THIRD DIVISION
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS
INTERNATIONAL
GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
142000
January 22, 2003 -versus-
TAGAYTAY
HIGHLANDS
EMPLOYEES UNION
-PGTWO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
Before this Court on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 is the petition of the Tagaytay Highlands
International
Golf Club Incorporated (THIGCI) assailing the February 15, 2002
decision
of the Court of Appeals denying its petition to annul the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and
December
29, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 16, 1997,
the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)Philippine Transport
and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a
legitimate
labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file
employees
of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE
Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIGCI, in its Comment[1]
filed on November 27, 1997, opposed THEU’s petition for certification
election
on the ground that the list of union members submitted by it was
defective
and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of
supervisors,
resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as well
as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and
separate
from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition, only
71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIGCI thus submitted
a list of the names of its 71 actual rank-and-file employees which it
annexed[2]
to its Comment to the petition for certification election. And it
therein
incorporated the following tabulation[3]
showing the number of signatories to said petition whose membership in
the union was being questioned as disqualified and the reasons for
disqualification:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
# of Signatures Reasons for Disqualificationchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
13
Supervisors
of THIGCIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6
Resigned
employees of THIGCIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2 AWOL
employees of THIGCIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
53
Rank-and-file
employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands, Inc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
14
Supervisors
of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands, Inc.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6
Resigned
employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands, Inc.
3
Terminated
employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands, Inc.
1 AWOL
employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands, Inc.
4
Signatures
that cannot be decipheredchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
16 Names
in list that were erasedchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2 Names
with first names onlychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIGCI also alleged
that some of the signatures in the list of union members were secured
through
fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten
denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in
the
petition.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Replying to THIGCI’s
Comment, THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements
for
valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997,[5]
on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation
by DOLE on October 10, 1997;[6]
and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order provides that the
legitimacy
of its registration cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as
long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy
the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THEU thus concluded
in its Reply[7]
that under the circumstances, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to
Article
257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order
No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Order of January
28, 1998,[8]
DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the holding of a
certification
election among the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI in this wise,
quoted
verbatim:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We evaluated carefully
this instant petition and we are of the opinion that it is complete in
form and substance. In addition thereto, the accompanying documents
show
that indeed petitioner union is a legitimate labor federation and its
local/chapter
was duly reported to this Office as one of its affiliate local/chapter.
Its due reporting through the submission of all the requirements for
registration
of a local/chapter is a clear showing that it was already included in
the
roster of legitimate labor organizations in this Office pursuant to
Department
Order No. 9 Series of 1997 with all the legal right and personality to
institute this instant petition. Pursuant therefore to the provisions
of
Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended, and its Implementing Rules
as
amended by Department Order No. 9, since the respondent’s establishment
is unorganized, the holding of a certification election is mandatory
for
it was clearly established that petitioner is a legitimate labor
organization.
Giving due course to this petition is therefore proper and appropriate.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Passing on THIGCI’s
allegation that some of the union members are supervisory, resigned and
AWOL employees or employees of a separate and distinct corporation, the
Med-Arbiter held that the same should be properly raised in the
exclusion-inclusion
proceedings at the pre-election conference. As for the allegation that
some of the signatures were secured through fraudulent and deceitful
means,
he held that it should be coursed through an independent petition for
cancellation
of union registration which is within the jurisdiction of the DOLE
Regional
Director. In any event, the Med-Arbiter held that THIGCI failed to
submit
the job descriptions of the questioned employees and other supporting
documents
to bolster its claim that they are disqualified from joining THEU.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIGCI appealed to the
Office of the DOLE Secretary which, by Resolution of June 4, 1998, set
aside the said Med-Arbiter’s Order and accordingly dismissed the
petition
for certification election on the ground that there is a "clear absence
of community or mutuality of interests," it finding that THEU sought to
represent two separate bargaining units (supervisory employees and
rank-and-file
employees) as well as employees of two separate and distinct corporate
entities.cralaw:red
Upon Motion for Reconsideration
by THEU, DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimalipis-Baldoz, by authority
of
the DOLE Secretary, issued DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998[10]
setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for
certification
election. In the November 12, 1998 Resolution, Undersecretary
Dimapilis-Baldoz
held that since THEU is a local chapter, the twenty percent (20%)
membership
requirement is not necessary for it to acquire legitimate status,
hence,
"the alleged retraction and withdrawal of support by 45 of the 70
remaining
rank-and-file memberscannot negate the legitimacy it has already
acquired
before the petition;" that rather than disregard the legitimate status
already conferred on THEU by the Bureau of Labor Relations, the names
of
alleged disqualified supervisory employees and employees of the Country
Club, Inc., a separate and distinct corporation, should simply be
removed
from the THEU’s roster of membership; and that regarding the
participation
of alleged resigned and AWOL employees and those whose signatures are
illegible,
the issue can be resolved during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings at
the pre-election stage.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records of the case
were thus ordered remanded to the Office of the Med-Arbiter for the
conduct
of certification election.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THIGCI’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the November 12, 1998 Resolution having been denied
by the DOLE Undersecretary by Resolution of December 29, 1998,[11]
it filed a petition for certiorari before this Court which, by
Resolution
of April 14, 1999,[12]referred
it to the Court of Appeals in line with its pronouncement in National
Federation
of Labor (NFL) v. Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, et al.,[13]
and in strict observance of the hierarchy of courts, as emphasized in
the
case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Decision of February
15, 2000,[15]
the Court of Appeals denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and
affirmed
the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a
petition
for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander
rule,
hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the
basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as
well as lack of employer-employee relationship following this Court’s
ruling
in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation
Labor Union et al[16]
and Dunlop Slazenger Phils. v. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment
et
al,[17]
petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its
allegations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
for certiorari, raising the followingchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ISSUES/ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION DATED 12 NOVEMER 1998
HOLDING
THAT SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND NON-EMPLOYEES COULD SIMPLY BE REMOVED
FROM
APPELLEES ROSTER OF RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERSHIP INSTEAD OF RESOLVING THE
LEGITIMACY
OF RESPONDENT UNION’S STATUSchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION DATED 12 NOVEMBER 1998
HOLDING
THAT THE DISQUALIFIED EMPLOYEES’ STATUS COULD READILY BE RESOLVED
DURING
THE INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGSchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONER HAD
BEEN DULY PROVEN BY FAILURE OF RESPONDENT UNION TO DENY THE SAME AND BY
THE SHEER WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER AND CONTAINED IN
THE RECORDS OF THE CASE"[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The statutory authority
for the exclusion of supervisory employees in a rank-and-file union,
and
vice-versa, is Article 245 of the Labor Code, to wit:
Article 245. Ineligibility
of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of
supervisory
employees. - Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or
form
any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but
may
join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While above-quoted Article
245 expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a
rank-and-file
union, it does not provide what would be the effect if a rank-and-file
union counts supervisory employees among its members, or vice-versa.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Citing Toyota[19]
which held that "a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file
and
supervisory employees is no labor organization at all,” and the
subsequent
case of Progressive Development Corp. " Pizza Hut v. Ledesma[20]
which held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The Labor Code requires
that in organized and unorganized establishments, a petition for
certification
election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. The
acquisition
of rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to
file a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends
on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a
legitimate
labor organization.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case before us,
the Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the petitioner’s prayer that the
former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping
declaration
that the union was in the possession of a charter certificate so that
‘for
all intents and purposes, Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a
legitimate organization,’"[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
petitioner contends
that, quoting Toyota, "it becomes necessary, anterior to the
granting
of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the
composition
of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization
is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code."[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Continuing, petitioner
argues that without resolving the status of THEU, the DOLE
Undersecretary
"conveniently deferred the resolution on the serious infirmity in the
membership
of THEU] and ordered the holding of the certification election" which
is
frowned upon as the following ruling of this Court shows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also do not agree
with the ruling of the respondent Secretary of Labor that the infirmity
in the membership of the respondent union can be remedied in "the
pre-election
conference thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those
employees
who are occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the
list
of eligible voters." Public respondent gravely misappreciated the basic
antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of
rank-and-file
employees. Due to the irreconcilability of their interest we held in
Toyota
Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Labor Union,
viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘x x x
"Clearly, based on this
provision (Article 245), a labor organization composed of both
rank-and-file
and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot,
for
any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being
one,
an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory
employees cannot posses any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization,
including the right to file a petition for certification election for
the
purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore,
anterior
to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to
inquire
into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of
the
labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the
Labor
Code." (Emphasis by petitioner) (Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), v.
Secretary
of Labor, 300 SCRA 120 (1998); (Underscoring and Emphasis
supplied
by petitioner.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition fails.
After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal
personality
cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of
Rule
V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code" (Implementing
Rules)
which section reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 5. Effect of registration.
The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed
registered
and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its
certificate
of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to
collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent
petition
for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. (Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The grounds for cancellation
of union registration are provided for under Article 239 of the Labor
Code,
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 239. Grounds for
cancellation of union registration. The following shall constitute
grounds
for cancellation of union registration:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) Misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification
of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification,
and the list of members who took part in the ratification;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Failure
to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within
thirty
(30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
or amendments thereto;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) Misrepresentation,
false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers,
minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to
subject these documents together with the list of the newly
elected/appointed
officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from
election;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) Failure
to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30)
days after the losing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false
entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) Acting
as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise
engaging
in any activity prohibited by law;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f) Entering
into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and
conditions
of employment below minimum standards established by law;
(g) Asking
for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from employers;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(h) Other
than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special
assessments
or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations
of the members;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(i) Failure
to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or
whenever
required by the Bureau; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(j) Failure
to comply with the requirements under Articles 237 and 238,
(Emphasis supplied),chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
while the procedure
for cancellation of registration is provided for in Rule VIII, Book V
of
the Implementing Rules.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The inclusion in a union
of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation,
unless
such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under
the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of
above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THEU, having been validly
issued a certificate of registration, should be considered to have
already
acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for petitioner’s
allegation that some of the signatures in the petition for
certification
election were obtained through fraud, false statement and
misrepresentation,
the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a petition
for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to
intervene
in a petition for certification election.cralaw:red
Regarding the alleged
withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification
election,
this Court’s following ruling is instructive:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"‘The best forum for
determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the
laborers
is in the certification election itself wherein the workers can freely
express their choice in a secret ballot.’ Suffice it to say that the
will
of the rank-and-file employees should in every possible instance be
determined
by secret ballot rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial
inquiry.
Such representation and certification election cases are not to be
taken
as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a
non-adversary,
fact-finding character as to which of the competing unions represents
the
genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and exclusive collective
bargaining representative with their employer."[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the lack of mutuality
of interest argument of petitioner, it, at all events, does not lie
given,
as found by the court a quo, its failure to present substantial
evidence
that the assailed employees are actually occupying supervisory
positions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While petitioner submitted
a list of its employees with their corresponding job titles and ranks,[24]
there is nothing mentioned about the supervisors’ respective duties,
powers
and prerogatives that would show that they can effectively recommend
managerial
actions which require the use of independent judgment.[25]
As this Court put it
in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor:[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Designation should be
reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees x x x
The
mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not necessarily
make
him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd situation where one can be
given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member of a
union.
In the case of National Steel Corporation vs. Laguesma (G. R. No.
103743,
January 29, 1996), it was stressed that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What is essential is
the nature of the employee’s function and not the nomenclature or title
given to the job which determines whether the employee has
rank-and-file
or managerial status or whether he is a supervisory employee.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the office
of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV, for
the immediate conduct of a certification election subject to the usual
pre-election conference.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
CA Rollo at 59 - 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Ibid at 63.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid at 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid at 64-66.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Dated May 1, 1997 which took effect on June 21, 1997, "Amending the
Rules
Implementing Book V of the Labor Code as Amended."
[6]
CA Rollo at 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid at 67-70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid at 74-79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid at 77 - 78.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid at 22-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo at 29-30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
CA Rollo at 111.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
G. R. No. 123426, March 10, 1999 (304 SCRA 405.
[14]
G. R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (295 SCRA 494).
[15]
Rollo at 35-44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
G. R. No. 121084, February 19, 1997 (268 SCRA 573).
[17]
G. R. No. 131248, December 11, 1998 (300 SCRA 120).
[18]
Rollo at 17 - 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
G. R. No. 115077, April 18, 1997 (271 SCRA 593).
[21]
Id at 602.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Supra at 582.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Atlas Free Workers Union (AFWU) - PSSLU Local v. Noriel. No. L-51905,
May
26, 1981 (104 SCRA 565, 572-73, citations omitted), vide LVN Pictures,
Inc. vs. Phil. Musicians Guild, 110 Phil, 725; Federation of Free
Workers
v. Paredes, 54 SCRA 76 (1973); Phil. Communications, Electronics and
Electricity
Workers Federation v. CIR, 56 SCRA 480 (1974).
[24]
Records at 347-354.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Vide AD Gothong Manufacturing Corporation Employees Union - ALU v.
Confessor.
G. R. No. 113638, November 16, 1999, 318 SCRA 58.
[26]
G. R. No. 96663, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 104.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
G. R. No. 96663, August 10, 1999 (312 SCRA 104, 118).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |