 1989
Director’s recommendation on the notices of strike is, under
Order of the Secretary of Labor which states that the
the circumstances, untenable. Ideally, a single decision or
issues raised in the May 5, 1989 notice of strike “are
order should settle all controversies resulting from a labor
ordered subsumed in this case” and elaborating on the
dispute. This is in consonance with the principle of
meaning of the word “subsume,” i.e., “to include within a
19 avoiding multiplicity of suits. However, the exigencies of a
larger class, group, order, etc.,” the petitioner University
case may also demand that some matters be threshed out
argues that the Secretary of Labor “cannot resolve
and resolved ahead of the others. Any contrary
petitioner’s and (intervenor) DWU-IFEU’s motions for
interpretation of the Secretary of Labor’s powers under Art.
reconsideration (in the NS. 1) of the Order dated 23 May
263(g) of the Labor Code on this matter would only result
1989 until the proceedings in the subsumed NS. 2 are
in confusion and delay in the resolution of the manageable
terminated.” It opines that since the Regional Director is
aspects of the labor dispute.
an extension of the Secretary of Labor, the latter should
In this case, resolution of the motion for reconsideration
have waited for the recommendation of the former on the
at the earliest possible time was urgently needed to set at
issues in notices of strike Nos. 1 and 2 before he issued the
rest the issues regarding the first notice of strike, the
Order of January 17, 1990.
certification election and the unfair labor practice cases
We agree with the Acting Secretary of Labor’s
filed by the University and the DWUEU-ALU. The nature
observation that the motion for intervention had in effect
of the business of the University demanded immediate and
been denied by the dismissal of the petition for certification
effective action on the part of the respondent public
election in the May 23, 1989 Order. The sub silencio
officials. Otherwise, not only the contending parties in the
treatment of the motion for intervention in said Order does
dispute would be adversely affected but more importantly,
not mean that the motion was overlooked. It only means, as
the studentry and their parents. It should be emphasized
shown by the findings of facts in the same Order, that
that on January 17, 1990, the second notice of strike could
there was no necessity for the holding of a certification
not have been resolved as yet considering that at that time,
election wherein the DWU-IFEU could participate. In this
Regional Director Teddy S. Cabeltes was still conducting
regard, petitioner’s undue interest in the resolution of the
the conference between the parties in pursuance of the
DWU-IFEU’s motion for intervention becomes significant
directive in the Order of December 19, 1989. The Secretary,
since a certification election is the sole concern of
or for that matter, the Acting Secretary, could not have
employees except where the employer itself has to file a
intended the efforts of the Regional Director to be inutile or
petition for certification election. But once an employer has
fruitless. Thus, when he set aside the issues raised in the
filed said petition, as the petitioner did in this case, its
second notice of strike, the Acting Secretary was acting in
active role ceases and it becomes a mere bystander. Any
accordance with the exigencies of the circumstances of the
uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may give
case. Hardly can it be said to be an abuse of his discretion.
rise to the suspicion that it is
On the issue of whether or not a certification election
should
______________

______________ deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration

or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
20 See; Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services v. Trajano,
lockout.
G.R. No. 61153, January 17, 1983, 120 SCRA 64, 66.
While there is no question that the petition for
772 certification election was filed by the herein petitioner after
almost four
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 773

and Employment VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 773
have been ordered by the Secretary of Labor, pertinent are and Employment
the following respective provisions of the Labor Code and
Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations years from the time of the certification election and,
of the same Code: therefore, there is no question as to the timeliness of the
“ART. 258. When an employer may file petition.—When requested petition, the problem appears to lie in the fact that the
to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for Secretary of Labor had found that a bargaining deadlock
an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining exists.
agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a A “deadlock” is defined as the “counteraction of things
certification election. producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of
All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) neutralization caused by the opposition of persons or of 21
working days. factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill.”

The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty There is a deadlock when there is a “complete blocking or
(20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed stoppage resulting from the action of equal and 22
opposed
by the Secretary of Labor. forces; as, the deadlock of a jury or legislature.”
23
The word
Sec. 3. When to file.—In the absence of a collective bargaining is synonymous with the word impasse which, within the
agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the meaning of the American federal labor laws, “presupposes
Code, a petition for certification election may be filed at any time. reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite
However, no certification election may be held within one year noble intentions,
24
does not conclude in agreement between
from the date of issuance of a final certification election result. the parties.”
Neither may a representation question be entertained if, before the A thorough study of the records reveals that there was
filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock no “reasonable effort at good faith bargaining” specially on
to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had the part of the University. Its indifferent attitude towards
been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the failure of
subject of valid notice of strike or lockout. (Italics supplied) the parties to arrive at an agreement. As it was evident
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered that unilateral moves were being undertaken only by the
in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for DWUEU-ALU, there was no “counteraction” of forces or an
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be impasse to speak of. While collective bargaining should be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such initiated by the union, there is a corresponding
agreement.” responsibility on the part of the employer to respond in
some manner to such acts. This is clear from the provisions
These provisions make it plain that in the absence of a of the Labor Code Art. 250(a) of which states:
collective bargaining agreement, an employer who is
“ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining.—The following
requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
certification election any time except upon a clear showing
that one of these two instances exists: (a) the petition is (a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall
filed within one year from the date of issuance of a final serve a written notice upon the other party with a
certification election result or (b) when a bargaining
statement of its during this three-year period, it exerted any effort to

pursue collective bargaining as a means of attaining better
_______________ terms of employment.
It was only after its affiliation with the ALU that the
21 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1986 Ed., p. 580. same union, through the ALU Director for Operations,
22 Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 465. requested an “initial 25
conference” for the purpose of
23 William C. Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 1980 Ed., p. 133. collective bargaining. That the DWUEU abandoned its
24 N.L.R.B. v. Bancroft, 635 F.2d 492 (1981). collective bargaining proposals prior to its affiliation with
ALU is further confirmed by the fact that in the
774
aforequoted May 10, 1988 agreement with the University,
said Union bound itself to submit a new set of proposals on
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED May 13, 1988. Under the circumstances, the agree-
Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment ______________
proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not

25 Rollo, p. 154.
later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such 775
notice.
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and
reply, either party may request for a conference which VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 775
shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor
date of request. and Employment
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene
upon request of either or both parties or at its own ment of May 10, 1988 may as well be considered the
initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation written notice to bargain referred to in the aforequoted Art.
meetings. The Board shall have the power to issue 250(a) of the Labor Code, which thereby set into motion the
subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such machinery for collective bargaining, as in fact, on May 19,
meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate 1988, DWUEU-ALU submitted its collective bargaining
fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board proposals.
may call; Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to rule that
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the there has been a deadlock or an impasse in the collective
parties are prohibited from doing any act which may bargaining process. As the Court earlier observed, there
disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; has not been a “reasonable effort at good faith bargaining”
and on the part of the University. While DWUEU-ALU was
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes opening all possible avenues for the conclusion of an
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to agreement, the record is replete with evidence on the
a voluntary arbitrator.” University’s reluctance and thinly disguised refusal to
bargain with the duly certified bargaining agent, such that
Considering the procedure outlined above, the Court the inescapable conclusion is that the University evidently
cannot help but notice that the DWUEU was not entirely had no intention of bargaining with it. Thus, while the
blameless in the matter of the delay in the bargaining Court recognizes that technically, the University has the
process. While it is true that as early as March 7, 1985, right to file the petition for certification election as there
said union had submitted its collective bargaining was no bargaining deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer
proposals and that, its subsequent withdrawal by the that the herein assailed Orders be annulled would put an
DWUEU vice-president being unauthorized and therefore unjustified premium on bad faith bargaining.
ineffective, the same proposals could be considered as Bad faith on the part of the University is further
subsisting, the fact remains that said union remained exemplified by the fact that an hour before the start of the
passive for three years. The records do not show that May 10, 1988 conference, it surreptitiously filed the
petition for certification election. And yet during said case. These factors are: (a) the union is the duly certified
conference, it committed itself to “sit down” with the Union. bargaining agent; (b) it made a definite request to bargain
Obviously, the University tried to preempt the conference and submitted its collective bargaining proposals, and (c)
which would have legally foreclosed its right to file the the University made no counter proposal whatsoever. As
petition for certification election. In so doing, the we said in Kiok Loy, “[a] company’s refusal to make counter
University failed to act in accordance with Art. 252 of the proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining
Labor Code which defines the meaning of the duty to process, may indicate bad faith and this is especially true
bargain collectively as “the performance of a mutual where the Union’s
27
request for a counter proposal is left
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously unanswered.” Moreover, the Court added in the same case
in good faith.” Moreover, by filing the petition for that “it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor
certification election while agreeing to confer with the controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals
DWUEU-ALU, the University violated the mandate of Art. of the other. But an erring party should not be tolerated
19 of the Civil Code that “(e)very person must, in the and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes 28
feigning
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, negotiations by going through empty gestures.”
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.” _______________
Moreover, the University’s unscrupulous attitude
towards the DWUEU-ALU is also betrayed by its belated 26 G.R. No. 54334, January 22, 1986, 141 SCRA 179.
questioning of 27 Ibid., p. 186.
28 Ibid., p. 188.
776
777

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 777
and Employment People vs. Casinillo
the status of the said union. The communications between That being the said case, the petitioner may not validly
them afforded the University ample opportunity to raise assert that its consent should be a primordial consideration
the issue of representation if indeed it was doubtful of the in the bargaining process. By its acts, no less than its
DWUEU-ALU’s status as a majority union, but it failed to inaction which bespeak its insincerity, it has forfeited
do so. On the other hand, in the agreement of May 10, whatever rights it could have asserted as an employer. We,
1988, the University even agreed “to sit down and therefore, find it superfluous to discuss the two other
determine the number of employees that will represent contentions in its petition.
their bargaining unit.” This clearly indicates that the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
University recognized the DWUEU-ALU as the bargaining DISMISSED for lack of merit. This decision is immediately
representative of the employees and is, therefore, estopped executory. Costs against the petitioner.
from questioning the majority status of the said union. SO ORDERED.
Hence, petitioner’s contention that the DWUEU-ALU’s
proposals may not be unilaterally imposed on it on the Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ., concur.
ground that a collective bargaining agreement is a contract Gutierrez, Jr., J., On official leave.
wherein the consent of both parties is indispensable is
devoid of merit. A similar argument had already been Petition dismissed; decision immediately executory.
26
disregarded in the case of Kiok Loy v. NLRC, where we
Note.—Employer is not a party in a certification
upheld the order of the NLRC declaring the union’s draft
election; such activity is the sole concern of the workers
CBA proposal as the collective agreement which should
(Rizal Workers Union vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 186 SCRA 431).
govern the relationship between the parties. Kiok Loy v.
NLRC is applicable in the instant case considering that the ——o0o——
facts therein have also been indubitably established in this
3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 213
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/21

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 213 3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 213

and opposed forces; as, the deadlock of a jury or legislature.” The

DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN, petitioner,

1 Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4. 2 Rollo, p. 101.

2 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/21 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/21

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/21 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/21

VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 767 768

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor

the University’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed

770 18 Petition, p. 18; Rollo, p. 19.

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 771

jurisprudence. batting for a company union.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/21 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1fa8d3f1240e0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/21

______________ deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 773

Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor

working days. factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill.”

statement of its during this three-year period, it exerted any effort to

proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like