Electromat Digital

G.R. No. 172699 July 27, 2011 ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING and RECORDING COR ORATION, Petitioner, vs. !ON.
CIRIACO LAGUN"AD, #n $#% &a'a&#(y a% R)*#onal D#+)&(o+, Na(#onal Ca'#(al R)*#on, D)'a+(,)n( o- La.o+ and E,'loy,)n(/ and !ON. !AN0 LEO J. CACDAC, #n $#% &a'a&#(y a% D#+)&(o+ o- 1u+)au o- La.o+ R)la(#on%, D)'a+(,)n( o- La.o+ and E,'loy,)n(, Public Respondents. NAG2A2AI0ANG 0AMA!AN NG MANGGAGA3A NG ELECTROMAT43A0TO, Private Respondent. DECISION 1RION, J.: We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari assailin! the decision" and the resolution# of the Court of $ppeals %C$& dated 'ebruar( #, "))* and +a( , "))*, respectivel(, rendered in C$ ,.R. SP No. -#-./. 0he $ntecedents 0he private respondent Na!1a1aisan! Sa2ahan n! +an!!a!awa n! Electro2at3Wasto %union&, a charter affiliate of the Wor1ers $dvocates for Stru!!le, 0ransfor2ation and Or!ani4ation %W$S0O&, applied for re!istration with the 5ureau of 6abor Relations %56R&. Supportin! the application were the followin! docu2ents7 % & copies of its ratified constitution and b(3laws %C56&8 %"& 2inutes of the C569s adoption and ratification8 %#& 2inutes of the or!ani4ational 2eetin!s8 %.& na2es and addresses of the union officers8 %:& list of union 2e2bers8 %*& list of ran13and3file e2plo(ees in the co2pan(8 %/& certification of non3e;istence of a collective bar!ainin! a!ree2ent %C5$& in the co2pan(8 %-& resolution of affiliation with W$S0O, a labor federation8 %<& W$S0O9s resolution of acceptance8 % )& Charter Certificate8 and % & =erification under oath. 0he 56R thereafter issued the union a Certification of Creation of 6ocal Chapter %e>uivalent to the certificate of re!istration of an independent union&, pursuant to Depart2ent Order No. %D.O.& .)3)#.. On October , "))#, the petitioner Electro2at +anufacturin! and Recordin! Corporation %co2pan(& filed a petition for cancellation of the union9s re!istration certificate, for the union9s failure to co2pl( with $rticle "#. of the 6abor Code. It ar!ued that D.O. .)3)# is an unconstitutional di2inution of the 6abor Code9s union re!istration re>uire2ents under $rticle "#.. On Nove2ber "/, "))#, $ctin! Director Ciriaco $. 6a!un4ad of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E&3National Capital Re!ion dis2issed the petition.: In the appeal b( the co2pan(, 56R Director ?ans 6eo @. Cacdac affir2ed the dis2issal.* 0he co2pan( thereafter sou!ht relief fro2 the C$ throu!h a petition for certiorari, contendin! that the 56R co22itted !rave abuse of discretion in affir2in! the union9s re!istration despite its non3co2pliance with the re>uire2ents for re!istration under $rticle "#. of the 6abor Code. It assailed the validit( of D.O. .)3)# which a2ended the rules of 5oo1 = %6abor Relations& of the 6abor Code. It posited that the 56R should have strictl( adhered to the union re!istration re>uire2ents under the 6abor Code, instead of rel(in! on D.O. .)3)# which it considered as an invalid a2end2ent of the law since it reduced the re>uire2ents under $rticle "#. of the 6abor Code. It 2aintained that the 56R should not have !ranted the union9s re!istration throu!h the issuance of a Certification of Creation of 6ocal Chapter since the union sub2itted onl( the Charter Certificate issued to it b( W$S0O. 0he C$ Decision In its decision rendered on 'ebruar( #, "))*, / the C$ 0enth Division dis2issed the petition and affir2ed the assailed 56R rulin!. It brushed aside the co2pan(9s obAection to D.O. .)3 )#, and its sub2ission that D.O. .)3)# re2oved the safet( 2easures a!ainst the
co22ission of fraud in the re!istration of unions. It noted that Bthere are sufficient safe!uards found in other provisions of the 6abor Code to prevent the sa2e.B - In an( event, it pointed out that D.O. .)3)# was issued b( the DO6E pursuant to its rule32a1in! power under the law.< 0he co2pan( 2oved for reconsideration, ar!uin! that the union9s re!istration certificate was invalid as there was no showin! that W$S0O, the labor federation to which the union is affiliated, had at least ten % )& locals or chapters as re>uired b( D.O. .)3)#. 0he C$ denied the 2otion, ) holdin! that no such re>uire2ent is found under the rules. ?ence, the present petition. 0he Case for the Petitioner 0he co2pan( see1s a reversal of the C$ rulin!s, throu!h its sub2issions %the petition and the 2e2orandu2 "&, on the !round that the C$ seriousl( erred and !ravel( abused its discretion in affir2in! the re!istration of the union in accordance with D.O. .)3)#. Specificall(, it assails as unconstitutional Section "%E&, Rule III of D.O. .)3)# which provides7 0he report of creation of a chartered local shall be acco2panied b( a charter certificate issued b( the federation or national union indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of the chartered local. 0he co2pan( points out that D.O. .)3)# delisted so2e of the re>uire2ents under $rticle "#. of the 6abor Code for the re!istration of a local chapter. $rticle "#. states7 $R0. "#.. Re>uire2ents of Re!istration. # $n( applicant labor or!ani4ation, association or !roup of unions or wor1ers shall ac>uire le!al personalit( and shall be entitled to the ri!hts and privile!es !ranted b( law to le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations upon issuance of the certificate of re!istration based on the followin! re>uire2ents7 %a& 'ift( pesos %P:).))& re!istration fee8 %b& 0he na2es of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor or!ani4ation, the 2inutes of the or!ani4ational 2eetin!s and the list of the wor1ers who participated in such 2eetin!s8 %c& 0he na2es of all its 2e2bers co2prisin! at least twent( percent %")C& of all the e2plo(ees in the bar!ainin! unit where it see1s to operate8 %d& If the applicant union has been in e;istence for one or 2ore (ears, copies of its annual financial reports8 and %e& 'our %.& copies of the constitution and b(3laws of the applicant union, 2inutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the 2e2bers who participated in it. 0he co2pan( contends that the enu2eration of the re>uire2ents for union re!istration under the law is e;clusive and should not be di2inished, and that the sa2e re>uire2ents should appl( to all labor unions whether the( be independent labor or!ani4ations, federations or local chapters. It adds that in 2a1in! a different rule for local chapters, D.O. .)3)# e;panded or a2ended $rticle "#. of the 6abor Code, resultin! in an invalid e;ercise b( the DO6E of its dele!ated rule32a1in! power. It thus posits that the union9s certificate of re!istration which was issued Bin violation of the letters of $rticle "#. of the 6abor CodeB . is void and of no effect, and that the C$ co22itted !rave abuse of discretion when it affir2ed the union9s e;istence. 0he Case for the Dnion In a Resolution dated @anuar( *, "))-, : the Court directed union board 2e2ber $le; EspeAo, in lieu of union President Roberto 5eltran whose present address could not be verified, to furnish the Court a cop( of the union co22entEopposition to the co2pan(9s 2otion for reconsideration dated 'ebruar( "", "))* in C$ ,.R. SP No. -#-./, which the union adopted as its co22ent on the present petition. *
LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL |1
0hrou!h this co22entEopposition, / the union sub2its that the co2pan( failed to show that the C$ co22itted reversible error in upholdin! the re!istration certificate issued to it b( the 56R. Citin! Castillo v. National 6abor Relations Co22ission, - it stressed that the issuance of the certificate b( the DO6E a!encies was supported b( substantial evidence, which should be entitled to !reat respect and even finalit(. 0he Court9s Rulin! We resolve the core issue of whether D.O. .)3)# is a valid e;ercise of the rule32a1in! power of the DO6E. We rule in the affir2ative. Earlier in Pro!ressive Develop2ent Corporation v. Secretar(, Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent, < the Court encountered a si2ilar >uestion on the validit( of the old Section #, Rule II, 5oo1 = of the Rules I2ple2entin! the 6abor Code") which stated7 Dnion affiliation8 direct 2e2bership with a national union. 3 0he affiliate of a labor federation or national union 2a( be a local or chapter thereof or an independentl( re!istered union. a& 0he labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of a local or chapter, cop( of which shall be sub2itted to the 5ureau of 6abor Relations within thirt( %#)& da(s fro2 issuance of such charter certificate. ;;;; e& 0he local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and 2aintain a constitution and b(3laws, set of officers and boo1s of accounts. 'or reportin! purposes, the procedure !overnin! the reportin! of independentl( re!istered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed. Interpretin! these provisions of the old rules, the Court said that b( force of law, " the local or chapter of a labor federation or national union beco2es a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation upon co2pliance with Section #, Rule II, 5oo1 = of the Rules I2ple2entin! the 6abor Code, the onl( re>uire2ent bein! the sub2ission of the charter certificate to the 56R. 'urther, the Court noted that Section # o2itted several re>uire2ents which are otherwise re>uired for union re!istration, as follows7 & 0he re>uire2ent that the application for re!istration 2ust be si!ned b( at least ")C of the e2plo(ees in the appropriate bar!ainin! unit8 "& 0he sub2ission of officers9 addresses, principal address of the labor or!ani4ation, the 2inutes of or!ani4ation 2eetin!s and the list of the wor1ers who participated in such 2eetin!s8 #& 0he sub2ission of the 2inutes of the adoption or ratification of the constitution and b(3laws and the list of the 2e2bers who participated in it."" Notwithstandin! these o2issions, the Court upheld the !overn2ent9s i2ple2entin! polic( e;pressed in the old rules when it declared in Pro!ressive Develop2ent F Dndoubtedl(, the intent of the law in i2posin! lesser re>uire2ents in the case of a branch or local of a re!istered federation or national union is to encoura!e the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union9s bar!ainin! powers respectin! ter2s and conditions of labor."# It was this sa2e Section # of the old rules that D.O. .)3)# fine3tuned when the DO6E a2ended the rules on 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code, thereb( 2odif(in! the !overn2ent9s i2ple2entin! polic( on the re!istration of locals or chapters of labor federations or national unions. 0he co2pan( now assails this particular a2end2ent as an invalid e;ercise of the DO6E9s rule32a1in! power. We disa!ree. $s in the case of D.O. < %which introduced the above3cited Section # of the old rules& in Pro!ressive Develop2ent, D.O. .)3)# represents an e;pression of the !overn2ent9s i2ple2entin! polic( on trade unionis2. It builds upon the old rules b( further
si2plif(in! the re>uire2ents for the establish2ent of locals or chapters. $s in D.O. <, we see nothin! contrar( to the law or the Constitution in the adoption b( the Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent of D.O. .)3)# as this depart2ent order is consistent with the intent of the !overn2ent to encoura!e the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union to enhance the local9s bar!ainin! power. If chan!es were 2ade at all, these were those 2ade to reco!ni4e the distinctions 2ade in the law itself between federations and their local chapters, and independent unions8 local chapters see2in!l( have lesser re>uire2ents because the( and their 2e2bers are dee2ed to be direct 2e2bers of the federation to which the( are affiliated, which federations are the ones subAect to the strict re!istration re>uire2ents of the law.1avvphi1 In an( case, the local union in the present case has 2ore than satisfied the re>uire2ents the petitioner co2plains about8 specificall(, the union has sub2itted7 % & copies of the ratified C568 %"& the 2inutes of the C569s adoption and ratification8 %#& the 2inutes of the or!ani4ational 2eetin!s8 %.& the na2es and addresses of the union officers8 %:& the list of union 2e2bers8 %*& the list of ran13and3file e2plo(ees in the co2pan(8 %/& a certification of non3e;istence of a C5$ in the co2pan(8 %-& the resolution of affiliation with W$S0O and the latter9s acceptance8 and %<& their Charter Certificate. 0hese sub2issions were properl( verified as re>uired b( the rules. In su2, the petitioner has no factual basis for >uestionin! the union9s re!istration, as even the re>uire2ents for re!istration as an independent local have been substantiall( co2plied with. We, thus, find no co2pellin! Austification to nullif( D.O. .)3)#. Si!nificantl(, the Court declared in another case7". Pa!palain cannot also alle!e that Depart2ent Order No. < is violative of public polic(. ; ; ; G0Hhe sole function of our courts is to appl( or interpret the laws. It does not for2ulate public polic(, which is the province of the le!islative and e;ecutive branches of !overn2ent. It cannot, thus, be said that the principles laid down b( the Court in Pro!ressive and Protection 0echnolo!( constitute public polic( on the 2atter. 0he( do, however, constitute the Court9s interpretation of public polic(, as for2ulated b( the e;ecutive depart2ent throu!h its pro2ul!ation of rules i2ple2entin! the 6abor Code. ?owever, this public polic( has itself been chan!ed b( the e;ecutive depart2ent, throu!h the a2end2ents introduced in 5oo1 = of the O2nibus Rules b( Depart2ent Order No. <. It is not for us to >uestion this chan!e in polic(, it bein! a well3established principle be(ond >uestion that it is not within the province of the courts to pass Aud!2ents upon the polic( of le!islative or e;ecutive action. 0his state2ent is as true then as it is now. In li!ht of the fore!oin!, we find no 2erit in the appeal. W?ERE'ORE, pre2ises considered, we DENI the petition for lac1 of 2erit. 0he assailed decision and resolution of the Court of $ppeals are $''IR+ED. Costs a!ainst the petitioner Electro2at +anufacturin! and Recordin! Corporation. SO ORDERED.
LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL
|2
G.R. No. 160562 July 25, 2007 RE U1LIC OF T!E !ILI INE0, +)'+)%)n()d .y D)'a+(,)n( o- La.o+ and E,'loy,)n( 8DOLE9,Petitioner, vs. 2A3A0!IMA TE:TILE MFG., !ILI INE0, INC., Respondent. DECISION AU0TRIA4MARTINE", J.: 0he Republic of the Philippines assails b( wa( of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule .: of the Rules of Court, the Dece2ber #, "))" Decision of the Court of $ppeals %C$&, which reversed the $u!ust -, "))) Decision " of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E&, and reinstated the +a( /, "))) Order # of +ed3$rbiter $nastacio 6. 5actin, dis2issin! the petition of Jawashi2a 'ree Wor1ers Dnion3P0,WO 6ocal Chapter No. -)# %J'WD& for the conduct of a certification election in Jawashi2a 0e;tile +f!. Phils., Inc. %respondent&8 and the October /, "))# C$ Resolution . which denied the 2otion for reconsideration. 0he relevant facts are of record. On @anuar( "., "))), J'WD filed with DO6E Re!ional Office No. I=, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the bar!ainin! unit co2posed of .: ran13and3file e2plo(ees of respondent.: $ttached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of 6ocalEChapter* issued on @anuar( <, "))) b( DO6E Re!ional Office No. I=, statin! that it GJ'WDH sub2itted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it b( the national federation Phil. 0ransport K ,eneral Wor1ers Or!ani4ation %P0,WO&, and a Report of Creation of 6ocalEChapter./ Respondent filed a +otion to Dis2iss - the petition on the !round that J'WD did not ac>uire an( le!al personalit( because its 2e2bership of 2i;ed ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees violated $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, and its failure to sub2it its boo1s of account contravened the rulin! of the Court in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment.< In an Order dated +a( /, "))), +ed3$rbiter 5actin found J'WD9s le!al personalit( defective and dis2issed its petition for certification election, thus7 We scrutini4e the facts and evidences presented b( the parties and arrived at a decision that at least two %"& 2e2bers of GJ'WDH, na2el(7 Dan( I. 'ernande4 and @esus R. Luinto, @r. are supervisor( e2plo(ees, havin! a nu2ber of personnel under the2. 5ein! supervisor( e2plo(ees, the( are prohibited under $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, as a2ended, to Aoin the union of the ran1 and file e2plo(ees. Dan( I. 'ernande4 and @esus R. Luinto, @r., Chief En!ineers of the +aintenance and +anufacturin! Depart2ent, respectivel(, act as fore2en to the line en!ineers, 2echanics and other non3s1illed wor1ers and responsible GforH the preparation and or!ani4ation of 2aintenance shop fabrication and schedules, inventor( and control of 2aterials and supplies and tas1ed to i2ple2ent trainin! plans on line en!ineers and evaluate the perfor2ance of their subordinates. 0he above3 stated actual functions of Dan( I. 'ernande4 and @esus R. Luinto, @r. are clear 2anifestation that the( are supervisor( e2plo(ees. ;;;; 0#n&) ')(#(#on)+;% ,),.)+% a+) ,#<(u+) o- +an= and -#l) and %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))%, ')(#(#on)+ un#on, a( ($#% 'o#n( ?#n@ (#,), $a% no( a((a#n)d ($) %(a(u% o- a l)*#(#,a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on. )(#(#on)+ %$ould -#+%( )<&lud) ($) %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))% -+o, #( ,),.)+%$#' .)-o+) #( &an a((a#n ($) %(a(u% o- a l)*#(#,a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on. 0he above Aud!2ent is supported b( the decision of the Supre2e Court in the 0o(ota Case ) wherein the ?i!h 0ribunal ruled7
B$s respondent union9s 2e2bership list contains the na2es of at least twent( seven %"/& supervisor( e2plo(ees in 6evel 'ive Positions, the union could not prior to pur!in! itself of its supervisor( e2plo(ee 2e2bers, attain the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, it cannot possess the re>uisite personalit( to file a petition for certification election.B %Dnderscorin! o2itted.& ;;;; 'urther2ore, the co22in!lin! of ran1 and file and supervisor( e2plo(ees in one % & bar!ainin! unit cannot be cured in the e;clusion3inclusion proceedin!s GatH the pre3election conference. 0he above rulin! is supported b( the Decision of the Supre2e Court in Dunlop Sla4en!er %Phils.&, Inc. vs. ?onorable Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent, et al., ,.R. No. # ".- dated Dece2ber , <<- ; ; ;. ;;;; W?ERE'ORE, pre2ises considered, the petition for certification election is hereb( dis2issed for lac1 of re>uisite le!al status of petitioner to file this instant petition. SO ORDERED. " %E2phasis supplied& On the basis of the aforecited decision, respondent filed with DO6E Re!ional Office No. I= a Petition for Cancellation of CharterEDnion Re!istration of J'WD, # the final outco2e of which, unfortunatel(, cannot be ascertained fro2 the records. +eanwhile, J'WD appealed . to the DO6E which issued a Decision on $u!ust -, "))), the dispositive portion of which reads7 W?ERE'ORE, the appeal is ,R$N0ED. 0he Order dated / +a( "))) of the +ed3$rbiter is RE=ERSED and SE0 $SIDE. $ccordin!l(, let the entire records of the case be re2anded to the office of ori!in for the i22ediate conduct of certification election, subAect to the usual pre3election conference, a2on! the ran13and3file e2plo(ees of Jawashi2a 0e;tile +anufacturin! Philippines, Inc. with the followin! choices7 . Jawashi2a 'ree Wor1ers Dnion3P0,WO 6ocal Chapter No. -)#8 and ". No union. Pursuant to Rule MI, Section . of the New I2ple2entin! Rules, the e2plo(er is hereb( directed to sub2it to the office of ori!in the certified list of current e2plo(ees in the bar!ainin! unit for the last three 2onths prior to the issuance of this decision. SO DECIDED. : 0he DO6E held that +ed3$rbiter 5actinNs reliance on the decisions of the Court in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor nion * and D!nlop Sla"enger, #nc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment / was 2isplaced, for while $rticle ".: declares supervisor( e2plo(ees ineli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation for ran13and3file e2plo(ees, the provision did not state the effect of such prohibited 2e2bership on the le!iti2ac( of the labor or!ani4ation and its ri!ht to file for certification election. Neither was such 2i;ed 2e2bership a !round for cancellation of its re!istration. Section , Para!raph II, Rule MI of Depart2ent Order No. < Bprovides for the dis2issal of a petition for certification election based on lac1 of le!al personalit( of a labor or!ani4ation onl( on the followin! !rounds7 % & GJ'WDH is not listed b( the Re!ional Office or the 5ureau of 6abor Relations in its re!istr( of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations8 or %"& GJ'WDNsH le!al personalit( has been revo1ed or canceled with finalit(.B - 0he DO6E noted that neither !round e;isted8 on the contrar(, J'WDNs le!al personalit( was well3established, for it held a certificate of creation and had been listed in the re!istr( of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations. $s to the failure of J'WD to file its boo1s of account, the DO6E held that such o2ission was not a !round for revocation of union re!istration or dis2issal of petition for certification election, for under Section , Rule =I of Depart2ent Order No. <, a local or chapter li1e J'WD was no lon!er re>uired to file its boo1s of account. <
Respondent filed a +otion for Reconsideration") but the DO6E denied the sa2e in its Septe2ber "-, "))) Resolution." ?owever, on appeal b( respondent, the C$ rendered the Dece2ber #, "))" Decision assailed herein, reversin! the $u!ust -, "))) DO6E Decision, thus7 0#n&) +)%'ond)n( un#on &l)a+ly &on%#%(% o- .o($ +an= and -#l) and %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))%, #( &anno( Bual#-y a% a l)*#(#,a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on #,.u)d C#($ ($) +)Bu#%#() ')+%onal#(y (o -#l) a ')(#(#on -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on. T$#% #n-#+,#(y #n un#on ,),.)+%$#' &anno( .) &o++)&()d #n ($) #n&lu%#on4)<&lu%#on '+o&))d#n*% du+#n* ($) '+)4)l)&(#on &on-)+)n&). 'inall(, contrar( to the pronounce2ent of public respondent, the application of the doctrine enunciated in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor nion was not construed in a wa( that effectivel( denies the funda2ental ri!ht of respondent union to or!ani4e and see1 bar!ainin! representation ; ; ;. 'or i!norin! Aurisprudential precepts on the 2atter, the Court finds that the Dndersecretar( of 6abor, actin! under the authorit( of the Secretar( of 6abor, acted with !rave abuse of discretion a2ountin! to lac1 or e;cess of Aurisdiction. W?ERE'ORE, pre2ises considered, the Petition is hereb( ,R$N0ED. 0he Decision dated - $u!ust "))) of the Dndersecretar( of 6abor, actin! under the authorit( of the Secretar(, is hereb( RE=ERSED and SE0 $SIDE. 0he Order dated / +a( "))) of the +ed3$rbiter dis2issin! the petition for certification election filed b( Jawashi2a 'ree Wor1ers Dnion3 P0,WO 6ocal Chapter No. -)# is REINS0$0ED. SO ORDERED."" %E2phasis supplied& J'WD filed a +otion for Reconsideration"# but the C$ denied it. 0he Republic of the Philippines %petitioner& filed the present petition to see1 &lo%u+) on two issues7 'irst, whether a 2i;ed 2e2bership of ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees in a union is a !round for the dis2issal of a petition for certification election in view of the a2end2ent brou!ht about b( D.O. <, series of <</, which deleted the phraseolo!( in the old rule that BGtHhe appropriate bar!ainin! unit of the ran13and3file e2plo(ee shall not include the supervisor( e2plo(ees andEor securit( !uards8B and Second, whether the le!iti2ac( of a dul( re!istered labor or!ani4ation can be collaterall( attac1ed in a petition for a certification election throu!h a 2otion to dis2iss filed b( an e2plo(er such as Jawashi2a 0e;tile +anufacturin! Phils., Inc.". 0he petition is i2bued with 2erit. 0he 1e( to the closure that petitioner see1s could have been Republic $ct %R.$.& No. <.- .": Sections - and < thereof provide7 Section -. $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code is hereb( a2ended to read as follows7 B$rt. ".:. Ineli!ibilit( of +ana!erial E2plo(ees to @oin an( 6abor Or!ani4ation8 Ri!ht of Supervisor( E2plo(ees. 3 +ana!erial e2plo(ees are not eli!ible to Aoin, assist or for2 an( labor or!ani4ation. Supervisor( e2plo(ees shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in the collective bar!ainin! unit of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees but 2a( Aoin, assist or for2 separate collective bar!ainin! units andEor le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations of their own. 0he ran1 and file union and the supervisorsN union operatin! within the sa2e establish2ent 2a( Aoin the sa2e federation or national union.B Section <. $ new provision, $rticle ".:3$ is inserted into the 6abor Code to read as follows7 B$rt. ".:3$. Effect of Inclusion as +e2bers of E2plo(ees Outside the 5ar!ainin! Dnit. 3 T$) #n&lu%#on a% un#on ,),.)+% o- ),'loy))% ou(%#d) ($) .a+*a#n#n* un#( %$all no( .) a *+ound -o+ ($) &an&)lla(#on o- ($) +)*#%(+a(#on o- ($) un#on. 0a#d ),'loy))% a+) au(o,a(#&ally d)),)d +),o>)d -+o, ($) l#%( o- ,),.)+%$#' o- %a#d un#on .B %E2phasis supplied&
+oreover, under Section ., a pendin! petition for cancellation of re!istration will not hinder a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation fro2 initiatin! a certification election, vi"7 Sec. .. $ new provision is hereb( inserted into the 6abor Code as $rticle "#-3$ to read as follows7 B$rt. "#-3$. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Re!istration. $ A ')(#(#on -o+ &an&)lla(#on o- un#on +)*#%(+a(#on %$all no( %u%')nd ($) '+o&))d#n*% -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on no+ %$all #( '+)>)n( ($) -#l#n* o- a ')(#(#on -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on . In case of cancellation, nothin! herein shall restrict the ri!ht of the union to see1 Aust and e>uitable re2edies in the appropriate courts.B %E2phasis supplied& 'urther2ore, under Section " of R.$. No. <.- , e2plo(ers have no personalit( to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification election filed b( a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, to wit7 Sec. ". $ new provision, $rticle ":-3$ is hereb( inserted into the 6abor Code to read as follows7 B$rt. ":-3$. E2plo(er as 5(stander. 3 In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed b( an e2plo(er or a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, ($) ),'loy)+ %$all no( .) &on%#d)+)d a 'a+(y ($)+)(o C#($ a &on&o,#(an( +#*$( (o o''o%) a ')(#(#on -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on. T$) ),'loy)+D% 'a+(#&#'a(#on #n %u&$ '+o&))d#n*% %$all .) l#,#()d (oE 819 .)#n* no(#-#)d o+ #n-o+,)d o- ')(#(#on% o- %u&$ na(u+)/ and 829 %u.,#((#n* ($) l#%( o- ),'loy))% du+#n* ($) '+)4)l)&(#on &on-)+)n&) %$ould ($) M)d4 A+.#()+ a&( -a>o+a.ly on ($) ')(#(#on.B %E2phasis supplied& !oC)>)+, R.$. No. <.- too1 effect onl( on @une ., "))/8"* hence, it applies onl( to labor representation cases filed on or after said date."/ $s the petition for certification election subAect 2atter of the present petition was filed b( J'WD on @anuar( "., "))), "- R.$. No. <.- cannot appl( to it. 0here 2a( have been curative labor le!islations "< that were !iven retrospective effect,#) but not the aforecited provisions of R.$. No. <.- , for otherwise, substantive ri!hts and interests alread( vested would be i2paired in the process.# Instead, the law and rules in force at the ti2e of the filin! b( J'WD of the petition for certification election on @anuar( "., "))) are R.$. No. */ :, #" a2endin! 5oo1 = of Presidential Decree %P.D.& No. .." %6abor Code&,##as a2ended, and the Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ :,#. as a2ended b( Depart2ent Order No. <, series of <</.#: It is within the para2eters of R.$. No. */ : and the I2ple2entin! Rules that the Court will now resolve the two issues raised b( petitioner. If there is one constant precept in our labor laws F be it Co22onwealth $ct No. " # % <#*&,#* R.$. No. -/: % <:#&,#/ P.D. No. .." % </.&, E;ecutive Order %E.O.& No. % <-*&#- or R.$. No. */ : % <-<& 3 it is that onl( a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation 2a( e;ercise the ri!ht to be certified as the e;clusive representative of all the e2plo(ees in an appropriate collective bar!ainin! unit for purposes of collective bar!ainin!.#< What has varied over the (ears has been the de!ree of enforce2ent of this precept, as reflected in the shiftin! scope of ad2inistrative and Audicial scrutin( of the co2position of a labor or!ani4ation before it is allowed to e;ercise the ri!ht of representation. One area of contention has been the co2position of the 2e2bership of a labor or!ani4ation, specificall( whether there is a 2in!lin! of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees and how such >uestioned 2in!lin! affects its le!iti2ac(. It was in R.$. No. -/:, under Section #, that such >uestioned 2in!lin! was first prohibited,.) to wit7 Sec. #. Employees% right to self$organi"ation. F E2plo(ees shall have the ri!ht to self3 or!ani4ation and to for2, Aoin or assist labor or!ani4ations of their own choosin! for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! throu!h representatives of their own choosin! and to
en!a!e in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! and other 2utual aid or protection. Individuals e2plo(ed as supervisors shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of e2plo(ees under their supervision but 2a( for2 separate or!ani4ations of their own. %E2phasis supplied& Nothin! in R.$. No. -/:, however, tells of how the >uestioned 2in!lin! can affect the le!iti2ac( of the labor or!ani4ation. Dnder Section :, the onl( instance when a labor or!ani4ation loses its le!iti2ac( is when it violates its dut( to bar!ain collectivel(8 but there is no word on whether such 2in!lin! would also result in loss of le!iti2ac(. 0hus, when the issue of whether the 2e2bership of two supervisor( e2plo(ees i2pairs the le!iti2ac( of a ran13and3file labor or!ani4ation ca2e before the Court En 5anc in 6ope4 v. Chronicle Publication E2plo(ees $ssociation,. the 2aAorit( pronounced7 It 2a( be observed that nothin! is said of the effect of such ineli!ibilit( upon the union itself or on the status of the other >ualified 2e2bers thereof should such prohibition be disre!arded. Considerin! that the law is specific where it intends to divest a le!iti2ate labor union of an( of the ri!hts and privile!es !ranted to it b( law, the absence of an( provision on the effect of the dis>ualification of one of its or!ani4ers upon the le!alit( of the union, 2a( be construed to confine the effect of such ineli!ibilit( onl( upon the 2e2bership of the supervisor. In other words, the invalidit( of 2e2bership of one of the or!ani4ers does not 2a1e the union ille!al, where the re>uire2ents of the law for the or!ani4ation thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and 2et.." %E2phasis supplied& 0hen the 6abor Code was enacted in </. without reproducin! Sec. # of R.$. No. -/:. 0he provision in the 6abor Code closest to Sec. # is $rticle "<), .# which is deafenin!l( silent on the prohibition a!ainst supervisor( e2plo(ees 2in!lin! with ran13and3file e2plo(ees in one labor or!ani4ation. Even the O2nibus Rules I2ple2entin! 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code.. %O2nibus Rules& 2erel( provides in Section , Rule II, thus7 Sec. . S!pervisory !nions and !nions of sec!rity g!ards to cease operation. F $ll e;istin! supervisor( unions and unions of securit( !uards shall, upon the effectivit( of the Code, cease to operate as such and their re!istration certificates shall be dee2ed auto2aticall( cancelled. ?owever, e;istin! collective a!ree2ents with such unions, the life of which e;tends be(ond the date of effectivit( of the Code shall be respected until their e;pir( date insofar as the econo2ic benefits !ranted therein are concerned. +e2bers of supervisor( unions who do not fall within the definition of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees shall beco2e eli!ible to Aoin or assist the ran1 and file or!ani4ation. 0he deter2ination of who are 2ana!erial e2plo(ees and who are not shall be the subAect of ne!otiation between representatives of supervisor( union and the e2plo(er. If no a!ree2ent s reached between the parties, either or both of the2 2a brin! the issue to the nearest Re!ional Office for deter2ination. %E2phasis supplied& 0he obvious repeal of the last clause of Sec. #, R.$. No. -/: pro2pted the Court to declare in 5ulletin v. Sanche4.: that supervisor( e2plo(ees who do not fall under the cate!or( of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees 2a( Aoin or assist in the for2ation of a labor or!ani4ation for ran13 and3file e2plo(ees, but the( 2a( not for2 their own labor or!ani4ation. While a2endin! certain provisions of 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code, E.O. No. and its i2ple2entin! rules.*continued to reco!ni4e the ri!ht of supervisor( e2plo(ees, who do not fall under the cate!or( of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees, to Aoin a ran13and3file labor or!ani4ation../ Effective <-<, R.$. No. */ : restored the prohibition a!ainst the >uestioned 2in!lin! in one labor or!ani4ation, vi47 Sec. -. &rticle '() of the same Code , as a2ended, is hereb( further a2ended to read as follows FA+(. 2G6. In)l#*#.#l#(y o- ,ana*)+#al ),'loy))% (o Ho#n any la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on/ +#*$( o%u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))%. +ana!erial e2plo(ees are not eli!ible to Aoin, assist or for2 an(
labor or!ani4ation. Supervisor( e2plo(ees shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees but 2a( Aoin, assist or for2 separate labor or!ani4ations of their own.B %E2phasis supplied& Dnfortunatel(, Aust li1e R.$. No. -/:, R.$. No. */ : o2itted specif(in! the e;act effect an( violation of the prohibition would brin! about on the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation. It was the Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ : % <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules& which supplied the deficienc( b( introducin! the followin! a2end2ent to Rule II %Re!istration of Dnions&7 Sec. . *ho may +oin !nions. F ; ; ; Supervisor( e2plo(ees and securit( !uards shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees but 2a( Aoin, assist or for2 separate labor or!ani4ations of their own8 Provided, that those supervisor( e2plo(ees who are included in an e;istin! ran13and3file bar!ainin! unit, upon the effectivit( of Republic $ct No. */ :, shall re2ain in that unit ; ; ;. %E2phasis supplied& and Rule = %Representation Cases and Internal3Dnion Conflicts& of the O2nibus Rules, vi47 Sec. . *here to file. F $ petition for certification election 2a( be filed with the Re!ional Office which has Aurisdiction over the principal office of the e2plo(er. 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath. Sec. ". *ho may file. F $n( le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation or the e2plo(er, when re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, 2a( file the petition. 0he petition, when filed b( a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, shall contain, a2on! others7 ;;;; %c& description of the bar!ainin! unit which shall be the e2plo(er unit unless circu2stances otherwise re>uire8 and provided further, that the appropriate bar!ainin! unit of the ran13and3 file e2plo(ees shall not include supervisor( e2plo(ees andEor securit( !uards. %E2phasis supplied& 5( that provision, an( >uestioned 2in!lin! will prevent an otherwise le!iti2ate and dul( re!istered labor or!ani4ation fro2 e;ercisin! its ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. 0hus, when the issue of the effect of 2in!lin! was brou!ht to the fore in 0o(ota, .- the Court, citin! $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, as a2ended b( R.$. No. */ :, held7 Clearl(, based on this provision, a labor or!ani4ation co2posed of both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees is no labor or!ani4ation at all. It cannot, for an( !uise or purpose, be a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, an o+*an#Aa(#on C$#&$ &a++#)% a ,#<(u+) o+an=4and4-#l) and %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))% &anno( 'o%%)%% any o- ($) +#*$(% o- a l)*#(#,a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on, #n&lud#n* ($) +#*$( (o -#l) a ')(#(#on -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on -o+ ($) 'u+'o%) o- &oll)&(#>) .a+*a#n#n*. It beco2es necessar(, therefore, anterior to the !rantin! of an order allowin! a certification election, to in>uire into the co2position of an( labor or!ani4ation whenever the status of the labor or!ani4ation is challen!ed on the basis of $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code. ;;;; In the case at bar, as respondent unionNs 2e2bership list contains the na2es of at least twent(3seven %"/& supervisor( e2plo(ees in 6evel 'ive positions, the union could not, prior to pur!in! itself of its supervisor( e2plo(ee 2e2bers, attain the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, it cannot possess the re>uisite personalit( to file a petition for certification election..< %E2phasis supplied& In Dunlop,:) in which the labor or!ani4ation that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisor( e2plo(ees, but in which the 2e2bership included ran13and3file e2plo(ees, the Court reiterated that such labor or!ani4ation had no le!al ri!ht to file a certification election to represent a bar!ainin! unit co2posed of supervisors for as lon! as it counted ran13and3file e2plo(ees a2on! its 2e2bers.:
It should be e2phasi4ed that the petitions for certification election involved in 0o(ota and Dunlop were filed on Nove2ber "*, <<" and Septe2ber :, <<:, respectivel(8 hence, the <-< Rules was applied in both cases. 5ut then, on @une " , <</, the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules was further a2ended b( Depart2ent Order No. <, series of <</ % <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules&. Specificall(, the re>uire2ent under Sec. "%c& of the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules 3 that the petition for certification election indicate that the bar!ainin! unit of ran13and3file e2plo(ees has not been 2in!led with supervisor( e2plo(ees 3 was re2oved. Instead, what the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules re>uires is a plain description of the bar!ainin! unit, thus7 Rule MI Certification Elections ;;;; Sec. .. ,orms and contents of petition. 3 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath and shall contain, a2on! others, the followin!7 ; ; ; %c& 0he description of the bar!ainin! unit.:" In Pagpalain -a!lers, #nc. v. Tra+ano, :# the Court had occasion to uphold the validit( of the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, althou!h the specific provision involved therein was onl( Sec. , Rule =I, to wit7 Sec. . Chartering and creation of a local.chapter .3 $ dul( re!istered federation or national union 2a( directl( create a localEchapter b( sub2ittin! to the Re!ional Office or to the 5ureau two %"& copies of the followin!7 a& a charter certificate issued b( the federation or national union indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of the localEchapter8 %b& the na2es of the localEchapter9s officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the localEchapter8 and %c& the localE chapter9s constitution and b(3laws8 provided that where the localEchapter9s constitution and b(3laws is the sa2e as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordin!l(. $ll the fore!oin! supportin! re>uire2ents shall be certified under oath b( the Secretar( or the 0reasurer of the localEchapter and attested to b( its President. which does not re>uire that, for its creation and re!istration, a local or chapter sub2it a list of its 2e2bers. 0hen ca2e 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands Int9l. ,olf Club, Inc. v. 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands E2plo(ees Dnion3P,0WO:. in which the core issue was whether 2in!lin! affects the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation and its ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. 0his ti2e, !iven the altered le!al 2ilieu, the Court abandoned the view in 0o(ota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronounce2ent in 6ope4 that while there is a prohibition a!ainst the 2in!lin! of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in one labor or!ani4ation, the 6abor Code does not provide for the effects thereof.::0hus, the Court held that after a labor or!ani4ation has been re!istered, it 2a( e;ercise all the ri!hts and privile!es of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. $n( 2in!lin! between supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in its 2e2bership cannot affect its le!iti2ac( for that is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation of its re!istration, unless such 2in!lin! was brou!ht about b( 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code.:* In San +i!uel Corp. %+andaue Pac1a!in! Products Plants& v. +andaue Pac1in! Products Plants3San +i!uel Pac1a!in! Products3San +i!uel Corp. +onthlies Ran13and3'ile Dnion3 ''W,:/ the Court e;plained that since the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules does not re>uire a local or chapter to provide a list of its 2e2bers, it would be i2proper for the DO6E to den( reco!nition to said local or chapter on account of an( >uestion pertainin! to its individual 2e2bers.:+ore to the point is $ir Philippines Corporation v. 5ureau of 6abor Relations, :< which involved a petition for cancellation of union re!istration filed b( the e2plo(er in <<< a!ainst a ran13and3file labor or!ani4ation on the !round of 2i;ed 2e2bership7 *) the Court therein
reiterated its rulin! in 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands that the inclusion in a union of dis>ualified e2plo(ees is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under the circu2stances enu2erated in Sections %a& and %c& of $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code.* lavvphil $ll said, while the latest issuance is R.$. No. <.- , the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, as interpreted b( the Court in 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands, San +i!uel and $ir Philippines, had alread( set the tone for it. 0o(ota and Dunlop no lon!er hold swa( in the present altered state of the law and the rules. Conse>uentl(, the Court reverses the rulin! of the C$ and reinstates that of the DO6E !rantin! the petition for certification election of J'WD. Now to the second issue of whether an e2plo(er li1e respondent 2a( collaterall( attac1 the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation b( filin! a 2otion to dis2iss the latter9s petition for certification election. E;cept when it is re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, *" an e2plo(er is a 2ere b(stander to an( petition for certification election8 such proceedin! is non3adversarial and 2erel( investi!ative, for the purpose thereof is to deter2ine which or!ani4ation will represent the e2plo(ees in their collective bar!ainin! with the e2plo(er. *# 0he choice of their representative is the e;clusive concern of the e2plo(ees8 the e2plo(er cannot have an( partisan interest therein8 it cannot interfere with, 2uch less oppose, the process b( filin! a 2otion to dis2iss or an appeal fro2 it8*. not even a 2ere alle!ation that so2e e2plo(ees participatin! in a petition for certification election are actuall( 2ana!erial e2plo(ees will lend an e2plo(er le!al personalit( to bloc1 the certification election.*: 0he e2plo(erNs onl( ri!ht in the proceedin! is to be notified or infor2ed thereof.** 0he a2end2ents to the 6abor Code and its i2ple2entin! rules have buttressed that polic( even 2ore. 3!EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. 0he Dece2ber #, "))" Decision and October /, "))# Resolution of the Court of $ppeals and the +a( /, "))) Order of +ed3$rbiter $nastacio 6. 5actin are REIER0ED and 0ET A0IDE,while the $u!ust -, "))) Decision and Septe2ber "-, "))) Resolution of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent are REIN0TATED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
|6
G.R. No. 1671G1 Ma+&$ 15, 2009 0AMA!AN NG MGA MANGGAGA3A 0A 0AMMA4LA2A0 0A INDU0TRIJA NG 2A ATIRANG !ALIGI NG ALJAN0A 80AMMA4LI2!A9, Petitioner, vs. 0AMMA COR ORATION, Respondent. DECISION 0his is a petition for review on certiorari of the $u!ust # , ")). decision " and 'ebruar( :, ")): resolution# of the Court of $ppeals %C$& in C$3,.R. SP No. // :*. Petitioner Sa2ahan n! 2!a +an!!a!awa sa Sa22aF 6a1as sa Industri(a n! Japatiran! ?ali!i n! $l(ansa %S$++$36IJ?$& filed a petition for certification election on @ul( "., ")) in the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E&, Re!ional Office I=. . It clai2ed that7 % & it was a local chapter of the 6IJ?$ 'ederation, a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation re!istered with the DO6E8 %"& it sou!ht to represent all the ran13and3file e2plo(ees of respondent Sa22a Corporation8 %#& there was no other le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation representin! these ran13and3file e2plo(ees8 %.& respondent was not a part( to an( collective bar!ainin! a!ree2ent and %:& no certification or consent election had been conducted within the e2plo(er unit for the last " 2onths prior to the filin! of the petition. Respondent 2oved for the dis2issal of the petition ar!uin! that % & 6IJ?$ 'ederation failed to establish its le!al personalit(8 %"& petitioner failed to prove its e;istence as a local chapter8 %#& it failed to attach the certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! and %.& it had a prohibited 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees.: In an order dated Nove2ber ", "))", 2ed3arbiter $rturo =. Cosuco ordered the dis2issal of the petition on the followin! !rounds7 % & lac1 of le!al personalit( for failure to attach the certificate of re!istration purportin! to show its le!al personalit(8 %"& prohibited 2i;ture of ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees and %#& failure to sub2it a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin!.* Petitioner 2oved for reconsideration on Nove2ber "<, ")) . 0he Re!ional Director of DO6E Re!ional Office I= forwarded the case to the Secretar( of 6abor. +eanwhile, on Dece2ber ., "))", respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner9s union re!istration in the DO6E Re!ional Office I=. / On @anuar( /, "))#, $ctin! Secretar( +anuel ,. I2son, treatin! the 2otion for reconsideration as an appeal, rendered a decision reversin! the order of the 2ed3arbiter. ?e ruled that the le!al personalit( of a union cannot be collaterall( attac1ed but 2a( onl( be >uestioned in an independent petition for cancellation of re!istration. 0hus, he directed the holdin! of a certification election a2on! the ran13and3 file e2plo(ees of respondent, subAect to the usual pre3election conference and inclusion3e;clusion proceedin!s.On @anuar( "#, "))# or si; da(s after the issuance of said decision, respondent filed its co22ent on the 2otion for reconsideration of petitioner, assertin! that the order of the 2ed3arbiter could onl( be reviewed b( wa( of appeal and not b( a 2otion for reconsideration pursuant to Depart2ent Order %D.O.& No. <, series of <</.< On 'ebruar( *, "))#, respondent filed its 2otion for reconsideration of the @anuar( /, "))# decision. In a resolution dated $pril #, "))#, Secretar( Patricia $. Sto. 0o2as denied the 2otion. ) +eanwhile, on $pril ., "))#, Crispin D. Dannu!, @r., Officer3in3Char!eERe!ional Director of DO6E Re!ional Office I=, issued a resolution revo1in! the charter certificate of petitioner as local chapter of 6IJ?$ 'ederation on the !round of prohibited 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees and non3co2pliance with the attestation clause under para!raph " of $rticle "#: of the 6abor Code. On +a( *, "))#, petitioner 2oved for the reconsideration of this resolution. " Respondent filed a petition for certiorari # in the C$ assailin! the @anuar( /, "))# decision and $pril #, "))# resolution of the Secretar( of 6abor. In a decision dated $u!ust # , "))., the C$ reversed the sa2e. . It denied reconsideration in a resolution dated 'ebruar( :, ")):. It held that $d2inistrative Circular No. ).3<. which re>uired the filin! of a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! applied to petitions for certification election. It also ruled that the Secretar( of 6abor erred in !rantin! the appeal despite the lac1 of proof of service on respondent. 6astl(, it found that petitioner had no le!al standin! to file the petition for certification election because its 2e2bers were a 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees. : ?ence, this petition. 0he issues for our resolution are the followin!7 % & whether a certificate for non3foru2 shoppin! is re>uired in a petition for certification election8 %"& whether petitioner9s 2otion for reconsideration which was treated as an appeal b( the Secretar( of 6abor should not have been !iven due course for failure
to attach proof of service on respondent and %#& whether petitioner had the le!al personalit( to file the petition for certification election. R)Bu#+),)n( oC)+(#-#&a() ONon4Fo+u, 0$o''#n* I% No( R)Bu#+)d #n a )(#(#on Fo+ C)+(#-#&a(#on El)&(#on * In rulin! a!ainst petitioner, the C$ declared that under $d2inistrative Circular No. ).3<., a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! was re>uired in a petition for certification election. 0he circular states7 0he co2plaint and other initiator( pleadin!s referred to and subAect of this Circular are the ori!inal civil co2plaint, counterclai2, cross3clai2, third %fourth, etc.& part( co2plaint, or co2plaint3in3intervention, petition, or applicationC$)+)#n a 'a+(y a%%)+(% $#% &la#, -o+ +)l#)-. %E2phasis supplied& $ccordin! to the C$, a petition for certification election asserts a clai2, i.e., the conduct of a certification election. $s a result, it is covered b( the circular. / We disa!ree. 0he re>uire2ent for a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! refers to co2plaints, counter3clai2s, cross3 clai2s, petitions or applications where contendin! parties liti!ate their respective positions re!ardin! the clai2 for relief of the co2plainant, clai2ant, petitioner or applicant. $ certification proceedin!, even thou!h initiated b( a Bpetition,B is not a liti!ation but an investi!ation of a non3adversarial and fact3 findin! character. Such proceedin!s are no( '+)d#&a()d u'on an all)*a(#on o- ,#%&ondu&( +)Bu#+#n* +)l#)-, .u(, +a($)+, a+) ,)+)ly o- an #nBu#%#(o+#al na(u+) . 0he 5oardNs functions are not Audicial in nature, but are 2erel( of an investi!ative character. 0he obAect of the proceedin!s is not the decision of an( alle!ed co22ission of wron!s nor asserted deprivation of ri!hts but is 2erel( the deter2ination of proper bar!ainin! units and the ascertain2ent of the will and choice of the e2plo(ees in respect of the selection of a bar!ainin! representative. 0he deter2ination of the proceedin!s does not entail the entr( of re2edial orders to redress ri!hts, but cul2inates solel( in an official desi!nation of bar!ainin! units and an affir2ation of the e2plo(eesN e;pressed choice of bar!ainin! a!ent. <%E2phasis supplied& In Pena v. &paricio,") we ruled a!ainst the necessit( of attachin! a certification a!ainst foru2 shoppin! to a disbar2ent co2plaint. We loo1ed into the rationale of the re>uire2ent and concluded that the evil sou!ht to be avoided is not present in disbar2ent proceedin!s. O G0heH rationale for the re>uire2ent of a certification a!ainst foru2 shoppin! is to apprise the Court of the pendenc( of another action or clai2 involvin! the sa2e issues in another court, tribunal or >uasi3 Audicial a!enc(, and thereb( precisel( avoid the foru2 shoppin! situation. 'ilin! 2ultiple petitions or co2plaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to de!rade the ad2inistration of Austice, wrea1s havoc upon orderl( Audicial procedure, and adds to the con!estion of the heavil( burdened doc1ets of the courts. 'urther2ore, the rule proscribin! foru2 shoppin! see1s to pro2ote candor and transparenc( a2on! law(ers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to pro2ote the orderl( ad2inistration of Austice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other part(, and save the precious ti2e of the courts. It also ai2s to prevent the e2barrassin! situation of two or 2ore courts or a!encies renderin! conflictin! resolutions or decisions upon the sa2e issue. It is in this li!ht that we ta1e a further loo1 at the necessit( of attachin! a certification a!ainst foru2 shoppin! to a disbar2ent co2plaint. I( Could %)), ($a( ($) %&)na+#o %ou*$( (o .) a>o#d)d, i.e., ($) -#l#n* o- ,ul(#'l) %u#(% and ($) 'o%%#.#l#(y o- &on-l#&(#n* d)&#%#on%, +a+)ly $a'')n% #n d#%.a+,)n( &o,'la#n(% considerin! that said proceedin!s are either Bta1en b( the Supre2e Court mot! proprio, or b( the Inte!rated 5ar of the Philippines %I5P& upon the verified co2plaint of an( person.B 0hus, if the co2plainant in a disbar2ent case fails to attach a certification a!ainst foru2 shoppin!, the pendenc( of another disciplinar( action a!ainst the sa2e respondent 2a( still be ascertained with ease." %E2phasis supplied& 0he sa2e situation holds true for a petition for certification election. Dnder the o2nibus rules i2ple2entin! the 6abor Code as a2ended b( D.O. No. <, "" it is supposed to be filed in the Re!ional Office which has Aurisdiction over the principal office of the e2plo(er or where the bar!ainin! unit is principall( situated."# 0he rules further provide that where two or 2ore petitions involvin! the sa2e bar!ainin! unit are filed in one Re!ional Office, the sa2e shall be auto2aticall( consolidated. ". ?ence, the filin! of 2ultiple suits and the possibilit( of conflictin! decisions will rarel( happen in this proceedin! and, if it does, will be eas( to discover. LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL |7
Notabl(, under the 6abor Code and the rules pertainin! to the for2 of the petition for certification election, there is no re>uire2ent for a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! either in D.O. No. <, series of <</ or in D.O. No. .)3)#, series of "))# which replaced the for2er.": Considerin! the nature of a petition for certification election and the rules !overnin! it, we therefore hold that the re>uire2ent for a certificate of non3foru2 shoppin! is inapplicable to such a petition. T+)a(,)n( o- Mo(#on -o+ R)&on%#d)+a(#on a% an A'')al 0he C$ ruled that petitioner9s 2otion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal b( the Secretar( of 6abor, should not have been !iven due course for lac1 of proof of service in accordance with the i2ple2entin! rules as a2ended b( D.O. No. <7 Section ". $ppeal8 finalit( of decision. F 0he decision of the +ed3$rbiter 2a( be appealed to the Secretar( for an( violation of these Rules. Interloculor( orders issued b( the +ed3$rbiter prior to the !rant or denial of the petition, includin! order !rantin! 2otions for intervention issued after an order callin! for a certification election, shall not be appealable. ?owever, an( issue arisin! therefro2 2a( be raised in the appeal on the decision !rantin! or den(in! the petition. 0he appeal shall be under oath and shall consist of a 2e2orandu2 of appeal specificall( statin! the !rounds relied upon b( the appellant with the supportin! ar!u2ents and evidence. T$) a'')al %$all .) d)),)d no( -#l)d unl)%% a&&o,'an#)d .y '+oo- o- %)+>#&) ($)+)o- (o a'')ll)) ."* %E2phasis supplied& In acceptin! the appeal, the Secretar( of 6abor stated7 GPetitioner9sH 2otion for reconsideration of the +ed3$rbiter9s Order dated Nove2ber ", "))" was >)+#-#)d und)+ oa($ b( Gpetitioner9sH president ,il Dispabiladeras before Notar( Public Wilfredo $. Rui4 on "< Nove2ber "))", and recorded in the Notarial Re!ister under Docu2ent No. -*, Pa!e No. #-, 5oo1 =, series of "))". On pa!e / of the said 2otion also appears the notation Bcop( of respondent to be delivered personall( with the na2e and si!nature of one Rosita Si2on, E"<E)".B 0he 2otion &on(a#n)d ($) *+ound% and a+*u,)n(% relied upon b( GpetitionerH for the reversal of the assailed Order. ?ence, the 2otion for reconsideration has &o,'l#)d C#($ ($) -o+,al +)Bu#%#()% o- an a'')al. 0he si!nature of Rosita Si2on appearin! on the last pa!e of the 2otion can be considered as &o,'l#an&) C#($ ($) +)Bu#+)d '+oo- o- %)+>#&) u'on +)%'ond)n( . Rosita Si2on9s e2plo(2ent status was a 2atter that should have been raised earlier b( GrespondentH. 5ut GrespondentH did not >uestion the sa2e and slept on its ri!ht to oppose or co22ent on Gpetitioner9sH 2otion for reconsideration. I( &anno( &la#, ($a( #( Ca% unaCa+) o- ($) -#l#n* o- ($) a'')al b( GpetitionerH, because a cop( of the indorse2ent of the entire records of the petition to the Office of the Secretar( Bin view of the 2e2orandu2 of appeal filed b( +r. @esus 5. =illa2orB was served upon the e2plo(er and le!al counsels $tt(. Is2ael De ,u42an and $tt(. $natolio Sabillo at the Sa22a Corporation Office, +ain $venue, PEP$, Rosario, Cavite on Dece2ber :, "))"."/ %E2phasis supplied& 0he 2otion for reconsideration was properl( treated as an appeal because it substantiall( co2plied with the for2al re>uisites of the latter. 0he lac1 of proof of service was not fatal as respondent had actuall( received a cop( of the 2otion. Conse>uentl(, it had the opportunit( to oppose the sa2e. Dnder these circu2stances, we find that the de2ands of substantial Austice and due process were satisfied. We stress that rules of procedure are interpreted liberall( to secure a Aust, speed( and ine;pensive disposition of ever( action. 0he( should not be applied if their application serves no useful purpose or hinders the Aust and speed( disposition of cases. Specificall(, technical rules and obAections should not ha2per the holdin! of a certification election wherein e2plo(ees are to select their bar!ainin! representative. $ contrar( rule will defeat the declared polic( of the State1avvphi1."/0 to pro2ote the free and responsible e;ercise of the ri!ht to self3or!ani4ation throu!h the establish2ent of a%#,'l#-#)d ,)&$an#%, for the speed( re!istration of labor or!ani4ations and wor1ers9 associations,d)()+,#na(#on o- +)'+)%)n(a(#on %(a(u%, and resolution of intra and inter3union disputes."- ;;; %E2phasis supplied& L)*al )+%onal#(y o- )(#(#on)+ Petitioner ar!ues that the erroneous inclusion of one supervisor( e2plo(ee in the union of ran13and3file e2plo(ees was not a !round to i2pu!n its le!iti2ac( as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation which had the ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. We a!ree. 6IJ?$ was !ranted le!al personalit( as a federation under certificate of re!istration no. <"3 ) :3)#"3 *#-3'ED36C. Subse>uentl(, petitioner as its local chapter was issued its charter certificate no. "3
) ."< With certificates of re!istration issued in their favor, the( are clothed with le!al personalit( as le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations7 Section :. Effect of registration. F 0he labor or!ani4ation or wor1ers9 association shall be dee2ed re!istered and vested with le!al personalit( on the date of issuance of its certificate of re!istration. Such le!al personalit( cannot thereafter be subAect to collateral attac1, but 2a( be >uestioned onl( in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.#) 3)3 Section #. &c1!isition of legal personality by local chapter. 3 $ localEchapter constituted in accordance with Section of this Rule shall ac>uire le!al personalit( fro2 the date of filin! of the co2plete docu2ents enu2erated therein. Dpon co2pliance with all the docu2entar( re>uire2ents, the Re!ional Office or 5ureau of 6abor Relations shall issue in favor of the localEchapter a certificate indicatin! that it is included in the roster of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations.# Such le!al personalit( cannot thereafter be subAect to collateral attac1, but 2a( be >uestioned onl( in an independent petition for cancellation of certificate of re!istration. #" Dnless petitioner9s union re!istration is cancelled in independent proceedin!s, it shall continue to have all the ri!hts of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, includin! the ri!ht to petition for certification election. 'urther2ore, the !rounds for dis2issal of a petition for certification election based on the lac1 of le!al personalit( of a labor or!ani4ation are the followin!7 %a& petitioner is not listed b( the Re!ional Office or the 5ureau of 6abor Relations in its re!istr( of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations or %b& its le!al personalit( has been revo1ed or cancelled with finalit( in accordance with the rules.## $s 2entioned, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the re!istration of petitioner on Dece2ber ., "))". In a resolution dated $pril ., "))#, petitioner9s charter certificate was revo1ed b( the DO6E. 5ut on +a( *, "))#, petitioner 2oved for the reconsideration of this resolution. Neither of the parties alle!ed that this resolution revo1in! petitioner9s charter certificate had attained finalit(. ?owever, in this petition, petitioner pra(ed that its charter certificate be Breinstated in the roster of active le!iti2ate labor Gor!ani4ationsH.B#. 0his cannot be !ranted here. 0o repeat, the proceedin!s on a petition for cancellation of re!istration are independent of those of a petition for certification election. 0his case ori!inated fro2 the latter. If it is shown that petitioner9s le!al personalit( had alread( been revo1ed or cancelled C#($ -#nal#(y in accordance with the rules, then it is no lon!er a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation with the ri!ht to petition for a certification election. A F#nal No() Respondent, as e2plo(er, had been the one opposin! the holdin! of a certification election a2on! its ran13and3file e2plo(ees. 0his should not be the case. We have alread( declared that, in certification elections, the e2plo(er is a b(stander8 it has no ri!ht or 2aterial interest to assail the certification election.#: G0hisH Court notes that it is petitioner, the e2plo(er, which has offered the 2ost tenacious resistance to the holdin! of a certification election a2on! its 2onthl(3paid ran13and3file e2plo(ees. 0his 2ust not be so, for the choice of a collective bar!ainin! a!ent is the sole concern of the e2plo(ees. 0he onl( e;ception to this rule is where the e2plo(er has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to $rticle ":- of the 6abor Code because it was re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, which e;ception finds no application in the case before us. Its role in a certification election has aptl( been described in Trade nions of the Philippines and &llied Services 2T P&S3 v. Tra+ano , as that of a 2ere b(stander. It has no le!al standin! in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the +ed3$rbiterNs orders related thereto. . .#* 3!EREFORE, the petition is hereb( GRANTED. 6et the records of the case be re2anded to the office of ori!in, the Re!ional Office I= of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent, for deter2ination of the status of petitioner9s le!al personalit(. If petitioner is still a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, then said office shall conduct a certification election subAect to the usual pre3election conference. 0O ORDERED.
|8
G.R. No. 169717 Ma+&$ 16, 2011 0AMA!ANG MANGGAGA3A 0A C!ARTER C!EMICAL 0OLIDARITJ OF UNION0 IN T!E !ILI INE0 FOR EM O3ERMENT AND REFORM0 80MCC40U ER9, "ACARRIA0 JERRJ IICTORIO4Un#on +)%#d)n(,Petitioner, vs. C!ARTER C!EMICAL and COATING COR ORATION, Respondent. DECISION DEL CA0TILLO, J.: 0he ri!ht to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor or!ani4ation provided that it co2plies with the re>uire2ents of law for proper re!istration. 0he inclusion of supervisor( e2plo(ees in a labor or!ani4ation see1in! to represent the bar!ainin! unit of ran13and3file e2plo(ees does not divest it of its status as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. We appl( these principles to this case. 0his Petition for Review on Certiorari see1s to reverse and set aside the Court of $ppeal9s +arch :, ")): Decision in C$3,.R. SP No. :-")#, which annulled and set aside the @anuar( #, "))) Decision" of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E& in OS3$3 *3:#3<< %NCR3OD3+3<<)"3) <& and the Septe2ber *, ")): Resolution# den(in! petitioner union9s 2otion for reconsideration. Factual Antecedents On 'ebruar( <, <<<, Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Charter Che2ical Solidarit( of Dnions in the Philippines for E2power2ent and Refor2s %petitioner union& filed a petition for certification election a2on! the re!ular ran13and3file e2plo(ees of Charter Che2ical and Coatin! Corporation %respondent co2pan(& with the +ediation $rbitration Dnit of the DO6E, National Capital Re!ion. On $pril ., <<<, respondent co2pan( filed an $nswer with +otion to Dis2iss . on the !round that petitioner union is not a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation because of % & failure to co2pl( with the docu2entation re>uire2ents set b( law, and %"& the inclusion of supervisor( e2plo(ees within petitioner union.: Med-Arbiters Ruling On $pril #), <<<, +ed3$rbiter 0o2as '. 'alconitin issued a Decision * dis2issin! the petition for certification election. 0he +ed3$rbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation because the Charter Certificate, BSa2a3sa2an! Paha(a! n! Pa!sapi at $uthori4ation,B and B6istahan n! 2!a Du2alo sa Pan!1alahatan! Pulon! at 2!a Su2an!3a(on at Na!ratipi1a sa Sali!an! 5atasB were not e;ecuted under oath and certified b( the union secretar( and attested to b( the union president as re>uired b( Section "#: of the 6abor Code/ in relation to Section , Rule =I of Depart2ent Order %D.O.& No. <, series of <</. 0he union re!istration was, thus, fatall( defective. 0he +ed3$rbiter further held that the list of 2e2bership of petitioner union consisted of " batch2an, 2ill operator and lead2an who perfor2ed supervisor( functions. Dnder $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, said supervisor( e2plo(ees are prohibited fro2 Aoinin! petitioner union which see1s to represent the ran13and3file e2plo(ees of respondent co2pan(. $s a result, not bein! a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, petitioner union has no ri!ht to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bar!ainin!. Department of Labor and Employments Ruling On @ul( *, <<<, the DO6E initiall( issued a Decision- in favor of respondent co2pan( dis2issin! petitioner union9s appeal on the !round that the latter9s petition for certification election was filed out of ti2e. $lthou!h the DO6E ruled, contrar( to the findin!s of the +ed3 $rbiter, that the charter certificate need not be verified and that there was no independent evidence presented to establish respondent co2pan(9s clai2 that so2e 2e2bers of petitioner union were holdin! supervisor( positions, the DO6E sustained the dis2issal of the
petition for certification after it too1 Audicial notice that another union, i.e., Pina!3isan! 6a1as +an!!a!awa sa Charter Che2ical and Coatin! Corporation, previousl( filed a petition for certification election on @anuar( *, <<-. 0he Decision !rantin! the said petition beca2e final and e;ecutor( on Septe2ber *, <<- and was re2anded for i22ediate i2ple2entation. Dnder Section /, Rule MI of D.O. No. <, series of <</, a 2otion for intervention involvin! a certification election in an unor!ani4ed establish2ent should be filed prior to the finalit( of the decision callin! for a certification election. Considerin! that petitioner union filed its petition onl( on 'ebruar( ., <<<, the sa2e was filed out of ti2e. On 2otion for reconsideration, however, the DO6E reversed its earlier rulin!. In its @anuar( #, "))) Decision, the DO6E found that a review of the records indicates that no certification election was previousl( conducted in respondent co2pan(. On the contrar(, the prior certification election filed b( Pina!3isan! 6a1as +an!!a!awa sa Charter Che2ical and Coatin! Corporation was, li1ewise, denied b( the +ed3$rbiter and, on appeal, was dis2issed b( the DO6E for bein! filed out of ti2e. ?ence, there was no obstacle to the !rant of petitioner union9s petition for certification election, vi"7 3!EREFORE, the 2otion for reconsideration is hereb( GRANTED and the decision of this Office dated * @ul( <<< is MODIFIED to allow the certification election a2on! the re!ular ran13and3file e2plo(ees of Charter Che2ical and Coatin! Corporation with the followin! choices7 . Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Charter Che2ical3Solidarit( of Dnions in the Philippines for E2power2ent and Refor2 %S+CC3SDPER&8 and ". No Dnion. 6et the records of this case be re2anded to the Re!ional Office of ori!in for the i22ediate conduct of a certification election, subAect to the usual pre3election conference. 0O DECIDED.< ourt of Appeals Ruling On +arch :, ")):, the C$ pro2ul!ated the assailed Decision, vi47 3!EREFORE, the petition is hereb( GRANTED. 0he assailed Decision and Resolution dated @anuar( #, "))) and 'ebruar( /, "))) are hereb( GANNULLEDH and 0ET A0IDE. 0O ORDERED. ) In nullif(in! the decision of the DO6E, the appellate court !ave credence to the findin!s of the +ed3$rbiter that petitioner union failed to co2pl( with the docu2entation re>uire2ents under the 6abor Code. It, li1ewise, upheld the +ed3$rbiter9s findin! that petitioner union consisted of both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees. +oreover, the C$ held that the issues as to the le!iti2ac( of petitioner union 2a( be attac1ed collaterall( in a petition for certification election and the infir2it( in the 2e2bership of petitioner union cannot be re2edied throu!h the e;clusion3inclusion proceedin!s in a pre3election conference pursuant to the rulin! in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor nion. 0hus, considerin! that petitioner union is not a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, it has no le!al ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. I%%u)% I Whether ; ; ; the ?onorable Court of $ppeals co22itted !rave abuse of discretion tanta2ount to lac1 of Aurisdiction in !rantin! the respondent Gco2pan(9sH petition for certiorari %C$ ,.R. No. SP No. :-")#& in spite of the fact that the issues subAect of the respondent co2pan(G9sH petition was alread( settled with finalit( and barred fro2 bein! re3 liti!ated. II Whether ; ; ; the ?onorable Court of $ppeals co22itted !rave abuse of discretion tanta2ount to lac1 of Aurisdiction in holdin! that the alle!ed 2i;ture of ran13and3file and
supervisor( e2plo(eeGsH of petitioner Gunion9sH 2e2bership is GaH !round for the cancellation of petitioner Gunion9sH le!al personalit( and dis2issal of GtheH petition for certification election. III Whether ; ; ; the ?onorable Court of $ppeals co22itted !rave abuse of discretion tanta2ount to lac1 of Aurisdiction in holdin! that the alle!ed failure to certif( under oath the local charter certificate issued b( its 2other federation and list of the union 2e2bership attendin! the or!ani4ational 2eetin! Gis a !roundH for the cancellation of petitioner Gunion9sH le!al personalit( as a labor or!ani4ation and for the dis2issal of the petition for certification election. " !etitioner "nions Arguments Petitioner union clai2s that the liti!ation of the issue as to its le!al personalit( to file the subAect petition for certification election is barred b( the @ul( *, <<< Decision of the DO6E. In this decision, the DO6E ruled that petitioner union co2plied with all the docu2entation re>uire2ents and that there was no independent evidence presented to prove an ille!al 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in petitioner union. $fter the pro2ul!ation of this Decision, respondent co2pan( did not 2ove for reconsideration, thus, this issue 2ust be dee2ed settled. Petitioner union further ar!ues that the lac1 of verification of its charter certificate and the alle!ed ille!al co2position of its 2e2bership are not !rounds for the dis2issal of a petition for certification election under Section , Rule MI of D.O. No. <, series of <</, as a2ended, nor are the( !rounds for the cancellation of a union9s re!istration under Section #, Rule =III of said issuance. It contends that what is re>uired to be certified under oath b( the local union9s secretar( or treasurer and attested to b( the local union9s president are li2ited to the union9s constitution and b(3laws, state2ent of the set of officers, and the boo1s of accounts. 'inall(, the le!al personalit( of petitioner union cannot be collaterall( attac1ed but 2a( be >uestioned onl( in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section :, Rule =, 5oo1 I= of the Rules to I2ple2ent the 6abor Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tagaytay -ighlands #nternational 4olf Cl!b #ncoprorated v. Tagaytay -ighlands Empoyees nion$ PT4*5. # Respondent ompanys Arguments Respondent co2pan( asserts that it cannot be precluded fro2 challen!in! the @ul( *, <<< Decision of the DO6E. 0he said decision did not attain finalit( because the DO6E subse>uentl( reversed its earlier rulin! and, fro2 this decision, respondent co2pan( ti2el( filed its 2otion for reconsideration. On the issue of lac1 of verification of the charter certificate, respondent co2pan( notes that $rticle "#: of the 6abor Code and Section , Rule =I of the I2ple2entin! Rules of 5oo1 =, as a2ended b( D.O. No. <, series of <</, e;pressl( re>uires that the charter certificate be certified under oath. It also contends that petitioner union is not a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation because its co2position is a 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in violation of $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code. Respondent co2pan( 2aintains that the rulin! in Toyota Motor Philippines vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor nion . continues to be !ood case law. 0hus, the ille!al co2position of petitioner union nullifies its le!al personalit( to file the subAect petition for certification election and its le!al personalit( 2a( be collaterall( attac1ed in the proceedin!s for a petition for certification election as was done here. Ou+ Rul#n* 0he petition is 2eritorious. The iss!e as to the legal personality of petitioner !nion is not barred by the 6!ly 17, 1888 Decision of the D5LE.
$ review of the records indicates that the issue as to petitioner union9s le!al personalit( has been ti2el( and consistentl( raised b( respondent co2pan( before the +ed3$rbiter, DO6E, C$ and now this Court. In its @ul( *, <<< Decision, the DO6E found that petitioner union co2plied with the docu2entation re>uire2ents of the 6abor Code and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that there was an ille!al 2i;ture of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in its 2e2bership. Nonetheless, the petition for certification election was dis2issed on the !round that another union had previousl( filed a petition for certification election see1in! to represent the sa2e bar!ainin! unit in respondent co2pan(. Dpon 2otion for reconsideration b( petitioner union on @anuar( #, "))), the DO6E reversed its previous rulin!. It upheld the ri!ht of petitioner union to file the subAect petition for certification election because its previous decision was based on a 2ista1en appreciation of facts. : 'ro2 this adverse decision, respondent co2pan( ti2el( 2oved for reconsideration b( reiteratin! its previous ar!u2ents before the +ed3$rbiter that petitioner union has no le!al personalit( to file the subAect petition for certification election. 0he @ul( *, <<< Decision of the DO6E, therefore, never attained finalit( because the parties ti2el( 2oved for reconsideration. 0he issue then as to the le!al personalit( of petitioner union to file the certification election was properl( raised before the DO6E, the appellate court and now this Court. The charter certificate need not be certified !nder oath by the local !nion%s secretary or treas!rer and attested to by its president. Preli2inaril(, we 2ust note that Con!ress enacted Republic $ct %R.$.& No. <.- * which too1 effect on @une ., "))/. / 0his law introduced substantial a2end2ents to the 6abor Code. ?owever, since the operative facts in this case occurred in <<<, we shall decide the issues under the pertinent le!al provisions then in force % i.e., R.$. No. */ :, - a2endin! 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code, and the rules and re!ulations < i2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ :, as a2ended b( D.O. No. <,") series of <</& pursuant to our rulin! in 9ep!blic v. :a/ashima Te;tile Mfg., Philippines, #nc." In the 2ain, the C$ ruled that petitioner union failed to co2pl( with the re>uisite docu2ents for re!istration under $rticle "#: of the 6abor Code and its i2ple2entin! rules. It a!reed with the +ed3$rbiter that the Charter Certificate, Sa2a3sa2an! Paha(a! n! Pa!sapi at $uthori4ation, and 6istahan n! 2!a Du2alo sa Pan!1alahatan! Pulon! at 2!a Su2an!3 a(on at Na!ratipi1a sa Sali!an! 5atas were not e;ecuted under oath. 0hus, petitioner union cannot be accorded the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. We disa!ree. 0he then prevailin! Section , Rule =I of the I2ple2entin! Rules of 5oo1 =, as a2ended b( D.O. No. <, series of <</, provides7 Section . Chartering and creation of a local chapter Q $ dul( re!istered federation or national union 2a( directl( create a localEchapter b( sub2ittin! to the Re!ional Office or to the 5ureau two %"& copies of the followin!7 %a& $ charter certificate issued b( the federation or national union indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of the localEchapter8 %b& 0he na2es of the localEchapter9s officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the localEchapter8 and %c& 0he localEchapter9s constitution and b(3laws provided that where the localEchapter9s constitution and b(3laws GareH the sa2e as GthoseH of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordin!l(. $ll the fore!oin! supportin! re>uire2ents shall be certified under oath b( the Secretar( or the 0reasurer of the localEchapter and attested to b( its President.
LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL | 10
$s readil( seen, the Sa2a3sa2an! Paha(a! n! Pa!sapi at $uthori4ation and 6istahan n! 2!a Du2alo sa Pan!1alahatan! Pulon! at 2!a Su2an!3a(on at Na!ratipi1a sa Sali!an! 5atas are not a2on! the docu2ents that need to be sub2itted to the Re!ional Office or 5ureau of 6abor Relations in order to re!ister a labor or!ani4ation. $s to the charter certificate, the above3>uoted rule indicates that it should be e;ecuted under oath. Petitioner union concedes and the records confir2 that its charter certificate was not e;ecuted under oath. ?owever, in San Mig!el Corporation 2Manda!e Pac<aging Prod!cts Plants3 v. Manda!e Pac<ing Prod!cts Plants$San Mig!el Corporation Monthlies 9an<$and$,ile nion$ ,,* 2MPPP$SMPP$SM&M9, $,,*3,"" which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. <, Series of <</, we ruled F In San Mig!el ,oods$Ceb! =$Meg ,eed Plant v. -on. Lag!esma , ## Phil. #:* % <<*&, the Court ruled that it was no( n)&)%%a+y for the charter certificate to be certified and attested b( the localEchapter officers. #d. 3$#l) ($#% +ul#n* Ca% .a%)d on ($) #n()+'+)(a(#on o- ($) '+)>#ou% I,'l),)n(#n* Rul)% '+o>#%#on% C$#&$ C)+) %u''lan()d .y ($) 1997 a,)nd,)n(%, we believe that ($) %a,) do&(+#n) o.(a#n% #n ($#% &a%) . Considerin! that the charter certificate is prepared and issued b( the national union and not the localEchapter, #( do)% no( ,a=) %)n%) (o $a>) ($) lo&alK&$a'()+;% o--#&)+% ; ; ; &)+(#-y o+ a(()%( (o a do&u,)n( C$#&$ ($)y $ad no $and #n ($) '+)'a+a(#on o- ."# %E2phasis supplied& In accordance with this rulin!, petitioner union9s charter certificate need not be e;ecuted under oath. Conse>uentl(, it validl( ac>uired the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation upon sub2ission of % & its charter certificate, ". %"& the na2es of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office,": and %#& its constitution and b(3laws "*Q the last two re>uire2ents havin! been e;ecuted under oath b( the proper union officials as borne out b( the records. The mi;t!re of ran<$and$file and s!pervisory employees in petitioner !nion does not n!llify its legal personality as a legitimate labor organi"ation. 0he C$ found that petitioner union has for its 2e2bership both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees. ?owever, petitioner union sou!ht to represent the bar!ainin! unit consistin! of ran13and3file e2plo(ees. Dnder $rticle ".: "/ of the 6abor Code, supervisor( e2plo(ees are not eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of ran13and3file e2plo(ees. 0hus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation pursuant to Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor nion"-%hereinafter Toyota&. Preli2inaril(, we note that petitioner union >uestions the factual findin!s of the +ed3$rbiter, as upheld b( the appellate court, that " of its 2e2bers, consistin! of batch2an, 2ill operator and lead2an, are supervisor( e2plo(ees. ?owever, petitioner union failed to present an( rebuttal evidence in the proceedin!s below after respondent co2pan( sub2itted in evidence the Aob descriptions "< of the aforesaid e2plo(ees. 0he Aob descriptions indicate that the aforesaid e2plo(ees e;ercise reco22endator( 2ana!erial actions which are not 2erel( routinar( but re>uire the use of independent Aud!2ent, hence, fallin! within the definition of supervisor( e2plo(ees under $rticle " "%2&#) of the 6abor Code. 'or this reason, we are constrained to a!ree with the +ed3$rbiter, as upheld b( the appellate court, that petitioner union consisted of both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees. Nonetheless, the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisor( e2plo(ees in petitioner union does not divest it of its status as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. 0he appellate court9s reliance on Toyota is 2isplaced in view of this Court9s subse>uent rulin! in 9ep!blic v. :a/ashima Te;tile Mfg., Philippines, #nc.# %hereinafter :a/ashima&. In:a/ashima, we e;plained at len!th how and wh( the Toyota doctrine no lon!er holds swa( under the altered state of the law and rules applicable to this case, vi"7
R.A. No. 6716 o,#(()d %')&#-y#n* ($) )<a&( )--)&( any >#ola(#on o- ($) '+o$#.#(#on ?on ($) &o4,#n*l#n* o- %u')+>#%o+y and +an=4and4-#l) ),'loy))%@ Could .+#n* a.ou( on ($) l)*#(#,a&y o- a la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on. It was the Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ : % <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules& which supplied the deficienc( b( introducin! the followin! a2end2ent to Rule II %Re!istration of Dnions&7 BSec. . *ho may +oin !nions. 3 ; ; ; 0u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))% and %)&u+#(y *ua+d% %$all no( .) )l#*#.l) -o+ ,),.)+%$#' #n a la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on o- ($) +an=4and4-#l) ),'loy))% .u( ,ay Ho#n, a%%#%( o+ -o+, %)'a+a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on% o- ($)#+ oCn 8 Provided, that those supervisor( e2plo(ees who are included in an e;istin! ran13and3file bar!ainin! unit, upon the effectivit( of Republic $ct No. */ :, shall re2ain in that unit ; ; ;. %E2phasis supplied& and Rule = %Representation Cases and Internal3Dnion Conflicts& of the O2nibus Rules, vi"7 BSec. . *here to file. 3 $ petition for certification election 2a( be filed with the Re!ional Office which has Aurisdiction over the principal office of the e2plo(er. 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath. Sec. ". *ho may file. 3 $n( le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation or the e2plo(er, when re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, 2a( file the petition. 0he petition, when filed b( a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, shall contain, a2on! others7 ;;;; 8&9 d)%&+#'(#on o- ($) .a+*a#n#n* un#( C$#&$ %$all .) ($) ),'loy)+ un#( unl)%% &#+&u,%(an&)% o($)+C#%) +)Bu#+)/ and '+o>#d)d -u+($)+, ($a( ($) a''+o'+#a() .a+*a#n#n* un#( o- ($) +an=4and4-#l) ),'loy))% %$all no( #n&lud) %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))% andKo+ %)&u+#(y *ua+d%. %E2phasis supplied& 5( that provision, an( >uestioned 2in!lin! will prevent an otherwise le!iti2ate and dul( re!istered labor or!ani4ation fro2 e;ercisin! its ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. 0hus, when the issue of the effect of 2in!lin! was brou!ht to the fore in Toyota, the Court, citin! $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, as a2ended b( R.$. No. */ :, held7 BClearl(, based on this provision, a labor or!ani4ation co2posed of both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees is no labor or!ani4ation at all. It cannot, for an( !uise or purpose, be a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, an o+*an#Aa(#on C$#&$ &a++#)% a ,#<(u+) o+an=4and4-#l) and %u')+>#%o+y ),'loy))% &anno( 'o%%)%% any o- ($) +#*$(% o- a l)*#(#,a() la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on, #n&lud#n* ($) +#*$( (o -#l) a ')(#(#on -o+ &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on -o+ ($) 'u+'o%) o- &oll)&(#>) .a+*a#n#n*. It beco2es necessar(, therefore, an()+#o+ (o ($) *+an(#n* o- an o+d)+ alloC#n* a &)+(#-#&a(#on )l)&(#on, (o #nBu#+) #n(o ($) &o,'o%#(#on o- any la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on C$)n)>)+ ($) %(a(u% o- ($) la.o+ o+*an#Aa(#on #% &$all)n*)d on ($) .a%#% o- A+(#&l) 2G6 o- ($) La.o+ Cod). ;;;; In the case at bar, as respondent unionNs 2e2bership list contains the na2es of at least twent(3seven %"/& supervisor( e2plo(ees in 6evel 'ive positions, the union could not, prior to pur!in! itself of its supervisor( e2plo(ee 2e2bers, attain the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, it cannot possess the re>uisite personalit( to file a petition for certification election.B %E2phasis supplied& In D!nlop, in which the labor or!ani4ation that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisor( e2plo(ees, but in which the 2e2bership included ran13and3file e2plo(ees, the Court reiterated that such labor or!ani4ation had no le!al ri!ht to file a certification election to represent a bar!ainin! unit co2posed of supervisors for as lon! as it counted ran13and3file e2plo(ees a2on! its 2e2bers.
It should be e2phasi4ed that the petitions for certification election involved in Toyota and D!nlop were filed on Nove2ber "*, <<" and Septe2ber :, <<:, respectivel(8 hence, the <-< Rules was applied in both cases. 5ut then, on @une " , <</, the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules was further a2ended b( Depart2ent Order No. <, series of <</ % <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules&. Specificall(, the re>uire2ent under Sec. "%c& of the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules F that the petition for certification election indicate that the bar!ainin! unit of ran13and3file e2plo(ees has not been 2in!led with supervisor( e2plo(ees F was re2oved. Instead, what the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules re>uires is a plain description of the bar!ainin! unit, thus7 Rule MI Certification Elections ;;;; Sec. .. ,orms and contents of petition. 3 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath and shall contain, a2on! others, the followin!7 ; ; ; %c& 0he description of the bar!ainin! unit. In Pagpalain -a!lers, #nc. v. Tra+ano, the Court had occasion to uphold the validit( of the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, althou!h the specific provision involved therein was onl( Sec. , Rule =I, to wit7 BSection. . Chartering and creation of a local.chapter.3 $ dul( re!istered federation or national union 2a( directl( create a localEchapter b( sub2ittin! to the Re!ional Office or to the 5ureau two %"& copies of the followin!7 a& a charter certificate issued b( the federation or national union indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of the localEchapter8 %b& the na2es of the localEchapterNs officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the localEchapter8 and %c& the localE chapterNs constitution and b(3laws8 provided that where the localEchapterNs constitution and b(3laws is the sa2e as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordin!l(. $ll the fore!oin! supportin! re>uire2ents shall be certified under oath b( the Secretar( or the 0reasurer of the localEchapter and attested to b( its President.B which does not re>uire that, for its creation and re!istration, a local or chapter sub2it a list of its 2e2bers. 0hen ca2e Tagaytay -ighlands #nt>l. 4olf Cl!b, #nc. v. Tagaytay -ighlands Employees nion$P4T*5 in which the core issue was whether 2in!lin! affects the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation and its ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. 0his ti2e, !iven the altered le!al 2ilieu, the Court abandoned the view in Toyota and D!nlopand reverted to its pronounce2ent in Lope" that while there is a prohibition a!ainst the 2in!lin! of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in one labor or!ani4ation, the 6abor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. 0hus, the Court held that after a labor or!ani4ation has been re!istered, it 2a( e;ercise all the ri!hts and privile!es of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. $n( 2in!lin! between supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in its 2e2bership cannot affect its le!iti2ac( for that is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation of its re!istration, unless such 2in!lin! was brou!ht about b( 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code. In San Mig!el Corp. 2Manda!e Pac<aging Prod!cts Plants3 v. Manda!e Pac<ing Prod!cts Plants$San Mig!el Pac<aging Prod!cts$San Mig!el Corp. Monthlies 9an<$and$,ile nion$ ,,*, the Court e;plained that since the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules does not re>uire a local or chapter to provide a list of its 2e2bers, it would be i2proper for the DO6E to den( reco!nition to said local or chapter on account of an( >uestion pertainin! to its individual 2e2bers. +ore to the point is &ir Philippines Corporation v. =!rea! of Labor 9elations, which involved a petition for cancellation of union re!istration filed b( the e2plo(er in <<< a!ainst a ran13 and3file labor or!ani4ation on the !round of 2i;ed 2e2bership7 the Court therein reiterated
its rulin! in Tagaytay -ighlands that the inclusion in a union of dis>ualified e2plo(ees is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under the circu2stances enu2erated in Sections %a& and %c& of $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code. $ll said, while the latest issuance is R.$. No. <.- , the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, as interpreted b( the Court in Tagaytay -ighlands, San Mig!el and &ir Philippines, had alread( set the tone for it. Toyota and D!nlop no lon!er hold swa( in the present altered state of the law and the rules.#" GDnderline suppliedH 0he applicable law and rules in the instant case are the sa2e as those in :a/ashima because the present petition for certification election was filed in <<< when D.O. No. <, series of <</, was still in effect. ?ence, :a/ashimaapplies with e>ual force here. $s a result, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation even if so2e of its 2e2bers were supervisor( e2plo(ees8 it had the ri!ht to file the subAect petition for certification election. The legal personality of petitioner !nion cannot be collaterally attac<ed by respondent company in the certification election proceedings. Petitioner union correctl( ar!ues that its le!al personalit( cannot be collaterall( attac1ed in the certification election proceedin!s. $s we e;plained in :a/ashima7 E;cept when it is re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, an e2plo(er is a 2ere b(stander to an( petition for certification election8 such proceedin! is non3adversarial and 2erel( investi!ative, for the purpose thereof is to deter2ine which or!ani4ation will represent the e2plo(ees in their collective bar!ainin! with the e2plo(er. 0he choice of their representative is the e;clusive concern of the e2plo(ees8 the e2plo(er cannot have an( partisan interest therein8 it cannot interfere with, 2uch less oppose, the process b( filin! a 2otion to dis2iss or an appeal fro2 it8 not even a 2ere alle!ation that so2e e2plo(ees participatin! in a petition for certification election are actuall( 2ana!erial e2plo(ees will lend an e2plo(er le!al personalit( to bloc1 the certification election. 0he e2plo(erNs onl( ri!ht in the proceedin! is to be notified or infor2ed thereof. 0he a2end2ents to the 6abor Code and its i2ple2entin! rules have buttressed that polic( even 2ore.## 3!EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. 0he +arch :, ")): Decision and Septe2ber *, ")): Resolution of the Court of $ppeals in C$3,.R. SP No. :-")# are REIER0ED and 0ET A0IDE. 0he @anuar( #, "))) Decision of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent in OS3$3*3:#3<< %NCR3OD3+3<<)"3) <& is REIN0TATED. No pronounce2ent as to costs. 0O ORDERED.
| 12
G.R. No. 1791G6 July 25, 2015 !OLJ C!ILD CAT!OLIC 0C!OOL, Petitioner, vs. !ON. ATRICIA 0TO. TOMA0, #n $)+ o--#&#al &a'a&#(y a% 0)&+)(a+y o- ($) D)'a+(,)n( o- La.o+ and E,'loy,)n(, and INAG4I0ANG TINIG AT LA2A0 NG ANA2 A3I0 L !OLJ C!ILD CAT!OLIC 0C!OOL TEAC!ER0 AND EM LOJEE0 LA1OR UNION 8!CC04TELU4 IGLA09, Respondents. DECISION ERALTA, J.: $ssailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule .: of the Rules of Civil Procedure are the $pril -, "))/ Decision and @ul( # , "))/ Resolution " of the Court of $ppeals in C$3,.R. SP No. /* /:, which affir2ed the Dece2ber "/, "))" Decision # and 'ebruar( #, "))# Resolution. of the Secretar( of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %SO6E& that set aside the $u!ust ), "))" Decision: of the +ed3$rbiter den(in! private respondent9s petition for certification election. 0he factual antecedents are as follows7 On +a( # , "))", a petition for certification election was filed b( private respondent Pina!3Isan! 0ini! at 6a1as n! $na1pawis F ?ol( Child Catholic School 0eachers and E2plo(ees 6abor Dnion %?CCS3 0E6DPI,6$S&, alle!in! that7 PI,6$S is a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation dul( re!istered with the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E& representin! ?CCS30E6D3PI,6$S8 ?CCS is a private educational institution dul( re!istered and operatin! under Philippine laws8 there are appro;i2atel( one hundred twent( % ")& teachers and e2plo(ees co2prisin! the proposed appropriate bar!ainin! unit8 and ?CCS is unor!ani4ed, there is no collective bar!ainin! a!ree2ent or a dul( certified bar!ainin! a!ent or a labor or!ani4ation certified as the sole and e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of the proposed bar!ainin! unit within one (ear prior to the filin! of the petition. * $2on! the docu2ents attached to the petition were the certificate of affiliation with Pina!3Isan! 0ini! at 6a1as n! $na1pawis Jristi(anon! $l(ansa n! +a1aba(an! Obrero %PI,6$S3J$+$O& issued b( the 5ureau of 6abor Relations %56R&, charter certificate issued b( PI,6$SJ$+$O, and certificate of re!istration of ?CCS30E6D as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation issued b( the DO6E./ In its Co22ent- and Position Paper,< petitioner ?CCS consistentl( noted that it is a parochial school with a total of :* e2plo(ees as of @une "-, "))", bro1en down as follows7 ninet(3ei!ht %<-& teachin! personnel, twent(3five %":& non3teachin! acade2ic e2plo(ees, and thirt(3three %##& non3teachin! non3 acade2ic wor1ers. It averred that of the e2plo(ees who si!ned to support the petition, fourteen % .& alread( resi!ned and si; %*& si!ned twice. Petitioner raised that 2e2bers of private respondent do not belon! to the sa2e class8 it is not onl( a 2i;ture of 2ana!erial, supervisor(, and ran13and3file e2plo(ees F as three %#& are vice3principals, one % & is a depart2ent headEsupervisor, and eleven % & are coordinators F but also a co2bination of teachin! and non3teachin! personnel F as twent(3seven %"/& are non3teachin! personnel. It insisted that, for not bein! in accord with $rticle ".: ) of the 6abor Code, private respondent is an ille!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation lac1in! in personalit( to file a petition for certification election, as held in 0o(ota +otor Philippines Corporation v. 0o(ota +otor Philippines Corporation 6abor Dnion8 and an inappropriate bar!ainin! unit for want of co22unit( or 2utualit( of interest, as ruled in Dunlop Sla4en!er %Phils.&, Inc. v. Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent " and De 6a Salle Dniversit( +edical Center and Colle!e of +edicine v. 6a!ues2a. # Private respondent, however, countered that petitioner failed to substantiate its clai2 that so2e of the e2plo(ees included in the petition for certification election holds 2ana!erial and supervisor( positions. . $ssu2in! it to be true, it ar!ued that Section %II&, : Rule MI of DO6E Depart2ent Order %D.O.& No. <, Series of <</, provided for specific instances in which a petition filed b( a le!iti2ate or!ani4ation shall be dis2issed b( the +ed3$rbiter and that B2i;ture of e2plo(eesB is not one of those enu2erated. Private respondent pointed out that >uestions pertainin! to >ualifications of e2plo(ees 2a( be threshed out in the inclusion3e;clusion proceedin!s prior to the conduct of the certification election, pursuant to Section ", * Rule MII of D.O. No. <. 6astl(, si2ilar to the rulin! in In Re7 ,lobe +achine and Sta2pin! Co2pan(, / it contended that the will of petitioner9s e2plo(ees should be respected as the( had 2anifested their desire to be represented b( onl( one bar!ainin! unit. 0o bac1 up the for2ation of a sin!le e2plo(er unit, private respondent asserted that even if the teachers 2a( receive additional pa( for an advisor( class and for holdin! additional loads, petitioner9s acade2ic and non3acade2ic personnel have si2ilar wor1in! conditions. It cited 6a!una Colle!e v. Court of Industrial
Relations, - as well as the case of a union in West Ne!ros Colle!e in 5acolod Cit(, which alle!edl( represented both acade2ic and non3acade2ic e2plo(ees. On $u!ust ), "))", +ed3$rbiter $!atha $nn 6. Da>ui!an denied the petition for certification election on the !round that the unit which private respondent sou!ht to represent is inappropriate. She resolved7 $ certification election proceedin! directl( involves two %"& issues na2el(7 %a& the proper co2position and constituenc( of the bar!ainin! unit8 and %b& the validit( of 2aAorit( representation clai2s. It is therefore incu2bent upon the +ed3$rbiter to rule on the appropriateness of the bar!ainin! unit once its co2position and constituenc( is >uestioned. Section %>&, Rule I, 5oo1 = of the O2nibus Rules defines a Bbar!ainin! unitB as a !roup of e2plo(ees sharin! 2utual interests within a !iven e2plo(er unit co2prised of all or less than all of the entire bod( of e2plo(ees in the e2plo(er unit or an( specific occupational or !eo!raphical !roupin! within such e2plo(er unit. 0his definition has provided the Bco22unit( or 2utualit( of interestB test as the standard in deter2inin! the constituenc( of a collective bar!ainin! unit. 0his is so because the basic test of an asserted bar!ainin! unit9s acceptabilit( is whether or not it is funda2entall( the co2bination which will best assure to all e2plo(ees the e;ercise of their collective bar!ainin! ri!hts. 0he application of this test 2a( either result in the for2ation of an e2plo(er unit or in the fra!2entation of an e2plo(er unit. In the case at bar, the e2plo(ees of petitioner, 2a(, as alread( su!!ested, >uite easil( be cate!ori4ed into %"& !eneral classes7 one, the teachin! staff8 and two, the non3teachin!3staff. Not 2uch reflection is needed to perceive that the co22unit( or 2utualit( of interest is wantin! between the teachin! and the non3teachin! staff. It would see2 obvious that the teachin! staff would find ver( little in co22on with the non3teachin! staff as re!ards responsibilities and function, wor1in! conditions, co2pensation rates, social life and interests, s1ills and intellectual pursuits, etc. 0hese are plain and patent realities which cannot be i!nored. 0hese dictate the separation of these two cate!ories of e2plo(ees for purposes of collective bar!ainin!. %Dniversit( of the Philippines vs. 'errer3CalleAa, " SCR$ .: & < Private respondent appealed before the SO6E, who, on Dece2ber "/, "))", ruled a!ainst the dis2issal of the petition and directed the conduct of two separate certification elections for the teachin! and the non3teachin! personnel, thus7 We a!ree with the +ed3$rbiter that there are differences in the nature of wor1, hours and conditions of wor1 and salar( deter2ination between the teachin! and non3teachin! personnel of petitioner. 0hese differences were pointed out b( petitioner in its position paper. We do not, however, a!ree with the +ed3$rbiter that these differences are substantial enou!h to warrant the dis2issal of the petition. 'irst, as pointed out b( private respondent, Binappropriateness of the bar!ainin! unit sou!ht to be represented is not a !round for the dis2issal of the petition.B In fact, in the cited case of Dniversit( of the Philippines v. 'errer3CalleAa, supra, the Supre2e Court did not order the dis2issal of the petition but ordered the conduct of a certification election, li2itin! the sa2e a2on! the non3acade2ic personnel of the Dniversit( of the Philippines. It will be recalled that in the D.P. case, there were two contendin! unions, the Or!ani4ation of Non3 $cade2ic Personnel of D.P. %ON$PDP& and $ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion co2posed of both acade2ic and nonacade2ic personnel of D.P. ON$PDP sou!ht the conduct of certification election a2on! the ran13 and3file non3acade2ic personnel onl( while the all D.P. Wor1ers Dnion sou!ht the conduct of certification election a2on! all of D.P.9s ran13and3file e2plo(ees coverin! acade2ic and nonacade2ic personnel. While the Supre2e Court ordered a separate bar!ainin! unit for the D.P. acade2ic personnel, the Court, however, did not order the2 to or!ani4e a separate labor or!ani4ation a2on! the2selves. 0he $ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion was not directed to divest itself of its acade2ic personnel 2e2bers and in fact, we ta1e ad2inistrative notice that the $ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion continue to e;ist with a co2bined 2e2bership of D.P. acade2ic and non3acade2ic personnel althou!h separate bar!ainin! a!ree2ents is sou!ht for the two bar!ainin! units. Corollar(, private respondent can continue to e;ist as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation with the co2bined teachin! and non3teachin! personnel in its 2e2bership and representin! both classes of e2plo(ees in separate bar!ainin! ne!otiations and a!ree2ents. W?ERE'ORE, the Decision of the +ed3$rbiter dated ) $u!ust "))" is hereb( RE=ERSED and SE0 $SIDE. In lieu thereof, a new order is hereb( issued directin! the conduct of two certification elections, one a2on! the non3teachin! personnel of ?ol( Child Catholic School, and the other, a2on! the teachin! personnel of the sa2e school, subAect to the usual pre3election conferences and inclusion3 e;clusion proceedin!s, with the followin! choices7 $. Certification Election $2on! Petitioner9s 0eachin! Personnel7 LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL | 13
. ?ol( Child Catholic School 0eachers and E2plo(ees 6abor Dnion8 and ". No Dnion. 5. Certification Election $2on! Petitioner9s Non30eachin! Personnel7 . ?ol( Child Catholic School 0eachers and E2plo(ees 6abor Dnion8 and ". No Dnion. Petitioner is hereb( directed to sub2it to the Re!ional Office of ori!in within ten % )& da(s fro2 receipt of this Decision, a certified separate list of its teachin! and non3teachin! personnel or when necessar( a separate cop( of their pa(roll for the last three %#& 2onths prior to the issuance of this Decision. ") Petitioner filed a 2otion for reconsideration " which, per Resolution dated 'ebruar( #, "))#, was denied. Conse>uentl(, petitioner filed before the C$ a Petition for Certiorari with Pra(er for 0e2porar( Restrainin! Order and Preli2inar( InAunction."" 0he C$ resolved to defer action on the pra(er for 0RO pendin! the filin! of private respondent9s Co22ent. "# 6ater, private respondent and petitioner filed their Co22ent". and Repl(,":respectivel(. On @ul( "#, "))#, petitioner filed a 2otion for i22ediate issuance of a 0RO, alle!in! that ?on. ?elen '. Dacana( of the Industrial Relations Division of the DO6E was set to i2ple2ent the SO6E Decision when it received a su22ons and was directed to sub2it a certified list of teachin! and non3teachin! personnel for the last three 2onths prior to the issuance of the assailed Decision. "* $ctin! thereon, on $u!ust :, "))#, the C$ issued the 0RO and ordered private respondent to show cause wh( the writ of preli2inar( inAunction should not be !ranted."/Subse>uentl(, a +anifestation and +otion"- was filed b( private respondent, statin! that it repleads b( reference the ar!u2ents raised in its Co22ent and that it pra(s for the i22ediate liftin! of the 0RO and the denial of the preli2inar( inAunction. 0he C$, however, denied the 2anifestation and 2otion on Nove2ber " , "))# "< and, upon 2otion of petitioner,#) !ranted the preli2inar( inAunction on $pril " , ")):.# 0hereafter, both parties filed their respective +e2orandu2.#" On $pril -, "))/, the C$ eventuall( dis2issed the petition. $s to the purported co22in!lin! of 2ana!erial, supervisor(, and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in private respondent9s 2e2bership, it held that the 0o(ota rulin! is inapplicable because the vice3principals, depart2ent head, and coordinators are neither supervisor( nor 2ana!erial e2plo(ees. It reasoned7 ; ; ; While it 2a( be true that the( wield power over other subordinate e2plo(ees of the petitioner, it 2ust be stressed, however, that their functions are not confined with polic(3deter2inin! such as hirin!, firin!, and disciplinin! of e2plo(ees, salaries, teachin!Ewor1in! hours, other 2onetar( and non3 2onetar( benefits, and other ter2s and conditions of e2plo(2ent. 'urther, while the( 2a( for2ulate policies or !uidelines, nonetheless, such is 2erel( reco22endator( in nature, and still subAect to review and evaluation b( the hi!her e;ecutives, i.e., the principals or e;ecutive officers of the petitioner. It cannot also be denied that in institutions li1e the petitioner, co2pan( policies have alread( been pre3 for2ulated b( the hi!her e;ecutives and all that the 2entioned e2plo(ees have to do is carr( out these co2pan( policies and standards. Such bein! the case, it is cr(stal clear that there is no i2proper co22in!lin! of 2e2bers in the private respondent union as to preclude its petition for certification of %sic& election.## $nent the alle!ed 2i;ture of teachin! and non3teachin! personnel, the C$ a!reed with petitioner that the nature of the for2er9s wor1 does not coincide with that of the latter. Nevertheless, it ruled that the SO6E did not co22it !rave abuse of discretion in not dis2issin! the petition for certification election, since it directed the conduct of two separate certification elections based on Our rulin! in Dniversit( of the Philippines v. 'errer3CalleAa.#. $ 2otion for reconsideration #: was filed b( petitioner, but the C$ denied the sa2e8 #* hence, this petition assi!nin! the alle!ed errors as follows7 I. 0?E ?ONOR$56E CODR0 O' $PPE$6S ERRED IN ?O6DIN, 0?$0 0?E RD6IN, IN 0?E C$SE O' 0OIO0$ +O0OR P?I6IPPINES CORPOR$0ION =S. 0OIO0$ +O0OR P?I6IPPINES CORPOR$0ION 6$5OR DNION %"*- SCR$ :/#& DOES NO0 $PP6I IN 0?E C$SE $0 5$R DESPI0E 0?E GCO++IN,6IN,H O' 5O0? SDPER=ISORI OR +$N$,ERI$6 $ND R$NJ3$ND3'I6E E+P6OIEES IN 0?E RESPONDEN0 DNION8 II 0?E ?ONOR$56E CODR0 O' $PPE$6S ERRED IN I0S CON'6IC0IN, RD6IN, $66OWIN, 0?E CONDDC0 O' CER0I'IC$0ION E6EC0ION 5I DP?O6DIN, 0?$0 0?E RESPONDEN0 DNION REPRESEN0ED $ 5$R,$ININ, DNI0 DESPI0E I0S OWN 'INDIN,S 0?$0 0?ERE IS NO
+D0D$6I0I O' IN0ERES0 5E0WEEN 0?E +E+5ERS O' RESPONDEN0 DNION $PP6IIN, 0?E 0ES0 6$ID DOWN IN 0?E C$SE O' DNI=ERSI0I O' 0?E P?I6IPPINES =S. 'ERRER3C$66E@$ %" SCR$ .: &.#/ We den(. Petitioner clai2s that the C$ contradicted the ver( definition of 2ana!erial and supervisor( e2plo(ees under e;istin! law and Aurisprudence when it did not classif( the vice3principals, depart2ent head, and coordinators as 2ana!erial or supervisor( e2plo(ees 2erel( because the policies and !uidelines the( for2ulate are still subAect to the review and evaluation of the principal or e;ecutive officers of petitioner. It points out that the duties of the vice3principals, depart2ent head, and coordinators include the evaluation and assess2ent of the effectiveness and capabilit( of the teachers under the28 that such evaluation and assess2ent is independentl( 2ade without the participation of the hi!her $d2inistration of petitioner8 that the fact that their reco22endation under!oes the approval of the hi!her $d2inistration does not ta1e awa( the independent nature of their Aud!2ent8 and that it would be difficult for the vice3principals, depart2ent head, and coordinators to obAectivel( assess and evaluate the perfor2ances of teachers under the2 if the( would be allowed to be 2e2bers of the sa2e labor union. On the other hand, aside fro2 reiteratin! its previous sub2issions, private respondent cites Sections < and "#-of Republic $ct %R.$.& No. <.- to buttress its contention that petitioner has no standin! to oppose the petition for certification election. On the basis of the statutor( provisions, it reasons that an e2plo(er is not a part(3in3interest in a certification election8 thus, petitioner does not have the re>uisite ri!ht to protect even b( wa( of restrainin! order or inAunction. 'irst off, We cannot a!ree with private respondent9s invocation of R.$. No. <.- . Said law too1 effect onl( on @une ., "))/8 hence, its applicabilit( is li2ited to labor representation cases filed on or after said date.#< Instead, the law and rules in force at the ti2e private respondent filed its petition for certification election on +a( # , "))" are R.$. No. */ :, which a2ended 5oo1 = of Presidential Decree %P.D.& No. .." %the 6abor Code&, as a2ended, and the Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ :, as a2ended b( D.O. No. <, which was dated +a( , <</ but too1 effect on @une " , <</..) ?owever, note 2ust be ta1en that even without the e;press provision of Section " of R$ No. <.- , the B5(stander RuleB is alread( well entrenched in this Aurisdiction. It has been consistentl( held in a nu2ber of cases that a certification election is the sole concern of the wor1ers, e;cept when the e2plo(er itself has to file the petition pursuant to $rticle ":< of the 6abor Code, as a2ended, but even after such filin! its role in the certification process ceases and beco2es 2erel( a b(stander. . 0he e2plo(er clearl( lac1s the personalit( to dispute the election and has no ri!ht to interfere at all therein.." 0his is so since an( uncalled3for concern on the part of the e2plo(er 2a( !ive rise to the suspicion that it is battin! for a co2pan( union..# Indeed, the de2and of the law and polic( for an e2plo(er to ta1e a strict, hands3off stance in certification elections is based on the rationale that the e2plo(ees9 bar!ainin! representative should be chosen free fro2 an( e;traneous influence of the 2ana!e2ent8 that, to be effective, the bar!ainin! representative 2ust owe its lo(alt( to the e2plo(ees alone and to no other... Now, !oin! bac1 to petitioner9s contention, the issue of whether a petition for certification election is dis2issible on the !round that the labor or!ani4ation9s 2e2bership alle!edl( consists of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees is actuall( not a novel one. In the "))- case of Republic v. Jawashi2a 0e;tile +f!., Philippines, Inc.,.:wherein the e2plo(er3co2pan( 2oved to dis2iss the petition for certification election on the !round inter alia that the union 2e2bership is a 2i;ture of ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees, this Court had conscientiousl( discussed the applicabilit( of 0o(ota and Dunlop in the conte;t of R.$. No. */ : and D.O. No. <, vi4.7 It was in R.$. No. -/:, under Section #, that such >uestioned 2in!lin! was first prohibited, to wit7 Sec. #. E2plo(eesN ri!ht to self3or!ani4ation. 3 E2plo(ees shall have the ri!ht to self3or!ani4ation and to for2, Aoin or assist labor or!ani4ations of their own choosin! for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! throu!h representatives of their own choosin! and to en!a!e in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! and other 2utual aid or protection. Individuals e2plo(ed as supervisors shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of e2plo(ees under their supervision but 2a( for2 separate or!ani4ations of their own. %E2phasis supplied& Nothin! in R.$. No. -/:, however, tells of how the >uestioned 2in!lin! can affect the le!iti2ac( of the labor or!ani4ation. Dnder Section :, the onl( instance when a labor or!ani4ation loses its le!iti2ac( is LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL | 14
when it violates its dut( to bar!ain collectivel(8 but there is no word on whether such 2in!lin! would also result in loss of le!iti2ac(. 0hus, when the issue of whether the 2e2bership of two supervisor( e2plo(ees i2pairs the le!iti2ac( of a ran13and3file labor or!ani4ation ca2e before the Court En 5anc in 6ope4 v. Chronicle Publication E2plo(ees $ssociation, the 2aAorit( pronounced7 It 2a( be observed that nothin! is said of the effect of such ineli!ibilit( upon the union itself or on the status of the other >ualified 2e2bers thereof should such prohibition be disre!arded. Considerin! that the law is specific where it intends to divest a le!iti2ate labor union of an( of the ri!hts and privile!es !ranted to it b( law, the absence of an( provision on the effect of the dis>ualification of one of its or!ani4ers upon the le!alit( of the union, 2a( be construed to confine the effect of such ineli!ibilit( onl( upon the 2e2bership of the supervisor. In other words, the invalidit( of 2e2bership of one of the or!ani4ers does not 2a1e the union ille!al, where the re>uire2ents of the law for the or!ani4ation thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and 2et. %E2phasis supplied& 0hen the 6abor Code was enacted in </. without reproducin! Sec. # of R.$. No. -/:. 0he provision in the 6abor Code closest to Sec. # is $rticle "<), which is deafenin!l( silent on the prohibition a!ainst supervisor( e2plo(ees 2in!lin! with ran13and3file e2plo(ees in one labor or!ani4ation. Even the O2nibus Rules I2ple2entin! 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code %O2nibus Rules& 2erel( provides in Section , Rule II, thus7 Sec. . Supervisor( unions and unions of securit( !uards to cease operation. 3 $ll e;istin! supervisor( unions and unions of securit( !uards shall, upon the effectivit( of the Code, cease to operate as such and their re!istration certificates shall be dee2ed auto2aticall( cancelled. ?owever, e;istin! collective a!ree2ents with such unions, the life of which e;tends be(ond the date of effectivit( of the Code shall be respected until their e;pir( date insofar as the econo2ic benefits !ranted therein are concerned. +e2bers of supervisor( unions who do not fall within the definition of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees shall beco2e eli!ible to Aoin or assist the ran1 and file or!ani4ation. 0he deter2ination of who are 2ana!erial e2plo(ees and who are not shall be the subAect of ne!otiation between representatives of supervisor( union and the e2plo(er. If no a!ree2ent s reached between the parties, either or both of the2 2a( brin! the issue to the nearest Re!ional Office for deter2ination. %E2phasis supplied& 0he obvious repeal of the last clause of Sec. #, R.$. No. -/: pro2pted the Court to declare in 5ulletin v. Sanche4 that supervisor( e2plo(ees who do not fall under the cate!or( of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees 2a( Aoin or assist in the for2ation of a labor or!ani4ation for ran13and3file e2plo(ees, but the( 2a( not for2 their own labor or!ani4ation. While a2endin! certain provisions of 5oo1 = of the 6abor Code, E.O. No. and its i2ple2entin! rules continued to reco!ni4e the ri!ht of supervisor( e2plo(ees, who do not fall under the cate!or( of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees, to Aoin a ran13 and3file labor or!ani4ation. Effective <-<, R.$. No. */ : restored the prohibition a!ainst the >uestioned 2in!lin! in one labor or!ani4ation, vi4.7 Sec. -. $rticle ".: of the sa2e Code, as a2ended, is hereb( further a2ended to read as follows7 $rt. ".:. Ineli!ibilit( of 2ana!erial e2plo(ees to Aoin an( labor or!ani4ation8 ri!ht of supervisor( e2plo(ees. +ana!erial e2plo(ees are not eli!ible to Aoin, assist or for2 an( labor or!ani4ation. Supervisor( e2plo(ees shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees but 2a( Aoin, assist or for2 separate labor or!ani4ations of their own %E2phasis supplied& Dnfortunatel(, Aust li1e R.$. No. -/:, R.$. No. */ : o2itted specif(in! the e;act effect an( violation of the prohibition would brin! about on the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation. It was the Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ : % <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules& which supplied the deficienc( b( introducin! the followin! a2end2ent to Rule II %Re!istration of Dnions&7 Sec. . Who 2a( Aoin unions. 3 ; ; ; Supervisor( e2plo(ees and securit( !uards shall not be eli!ible for 2e2bership in a labor or!ani4ation of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees but 2a( Aoin, assist or for2 separate labor or!ani4ations of their own8 Provided, that those supervisor( e2plo(ees who are included in an e;istin! ran13and3file bar!ainin! unit, upon the effectivit( of Republic $ct No. */ :, shall re2ain in that unit ; ; ;. %E2phasis supplied& and Rule = %Representation Cases and Internal3Dnion Conflicts& of the O2nibus Rules, vi4.8 Sec. . Where to file. 3 $ petition for certification election 2a( be filed with the Re!ional Office which has Aurisdiction over the principal office of the e2plo(er. 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath. Sec. ". Who 2a( file. 3 $n( le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation or the e2plo(er, when re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, 2a( file the petition. 0he petition, when filed b( a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, shall contain, a2on! others7
;;;; %c& description of the bar!ainin! unit which shall be the e2plo(er unit unless circu2stances otherwise re>uire8 and provided further, that the appropriate bar!ainin! unit of the ran13and3file e2plo(ees shall not include supervisor( e2plo(ees andEor securit( !uards. %E2phasis supplied& 5( that provision, an( >uestioned 2in!lin! will prevent an otherwise le!iti2ate and dul( re!istered labor or!ani4ation fro2 e;ercisin! its ri!ht to file a petition for certification election. 0hus, when the issue of the effect of 2in!lin! was brou!ht to the fore in 0o(ota, the Court, citin! $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code, as a2ended b( R.$. No. */ :, held7 Clearl(, based on this provision, a labor or!ani4ation co2posed of both ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees is no labor or!ani4ation at all. It cannot, for an( !uise or purpose, be a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, an or!ani4ation which carries a 2i;ture of ran13and3file and supervisor( e2plo(ees cannot possess an( of the ri!hts of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, includin! the ri!ht to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bar!ainin!. It beco2es necessar(, therefore, anterior to the !rantin! of an order allowin! a certification election, to in>uire into the co2position of an( labor or!ani4ation whenever the status of the labor or!ani4ation is challen!ed on the basis of $rticle ".: of the 6abor Code. ;;;; In the case at bar, as respondent unionNs 2e2bership list contains the na2es of at least twent(3seven %"/& supervisor( e2plo(ees in 6evel 'ive positions, the union could not, prior to pur!in! itself of its supervisor( e2plo(ee 2e2bers, attain the status of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. Not bein! one, it cannot possess the re>uisite personalit( to file a petition for certification election. %E2phasis supplied& In Dunlop, in which the labor or!ani4ation that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisor( e2plo(ees, but in which the 2e2bership included ran13and3file e2plo(ees, the Court reiterated that such labor or!ani4ation had no le!al ri!ht to file a certification election to represent a bar!ainin! unit co2posed of supervisors for as lon! as it counted ran13and3file e2plo(ees a2on! its 2e2bers. It should be e2phasi4ed that the petitions for certification election involved in 0o(ota and Dunlop were filed on Nove2ber "*, <<" and Septe2ber :, <<:, respectivel(8 hence, the <-< Rules was applied in both cases. 5ut then, on @une " , <</, the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules was further a2ended b( Depart2ent Order No. <, series of <</ % <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules&. Specificall(, the re>uire2ent under Sec. "%c& of the <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules 3 that the petition for certification election indicate that the bar!ainin! unit of ran13and3file e2plo(ees has not been 2in!led with supervisor( e2plo(ees 3 was re2oved. Instead, what the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules re>uires is a plain description of the bar!ainin! unit, thus7 Rule MI Certification Elections ;;;; Sec. .. 'or2s and contents of petition. 3 0he petition shall be in writin! and under oath and shall contain, a2on! others, the followin!7 ; ; ; %c& 0he description of the bar!ainin! unit.B In Pa!palain ?aulers, Inc. v. 0raAano, the Court had occasion to uphold the validit( of the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, althou!h the specific provision involved therein was onl( Sec. , Rule =I, to wit7 Sec. . Charterin! and creation of a localEchapter.3 $ dul( re!istered federation or national union 2a( directl( create a localEchapter b( sub2ittin! to the Re!ional Office or to the 5ureau two %"& copies of the followin!7 a& a charter certificate issued b( the federation or national union indicatin! the creation or establish2ent of the localEchapter8 %b& the na2es of the localEchapterNs officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the localEchapter8 and %c& the localE chapterNs constitution and b(3laws8 provided that where the localEchapterNs constitution and b(3laws is the sa2e as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordin!l(. $ll the fore!oin! supportin! re>uire2ents shall be certified under oath b( the Secretar( or the 0reasurer of the localEchapter and attested to b( its President. which does not re>uire that, for its creation and re!istration, a local or chapter sub2it a list of its 2e2bers. 0hen ca2e 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands IntNl. ,olf Club, Inc. v. 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands E2plo(ees Dnion3P0,WO in which the core issue was whether 2in!lin! affects the le!iti2ac( of a labor or!ani4ation and its ri!ht LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL | 15
to file a petition for certification election. 0his ti2e, !iven the altered le!al 2ilieu, the Court abandoned the view in 0o(ota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronounce2ent in 6ope4 that while there is a prohibition a!ainst the 2in!lin! of supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in one labor or!ani4ation, the 6abor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. 0hus, the Court held that after a labor or!ani4ation has been re!istered, it 2a( e;ercise all the ri!hts and privile!es of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation. $n( 2in!lin! between supervisor( and ran13and3file e2plo(ees in its 2e2bership cannot affect its le!iti2ac( for that is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation of its re!istration, unless such 2in!lin! was brou!ht about b( 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code. In San +i!uel Corp. %+andaue Pac1a!in! Products Plants& v. +andaue Pac1in! Products Plants3San +i!uel Pac1a!in! Products3San +i!uel Corp. +onthlies Ran13and3'ile Dnion3''W, the Court e;plained that since the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules does not re>uire a local or chapter to provide a list of its 2e2bers, it would be i2proper for the DO6E to den( reco!nition to said local or chapter on account of an( >uestion pertainin! to its individual 2e2bers. +ore to the point is $ir Philippines Corporation v. 5ureau of 6abor Relations, which involved a petition for cancellation of union re!istration filed b( the e2plo(er in <<< a!ainst a ran13and3file labor or!ani4ation on the !round of 2i;ed 2e2bership7 the Court therein reiterated its rulin! in 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands that the inclusion in a union of dis>ualified e2plo(ees is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under the circu2stances enu2erated in Sections %a& and %c& of $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code. $ll said, while the latest issuance is R.$. No. <.- , the <</ $2ended O2nibus Rules, as interpreted b( the Court in 0a!a(ta( ?i!hlands, San +i!uel and $ir Philippines, had alread( set the tone for it. 0o(ota and Dunlop no lon!er hold swa( in the present altered state of the law and the rules..* When a si2ilar issue confronted this Court close to three (ears later, the above rulin! was substantiall( >uoted in Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Charter Che2ical Solidarit( of Dnions in the Philippines for E2power2ent and Refor2s %S+CC3Super& v. Charter Che2ical and Coatin! Corporation. ./ In une>uivocal ter2s, We reiterated that the alle!ed inclusionof supervisor( e2plo(ees in a labor or!ani4ation see1in! to represent the bar!ainin! unit of ran13and3file e2plo(ees does not divest it of its status as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation..Indeed, 0o(ota and Dunlop no lon!er hold true under the law and rules !overnin! the instant case. 0he petitions for certification election involved in 0o(ota and Dunlop were filed on Nove2ber "*, <<" and Septe2ber :, <<:, respectivel(8 hence, the <-< Rules and Re!ulations I2ple2entin! R.$. No. */ : % <-< $2ended O2nibus Rules& was applied. In contrast, D.O. No. < is applicable in the petition for certification election of private respondent as it was filed on +a( # , "))". 'ollowin! the doctrine laid down in Jawashi2a and S+CC3Super, it 2ust be stressed that petitioner cannot collaterall( attac1 the le!iti2ac( of private respondent b( pra(in! for the dis2issal of the petition for certification election7 E;cept when it is re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, an e2plo(er is a 2ere b(stander to an( petition for certification election8 such proceedin! is non3adversarial and 2erel( investi!ative, for the purpose thereof is to deter2ine which or!ani4ation will represent the e2plo(ees in their collective bar!ainin! with the e2plo(er. 0he choice of their representative is the e;clusive concern of the e2plo(ees8 the e2plo(er cannot have an( partisan interest therein8 it cannot interfere with, 2uch less oppose, the process b( filin! a 2otion to dis2iss or an appeal fro2 it8 not even a 2ere alle!ation that so2e e2plo(ees participatin! in a petition for certification election are actuall( 2ana!erial e2plo(ees will lend an e2plo(er le!al personalit( to bloc1 the certification election. 0he e2plo(erNs onl( ri!ht in the proceedin! is to be notified or infor2ed thereof. 0he a2end2ents to the 6abor Code and its i2ple2entin! rules have buttressed that polic( even 2ore..< 'urther, the deter2ination of whether union 2e2bership co2prises 2ana!erial andEor supervisor( e2plo(ees is a factual issue that is best left for resolution in the inclusion3e;clusion proceedin!s, which has not (et happened in this case so still pre2ature to pass upon. We could onl( e2phasi4e the rule that factual findin!s of labor officials, who are dee2ed to have ac>uired e;pertise in 2atters within their Aurisdiction, are !enerall( accorded not onl( with respect but even finalit( b( the courts when supported b( substantial evidence.:) $lso, the Aurisdiction of this Court in cases brou!ht before it fro2 the C$ via Rule .: is !enerall( li2ited to reviewin! errors of law or Aurisdiction. 0he findin!s of fact of the C$ are conclusive and bindin!. E;cept in certain reco!ni4ed instances, : We do not entertain factual issues as it
is not Our function to anal(4e or wei!h evidence all over a!ain8 the evaluation of facts is best left to the lower courts and ad2inistrative a!enciesE>uasi3Audicial bodies which are better e>uipped for the tas1.:" 0urnin! now to the second and last issue, petitioner ar!ues that, in view of the i2proper 2i;ture of teachin! and non3teachin! personnel in private respondent due to the absence of 2utualit( of interest a2on! its 2e2bers, the petition for certification election should have been dis2issed on the !round that private respondent is not >ualified to file such petition for its failure to >ualif( as a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation, the basic >ualification of which is the representation of an appropriate bar!ainin! unit. We disa!ree. 0he concepts of a union and of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation are different fro2, but related to, the concept of a bar!ainin! unit7 $rticle " "%!& of the 6abor Code defines a labor or!ani4ation as Ban( union or association of e2plo(ees which e;ists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! or of dealin! with e2plo(ers concernin! ter2s and conditions of e2plo(2ent.B Dpon co2pliance with all the docu2entar( re>uire2ents, the Re!ional Office or 5ureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor or!ani4ation a certificate indicatin! that it is included in the roster of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations. $n( applicant labor or!ani4ation shall ac>uire le!al personalit( and shall be entitled to the ri!hts and privile!es !ranted b( law to le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations upon issuance of the certificate of re!istration. :# In case of alle!ed inclusion of dis>ualified e2plo(ees in a union, the proper procedure for an e2plo(er li1e petitioner is to directl( file a petition for cancellation of the union9s certificate of re!istration due to 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under the circu2stances enu2erated in $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code, as a2ended.:. 0o reiterate, private respondent, havin! been validl( issued a certificate of re!istration, should be considered as havin! ac>uired Auridical personalit( which 2a( not be attac1ed collaterall(. On the other hand, a bar!ainin! unit has been defined as a B!roup of e2plo(ees of a !iven e2plo(er, co2prised of all or less than all of the entire bod( of e2plo(ees, which the collective interests of all the e2plo(ees, consistent with e>uit( to the e2plo(er, indicated to be best suited to serve reciprocal ri!hts and duties of the parties under the collective bar!ainin! provisions of the law.B :: In deter2inin! the proper collective bar!ainin! unit and what unit would be appropriate to be the collective bar!ainin! a!enc(, the Court, in the se2inal case of De2ocratic 6abor $ssociation v. Cebu Stevedorin! Co2pan(, Inc.,:* 2entioned several factors that should be considered, to wit7 % & will of e2plo(ees %,lobe Doctrine&8 %"& affinit( and unit( of e2plo(eesN interest, such as substantial si2ilarit( of wor1 and duties, or si2ilarit( of co2pensation and wor1in! conditions8 %#& prior collective bar!ainin! histor(8 and %.& e2plo(2ent status, such as te2porar(, seasonal and probationar( e2plo(ees. We stressed, however, that the test of the !roupin! is co22unit( or 2utualit( of interest, because Bthe basic test of an asserted bar!ainin! unitNs acceptabilit( is whether or not it is funda2entall( the co2bination which will best assure to all e2plo(ees the e;ercise of their collective bar!ainin! ri!hts.B :/ $s the SO6E correctl( observed, petitioner failed to co2prehend the full i2port of Our rulin! in D.P. It suffices to >uote with approval the apt disposition of the SO6E when she denied petitioner9s 2otion for reconsideration7 Petitioner li1ewise clai2ed that we erred in interpretin! the decision of the Supre2e Court in D.P. v. 'errer3CalleAa, supra. $ccordin! to petitioner, the Supre2e Court stated that the non3acade2ic ran13 andfile e2plo(ees of the Dniversit( of the Philippines shall constitute a bar!ainin! unit to the e;clusion of the acade2ic e2plo(ees of the institution. ?ence, petitioner ar!ues, it sou!ht the creation of separate bar!ainin! units, na2el(7 % & petitioner9s teachin! personnel to the e;clusion of non3teachin! personnel8 and %"& petitioner9s non3teachin! personnel to the e;clusion of teachin! personnel. Petitioner appears to have confused the concepts of 2e2bership in a bar!ainin! unit and 2e2bership in a union. In e2phasi4in! the phrase Bto the e;clusion of acade2ic e2plo(eesB stated in D.P. v. 'errer3CalleAa, petitioner believed that the petitionin! union could not ad2it acade2ic e2plo(ees of the universit( to its 2e2bership. 5ut such was not the intention of the Supre2e Court. $ bar!ainin! unit is a !roup of e2plo(ees sou!ht to be represented b( a petitionin! union. Such e2plo(ees need not be 2e2bers of a union see1in! the conduct of a certification election. $ union certified as an e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent represents not onl( its 2e2bers but also other e2plo(ees who are not union 2e2bers. $s pointed out in our assailed Decision, there were two contendin! unions in the D.P. case, na2el(, the Or!ani4ation of Non3$cade2ic Personnel of D.P. %ON$PDP& and the $ll D.P. Wor1er9s Dnion co2posed of both D.P. acade2ic and non3acade2ic personnel. ON$PDP sou!ht the conduct of a certification election a2on! the ran13and3file non3acade2ic personnel onl(, while the LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL | 16
$ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion intended to cover all D.P. ran13and3file e2plo(ees, involvin! both acade2ic and non3acade2ic personnel. 0he Supre2e Court ordered the Bnon3acade2ic ran13and3file e2plo(ees of D.P. to constitute a bar!ainin! unit to the e;clusion of the acade2ic e2plo(ees of the institutionB, but did not order the2 to or!ani4e a separate labor or!ani4ation. In the D.P. case, the Supre2e Court did not dis2iss the petition and affir2ed the order for the conduct of a certification election a2on! the non3acade2ic personnel of D.P., without preAudice to the ri!ht of the acade2ic personnel to constitute a separate bar!ainin! unit for the2selves and for the $ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion to institute a petition for certification election. In the sa2e 2anner, the teachin! and non3teachin! personnel of petitioner school 2ust for2 separate bar!ainin! units.1?/phi1 0hus, the order for the conduct of two separate certification elections, one involvin! teachin! personnel and the other involvin! non3teachin! personnel. It should be stressed that in the subAect petition, private respondent union sou!ht the conduct of a certification election a2on! all the ran13and3file personnel of petitioner school. Since the decision of the Supre2e Court in the D.P. case prohibits us fro2 co22in!lin! teachin! and non3teachin! personnel in one bar!ainin! unit, the( have to be separated into two separate bar!ainin! units with two separate certification elections to deter2ine whether the e2plo(ees in the respective bar!ainin! units desired to be represented b( private respondent. In the D.P. case, onl( one certification election a2on! the non3acade2ic personnel was ordered, because ON$PDP sou!ht to represent that bar!ainin! unit onl(. No petition for certification election a2on! the acade2ic personnel was instituted b( $ll D.P. Wor1ers Dnion in the said case8 thus, no certification election pertainin! to its intended bar!ainin! unit was ordered b( the Court.:Indeed, the purpose of a certification election is precisel( to ascertain the 2aAorit( of the e2plo(ees9 choice of an appropriate bar!ainin! unit F to be or not to be represented b( a labor or!ani4ation and, if in the affir2ative case, b( which one.:< $t this point, it is not a2iss to stress once 2ore that, as a rule, onl( >uestions of law 2a( be raised in a Rule .: petition. In +onto(a v. 0rans2ed +anila Corporation, *) the Court discussed the particular para2eters of a Rule .: appeal fro2 the C$9s Rule *: decision on a labor case, as follows7 ; ; ; In a Rule .: review, we consider the correctness of the assailed C$ decision, in contrast with the review for Aurisdictional error that we underta1e under Rule *:. 'urther2ore, Rule .: li2its us to the review of >uestions of law raised a!ainst the assailed C$ decision. In rulin! for le!al correctness, we have to view the C$ decision in the sa2e conte;t that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it8 we have to e;a2ine the C$ decision fro2 the pris2 of whether it correctl( deter2ined the presence or absence of !rave abuse of discretion in the N6RC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the N6RC decision on the 2erits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be 1eenl( aware that the C$ undertoo1 a Rule *: review, not a review on appeal, of the N6RC decision challen!ed before it. 0his is the approach that should be basic in a Rule .: review of a C$ rulin! in a labor case. In >uestion for2, the >uestion to as1 is7 Did the C$ correctl( deter2ine whether the N6RC co22itted !rave abuse of discretion in rulin! on the caseR* Our review is, therefore, li2ited to the deter2ination of whether the C$ correctl( resolved the presence or absence of !rave abuse of discretion in the decision of the SO6E, not on the basis of whether the latterNs decision on the 2erits of the case was strictl( correct. Whether the C$ co22itted !rave abuse of discretion is not what is ruled upon but whether it correctl( deter2ined the e;istence or want of !rave abuse of discretion on the part of the SO6E. W?ERE'ORE, the pet t on is DENIED. 0he $pril -, "))/ Decision and @ul( # , "))/, Resolution of the Court of $ppeals in C$3,.R. SP No. /* /:, which affir2ed the Dece2ber "/, "))" Decision of the Secretar( of the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent that set aside the $u!ust ), "))" Decision of the +ed3$rbiter den(in! private respondentNs petition for certification election are hereb( $''IR+ED. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 162566
Au*u%( 1G, 2009

0TA. LUCIA EA0T COMMERCIAL COR ORATION, Petitioner, vs. !ON. 0ECRETARJ OF LA1OR AND EM LOJMENT and 0TA. LUCIA EA0T COMMERCIAL COR ORATION 3OR2ER0 A00OCIATION 8CLU LOCAL C!A TER9, Respondents. DECISION CAR IO, J.: T$) Ca%) 0his is a petition for review assailin! the Decision" pro2ul!ated on . $u!ust "))# as well as the Resolution#pro2ul!ated on ". 'ebruar( ")). of the Court of $ppeals %appellate court& in C$3,.R. SP No. //) :. 0he appellate court denied Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation9s %S6ECC& petition for certiorari with pra(er for writ of preli2inar( inAunction and te2porar( restrainin! order. 0he appellate court further ruled that the Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %Secretar(& was correct when she held that the subse>uent ne!otiations and re!istration of a collective bar!ainin! a!ree2ent %C5$& e;ecuted b( S6ECC with Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial %S+S6EC& could not bar Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation Wor1ers $ssociation9s %S6ECCW$& petition for direct certification. T$) Fa&(% 0he Secretar( narrated the facts as follows7 On "/ 'ebruar( ")) , Confederated 6abor Dnion of the Philippines %C6DP&, in behalf of its chartered local, instituted a petition for certification election a2on! the re!ular ran13and3file e2plo(ees of Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation and its $ffiliates, doc1eted as Case No. RO.))3)")"3RD3))/. 0he affiliate co2panies included in the petition were S6E Co22ercial, S6E Depart2ent Store, S6E Cine2a, Robsan East 0radin!, 5owlin! Center, Planet 0o(s, ?o2e ,aller( and Essentials. On " $u!ust ")) , +ed3$rbiter 5actin ordered the dis2issal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the bar!ainin! unit. C6DP3Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion appealed the order of dis2issal to this Office on . Septe2ber ")) . On ") Nove2ber ")) , C6DP3Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion GC6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers DnionH 2oved for the withdrawal of the appeal. On # @anuar( "))", this Office !ranted the 2otion and affir2ed the dis2issal of the petition. In the 2eanti2e, on ) October ")) , GC6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers DnionH reor!ani4ed itself and re3re!istered as C6DP3Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation Wor1ers $ssociation %herein appellant C6DP3S6ECCW$&, li2itin! its 2e2bership to the ran13and3file e2plo(ees of Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation. It was issued Certificate of Creation of a 6ocal Chapter No. RO.))3) )3CC3)).. On the sa2e date, GC6DP3S6ECCW$H filed the instant petition. It alle!ed that GS6ECCH e2plo(s about : e2plo(ees and that 2ore than ")C of e2plo(ees belon!in! to the ran13 and3file cate!or( are its 2e2bers. GC6DP3S6ECCW$H clai2ed that no certification election has been held a2on! the2 within the last " 2onths prior to the filin! of the petition, and while there is another union re!istered with DO6E3Re!ional Office No. I= on "" @une ")) coverin! the sa2e e2plo(ees, na2el( GS+S6ECH, it has not been reco!ni4ed as the e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of GS6ECC9sH e2plo(ees. On "" Nove2ber ")) , S6ECC filed a 2otion to dis2iss the petition. It averred that it has voluntaril( reco!ni4ed GS+S6ECH on ") @ul( ")) as the e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of its re!ular ran13and3file e2plo(ees, and that collective bar!ainin! ne!otiations alread( co22enced between the2. S6ECC ar!ued that the petition should be dis2issed for
violatin! the one (ear and ne!otiation bar rules under pars. %c& and %d&, Section , Rule MI, 5oo1 = of the O2nibus Rules I2ple2entin! the 6abor Code. On "< Nove2ber ")) , a C5$ between GS+S6ECH and GS6ECCH was ratified b( its ran13 and3file e2plo(ees and re!istered with DO6E3Re!ional Office No. I= on < @anuar( "))". In the 2eanti2e, on < Dece2ber ")) , GC6DP3S6ECCW$H filed its Opposition and Co22ent to GS6ECC9SH +otion to Dis2iss. It assailed the validit( of the voluntar( reco!nition of GS+S6ECH b( GS6ECCH and their conse>uent ne!otiations and e;ecution of a C5$. $ccordin! to GC6DP3S6ECCW$H, the sa2e were tainted with 2alice, collusion and conspirac( involvin! so2e officials of the Re!ional Office. $ppellant contended that Chief 6EO Ra(2undo $!ravante, DO6E Re!ional Office No. I=, 6abor Relations Division should have not approved and recorded the voluntar( reco!nition of GS+S6ECH b( GS6ECCH because it violated one of the 2aAor re>uire2ents for voluntar( reco!nition, i.e., non3 e;istence of another labor or!ani4ation in the sa2e bar!ainin! unit. It pointed out that the ti2e of the voluntar( reco!nition on ") @ul( ")) , appellant9s re!istration as GC6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers DnionH, which covers the sa2e !roup of e2plo(ees covered b( Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial, was e;istin! and has neither been cancelled or abandoned. GC6DP3S6ECCW$H also accused +ed3$rbiter 5actin of 2alice, collusion and conspirac( with appellee co2pan( when he dis2issed the petition for certification election filed b( GS+S6ECH for bein! 2oot and acade2ic because of its voluntar( reco!nition, when he was full( aware of the pendenc( of GC6DP3S6ECCW$9sH earlier petition for certification election. Subse>uent pleadin!s filed b( GC6DP3S6ECCW$H and GS6ECCH reiterated their respective positions on the validit( and invalidit( of the voluntar( reco!nition. On "< @ul( "))", +ed3 $rbiter 5actin issued the assailed Order.. T$) M)d4A+.#()+;% Rul#n* In his Order dated "< @ul( "))", +ed3$rbiter $nastacio 6. 5actin dis2issed C6DP3 S6ECCW$9s petition for direct certification on the !round of contract bar rule. 0he prior voluntar( reco!nition of S+S6EC and the C5$ between S6ECC and S+S6EC bars the filin! of C6DP3S6ECCW$9s petition for direct certification. S+S6EC is entitled to enAo( the ri!hts, privile!es, and obli!ations of an e;clusive bar!ainin! representative fro2 the ti2e of the recordin! of the voluntar( reco!nition. +oreover, the dul( re!istered C5$ bars the filin! of the petition for direct certification. C6DP3S6ECCW$ filed a +e2orandu2 of $ppeal of the +ed3$rbiter9s Order before the Secretar(. 0he Rulin! of the Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent In her Decision pro2ul!ated on "/ Dece2ber "))", the Secretar( found 2erit in C6DP3 S6ECCW$9s appeal. 0he Secretar( held that the subse>uent ne!otiations and re!istration of a C5$ e;ecuted b( S6ECC with S+S6EC could not bar C6DP3S6ECCW$9s petition. C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion constituted a re!istered labor or!ani4ation at the ti2e of S6ECC9s voluntar( reco!nition of S+S6EC. 0he dispositive portion of the Secretar(9s Decision reads7 W?ERE'ORE, the appeal is hereb( ,R$N0ED and the Order of the +ed3$rbiter dated "< @ul( "))" is RE=ERSED and SE0 $SIDE. $ccordin!l(, let the entire records of the case be re2anded to the Re!ional Office of ori!in for the i22ediate conduct of a certification election, subAect to the usual pre3election conference, a2on! the re!ular ran13and3file e2plo(ees of GS6ECCH, with the followin! choices7 . Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation Wor1ers9 $ssociation F C6DP 6ocal Chapter8 ". Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial8 and #. No Dnion.
Pursuant to Rule MI, Section II. of Depart2ent Order No. <, appellee corporation is hereb( directed to sub2it to the office of ori!in, within ten % )& da(s fro2 receipt hereof, the certified list of its e2plo(ees in the bar!ainin! unit or when necessar( a cop( of its pa(roll coverin! the sa2e e2plo(ees for the last three %#& 2onths precedin! the issuance of this Decision. 6et a cop( of this Decision be furnished the 5ureau of 6abor Relations and 6abor Relations Division of Re!ional Office No. I= for the cancellation of the recordin! of voluntar( reco!nition in favor of Sa2ahan! +an!!a!awa sa Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial and the appropriate annotation of re3re!istration of C6DP3Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion to Sta. 6ucia East Co22ercial Corporation Wor1ers $ssociation3C6DP 6ocal Chapter. SO DECIDED.: S6ECC filed a 2otion for reconsideration which the Secretar( denied for lac1 of 2erit in a Resolution dated "/ +arch "))#. S6ECC then filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate court. T$) Rul#n* o- ($) A'')lla() Cou+( 0he appellate court affir2ed the rulin! of the Secretar( and >uoted e;tensivel( fro2 the Secretar(9s decision. 0he appellate court a!reed with the Secretar(9s findin! that the wor1ers sou!ht to be represented b( C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion included the sa2e wor1ers in the bar!ainin! unit represented b( S+S6EC. S+S6EC was not the onl( le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation operatin! in the subAect bar!ainin! unit at the ti2e of S+S6EC9s voluntar( reco!nition on ") @ul( ")) . 0hus, S+S6EC9s voluntar( reco!nition was void and could not bar C6DP3S6ECCW$9s petition for certification election. T$) I%%u) S6ECC raised onl( one issue in its petition. S6ECC asserted that the appellate court co22ited a reversible error when it affir2ed the Secretar(9s findin! that S6ECC9s voluntar( reco!nition of S+S6EC was done while a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation was in e;istence in the bar!ainin! unit. T$) Rul#n* o- ($) Cou+( 0he petition has no 2erit. We see no reason to overturn the rulin!s of the Secretar( and of the appellate court. 6e!iti2ate 6abor Or!ani4ation $rticle " "%!& of the 6abor Code defines a labor or!ani4ation as Ban( union or association of e2plo(ees which e;ists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bar!ainin! or of dealin! with e2plo(ers concernin! ter2s and conditions of e2plo(2ent.B Dpon co2pliance with all the docu2entar( re>uire2ents, the Re!ional Office or 5ureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor or!ani4ation a certificate indicatin! that it is included in the roster of le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations.* $n( applicant labor or!ani4ation shall ac>uire le!al personalit( and shall be entitled to the ri!hts and privile!es !ranted b( law to le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ations upon issuance of the certificate of re!istration./ 5ar!ainin! Dnit 0he concepts of a union and of a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation are different fro2, but related to, the concept of a bar!ainin! unit. We e;plained the concept of a bar!ainin! unit in San +i!uel Corporation v. 6a!ues2a,- where we stated that7 $ bar!ainin! unit is a B!roup of e2plo(ees of a !iven e2plo(er, co2prised of all or less than all of the entire bod( of e2plo(ees, consistent with e>uit( to the e2plo(er, indicated to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal ri!hts and duties of the parties under the collective bar!ainin! provisions of the law.B 0he funda2ental factors in deter2inin! the appropriate collective bar!ainin! unit are7 % & the will of the e2plo(ees %,lobe Doctrine&8 %"& affinit( and unit( of the e2plo(ees9 interest, such
as substantial si2ilarit( of wor1 and duties, or si2ilarit( of co2pensation and wor1in! conditions %Substantial +utual Interests Rule&8 %#& prior collective bar!ainin! histor(8 and %.& si2ilarit( of e2plo(2ent status. Contrar( to petitioner9s assertion, this Court has cate!oricall( ruled that the e;istence of a prior collective bar!ainin! histor( is neither decisive nor conclusive in the deter2ination of what constitutes an appropriate bar!ainin! unit. ?owever, e2plo(ees in two corporations cannot be treated as a sin!le bar!ainin! unit even if the businesses of the two corporations are related.< $ 6e!iti2ate 6abor Or!ani4ation Representin! $n Inappropriate 5ar!ainin! Dnit C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion9s initial proble2 was that the( constituted a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation representin! a non3appropriate bar!ainin! unit. ?owever, C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion subse>uentl( re3re!istered as C6DP3 S6ECCW$, li2itin! its 2e2bers to the ran13and3file of S6ECC. S6ECC cannot i!nore that C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion was a le!iti2ate labor or!ani4ation at the ti2e of S6ECC9s voluntar( reco!nition of S+S6EC. S6ECC and S+S6EC cannot, b( the2selves, decide whether C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion represented an appropriate bar!ainin! unit.1avvphi1 0he inclusion in the union of dis>ualified e2plo(ees is not a2on! the !rounds for cancellation of re!istration, unless such inclusion is due to 2isrepresentation, false state2ent or fraud under the circu2stances enu2erated in Sections %a& to %c& of $rticle "#< of the 6abor Code. ) 0hus, C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion, havin! been validl( issued a certificate of re!istration, should be considered as havin! ac>uired Auridical personalit( which 2a( not be attac1ed collaterall(. 0he proper procedure for S6ECC is to file a petition for cancellation of certificate of re!istration of C6DP3S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion and not to i22ediatel( co22ence voluntar( reco!nition proceedin!s with S+S6EC. S6ECC9s =oluntar( Reco!nition of S+S6EC 0he e2plo(er 2a( voluntaril( reco!ni4e the representation status of a union in unor!ani4ed establish2ents. "S6ECC was not an unor!ani4ed establish2ent when it voluntaril( reco!ni4ed S+S6EC as its e;clusive bar!ainin! representative on ") @ul( ")) . C6DP3 S6ECC and its $ffiliates Wor1ers Dnion filed a petition for certification election on "/ 'ebruar( ")) and this petition re2ained pendin! as of ") @ul( ")) . 0hus, S6ECC9s voluntar( reco!nition of S+S6EC on ") @ul( ")) , the subse>uent ne!otiations and resultin! re!istration of a C5$ e;ecuted b( S6ECC and S+S6EC are void and cannot bar C6DP3S6ECCW$9s present petition for certification election. E,'loy)+;% a+(#&#'a(#on #n a )(#(#on -o+ C)+(#-#&a(#on El)&(#on We find it stran!e that the e2plo(er itself, S6ECC, filed a 2otion to oppose C6DP3 S6ECCW$9s petition for certification election. In petitions for certification election, the e2plo(er is a 2ere b(stander and cannot oppose the petition or appeal the +ed3$rbiter9s decision. 0he e;ception to this rule, which happens when the e2plo(er is re>uested to bar!ain collectivel(, is not present in the case before us. # W?ERE'ORE, we DENI the petition. We $''IR+ the Decision pro2ul!ated on . $u!ust "))# as well as the Resolution pro2ul!ated on ". 'ebruar( ")). of the Court of $ppeals in C$3,.R. SP No. //) :. SO ORDERED.
| 19
G.R. No%. 17G905 O&(o.)+ 10, 2012 DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATION0 !ILI INE0, INC., Petitioner, vs. DIGITEL EM LOJEE0 UNION 8DEU9, ARCELO RAFAEL A. E0 LANA, ALAN D. LICANDO, FELICITO C. ROMERO, JR., ARNOLD D. GON"ALE0, REJNEL FRANCI0CO 1. GARCIA, "O0IMO 1. ERALTA, REGINO T. UNIDAD and JIM L. JAIIER, Respondents. DECISION ERE", J.: 0his treats of the petition for review filed b( Di!ital 0eleco22unications Philippines, Inc. %Di!itel& assailin! the - @une "))- Decision and < October "))- Resolution of the Court of $ppeals )th Division in C$3,.R. SP No. < / <, which affir2s the Order of the Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent directin! Di!itel to co22ence Collective 5ar!ainin! $!ree2ent %C5$& ne!otiations and in C$3,.R. SP No. <.-":, which declares the dis2issal of affected Di!itel e2plo(ees as ille!al. 0he facts, as borne b( the records, follow. 5( virtue of a certification election, Di!itel E2plo(ees Dnion %Dnion& beca2e the e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of all ran1 and file e2plo(ees of Di!itel in <<.. 0he Dnion and Di!itel then co22enced collective bar!ainin! ne!otiations which resulted in a bar!ainin! deadloc1. 0he Dnion threatened to !o on stri1e, but then $ctin! 6abor Secretar( 5ienvenido E. 6a!ues2a assu2ed Aurisdiction over the dispute and eventuall( directed the parties to e;ecute a C5$." ?owever, no C5$ was for!ed between Di!itel and the Dnion. So2e Dnion 2e2bers abandoned their e2plo(2ent with Di!itel. 0he Dnion later beca2e dor2ant. 0en % )& (ears thereafter or on "- Septe2ber "))., Di!itel received fro2 $rceo Rafael $. Esplana %Esplana&, who identified hi2self as President of the Dnion, a letter containin! the list of officers, C5$ proposals and !round rules.# 0he officers were respondents Esplana, $lan D. 6icando %=ice3President&, 'elicito C. Ro2ero, @r. %Secretar(&, $rnold D. ,on4ales %0reasurer&, Re(nel 'rancisco 5. ,arcia %$uditor&, Posi2o 5. Peralta %PRO&, Re!ino 0. Dnidad %S!t. at $r2s&, and @i2 6. @avier %S!t. at $r2s&. Di!itel was reluctant to ne!otiate with the Dnion and de2anded that the latter show co2pliance with the provisions of the Dnion9s Constitution and 5(3laws on union 2e2bership and election of officers. On . Nove2ber "))., Esplana and his !roup filed a case for Preventive +ediation before the National Conciliation and +ediation 5oard based on Di!itel9s violation of the dut( to bar!ain. On ": Nove2ber "))., Esplana filed a notice of stri1e. On ) +arch ")):, then 6abor Secretar( Patricia $. Sto. 0o2as issued an Order. assu2in! Aurisdiction over the labor dispute. Durin! the pendenc( of the controvers(, Di!itel Service, Inc. %Di!iserv&, a non3profit enterprise en!a!ed in call center servicin!, filed with the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent %DO6E& an Establish2ent 0er2ination Report statin! that it will cease its business operation. 0he closure affected at least )) e2plo(ees, ." of who2 are 2e2bers of the herein respondent Dnion. $lle!in! that the affected e2plo(ees are its 2e2bers and in reaction to Di!iserv9s action, Esplana and his !roup filed another Notice of Stri1e for union bustin!, ille!al loc13out, and violation of the assu2ption order. On "# +a( ")):, the Secretar( of 6abor ordered the second notice of stri1e subsu2ed b( the previous $ssu2ption Order.: +eanwhile, on . +arch ")):, Di!itel filed a petition with the 5ureau of 6abor Relations %56R& see1in! cancellation of the Dnion9s re!istration on the followin! !rounds7 & failure to
file the re>uired reports fro2 <<.3")).8 "& 2isrepresentation of its alle!ed officers8 #& 2e2bership of the Dnion is co2posed of ran1 and file, supervisor( and 2ana!erial e2plo(ees8 and .& substantial nu2ber of union 2e2bers are not Di!itel e2plo(ees. * In a Decision dated +a( ")):, the Re!ional Director of the DO6E dis2issed the petition for cancellation of union re!istration for lac1 of 2erit. 0he Re!ional Director ruled that it does not have Aurisdiction over the issue of non3co2pliance with the reportorial re>uire2ents. ?e also held that Di!itel failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove 2isrepresentation and the 2i;in! of non3Di!itel e2plo(ees with the Dnion. 'inall(, he declared that the inclusion of supervisor( and 2ana!erial e2plo(ees with the ran1 and file e2plo(ees is no lon!er a !round for cancellation of the Dnion9s certificate of re!istration./ 0he appeal filed b( Di!itel with the 56R was eventuall( dis2issed for lac1 of 2erit in a Resolution dated < +arch "))/, thereb( affir2in! the +a( ")): Decision of the Re!ional Director. CA4G.R. 0 No. 91719 In an Order dated # @ul( ")):, the Secretar( of 6abor directed Di!itel to co22ence the C5$ ne!otiation with the Dnion. 0hus7 W?ERE'ORE, all the fore!oin! pre2ises considered, this Office hereb( orders7 . DI,I0E6 to co22ence collective bar!ainin! ne!otiation with DED without further dela(8 and, ". 0he issue of unfair labor practice, consistin! of union3bustin!, ille!al ter2inationEloc1out and violation of the assu2ption of Aurisdiction, specificall( the return3to3wor1 aspect of the ) +arch ")): and )# @une ")): orders, be CER0I'IED for co2pulsor( arbitration to the N6RC.Di!itel 2oved for reconsideration on the contention that the pendenc( of the petition for cancellation of the Dnion9s certificate of re!istration is a preAudicial >uestion that should first be settled before the DO6E could order the parties to bar!ain collectivel(. On < $u!ust ")):, then $ctin! Secretar( +anuel ,. I2son of DO6E denied the 2otion for reconsideration, affir2ed the # @ul( ")): Order and reiterated the order directin! parties to co22ence collective bar!ainin! ne!otiations.< On . October ")):, Di!itel filed a petition, doc1eted as C$3,.R. SP No. < / <, before the Court of $ppeals assailin! the # @ul( and < $u!ust ")): Orders of the DO6E Secretar( and attributin! !rave abuse of discretion on the part of the DO6E Secretar( for orderin! Di!itel to co22ence bar!ainin! ne!otiations with the Dnion despite the pendenc( of the issue of union le!iti2ac(. CA4G.R. 0 No. 9G726 In accordance with the # @ul( ")): Order of the Secretar( of 6abor, the unfair labor practice issue was certified for co2pulsor( arbitration before the N6RC, which, on # @anuar( "))*, rendered a Decision dis2issin! the unfair labor practice char!e a!ainst Di!itel but declarin! the dis2issal of the # e2plo(ees of Di!iserv as ille!al and orderin! their reinstate2ent. 0he Dnion 2anifested that out of ." e2plo(ees, onl( # re2ained, as 2ost had alread( accepted separation pa(. 0he dispositive portion of the Decision reads7 W?ERE'ORE, pre2ises considered, the char!e of unfair labor practice is hereb( DIS+ISSED for lac1 of 2erit. ?owever, the dis2issal of the re2ainin! thirteen % #& affected e2plo(ees is hereb( declared ille!al and DI,I0E6 is hereb( ORDERED to reinstate the2 to their for2er position with full bac1wa!es up to the ti2e the( are reinstated, co2puted as follows7 ; ; ; ;. ) Dpon 2otion for reconsideration filed b( Di!itel, four %.& affected e2plo(ees, na2el( +a. 6oreta Eser, +arites @ere4a, 6eonore 0uliao and $line ,. Luillopras, were re2oved fro2
entitle2ent to the awards pursuant to the deed of >uitclai2 and release which the( all si!ned. In view of this unfavorable decision, Di!itel filed another petition on < @une "))* in C$3,.R. SP No. <.-": before the Court of $ppeals, challen!in! the above N6RC Decision and Resolution and ar!uin! 2ainl( that Di!iserv e2plo(ees are not e2plo(ees of Di!itel. Rul#n* o- ($) Cou+( o- A'')al% On - @une "))-, the 0enth Division of the Court of $ppeals consolidated the two petitions in C$3,.R. SP No. < / < and C$3,.R. SP No. <.-":, and disposed as follows7 3!EREFORE, the petition in C$3,.R. SP No. < / < is DI0MI00ED. 0he @ul( #, ")): O+d)+ and the $u!ust <, ")): Resolution of the DO6E Secretar( are AFFIRMED in toto. With costs. 0he petition in C$3,.R. SP No. <.-": is partiall( GRANTED, with the effect that the assailed dispositions 2ust be MODIFIED, as follows7 & In addition to the order directin! reinstate2ent and pa(2ent of full bac1wa!es to the nine %<& affected e2plo(ees, Di!ital 0eleco22unications Philippines, Inc. is furthered ORDERED, should reinstate2ent is no lon!er feasible, to pa( separation pa( e>uivalent to one % & 2onth pa(, or one3half % E"& 2onth pa( for ever( (ear of service, whichever is hi!her. "& 0he one hundred thousand %PhP )),))).))& peso3fine i2posed on Di!ital 0eleco22unications Philippines, Inc. is DELETED. No costs. " 0he Court of $ppeals upheld the Secretar( of 6abor9s Order for Di!itel to co22ence C5$ ne!otiations with the Dnion and e2phasi4ed that the pendenc( of a petition for the cancellation of a union9s re!istration does not bar the holdin! of ne!otiations for a C5$. 0he Court of $ppeals sustained the findin! that Di!iserv is en!a!ed in labor3onl( contractin! and that its e2plo(ees are actuall( e2plo(ees of Di!itel. Di!itel filed a 2otion for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated < October "))-. ?ence, this petition for review on certiorari. Di!itel ar!ues that the Court of $ppeals seriousl( erred when it condoned the act of the Secretar( of 6abor in issuin! an assu2ption order despite the pendenc( of an appeal on the issue of union re!istration. Di!itel 2aintains that it cannot be co2pelled to ne!otiate with a union for purposes of collective bar!ainin! when the ver( status of the sa2e as the e;clusive bar!ainin! a!ent is in >uestion. Di!itel insists that had the Court of $ppeals considered the nature of the activities perfor2ed b( Di!iserv, it would reach the conclusion that Di!iserv is a le!iti2ate contractor. 0o bolster its clai2, Di!itel asserts that the affected e2plo(ees are re!istered with the Social Securit( S(ste2, Pa!3ibi!, 5ureau of Internal Revenue and Philhealth with Di!iserv as their e2plo(er. Di!itel further contends that assu2in! that the affected Di!iserv e2plo(ees are e2plo(ees of Di!itel, the( were nevertheless validl( dis2issed on the !round of closure of a depart2ent or a part of Di!itel9s business operation. 0he three issues raised in this petition are7 & whether the Secretar( of 6abor erred in issuin! the assu2ption order despite the pendenc( of the petition for cancellation of union re!istration8 "& whether Di!iserv is a le!iti2ate contractor8 and #& whether there was a valid dis2issal. T$) ')nd)n&y oa ')(#(#on -o+ &an&)lla(#on oun#on +)*#%(+a(#on do)% no( '+)&lud) &oll)&(#>) .a+*a#n#n*. 0he first issue raised b( Di!itel is not novel. It is well3settled that the pendenc( of a petition for cancellation of union re!istration does not preclude collective bar!ainin!.
0he ")): case of Capitol Medical Center, #nc. v. -on. Tra+ano # is apropos. 0he respondent union therein sent a letter to petitioner re>uestin! a ne!otiation of their C5$. Petitioner refused to bar!ain and instead filed a petition for cancellation of the union9s certificate of re!istration. Petitioner9s refusal to bar!ain forced the union to file a notice of stri1e. 0he( eventuall( sta!ed a stri1e. 0he Secretar( of 6abor assu2ed Aurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordered all stri1in! wor1ers to return to wor1. Petitioner challen!ed said order b( contendin! that its petition for cancellation of union9s certificate of re!istration involves a preAudicial >uestion that should first be settled before the Secretar( of 6abor could order the parties to bar!ain collectivel(. When the case eventuall( reached this Court, we a!reed with the Secretar( of 6abor that the pendenc( of a petition for cancellation of union re!istration does not preclude collective bar!ainin!, thus7 0hat there is a pendin! cancellation proceedin! a!ainst the respondent Dnion is not a bar to set in 2otion the 2echanics of collective bar!ainin!. If a certification election 2a( still be ordered despite the pendenc( of a petition to cancel the union9s re!istration certificate %National Dnion of 5an1 E2plo(ees vs. +inister of 6abor, ) SCR$ "/.&, 2ore so should the collective bar!ainin! process continue despite its pendenc(. We 2ust e2phasi4e that the 2aAorit( status of the respondent Dnion is not affected b( the pendenc( of the Petition for Cancellation pendin! a!ainst it. Dnless its certificate of re!istration and its status as the certified bar!ainin! a!ent are revo1ed, the ?ospital is, b( e;press provision of the law, dut( bound to collectivel( bar!ain with the Dnion. . Tra+ano was reiterated in 6e!end International Resorts 6i2ited v. Jilusan! +an!!a!awa n! 6e!enda %J+63Independent&. : 6e!end International Resorts reiterated the rationale for allowin! the continuation of either a C5$ process or a certification election even durin! the pendenc( of proceedin!s for the cancellation of the union9s certificate of re!istration. Citin! the cases of $ssociation of Court of $ppeals E2plo(ees v. 'errer3 CalleAa * and Sa2ahan n! +an!!a!awa sa Pacific Plastic v. ?on. 6a!ues2a, / it was pointed out at the ti2e of the filin! of the petition for certification election F or a C5$ process as in the instant case F the union still had the personalit( to file a petition for certification S or to as1 for a C5$ ne!otiation F as in the present case. D#*#%)+> #% a la.o+4only &on(+a&(o+. 6abor3onl( contractin! is e;pressl( prohibited b( our labor laws. $rticle )* of the 6abor Code defines labor3onl( contractin! as Bsuppl(in! wor1ers to an e2plo(er GwhoH does not have substantial capital or invest2ent in the for2 of tools, e>uip2ent, 2achineries, wor1 pre2ises, a2on! others, and the wor1ers recruited and placed b( such person are perfor2in! activities which are directl( related to the principal business of such e2plo(er.B Section :, Rule =III3$, 5oo1 III of the O2nibus Rules I2ple2entin! the 6abor Code %I2ple2entin! Rules&, as a2ended b( Depart2ent Order No. -3)", e;pounds on the prohibition a!ainst labor3onl( contractin!, thus7 Section :. Prohibition against labor$only contracting. S 6abor3onl( contractin! is hereb( declared prohibited. 'or this purpose, labor3onl( contractin! shall refer to an arran!e2ent where the contractor or subcontractor 2erel( recruits, supplies or places wor1ers to perfor2 a Aob, wor1 or service for a principal, and an( of the followin! ele2ents are present7 i& 0he contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or invest2ent which relates to the Aob, wor1 or service to be perfor2ed and the e2plo(ees recruited, supplied or placed b( such contractor or subcontractor are perfor2in! activities which are directl( related to the 2ain business of the principal8 or ii& 0he contractor does not e;ercise the ri!ht to control over the perfor2ance of the wor1 of the contractual e2plo(ee. 0he fore!oin! provisions shall be without preAudice to the application of $rticle ".- %c& of the 6abor Code, as a2ended.
;;;; 0he Bri!ht to controlB shall refer to the ri!ht reserved to the person for who2, the services of the contractual wor1ers are perfor2ed, to deter2ine not onl( the end to be achieved, but also the 2anner and 2eans to be used in reachin! that end. 0he law and its i2ple2entin! rules allow contractin! arran!e2ents for the perfor2ance of specific Aobs, wor1s or services. Indeed, it is 2ana!e2ent prero!ative to far2 out an( of its activities, re!ardless of whether such activit( is peripheral or core in nature. ?owever, in order for such outsourcin! to be valid, it 2ust be 2ade to an independent contractor because the current labor rules e;pressl( prohibit labor3onl( contractin!. $fter an e;haustive review of the records, there is no showin! that first, Di!iserv has substantial invest2ent in the for2 of capital, e>uip2ent or tools. Dnder the I2ple2entin! Rules, substantial capital or invest2ent refers to Bcapital stoc1s and subscribed capitali4ation in the case of corporations, tools, e>uip2ent, i2ple2ents, 2achineries and wor1 pre2ises, actuall( and directl( used b( the contractor or subcontractor in the perfor2ance or co2pletion of the Aob, wor1 or service contracted out.B 0he N6RC, as echoed b( the Court of $ppeals, did not find substantial Di!iserv9s authori4ed capital stoc1 of One +illion Pesos %P ,))),))).))&. It pointed out that onl( 0wo ?undred 'ift( 0housand Pesos %P ":),))).))& of the authori4ed capital stoc1 had been subscribed and onl( Si;t(3 0wo 0housand 'ive ?undred Pesos %P *",:)).))& had been paid up. 0here was no increase in capitali4ation for the last ten % )& (ears. < +oreover, in the $2ended $rticles of Incorporation, as well as in the ,eneral Infor2ation Sheets for the (ears <<., ")) and ")):, the pri2ar( purpose of Di!iserv is to provide 2anpower services. In PCI $uto2ation Center, Inc. v. National 6abor Relations Co22ission,") the Court 2ade the followin! distinction7 Bthe le!iti2ate Aob contractor provides services while the labor3onl( contractor provides onl( 2anpower. 0he le!iti2ate Aob contractor underta1es to perfor2 a specific Aob for the principal e2plo(er while the labor3 onl( contractor 2erel( provides the personnel to wor1 for the principal e2plo(er.B 0he services provided b( e2plo(ees of Di!iserv are directl( related to the business of Di!itel, as rationali4ed b( the N6RC in this wise7 It is undisputed that as earl( as +arch <<., the affected e2plo(ees, e;cept for two, were alread( perfor2in! their Aob as 0raffic Operator which was later rena2ed as Custo2er Service Representative %CSR&. It is e>uall( undisputed that all throu!hout their e2plo(2ent, their function as CSR re2ains the sa2e until the( were ter2inated effective +a( #), ")):. 0heir lon! period of e2plo(2ent as such is an indication that their Aob is directl( related to the 2ain business of DI,I0E6 which is teleco22unications. 5ecause, if it was not, DI,I0E6 would not have allowed the2 to render services as Custo2er Service Representative for such a lon! period of ti2e." 'urther2ore, Di!iserv does not e;ercise control over the affected e2plo(ees. 0he N6RC hi!hli!hted the fact that Di!iserv shared the sa2e ?u2an Resources, $ccountin!, $udit and 6e!al Depart2ents with Di!itel which 2anifested that it was Di!itel who e;ercised control over the perfor2ance of the affected e2plo(ees. 0he N6RC also relied on the letters of co22endation, pla>ues of appreciation and certification issued b( Di!itel to the Custo2er Service Representatives as evidence of control. Considerin! that Di!iserv has been found to be en!a!ed in labor3onl( contractin!, the dis2issed e2plo(ees are dee2ed e2plo(ees of Di!itel. Section / of the I2ple2entin! Rules holds that labor3onl( contractin! would !ive rise to7 % & the creation of an e2plo(er3e2plo(ee relationship between the principal and the e2plo(ees of the contractor or sub3contractor8 and %"& the solidar( liabilit( of the principal and the contractor to the e2plo(ees in the event of an( violation of the 6abor Code. $ccordin!l(, Di!itel is considered the principal e2plo(er of respondent e2plo(ees.
T$) a--)&()d ),'loy))% C)+) #ll)*ally d#%,#%%)d. In addition to findin! that Di!iserv is a labor3onl( contractor, records tee2 with proof that its dis2issed e2plo(ees are in fact e2plo(ees of Di!itel. 0he N6RC enu2erated these evidences, thus7 0hat the re2ainin! thirteen % #& affected e2plo(ees are indeed e2plo(ees of DI,I0E6 is sufficientl( established b( the facts and evidence on record. It is undisputed that the re2ainin! affected e2plo(ees, e;cept for two %"&, were alread( hired b( DI,I0E6 even before the e;istence of DI,ISER=. %0he other two %"& were hired after the e;istence of DI,ISER=&. 0he DNION sub2itted a sa2ple cop( of their appoint2ent paper %$nne; B$B of DNION9s Position Paper, Records, =ol. , p. ))& showin! that the( were appointed on +arch , <<., al2ost three %#& 2onths before DI,ISER= ca2e into e;istence on +a( #), <<. %$nne; B5B, Ibid, Records, =ol. , p. ) &. On the other hand, not a sin!le appoint2ent paper was sub2itted b( DI,I0E6 showin! that these re2ainin! affected e2plo(ees were hired b( DI,ISER=. It is e>uall( undisputed that the re2ainin!, affected e2plo(ees continuousl( held the position of Custo2er Service Representative, which was earlier 1nown as 0raffic Operator, fro2 the ti2e the( were appointed on +arch , <<. until the( were ter2inated on +a( #), ")):. 0he DNION alle!es that these Custo2er Service Representatives were under the Custo2er Service Division of DI,I0E6. 0he DNION9s alle!ation is correct. Sa2ple of letter of co22endations issued to Custo2er Service Representatives %$nne;es BCB and BC3 B of DNION9s Position Paper, Records, p. )) and & indeed show that DI,I0E6 has a Custo2er Service Division which handles its Call Center operations. 'urther, the Certificates issued to Custo2er Service Representative li1ewise show that the( are e2plo(ees of DI,I0E6 %$nne;es BC3:B, BC3*B 3 BC3/B of DNION9s Position Paper, Records, =ol. , pp. : to /&, 0a1e for e;a2ple the BService $wardB issued to +a. 6oretta C. Esen, one of the re2ainin! affected e2plo(ees %$nne; BC3:B, Supra&. 0he BService $wardB was si!ned b( the officers of DI,I0E6 F the =P3Custo2er Services Division, the =P3?u2an Resources Division and the ,roup ?ead3?u2an Resources Division. It was issued b( DI,I0E6 to Esen thru the above na2ed officers BIn reco!nition of her seven %/& (ears continuous and valuable contributions to the achieve2ent of Di!itel9s or!ani4ation obAectivesB. It cannot be !ainsaid that it is onl( the e2plo(er that issues service award to its e2plo(ees."" %E2phasis not supplied& $s a 2atter of fact, even before the incorporation of Di!iserv, the affected e2plo(ees were alread( e2plo(ed b( Di!itel as 0raffic Operators, later rena2ed as Custo2er Service Representatives. $s an alternative ar!u2ent, Di!itel 2aintains that the affected e2plo(ees were validl( dis2issed on the !rounds of closure of Di!iserv, a depart2ent within Di!itel. In the recent case of *aterfront Ceb! City -otel v. 6imene", "# we referred to the closure of a depart2ent or division of a co2pan( as retrench2ent. 0he dis2issed e2plo(ees were undoubtedl( retrenched with the closure of Di!iserv. 'or a valid retrench2ent, the followin! ele2ents 2ust be present7 % & 0hat retrench2ent is reasonabl( necessar( and li1el( to prevent business losses which, if alread( incurred, are not 2erel( de 2ini2is, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if onl( e;pected, are reasonabl( i22inent as perceived obAectivel( and in !ood faith b( the e2plo(er8 %"& 0hat the e2plo(er served written notice both to the e2plo(ees and to the Depart2ent of 6abor and E2plo(2ent at least one 2onth prior to the intended date of retrench2ent8 %#& 0hat the e2plo(er pa(s the retrenched e2plo(ees separation pa( e>uivalent to one % & 2onth pa( or at least T 2onth pa( for ever( (ear of service, whichever is hi!her8
%.& 0hat the e2plo(er e;ercises its prero!ative to retrench e2plo(ees in !ood faith for the advance2ent of its interest and not to defeat or circu2vent the e2plo(ees9 ri!ht to securit( of tenure8 and %:& 0hat the e2plo(er used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertainin! who would be dis2issed and who would be retained a2on! the e2plo(ees, such as status, efficienc(, seniorit(, ph(sical fitness, a!e, and financial hardship for certain wor1ers.". Onl( the first # ele2ents of a valid retrench2ent had been here satisfied. Indeed, it is 2ana!e2ent prero!ative to close a depart2ent of the co2pan(. Di!itel9s decision to outsource the call center operation of the co2pan( is a valid reason to close down the operations of a depart2ent under which the affected e2plo(ees were e2plo(ed. Di!itel cited the decline in the volu2e of transaction of operator3assisted call services as supported b( 'inancial State2ents for the (ears "))# and "))., durin! which Di!iserv incurred a deficit of P *#,*"..)) and P *.,)::.)), respectivel(.": $ll affected e2plo(ees wor1in! under Di!iserv were served with individual notices of ter2ination. DO6E was li1ewise served with the correspondin! notice. $ll affected e2plo(ees were offered separation pa(. Onl( < out of the .: e2plo(ees refused to accept the separation pa( and chose to contest their dis2issal before this Court. 0he fifth ele2ent re!ardin! the criteria to be observed b( Di!itel clearl( does not appl( because all e2plo(ees under Di!iserv were dis2issed. 0he instant case is all about the fourth ele2ent, that is, whether or not the affected e2plo(ees were dis2issed in !ood faith. We find that there was no !ood faith in the retrench2ent. Prior to the cessation of Di!iserv9s operations, the Secretar( of 6abor had issued the first assu2ption order to enAoin an i2pendin! stri1e. When Di!iserv effected the dis2issal of the affected e2plo(ees, the Dnion filed another notice of stri1e. Si!nificantl(, the Secretar( of 6abor ordered that the second notice of stri1e be subsu2ed b( the previous assu2ption order. $rticle "*#%!& of the 6abor Code provides7 When, in his opinion, there e;ists a labor dispute causin! or li1el( to cause a stri1e or loc1out in an industr( indispensable to the national interest, the Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent 2a( assu2e Aurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certif( the sa2e to the Co22ission for co2pulsor( arbitration. Such assu2ption or certification shall have the effect of auto2aticall( enAoinin! the intended or i2pendin! stri1e or loc1out as specified in the assu2ption or certification order. If one has alread( ta1en place at the ti2e of assu2ption or certification, all stri1in! or loc1ed out e2plo(ees shall i22ediatel( return to wor1 and the e2plo(er shall i22ediatel( resu2e operations and read2it all wor1ers under the sa2e ter2s and conditions prevailin! before the stri1e or loc1out. 0he Secretar( of 6abor and E2plo(2ent or the Co22ission 2a( see1 the assistance of law enforce2ent a!encies to ensure the co2pliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he 2a( issue to enforce the sa2e. 0he effects of the assu2ption order issued b( the Secretar( of 6abor are two3fold. It enAoins an i2pendin! stri1e on the part of the e2plo(ees and orders the e2plo(er to 2aintain the status >uo. 0here is no doubt that Di!itel defied the assu2ption order b( abruptl( closin! down Di!iserv. 0he closure of a depart2ent is not ille!al per se. What 2a1es it unlawful is when the closure is underta1en in bad faith. In St. @ohn Colle!es, Inc. v. St. @ohn $cade2( 'acult( and E2plo(ees Dnion,"* bad faith was evidenced b( the ti2in! of and reasons for the closure and the ti2in! of and reasons for the subse>uent openin!. 0here, the collective bar!ainin! ne!otiations between St. @ohn and the Dnion resulted in a bar!ainin! deadloc1 that led to the filin! of a notice of stri1e. 0he labor dispute was referred to the Secretar( of 6abor who assu2ed Aurisdiction.
Pendin! resolution of the dispute, St. @ohn closed the school pro2ptin! the Dnion to file a co2plaint for ille!al dis2issal and unfair labor practice. 0he Dnion 2e2bers alle!ed that the closure of the hi!h school was done in bad faith in order to !et rid of the Dnion and render useless an( decision of the SO6E on the C5$ deadloc1ed issues. We held that closure was done to defeat the affected e2plo(ees9 securit( of tenure, thus7 0he deter2ination of whether S@CI acted in bad faith depends on the particular facts as established b( the evidence on record. 5ad faith is, after all, an inference which 2ust be drawn fro2 the peculiar circu2stances of a case. 0he two decisive factors in deter2inin! whether S@CI acted in bad faith are % & the ti2in! of, and reasons for the closure of the hi!h school, and %"& the ti2in! of, and the reasons for the subse>uent openin! of a colle!e and ele2entar( depart2ent, and, ulti2atel(, the reopenin! of the hi!h school depart2ent b( S@CI after onl( one (ear fro2 its closure. Prior to the closure of the hi!h school b( S@CI, the parties a!reed to refer the <</ C5$ deadloc1 to the SO6E for assu2ption of Aurisdiction under $rticle "*# of the 6abor Code. $s a result, the stri1e ended and classes resu2ed. $fter the SO6E assu2ed Aurisdiction, it re>uired the parties to sub2it their respective position papers. ?owever, instead of filin! its position paper, S@CI closed its hi!h school, alle!edl( because of the Birreconcilable differences between the school 2ana!e2ent and the $cade2(9s Dnion particularl( the safet( of our students and the financial aspect of the on!oin! C5$ ne!otiations.B 0hereafter, S@CI 2oved to dis2iss the pendin! labor dispute with the SO6E contendin! that it had beco2e 2oot because of the closure. Nevertheless, a (ear after said closure, S@CI reopened its hi!h school and did not rehire the previousl( ter2inated e2plo(ees. Dnder these circu2stances, it is not difficult to discern that the closure was done to defeat the parties9 a!ree2ent to refer the labor dispute to the SO6E8 to unilaterall( end the bar!ainin! deadloc18 to render nu!ator( an( decision of the SO6E8 and to circu2vent the Dnion9s ri!ht to collective bar!ainin! and its 2e2bers9 ri!ht to securit( of tenure. 5( ad2ittin! that the closure was due to irreconcilable differences between the Dnion and school 2ana!e2ent, specificall(, the financial aspect of the on!oin! C5$ ne!otiations, S@CI in effect ad2itted that it wanted to end the bar!ainin! deadloc1 and eli2inate the proble2 of dealin! with the de2ands of the Dnion. 0his is precisel( what the 6abor Code abhors and punishes as unfair labor practice since the net effect is to defeat the Dnion9s ri!ht to collective bar!ainin!."/ %E2phasis not supplied& $s in St. 6ohn, bad faith was 2anifested b( the ti2in! of the closure of Di!iserv and the rehirin! of so2e e2plo(ees to Interactive 0echnolo!( Solutions, Inc. %I3tech&, a corporate ar2 of Di!itel. 0he assu2ption order directs e2plo(ees to return to wor1, and the e2plo(er to reinstate the e2plo(ees. 0he e;istence of the assu2ption order should have pro2pted Di!itel to observe the status >uo. Instead, Di!itel proceeded to close down Di!iserv. 0he Secretar( of 6abor had to subsu2e the second notice of stri1e in the assu2ption order. 0his order notwithstandin!, Di!itel proceeded to dis2iss the e2plo(ees. 0he ti2in! of the creation of I3tech is dubious. It was incorporated on - @anuar( ")): while the labor dispute within Di!itel was pendin!. I3tech9s pri2ar( purpose was to provide call centerEcusto2er contact service, the sa2e service provided b( Di!iserv. It conducts its business inside the Di!itel office at ) E. Rodri!ue4 @r. $venue, 5a!u2ba(an, Lue4on Cit(. 0he for2er head of Di!iserv, +s. 0eresa 0anie!a, is also an officer of I3tech. 0hus, when Di!iserv was closed down, so2e of the e2plo(ees presu2abl( non3union 2e2bers were rehired b( I3tech. 0hus, the closure of Di!iserv pendin! the e;istence of an assu2ption order coupled with the creation of a new corporation perfor2in! si2ilar functions as Di!iserv leaves no iota of doubt that the tar!et of the closure are the union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees. 0hese factual circu2stances prove that Di!itel ter2inated the services of the affected e2plo(ees to defeat
their securit( of tenure. 0he ter2ination of service was not a valid retrench2ent8 it was an ille!al dis2issal of e2plo(ees. It needs to be 2entioned too that the dis2issal constitutes an unfair labor practice under $rticle ".-%c& of the 6abor Code which refers to contractin! out services or functions bein! perfor2ed b( union 2e2bers when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce e2plo(ees in the e;ercise of their ri!hts to self3or!ani4ation. $t the hei!ht of the labor dispute, occasioned b( Di!itel9s reluctance to ne!otiate with the Dnion, I3tech was for2ed to provide, as it did provide, the sa2e services perfor2ed b( Di!iserv, the Dnion 2e2bers9 no2inal e2plo(er. Dnder $rticle "/< of the 6abor Code, an ille!all( dis2issed e2plo(ee is entitled to bac1wa!es and reinstate2ent. Where reinstate2ent is no lon!er viable as an option, as in this case where Di!iserv no lon!er e;ists, separation pa( e>uivalent to one % & 2onth salar(, or one3half % E"& 2onth pa( for ever( (ear of service, whichever is hi!her, should be awarded as an alternative."- 0he pa(2ent of separation pa( is in addition to pa(2ent of bac1wa!es."< Indeed, while we have found that the closure of Di!iserv was underta1en in bad faith, bad!es thereof evident in the ti2in! of Di!iserv9s closure, hand in hand, with I3tech9s creation, the closure re2ains a fore!one conclusion. 0here is no findin!, and the Dnion 2a1es no such assertion, that Di!iserv and I3tech are one and the sa2e corporation. 0he ti2in! of Di!iserv9s closure and I3tech9s ensuin! creation is doubted, not the le!iti2ac( of I3 tech as a business process outsourcin! corporation providin! both inbound and outbound services to an e;panded local and international clientele.#) 0he findin! of unfair labor practice hin!es on Di!itel9s contractin!3out certain services perfor2ed b( union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees to interfere with, restrain or coerce the2 in the e;ercise of their ri!ht to self3or!ani4ation. We have no basis to direct reinstate2ent of the affected e2plo(ees to an ostensibl( different corporation. 0he surroundin! circu2stance of the creation of I3tech point to bad faith on the part of Di!itel, as well as constitutive of unfair labor practice in tar!etin! the dis2issal of the union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees. ?owever, this bad faith does not contradict, 2uch less ne!ate, the i2possibilit( of the e2plo(ees9 reinstate2ent because Di!iserv has been closed and no lon!er e;ists. Even if it is a possibilit( that I3tech, as thou!h Di!itel, can absorb the dis2issed union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees as I3tech was incorporated durin! the ti2e of the controvers( with the sa2e pri2ar( purpose as Di!iserv, we would be hard pressed to 2andate the dis2issed e2plo(ees9 reinstate2ent !iven the lapse of 2ore than seven %/& (ears. 0his len!th of ti2e fro2 the date the incident occurred to its Resolution # coupled with the de2onstrated liti!iousness of the disputants7 % & with all sorts of alle!ations thrown b( either part( a!ainst the other8 %"& the two separate filin!s of a notice of stri1e b( the Dnion8 %#& the $ssu2ption Orders of the DO6E8 %.& our own findin! of unfair labor practice b( Di!itel in tar!etin! the union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees, abundantl( show that the relationship between Di!itel and the union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees is strained. Indeed, such discordance between the parties can ver( well be a necessar( conse>uence of the protracted and branched out liti!ation. We adhere to the oft3>uoted doctrine that separation pa( 2a( avail in lieu of reinstate2ent if reinstate2ent is no lon!er practical or in the best interest of the parties.#" Dnder the doctrine of strained relations, the pa(2ent of separation pa( is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstate2ent when the latter option is no lon!er desirable or viable. On one hand, such pa(2ent liberates the e2plo(ee fro2 what could be a hi!hl( oppressive wor1 environ2ent. On the other hand, it releases the e2plo(er fro2 the !rossl( unpalatable obli!ation of 2aintainin! in its e2plo( a wor1er it could no lon!er trust.## 'inall(, an ille!all( dis2issed e2plo(ee should be awarded 2oral and e;e2plar( da2a!es as their dis2issal was tainted with unfair labor practice.#. Dependin! on the factual 2ilieu,
Aurisprudence has awarded var(in! a2ounts as 2oral and e;e2plar( da2a!es to ille!all( dis2issed e2plo(ees when the dis2issal is attended b( bad faith or fraud8 or constitutes an act oppressive to labor8 or is done in a 2anner contrar( to !ood 2orals, !ood custo2s or public polic(8 or if the dis2issal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or 2alevolent 2anner.#:1?/phi1 In @!eva Eci+a # Electric Cooperative, #nc. 2@EEC5 #3 Employees &ssociation v. @ational Labor 9elations Commission, we intoned7 Dnfair labor practices violate the constitutional ri!hts of wor1ers and e2plo(ees to self3 or!ani4ation, are ini2ical to the le!iti2ate interests of both labor and 2ana!e2ent, includin! their ri!ht to bar!ain collectivel( and otherwise deal with each other in an at2osphere of freedo2 and 2utual respect8 and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the pro2otion of health( and stable labor32ana!e2ent relations. $s the conscience of the !overn2ent, it is the Court9s sworn dut( to ensure that none trifles with labor ri!hts.#* We awarded 2oral da2a!es in the a2ount of P ),))).)) and li1ewise awarded P :,))).)) as e;e2plar( da2a!es for each dis2issed e2plo(ee. In the recent case of P!refoods Corporation v. @ag<a<aisang Samahang Manggaga/a ng P!refoods 9an<$and$,ile,#/ we awarded the a!!re!ate a2ount of P :)),))).)) as 2oral and e;e2plar( da2a!es to the ille!all( dis2issed union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees which e;act nu2ber was undeter2ined. In the case at hand, with the Dnion9s 2anifestation that onl( # e2plo(ees re2ain as respondents, as 2ost had alread( accepted separation pa(, and consistent with our findin! that Di!itel co22itted an unfair labor practice in violation of the e2plo(ees9 constitutional ri!ht to self3or!ani4ation, we dee2 it proper to award each of the ille!all( dis2issed union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees the a2ount of P ),))).)) and P :,))).)) as 2oral and e;e2plar( da2a!es, respectivel(. 3!EREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. 0he Decision of the Court of $ppeals in C$3,.R. SP No. < / < isAFFIRMED, while the Decision in C$3,.R. SP No. <.-": declarin! the dis2issal of affected union 2e2ber3e2plo(ees as ille!al is MODIFIED to include the pa(2ent of 2oral and e;e2plar( da2a!es in a2ount of P ),))).)) and P :,))).)), respectivel(, to each of the thirteen % #& ille!all( dis2issed union32e2ber e2plo(ees. Petitioner Di!ital 0eleco22unications Philippines, Inc. is ORDERED to pa( the affected e2plo(ees bac1wa!es and separation pa( e>uivalent to one % & 2onth salar(, or one3half % E"& 2onth pa( for ever( (ear of service, whichever is hi!her. 6et this case be REMANDED to the 6abor $rbiter for the co2putation of 2onetar( clai2s due to the affected e2plo(ees. SO ORDERED.
| 24

Electromat Digital

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Electromat Digital

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G.R. No. 172699 July 27, 2011 ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING and RECORDING COR ORATION, Petitioner, vs. !ON.

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

G.R. No. 162566

Au*u%( 1G, 2009

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

LABOR CASE ELECTROMAT -DIGITAL

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi