Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Heritage Hotel v.

National Union of Workers in the Hotel


FACTS:

Respondent filed with DOLE NCR a petition for certification election. Med
arbiter granted and ordered the holding of a certification election.
On appeal, DOLE secretary through a resolution affird the Med-Arbiters order
and remanded the case to the Med Arbiter for holding of a preelection
conference. Respondent did not attend and it was suspended
Petitioner discovered that respondent failed to submit its annual financial
report and thus filed for cancellation of registration of respondent
The certification election pushed through and respondent won.
Petitioner claimed that election was futile as if their registration was
cancelled, it would no longer ben certified for bargaining. Also that their
members were not qualified to join the union.
Respondent alleged that the petition for its cancellation was done to delay th
conduct of the certification election.
Respondent prayed:
o Petitioner is estopped from questioning respondents status as a
legitimate labor organization as it had already recognized respondent
as such during the pre-election conferences
o Petitioner is not the party in interest, as the union members are the
ones who woud be disadvantaged by the non-submission of financial
reports
o It has already complied with the reportorial requirements, having
submitted the financial statements
o Petition is already moot as the certification election had already been
held.
Med Arbiter- pendency of a petition of cancellation of registration is not a bar
to the holding of a certification election.
Petitioners appealed to DOLE secrtary; subsequent DOLE secretary dismissed
the petition saying that it is the freedom of association and right to self-
organization and that the respondent won the certification election, and
having been certified as exclusive bargaining agent to th supervisory
eployees.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the BLR- but BLR director inhibited, and
DOLE secretary STo. Tomas took the appeal and dismissed it.
DOLE secretary Sto Tomas admitted that BLR had jurisdiction but due to
inhibition she took cognizance.
Petitioner filed for GAD due to the appeal
CA denie petition- as DOLE may legally assume jurisdiction over an appeal
from the regional director in the vnt that Director of BLR inhibits and no other
competent to resolve the appeal than DOLE secretary
Petitioner cited Abbot labs v. abbot labs eployees union: declared DOLE
Secretary has no authority to review th decision of Regional Director
ISSUE: WON DOLE secretary Sto. Tomas conduct GAD
HELD:

No, jurisdiction o review the decision of the regional Director lies with the
BLR, but the present case involves a peculiar circumstance not covered in
Abbot as BLR director inhibited himself.
The abbot case had an appeal directly to DOLE secretary, and in the present
case, it was filed with the BLR first and acquired jurisdiction over the case
and once jurisdiction is acquired, it remains until the full termination.
Thus the jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR directors
inhibition. When DOLE sec resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the
shoes of BLR Director pursuant to her power of supervision and control over
the BLR.
This power is incorporated in the admin code

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi