SECOND
DIVISION
SAMAHAN NG
MGA
MANGGAGAWA
SA FILSYSTEMS
[SAMAFIL-NAFLU-KMU],
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 128067
June
5,
1998
-versus-
HON.
SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
AND
FILSYSTEMS,
INC.,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
PUNO,
J :
Assailed under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court are the Resolution and Order[1]
of the public respondent, dated June 28, 1996 and November 18, 1996,
respectively,
dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certification Election.
It appears that
petitioner
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Filsystems [SAMAFIL-NAFLU-KMU] is a
registered
labor union with Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-10-1575-95
issued
by the Department of Labor and Employment [DOLE] on October 25, 1995.
On
November 6, 1995, petitioner union filed a Petition for Certification
Election
among the rank-and-file employees of private respondent FILSYSTEMS,
Inc.
before the DOLE - National Capital-Region [NCR].[2]
Attached as annexes to the petition are the Certificate of Registration
issued by the DOLE, copies of union membership signed by thirty three
(33)
rank-and-file employees of respondent company, the Charter Certificate
showing its affiliation with the National Federation of Labor Unions
([NAFLU-KMU],
the list of union officers, the certification of the Union Secretary of
the minutes of the general membership meeting, the Books of Accounts
and
its Constitution and By-Laws.[3]
Private respondent
opposed the Petition. It questioned the status of petitioner as a
legitimate
labor organization on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of
affiliation with the NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to the Bureau of
Labor
Relations [BLR] within thirty [30] days from its execution.[4]
In reply, petitioner
averted that as a duly registered labor union, it has "all the rights
and
privileges to act as representative of its members for the purpose of
collective
bargaining with employers."[5]
On January 12, 1996,
Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap dismissed the Petition for Certification
Election.
He ruled that petitioner, as an affiliate of NAFLU-KMU, has no legal
personality
on account of its failure to comply with paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of
Section 3, Rule II of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor
Code,[6]
viz:
"xxx
"In matters of
affiliation
of an independently registered union, the rules provide that the latter
shall be considered an affiliate of a labor federation after submission
of the contract or agreement of affiliation to the Bureau of Labor
Relations
[BLR] within thirty [30] days after its execution.
"Likewise, it
mandates
the federation or national union concerned to issue a charter
certificate
indicating the creation or establishment of a local or chapter, copy of
which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty
[30] days from issuance of such certificate.
"A close
examination
of the records of the case does not reveal that the federation and the
independent union have executed a contract or agreement of affiliation,
nor had it shown that it has submitted its charter certificate to the
Bureau
of Labor Relations, within thirty [30] days from issuance of such
charter
certificate as amended by the rules.
"Petitioner argued
that it has complied with all the requirements for certification
election
pursuant to the mandate of Sec. 2, Rule V of Book V of the Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code; that the rule cited by respondent is not
included
in the Rule citing the requirements for certification election.
"We disagree with
petitioner's
contention. The rule cited by the petitioner, Sec. 2, Rule V, Book V,
sub-paragraphs
A, B, C, D, E, F and G, refers to an independently registered labor
organization
which has filed a petition for certification election.
"In the case at
bar,
an independently registered union has affiliated with a federation,
hence,
strict compliance with the requirements embodied in Sec. 3, paragraphs
A, B and E of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing
the Labor Code should be complied with.
"Record discloses
that
petitioner has not shown to have executed a contract or agreement of
affiliation
nor has it established that is has submitted its charter certificate to
the Bureau of Labor Relations [BLR] within thirty [30] days from its
execution.
"Thus, petitioner
in
this case having failed to comply with the mandatory requirement, there
was no valid affiliation. Consequently, petitioner has no legal
personality
because the union failed to attain the status of legitimacy for failure
to comply with the requirements of law."
Petitioner appealed to
the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. It reiterated its
contention that as an independently registered union, it has the right
to file a Petition for Certification Election regardless of its failure
to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.[7]
On February 26, 1996,
private respondent opposed the appeal. It argued that petitioner should
have filed its Petition for Certification Election as an independently
registered union and not as a union affiliated with NAFLU-KMU.[8]
Meanwhile or on
February
7, 1996, another union, the Filsystem Workers Union [FWU], filed a
Petition
for Certification Election in the same bargaining unit. On March 22 ,
1996,
the Med-Arbitration - NCR Branch granted the petition. The
certification
election held on April 19, 1996, was won by FWU which garnered twenty
six
[26] votes out of the forty six [46] eligible voters. The FWU was
certified
on April 29, 1996, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all
rank-and-file
employees of private respondent. Eventually, FWU and the private
respondent
negotiated a CBA.[9]
On June 11, 1996, the
private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of petitioner as it
has become moot and academic. It also invoked Section 3, Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code stating that "once a
union
has been certified, no certification election may be held within one
[1]
year from the date of issuance of a final certification election
[result]."[10]
In opposing the Motion
to Dismiss Appeal, petitioner contended that its appeal is not moot as
the certification election held on April 19, 1996, was void for
violating
Section 10, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor
Code,[11]
viz:
"Sec. 10. Decision
of the Secretary, final and inappealable. - The Secretary shall
have
fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from
receipt
of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision
of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The
decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable."
Petitioner further argued
that the CBA executed between the FWU and the private respondent could
not affect its pending representation case following Section 4, Rule V
of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code[12]
which states:
"Sec. 4. Effects
of early agreements. - The representation case shall not, however,
be adversely affected by a collective bargaining agreement registered
before
or during the last 60 days of the subsisting agreement or during the
pendency
of the representation case."
On June 28, 1996, respondent
Secretary dismissed the appeal interposed by petitioner on the ground
that
it has been rendered moot by the certification of FWU as the sole and
exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of respondent company.
Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated November 18,
1996.[13]
Before this Court,
petitioner contends: I.
Public respondent
acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to acting without or in excess
of jurisdiction in holding that the pending appeal in the
representation
case was rendered moot and academic by a subsequently enacted
collective
bargaining agreement in the company.
II.
Public respondent
committed
a serious legal error and gravely abused its discretion in failing to
hold
that the legal personality of petitioner as a union having been
established
by its Certificate of Registration, the same could not be subjected to
collateral attack.
The petition is
meritorious.
I.We shall first resolve
whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when
he effectively affirmed the Resolution dated January 12, 1996 of the
Med-Arbiter
dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certification Election for failure
to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU.
The reasoning of the
public respondent and the Med-Arbiter is flawed, proceeding as it does
from a wrong premise. Firstly, it must be underscored that petitioner
is
an independently registered labor union as evidenced by a Certificate
of
Registration issued by the DOLE. As a legitimate labor organization,
petitioner's
right to file a petition for certification election on its own is
beyond
question.[14]
Secondly, the failure of petitioner to prove its affiliation with
NAFLU-KMU
cannot affect its right to file said Petition for Certification
Election
as an independent union. At the most, petitioner's failure will result
in an ineffective affiliation with NAFLU-KMU. Still, however, it can
pursue
its petition for certification election as an independent union. In our
rulings, we have stressed that despite affiliation, the local union
remains
the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members and
pursue its own interests independently of the federation.[15]
In fine the Med-Arbiter
erred in dismissing petitioner's petition for certification election on
account of its non-submission of the charter certificate and the
contract
of affiliation with the NAFLU-KMU with the BLR. The public respondent
gravely
abused his discretion in sustaining the Med-Arbiter's Resolution.
II.
We shall now resolve
the issue of whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was rendered
moot
and academic by the subsequent certification election ordered by the
Med-Arbiter,
won by the FWU and which culminated in a CBA with private respondent.
Public respondent's
ruling is anchored on his finding that there exists no pending
representation
case since the petition for certification election filed by the
petitioner
was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter. According to the public respondent,
the
legal effect of the dismissal of the petition was to leave the playing
field open without any legal barrier or prohibition to any petitioner;
thus, other legitimate labor organizations may file an entirely new
petition
for certification election.
We reject public
respondent's
ruling. The order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing petitioner's petition
for
certification election was seasonably appealed. The appeal stopped the
holding of any certification election. Section 10, Rule V of the
Implementing
Rules of Book V of the Labor Code is crystal clear and hardly needs any
interpretation.
Accordingly, there
was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was entered
between
FWU and private respondent. Following Section 4, Rule V of the
Implementing
Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, such CBA cannot and will not
prejudice
petitioner's pending representation case or render the same moot.[16]
This rule was applied in the case of Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP)
v. Trajano[17]
where We held that "[t]here should be no obstacle to the right of the
employees
to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is,
within
sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified
collective
bargaining agreement, not even by a collective agreement submitted
during
the pendency of the representation case." Likewise, in Associated Labor
Unions (ALU) v. Ferrer-Calleja,[18]
We held that a prematurely renewed CBA is not a bar to the holding of a
certification election.
Finally, We bewail
private respondent's tenacious opposition to petitioner's certification
election petition. Such a stance is not conducive to industrial peace.
Time and again, We have emphasized that when a Petition for
Certification
Election is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy
for the employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in
the choice of the bargaining representative. While employers may
rightfully
be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not,
however,
be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it.
An
employer that involves itself in a certification election lends
suspicion
to the fact that it wants to create a company union. Thus, in
Consolidated
Farms, Inc. II v. Noriel,[19]
We declared that "[o]n a matter that should be the exclusive concern of
labor, the choice of a collective bargaining representative, the
employer
is definitely an intruder. His participation, to say the least,
deserves
no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency to lend support
to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair of
labor.
[While] it is true that there may be circumstances where the interest
of
the employer calls for its being heard on the matter, sound policy
dictates
that as much as possible, management is to maintain a strictly
hands-off
policy. For if it does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate
suspicion
that it is partial to one of the contending unions. That is repugnant
to
the concept of collective bargaining. That is against the letter and
spirit
of welfare legislation intended to protect labor and promote social
justice.
The judiciary then should be the last to look with tolerance at such
efforts
of an employer to take part in the process leading to the free and
untrammeled
choice of the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers."
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and Order of the
public
respondent are SET ASIDE. The Bureau of Labor Relations is ORDERED to
hold
a certification election in respondent company with petitioner as a
contending
union. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Mendoza and
Martinez, JJ., concur.
Melo, J., is
on leave.
________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
In OS-A-4-100-96.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 5 and 72.
[3]
Records, pp. 1-30.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 6 and 72-73.
[5]
Rollo, p. 6.
[6]
Resolution, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 38-44.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 77-78.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 7 and 78.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 46-48.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 57-61.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Order, p. 1; Rollo, p. 24.
[14]
See Articles 212 [h] and 257 of the Labor Code; Lopez Sugar Corporation
v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 247 SCRA 1 [1995]; San Miguel
Foods,
Inc. — Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Laguesma, 263 SCRA 68 [1996].
[15]
Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 127 SCRA
268 [1984]; St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Torres, 223 SCRA 779
[1993];
Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic National
Workers
Brotherhood v. Secretary of Labor, 253 SCRA 96 [1996].
[16]
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 303
[1997].
[17]
172 SCRA 49, 58 [1989].
[18]
179 SCRA 127 [1989].
[19]
84 SCRA 469, 473-475 [1978]; see also Phil. Telegraph and Telephone
Corp.
v. Laguesma, 223 SCRA 452 [1993]; Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v.
Nagkakaisang
Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. — NAFLU, 261 SCRA 738 [1996]. |