SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union v. TItan Megabags Industrial Corp : 150761 :
May 19, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Guierrez : Third Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 150761 : May 19, 2004]
SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION FEBRUARY
SIX MOVEMENT (FSM) LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 1564 (for and in behalf of its members), Petitioner, v. TITAN MEGABAGS
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Decision1 dated July 31, 2001 and the Resolution2 dated November 13, 2001 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
64146, entitled Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation v. The Honorable Office
of the Secretary of Labor, Bureau of Labor Relations and SMC Quarry 2 Workers
Union-February Six Movement (FSM).
The controversy at bar arose from a petition for certification
election filed with the Med-Arbitration Section, Regional Office No. IV,
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at Calamba, Laguna by petitioner SMC
Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six Movement (FSM) Local Chapter No. 1564,
docketed as Case No. RO400-9810-RU-002.
In its petition for certification election, petitioner alleged
that it is a legitimate labor organization that seeks to represent the regular
rank-and-file workers at Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation, respondent.
Respondent opposed the petition, contending that members of
petitioner union are not its employees but of Stitchers Multi-Purpose
an independent contractor.Respondent claimed that it engaged SMC to manufacture and sew its
multi-purpose industrial bags.
In an Order dated July
13, 1999, the Med-Arbiter held that respondent is the employer of
the members of petitioner union and directed that a certification election be
conducted by its regular rank and file workers.
On appeal, the Office of the DOLE Secretary, in a Resolution
dated April 13, 2000,
affirmed in toto the Med-Arbiters Order authorizing a certification
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by
the Office of the DOLE Secretary in a Resolution dated March 19, 2001 for being late by seven (7) days.
Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, alleging that the Office of the DOLE Secretary committed
grave abuse of discretion in finding that an employer-employee relationship
existed between respondent and members of petitioner union and in ordering a
On July 31, 2001,
the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision setting aside the April 13, 2000 and March 19, 2001 Resolutions of the
Office of the DOLE Secretary and disallowing the conduct of a certification
On November 13, 2001,
the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the petitioners motion for
Petitioner, in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari vigorously asserts that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in setting aside the
final and executory Resolutions of the Office of the DOLE Secretary; and (2) in
holding that SMC is an independent contractor and that no employer-employee
relationship exists between respondent and members of petitioner union that
justifies the holding of a certification election.
Under Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, any party to a
certification election may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter directly
to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same within fifteen (15)
Along this line, Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides that the Decision or Resolution of the
Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory.Upon finality of the Decision of the
Secretary, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of
origin for implementation of the Decision, unless restrained by the
In National Federation
of Labor v. Laguesma ,3 we ruled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of
the Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. And without a motion for
reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the
questioned Decision or Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory.4 Consequently, the merits of the case can no
longer be reviewed to determine if the Secretary could be faulted for grave
abuse of discretion.5 cralawred
Respondents failure to file its motion for reconsideration seasonably
is jurisdictional and fatal to its cause and has, in effect, rendered final and
executory the April 13, 2000 and March 19, 2001 Resolutions of the Secretary of
Even if there was no procedural flaw on the part of respondent,
still the Appellate Court should have denied respondents Petition for Certiorari.We have held that in certification
elections, the employer is a bystander, it has no right or material interest to
assail the certification election.6 cralawred
Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a
legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of 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
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.The Decision dated July
the Resolution dated November 13,
2001 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED.The Resolutions of the Office of the DOLE
Secretary dated April 13, 2000
and March 19, 2001 are AFFIRMED.
Vitug, (Chairman), Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
1 Annex A, Petition for Review, Rollo at 45-56.
4 See Maria Glenn M. Alviado et al. v. MJG General Merchandize et al., G.R.
No. 129702, September 8, 2003
citing Lagera v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123636, March 31, 2000, 329 SCRA
Back to Home | Back to Main