03 FVC LABOR UNION-PTGWO vs.

SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO
G.R. No. 176249. (November 27, 2009)
Brion, J. / kam

Subject Matter: CBA - Effect of Amended or Extended Term of CBA on Representation Status of Bargaining Agent
Summary: FVCLU-PTGWO, the recognized bargaining agent of the employees of the company (FVC Philippines Inc), entered
into a 5-year CBA with the company and later on renegotiated such CBA, including an extension of the CBA by 4 months.
Instead of the original end date of Jan. 30, 2003, the renegotiated CBA will end on May 31, 2003. On Jan. 21, 2003 or 9 days
before the original expiration of the CBA, SANAMA-SIGLO filed before the DOLE a petition for certification election. FVCLU-
PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition, contending that the 60-day freedom period is now reckoned from May 31, 2003, the
amended expiration date of the CBA.

Med-arbiter ruled in favor of FVCLU-PTGWO and held that the petition by SANAMA-SIGLO was filed outside the freedom
period. DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas reversed such ruling and ruled in favor of SANAMA-SIGLO. DOLE Acting Secretary Imson,
however, granted FVCLU-PTGWO’s MR, holding that the 4-month extension was also ratified by members of the bargaining
unit some of whom later organized themselves as SANAMA-SIGLO. The MR filed by SANAMA-SIGLO was later denied by DOLE
Secretary Sto. Tomas (thus she ruled differently this time). On appeal, the CA reinstated the med-arbiter’s ruling and held that
the extension of the CBA term in the renegotiated agreement will not adversely affect the right of another union to challenge
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within 60 days before the lapse of the original 5 year term of the CBA.

When this case reached the SC, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company has already entered into a new CBA. SANAMA-SIGLO had
given up and abandoned their desire to contest the representative status of FVCLU-PTGWO. However, SC still deemed it
necessary to rule on the question of law in this case. It held that the extension of the CBA term (by 4 months - end date
changed from Jan. 30 to May 30) has no legal effect on the FVCLU-PTGWO’s exclusive bargaining representation status which
remained effective only for 5 years ending on the original expiry date of Jan. 30, 2003. Thus, SANAMA-SIGLO had the right to
file for a petition for certification election when it did on Jan. 21, 2003. Petition DENIED and CA decision AFFIRMED. However,
as this petition has effectively been abandoned, no certification election, pursuant to the underlying petition for certification
election filed with the DOLE.

Doctrine: By express provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years
and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. Despite an agreement for a CBA
with a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining union’s exclusive
bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the
CBA’s first five years.

Parties:
Petitioner FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO)
Respondent Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor
Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO)

Facts:
1. FVCLU-PTGWO is the recognized bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of FVC Philippines Incorporated
(company). They entered into a 5-year CBA (Feb. 1, 1998 to Jan. 30, 2003).
2. At the end of the 3rd year and pursuant to the CBA, entered into the renegotiation of the CBA and modified, among
other provisions, the CBA’s duration. The original 5-year period was extended by 4 months, or until May 31, 2003.

SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO
3. On Jan. 21, 2003 or 9 days before the original expiration of the CBA, respondent SANAMA-SIGLO filed before the DOLE
a petition for certification election for the same rank-and-file unit covered by the FVCLU-PTGWO CBA.
4. FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed outside the freedom period or outside of
the sixty (60) days before the expiration of the CBA on May 31, 2003.
5. Med-Arbiter: Dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed outside the freedom period. SANAMA-SIGLO
appealed to the DOLE Secretary, contending that the filing of the petition was within 60 days from Jan. 30, 2003.
6. DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas: Set aside med-arbiter’s decision and sustained SANAMA-SIGLO’s position.
FVCLU-PTGWO filed an MR.
7. DOLE Acting Secretary Manuel Imson: Granted MR (set aside DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas’ decision). He held that the
amended CBA which extended the CBA by 4 months had been ratified by members of the bargaining unit some of
whom later organized themselves as SANAMA-SIGLO, the certification election applicant. Since these SANAMA-SIGLO
members fully accepted and in fact received the benefits arising from the amendments, the Acting Secretary
rationalized that they also accepted the extended term of the CBA and cannot now file a petition for certification
election based on the original CBA expiration date. MR by SANAMA-SIGLO was also denied by Secretary Sto. Tomas.
Court of Appeals (CA)
8. SANAMA-SIGLO filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the grave abuse of discretion the Labor
Secretary (Sto. Tomas) committed when she reversed her earlier decision calling for a certification election.
9. CA ruled in favor of SANAMA-SIGLO. It held that while the parties may renegotiate the other provisions (economic and
non-economic) of the CBA, this should not affect the 5-year representation aspect of the original CBA. If the duration
of the renegotiated agreement exceeds the original 5-year term, the same will not adversely affect the right of another
union to challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within 60 days before the lapse of the
original 5 year term of the CBA. In the event a new union wins in the certification election, such union is required to
honor and administer the renegotiated CBA throughout the excess period.
10. MR by FVCLU-PTGWO was denied by the CA.

Arguments of FVCLU-PTGWO:
1. The renegotiated CBA changed the CBA’s remaining term from Feb 1, 2001 to May 31, 2003. To FVCLU-PTGWO, this
extension of the CBA term also changed the union’s exclusive bargaining representation status and effectively
moved the reckoning point of the 60-day freedom period from Jan. 30, 2003 to May 30, 2003.
2. SANAMA-SIGLO is estopped from questioning the extension of the CBA term under the amendments because its
members are the very same ones who approved the amendments, including the expiration date of the CBA, and who
benefited from these amendments.
3. The representation petition had been rendered moot by a new CBA it entered into with the company covering the
period June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008.

SANAMA-SIGLO was required to comment by the SC but it failed to comply. It said that they had given up and abandoned their
desire to contest the representative status of FVCLU-PTGWO; and a new CBA had already been signed by FVCLU-PTGWO and
the company. They contended that pursuing the case has become futile. The SC, however, deemed it necessary in the
exercise of their discretion to resolve the question of law raised since this exclusive representation status issue will
inevitably recur in the future as workplace parties avail of opportunities to prolong workplace harmony by extending the term
of CBAs already in place.

Issue: WON the amended or extended term of the CBA also extended the exclusive representation status of the collective
bargaining agent (FVCLU-PTGWO)? (NO, thus the CA [see underlined holding of CA] is correct.)

Ratio:
Article 253-A of the Labor Code covers this situation and it provides:
“Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.—Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into,
shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty day period immediately before the
date of expiry of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution.

This Labor Code provision is implemented through Book V, Rule VIII of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code which states:
“Sec. 14. Denial of the petition; grounds.—The Med-Arbiter may dismiss the petition on any of the following
grounds: x x x x
(b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly registered collective bargaining agreement;
provided that the sixty-day period based on the original collective bargaining agreement shall not be
affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement (underscoring
supplied). x x x x”

The root of the controversy can be traced to a misunderstanding of the interaction between a union’s exclusive bargaining
representation status in a CBA and the term or effective period of the CBA.

While the parties may agree to extend the CBA’s original five-year term together with all other CBA provisions, any such
amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive collective bargaining status.
By express provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years
and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an
agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the
bargaining union’s exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60)
days prior to the expiration of the CBA’s first five years.

As applied to the case:

The SC thus find no error in the appellate court’s ruling reinstating the DOLE order for the conduct of a certification election. If
this ruling cannot now be given effect, the only reason is SANAMA-SIGLO’s own desistance; we cannot disregard its
manifestation that the members of SANAMA themselves are no longer interested in contesting the exclusive collective
bargaining agent status of FVCLU-PTGWO. This recognition is fully in accord with the Labor Code’s intent to foster industrial
peace and harmony in the workplace.

Dispositive: Petition DENIED & CA decision AFFIRMED. But the Court nevertheless DECLARE that no certification election,
pursuant to the underlying petition for certification election filed with the DOLE, can be enforced as this petition has
effectively been abandoned.

Other Notes:
A case cited by the SC is San Miguel Corp. Employees Union–PTGWO, et al. vs. Confesor, San Miguel Corp., Magnolia Corp. and San
Miguel Foods, Inc.
“In the event however, that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract with a term of three (3) years
or one which does not coincide with the said five-year term and said agreement is ratified by majority of the members in the
bargaining unit, the subject contract is valid and legal and therefore, binds the contracting parties. The same will however not
adversely affect the right of another union to challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within sixty (60)
days before the lapse of the original five (5) year term of the CBA.”