SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 84433. June 2, 1992.]

ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and

138 others, petitioners, vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-
Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Med. Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and
TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, et al. respondents.

Eliseo M. Cruz for petitioners.

Potenciano Flores, Jr. for private respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR LAW; EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION;

GUARANTEED BY THE LA BOR CODE. — Guaranteed to all employees or workers is
the "right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining." This is made plain by no less than
three provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines. [As amended inter alia by R.A.
Nos. 6715, 6725 AND 6727] Article 243 of the Code provides as follows: ART. 243.
Coverage and employees right to self-organization. — All persons employed in
commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical,
or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-
organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for
purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form
labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. Article 248 (a) declares it to be
an unfair labor practice for an employer, among others, to "interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization." Similarly, Article
249 (a) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to "restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization . . . ." The same legal
proposition is set out in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended,
as might be expected. Section 1, Rule II (Registration of Unions), Book V (Labor
Relations) of the Omnibus Rules provides as follows: "SEC. 1. Who may join unions;
exception. — All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural
enterprises, including employees of government corporations established under the
Corporation Code as well as employees of religious, medical or educational institutions,
whether operating for profit or not, except managerial employees, shall have the right to
self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their
mutual aid and protection.
2. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUED. — The right of self-organization includes the right
to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of two or more unions in an
establishment to join, and to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for
purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their
rights and interests. [Art. 247, Labor Code, as amended] Logically, the right NOT to
join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor
organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily
includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just
as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one
should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has
opted to acquire membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently
opting to renounce such membership. The right to refuse to join or be represented by
any labor organization is recognized not only by the law but also in the rules drawn up
for implementation thereof.
3. ID.; CERTIFICATION ELECTION; INCLUSION OF THE CHOICE OF "NO
UNION" IN THE BALLOTS, NO LONGER REQUIRED BUT NOT EXPRESSLY
BARRED. — The present implementing rules no longer explicitly impose the
requirement that the ballots at a certification election include a choice for "NO UNION."
Section 8 (Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules) entitled "Marking and canvassing of
votes," pertinently provides that: ". . . (a) The voter must write a cross (X) or a check (/)
in the square opposite the union of his choice. If only one union is involved, the voter
shall make his cross or check in the square indicating 'YES' or 'NO.' Withal, neither the
quoted provision nor any other in the Omnibus Implementing Rules expressly bars the
inclusion of that choice of "NO UNION" in the ballots. Indeed, it is doubtful if the
employee's alternative right NOT to form, join or assist any labor organization or
withdraw or resign from one may be validly eliminated and he be consequently coerced
to vote for one or another of the competing unions and be represented by one of them.
Besides, the statement in the quoted provision that "(i)f only one union is involved, the
voter shall make his cross or check in the square indicating 'YES' or 'NO,' is quite clear
acknowledgment of the alternative possibility that the "NO" votes may outnumber the
"YES" votes — indicating that the majority of the employees in the company do not wish
to be represented by any union — in which case, no union can represent the employees
in collective bargaining. And whether the prevailing "NO" votes are inspired by
considerations of religious belief or discipline or not is beside the point, and may not be
inquired into at all.
4. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE THEREOF. — The purpose of a certification election is
precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor organization, and
in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. If the results of the
election should disclose that the majority of the workers do not wish to be represented
by any union, then their wishes must be respected, and no union may properly be
certified as the exclusive representative of the workers in the bargaining unit in dealing
with the employer regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment. The minority employees — who wish to have a union represent them in
collective bargaining — can do nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition
for a certification election and hope that the results will be different. They may not and
should not be permitted, however, to impose their will on the majority — who do not
desire to have a union certified as the exclusive workers' benefit in the bargaining unit -
upon the plea that they, the minority workers, are being denied the right of self-
organization and collective bargaining.
5. ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO VOTE; GRANTED TO ALL BONA FIDE EMPLOYEES
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 IN THE BARGAINING UNIT, WHETHER MEMBERS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR NOT. — The respondents' argument that the petitioners are disqualified to vote
because they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union" — "but members of
the INK which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any
labor organization" — and "hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as
sole and exclusive bargaining representative," is specious. Neither law, administrative
rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization
may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible
intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the
bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not. As held in
Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja [180 SCRA 749, 754 (1989)]. "In a certification
election all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to
vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the
'labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.' Collective bargaining covers all
aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified
union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank-and-file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis
for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to 'all' the
employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to
belong to the 'bargaining unit.'"
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT FORFEITED BY REASON OF NEGLECT TO
EXERCISE THE SAME IN PAST CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS. — Neither does not
the contention that petitioners should be denied the right to vote because they "did not
participate in previous certification elections in the company for the reason that their
religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor organizations," persuade
acceptance. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to
vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past certification elections. In denying
the petitioners' right to vote upon these egregiously fallacious grounds, the public
respondents exercised their discretion whimsically, capriciously and oppressively and
gravely abused the same.

DECISION

NARVASA, C.J : p

The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano

Trajano) sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred
forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same
company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting
the right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. That
denial is assailed as having been done with grave abuse of discretion in the special civil
action of certiorari at bar, commenced by the INK members adversely affected thereby.
The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be
qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their
votes were 141 members of the INK.
The ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of
course, for either of the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b)
TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third
choice: "NO UNION."
The final tally of the votes showed the following results:
TUPAS 1
TUEU-OLALIA 95
NO UNION 1
SPOILED 1
CHALLENGED 141
The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK members. They were segregated
and excluded from the final count in virtue of an agreement between the competing
unions, reached at the pre-election conference, that the INK members should not be
allowed to vote "because they are not members of any union and refused to participate
in the previous certification elections."
The INK employees promptly made known their protest to the exclusion of their
votes. They filed a petition to cancel the election alleging that it "was not fair" and the
result thereof did "not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees."
TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition. It contended that the petitioners " do not have
legal personality to protest the results of the election," because "they are not members
of either contending unit, but . . . of the INK" which prohibits its followers, on religious
grounds, from joining or forming any labor organization . . ."
The Med-Arbiter saw no merit in the INK employees' petition. By Order dated
December 21, 1987, he certified the TUEU-OLALlA as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees. In that Order he decried the fact that
"religious belief was (being) utilized to render meaningless the rights of the non-
members of the Iglesia ni Kristo to exercise the rights to be represented by a labor
organization as the bargaining agent," and declared the petitioners as "not possessed
of any legal personality to institute this present cause of action" since they were not
parties to the petition for certification election.
The petitioners brought the matter up on appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations.
There they argued that the Med-Arbiter had "practically disenfranchised petitioners who
had an overwhelming majority," and "the TUEU-OLALIA certified union cannot be
legally said to have been the result of a valid election where at least fifty-one percent of
all eligible voters in the appropriate bargaining unit shall have cast their votes."
Assistant Labor Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, then Officer-in-Charge of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, denied the appeal in his Decision of July 22, 1988. He
opined that the petitioners are "bereft of legal personality to protest their alleged
disenfranchisement" since they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union,
hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and exclusive
bargaining representative." He also pointed out that the petitioners "did not participate in
previous certification elections in the company for the reason that their religious beliefs
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 do not allow them to form, join or assist labor organizations."
It is this Decision of July 22, 1988 that the petitioners would have this Court annul
and set aside in the present special civil action of certiorari.
The Solicitor General having expressed concurrence with the position taken by
the petitioners, public respondent NLRC was consequently required to file, and did
thereafter file, its own comment on the petition. In that comment it insists that "if the
workers who are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo in the exercise of their religious belief
opted not to join any labor organization as a consequence of which they themselves
can not have a bargaining representative, their right to be represented by a bargaining
agent should not be denied to other members of the bargaining unit." prLL

Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the "right to self-organization and to

form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining." This is made plain by no less than three provisions of the Labor Code of
the Philippines. 2 Article 243 of the Code provides as follows: 3
ART. 243. Coverage and employees right to self-organization. — All
persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in
religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions whether operating for
profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations
for their mutual aid and protection.
Article 248 (a) declares it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer, among
others, to "interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization." Similarly, Article 249 (a) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization to "restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization . . ."
The same legal proposition is set out in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, as amended, as might be expected. Section 1, Rule II (Registration of
Unions), Book V (Labor Relations) of the Omnibus Rules provides as follows: 4
"SEC. 1. Who may join unions; exception. — All persons employed
in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises, including employees of
government corporations established under the Corporation Code as well as
employees of religious, medical or educational institutions, whether operating
for profit or not, except managerial employees, shall have the right to self-
organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may
form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
xxx xxx xxx"
The right of self-organization includes the right to organize or affiliate with a labor
union or determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to
engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection,
i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and interests. 5
Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate
with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. The right to form or join
a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising
said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right
granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
The fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union does not
preclude his subsequently opting to renounce such membership. 6
As early as 1974 this Court had occasion to expatiate on these self-evident
propositions in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al., 7 viz.:
". . . What the Constitution and Industrial Peace Act recognize and
guarantee is the 'right' to form or join associations. Notwithstanding the different
theories propounded by the different schools of jurisprudence regarding the nature
and contents of a 'right,' it can be safely said that whatever theory one subscribes
to, a right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or
freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for
himself without being prevented by law; second, power, whereby an employee
may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association. It is therefore the
employee who should decide for himself whether he should join or not an
association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes up his mind as to
which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the
liberty and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization
at any time (Pagkakaisa Samahang Manggagawa ng San Miguel Brewery vs.
Enriquez, et al., 108 Phil. 1010, 1019). It is clear, therefore, that the right to join a
union includes the right to abstain from joining any union (Abo, et al. vs. PHILAME
[KG] Employees Union, et al., L-19912, January 20, 1965, 13 SCRA 120, 123,
quoting Rothenberg, Labor Relations). Inasmuch as what both the Constitution
and the Industrial Peace Act have recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is
the 'right' to join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say that the law
also imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee the duty to join
associations. The law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any
association."
The right to refuse to join or be represented by any labor organization is
recognized not only by the law but also in the rules drawn up for implementation
thereof. The original Rules on Certification promulgated by the defunct Court of
Industrial Relations required that the ballots to be used at a certification election to
determine which of two or more competing labor unions would represent the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit should contain, aside from the names of each union,
an alternative choice of the employee voting, to the effect that he desires not to be
represented by any union. 8 And where only one union was involved, the ballots were
required to state the question — "Do you desire to be represented by said union?" —
as regards which the employees voting would mark an appropriate square, one
indicating the answer, "Yes," the other, "No."
To be sure, the present implementing rules no longer explicitly impose the
requirement that the ballots at a certification election include a choice for "NO UNION."
Section 8 (Rule VI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules) entitled "Marking and canvassing of
votes," pertinently provides that: llcd

". . . (a) The voter must write a cross (X) or a check (/) in the square
opposite the union of his choice. If only one union is involved, the voter shall
make his cross or check in the square indicating 'YES' or 'NO.'
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 xxx xxx xxx"
Withal, neither the quoted provision nor any other in the Omnibus Implementing Rules
expressly bars the inclusion of that choice of "NO UNION" in the ballots. Indeed, it is
doubtful if the employee's alternative right NOT to form, join or assist any labor
organization or withdraw or resign from one may be validly eliminated and he be
consequently coerced to vote for one or another of the competing unions and be
represented by one of them. Besides, the statement in the quoted provision that "(i)f
only one union is involved, the voter shall make his cross or check in the square
indicating 'YES' or 'NO,' is quite clear acknowledgment of the alternative possibility that
the "NO" votes may outnumber the "YES" votes — indicating that the majority of the
employees in the company do not wish to be represented by any union — in which
case, no union can represent the employees in collective bargaining. And whether the
prevailing "NO" votes are inspired by considerations of religious belief or discipline or
not is beside the point, and may not be inquired into at all.
The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the
wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not
to be represented by a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by which
particular labor organization. If the results of the election should disclose that the
majority of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union, then their wishes
must be respected, and no union may properly be certified as the exclusive
representative of the workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The minority
employees — who wish to have a union represent them in collective bargaining — can
do nothing but wait for another suitable occasion to petition for a certification election
and hope that the results will be different. They may not and should not be permitted,
however, to impose their will on the majority — who do not desire to have a union
certified as the exclusive workers' benefit in the bargaining unit - upon the plea that
they, the minority workers, are being denied the right of self-organization and collective
bargaining. As repeatedly stated, the right of self-organization embraces not only the
right to form, join or assist labor organizations, but the concomitant, converse right NOT
to form, join or assist any labor union.
That the INK employees, as employees in the same bargaining unit in the true
sense of the term, do have the right of self-organization, is also in truth beyond
question, as well as the fact that when they voted that the employees in their bargaining
unit should be represented by "NO UNION," they were simply exercising that right of
self-organization, albeit in its negative aspect. cdll

The respondents' argument that the petitioners are disqualified to vote because
they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union" — "but members of the INK
which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor
organization" — and "hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole
and exclusive bargaining representative," is specious. Neither law, administrative rule
nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization
may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible
intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the
bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not. As held in
Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja: 9
"In a certification election all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 the Labor Code which states that the 'labor organization designated or selected
by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the
exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining.' Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union
binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank-and-file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the
bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their
employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for
certification election. The law refers to `all' the employees in the bargaining unit.
All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the 'bargaining
unit.'"
Neither does the contention that petitioners should be denied the right to vote
because they "did not participate in previous certification elections in the company for
the reason that their religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor
organizations," persuade acceptance. No law, administrative rule or precedent
prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past
certification elections. In denying the petitioners' right to vote upon these egregiously
fallacious grounds, the public respondents exercised their discretion whimsically,
capriciously and oppressively and gravely abused the same. Cdpr

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the Decision of the then
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated December 21, 1987 (affirming
the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated July 22, 1988) is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; and
the petitioners are DECLARED to have legally exercised their right to vote, and their
ballots should be canvassed and, if validly and properly made out, counted and tallied
for the choices written therein. Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Nocon, J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. SEE footnote 5, infra.

2. As amended inter alia by R.A. Nos. 6715, 6725 and 6727 .

3. Emphasis supplied .
4. Emphasis supplied.
5. ART. 247, Labor Code, as amended; SEE Fernandez and Quiazon, Law of Labor
Relations, p. 162.
6. To be sure, the right not to join a union, or discontinue membership therein, is subject to
certain qualifications or exceptions as, e.g., when there is a closed shop or similar
agreement in effect in the establishment, although it has been held that such
agreements are not applicable to any religious sect which prohibits affiliation of their
members in any labor organization (Sec. 4(a) (4), R.A. 875 [The Industrial Peace Act],
as amended by R.A. No. 3350)
7. 59 SCRA 54, 66-67 (1974).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 8. SEE Fernandez & Quiazon, op. cit., pp. 499-501 .
9. 180 SCRA 749, 754 (1989).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com