August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 186627-30 : August 09, 2010] TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA) V. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP., THE SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL. :
[G.R. Nos. 186627-30 : August 09, 2010]
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA) V. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP., THE SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 August 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. Nos. 186627-30 (Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. Toyota Motor Phils. Corp., The Secretary of Labor & Employment, et al.). � For review is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated April 2, 2008 and Resolution[2] dated February 13, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 63970, 64742, 92686 and 95928.
The facts of the case are as follows: .
On February 4, 1999, Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank-and-file employees of Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. (TMPC) for the ascertainment of their sole and exclusive bargaining agent. TMPC opposed the petition on the ground of prejudicial question and forum shopping. The Med-Arbiter ordered the conditional dismissal of TMPCWA's petition.
On appeal, the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) ordered the conduct of the certification election among the rank-and-file employees. On February 15, 2000, exclusion and inclusion proceedings were held before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). TMPCWA questioned the eligibility of 120.out of 1110 employees included in the payroll list submitted by TMPC. TMPCWA claimed that the 120 employees were managerial, supervisory and confidential employees, and hence, disqualified to vote.
On March 8, 2000, the certification election proceeded within the premises of TMPC. Out of the 1110 employees in the payroll list, only 1063 voted which included 105 of the 120 challenged voters. The election yielded the following results: Yes Votes: 503; No Votes: 440; Challenged Votes: 105; and Spoiled Ballots: 15.
With these results, TMPCWA moved that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. It explained that after deducting the challenged votes and the spoiled ballots, only 943 votes should be used as the basis in determining whether TMPCWA garnered the majority vote to qualify as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Considering that TMPCWA obtained 503 votes, which is more than the required majority of 472 votes, it is entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
After the submission of the parties' position papers, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order excluding the votes of the 105 employees from the totality of the valid votes cast and certifying TMPCWA as the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
TMPC appealed the Med-Arbiter's ruling to the SOLE. During the pendency of TMPC s appeal, the 105 challenged voters filed with the NLRC a Petition for Declaratory Relief. On August 7, 2000, the NLRC resolved the petition for declaratory relief by holding that the challenged voters were indeed rank-and-file employees. Armed with this decision, the challenged voters filed a motion with the SOLE (where TMPC's appeal was pending) seeking to remand the case to the Med-Arbiter so that their votes be included in the final canvass of the certification election results. The SOLE denied the motion. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Aggrieved, the challenged voters filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64742.
On October 19, 2000, the SOLE dismissed TMPC's appeal and certified TMPCWA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees in TMPC. The SOLE also denied TMPC's motion for reconsideration. TMPC filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63970.
On February 8, 2005, during the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, a second union known as Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Organization (TMPCLO) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of TMPC. TMPCWA opposed the petition. On June 30, 2005, the Med-Arbiter granted TMPCLO's petition. Consequently, a certification election was ordered to be conducted. TMPCWA appealed to the SOLE, but the appeal was dismissed. The SOLE likewise ordered the immediate conduct of the certification election. TMPCWA's motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, the petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92686.
Accordingly, another certification election was conducted, participated in by TMPCWA and TMPCLO. TMPCLO obtained 424 votes while TMPCWA obtained 237 votes. TMPCWA filed a formal protest against the conduct of the certification election but it was denied by the Med-Arbiter. TMPCWA appealed to the SOLE who denied the same. TMPCWA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95928.
The four petitions were consolidated.
On April 2, 2008, the CA rendered a decision against TMPCWA sustaining the validity.of the second certification election and declaring TMPCLO instead of TMPCWA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of TMPC. TMPCWA's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on February 13, 2009.
Hence, the instant petition, which we find to be without merit.
As aptly held by the CA, TMPCLO should be declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in view of the following supervening events: 1) the certification by the SOLE of TMPCLO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of TMPC; 2) the conclusion of a CBA between TMPC and TMPCLO; 3) the ratification of the said CBA by a majority of the workers concerned; 4) the implementation of the wage increases and other benefits under the CBA; and 5) the registration by the DOLE of the CBA. Clearly, the employees have already chosen TMPCLO and not TMPCWA to be their bargaining agent. Thus, the issue of the validity of the first certification election had become moot and academic.
On the second certification election, the CA did not err in sustaining the validity of the same considering that 502 employees had manifested their interest to proceed with the immediate conduct of the certification election. This circumstance reflected a clamor for change. Moreover, TMPCWA's participation in the second certification election constitutes a waiver of its right to question the validity of the conduct of the election.
Lastly, we agree with the CA that the 105 challenged voters are rank-and-file employees for lack of evidence showing that they were managerial employees.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated April 2, 2008 and Resolution dated February' 13, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 63970, 64742, 92686 and 95928 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 186627-30 (Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. Toyota Motor Phils. Corp., The Secretary of Labor & Employment, et al.). � For review is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated April 2, 2008 and Resolution[2] dated February 13, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 63970, 64742, 92686 and 95928.
The facts of the case are as follows: .
On February 4, 1999, Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank-and-file employees of Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. (TMPC) for the ascertainment of their sole and exclusive bargaining agent. TMPC opposed the petition on the ground of prejudicial question and forum shopping. The Med-Arbiter ordered the conditional dismissal of TMPCWA's petition.
On appeal, the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) ordered the conduct of the certification election among the rank-and-file employees. On February 15, 2000, exclusion and inclusion proceedings were held before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). TMPCWA questioned the eligibility of 120.out of 1110 employees included in the payroll list submitted by TMPC. TMPCWA claimed that the 120 employees were managerial, supervisory and confidential employees, and hence, disqualified to vote.
On March 8, 2000, the certification election proceeded within the premises of TMPC. Out of the 1110 employees in the payroll list, only 1063 voted which included 105 of the 120 challenged voters. The election yielded the following results: Yes Votes: 503; No Votes: 440; Challenged Votes: 105; and Spoiled Ballots: 15.
With these results, TMPCWA moved that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. It explained that after deducting the challenged votes and the spoiled ballots, only 943 votes should be used as the basis in determining whether TMPCWA garnered the majority vote to qualify as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Considering that TMPCWA obtained 503 votes, which is more than the required majority of 472 votes, it is entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
After the submission of the parties' position papers, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order excluding the votes of the 105 employees from the totality of the valid votes cast and certifying TMPCWA as the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
TMPC appealed the Med-Arbiter's ruling to the SOLE. During the pendency of TMPC s appeal, the 105 challenged voters filed with the NLRC a Petition for Declaratory Relief. On August 7, 2000, the NLRC resolved the petition for declaratory relief by holding that the challenged voters were indeed rank-and-file employees. Armed with this decision, the challenged voters filed a motion with the SOLE (where TMPC's appeal was pending) seeking to remand the case to the Med-Arbiter so that their votes be included in the final canvass of the certification election results. The SOLE denied the motion. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Aggrieved, the challenged voters filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64742.
On October 19, 2000, the SOLE dismissed TMPC's appeal and certified TMPCWA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees in TMPC. The SOLE also denied TMPC's motion for reconsideration. TMPC filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63970.
On February 8, 2005, during the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, a second union known as Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Organization (TMPCLO) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of TMPC. TMPCWA opposed the petition. On June 30, 2005, the Med-Arbiter granted TMPCLO's petition. Consequently, a certification election was ordered to be conducted. TMPCWA appealed to the SOLE, but the appeal was dismissed. The SOLE likewise ordered the immediate conduct of the certification election. TMPCWA's motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, the petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92686.
Accordingly, another certification election was conducted, participated in by TMPCWA and TMPCLO. TMPCLO obtained 424 votes while TMPCWA obtained 237 votes. TMPCWA filed a formal protest against the conduct of the certification election but it was denied by the Med-Arbiter. TMPCWA appealed to the SOLE who denied the same. TMPCWA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95928.
The four petitions were consolidated.
On April 2, 2008, the CA rendered a decision against TMPCWA sustaining the validity.of the second certification election and declaring TMPCLO instead of TMPCWA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of TMPC. TMPCWA's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on February 13, 2009.
Hence, the instant petition, which we find to be without merit.
As aptly held by the CA, TMPCLO should be declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in view of the following supervening events: 1) the certification by the SOLE of TMPCLO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of TMPC; 2) the conclusion of a CBA between TMPC and TMPCLO; 3) the ratification of the said CBA by a majority of the workers concerned; 4) the implementation of the wage increases and other benefits under the CBA; and 5) the registration by the DOLE of the CBA. Clearly, the employees have already chosen TMPCLO and not TMPCWA to be their bargaining agent. Thus, the issue of the validity of the first certification election had become moot and academic.
On the second certification election, the CA did not err in sustaining the validity of the same considering that 502 employees had manifested their interest to proceed with the immediate conduct of the certification election. This circumstance reflected a clamor for change. Moreover, TMPCWA's participation in the second certification election constitutes a waiver of its right to question the validity of the conduct of the election.
Lastly, we agree with the CA that the 105 challenged voters are rank-and-file employees for lack of evidence showing that they were managerial employees.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated April 2, 2008 and Resolution dated February' 13, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 63970, 64742, 92686 and 95928 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; rollo, pp. 784-806.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Manflor Punzalan- Castillo and Sesinando E. Vilion, concurring; rollo, pp. 857-861.
