ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 131179. March 22, 1999]
SUPERLINES TRANS. CO., INC. vs. HON. SEC. OF LABOR QUISUMBING, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 22, 1999.
G.R. No. 131179 (Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. vs. The Honorable Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Hon. Anastacio L. Bactin and Pinag-isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anak Pawis [PIGLAS].)
On May 22, 1996, respondent union Pinag-isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anak Pawis (PIGLAS) filed a petition for certification election before the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In an Order dated June 18, 1996, Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin directed the holding of a certification election on July 18, 1996; the choices: (1) PIGLAS, and (2) No Union.
During the pre-election proceedings, petitioner company submitted a "List of Eligible Voters," which list did not include about 130 employees who, according to the company, were to be retrenched effective July 13, 1996. Taking the supposed retrenchment as an act of union busting, PIGLAS officers and members staged a strike, which lasted for seven (7) months. Consequently, the certification election was not held on July 18, 1996, the date prescribed in the Order of the Med-Arbiter. The Election Officer thus issued a directive rescheduling the election to January 3, 1997.
Petitioner thereafter filed a "Manifestation and Motion" before the Med-Arbiter praying for the suspension of the certification election.
The Med-Arbiter, however, allegedly refused or failed to act upon petitioner's motion to suspend the election. This prompted petitioner to file on December 27, 1996 an appeal from the Orders directing and resetting the certification election to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE). The appeal notwithstanding, the election officer proceeded with the certification election. The elections were held as scheduled on January 3, 1997, with PIGLAS emerging the winner over "No Union."
In a Resolution dated May 16, 1997, the SOLE dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground that the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated 18 June 1996 directing the holding of a certification election had long become final and executory. Section 9, Rule X, Book V of the Rules implementing the Labor Code provides that such appeal should have been filed within 10 calendar days from receipt of the order of the appellant, thus:
Sec. 9. - Period of Appeal. The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the order of the appellant. xxx
As to the directive resetting the election date, the SOLE held that since said order was not issued by the Med-Arbiter, the same could not be assailed before his office. Section 7, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules states:
Sec. 7. Appeal. - Any aggrieved party may appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary for the conduct of election have been violated.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was similarly denied by the SOLE in a Resolution dated August 8, 1997.
In an Order dated October 6, 1997, the Med-Arbiter certified PIGLAS "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the Superlines Transportation Company, Incorporated for purposes of collective bargaining."
On December 2, 1997, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari. Petitioner argues that its appeal before the SOLE should have suspended the holding of the certification election in accordance with Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code:
Section 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable.- xxx. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. xxx.
Petitioner likewise claims that it was not furnished copies of the results of the election in violation of Article 259 of the Labor Code. Consequently, it was not afforded the opportunity to file an election protest, if it deemed it appropriate.
Finally, petitioner alleges that "[n]owhere in the entire proceedings may it even be the least hinted that petitioner union submitted its books of accounts certified and attested to by the appropriate officer." Petitioner claims that this is a ground that the employer may invoke to oppose the petition for certification, citing Protection Technology vs. Secretary.1 [242 SCRA 99 (1999).]
In a Resolution dated January 19, 1998, the Court dismissed the petition "for having been filed late on December 2, 1997, due date being November 14, 1997." Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which this Court denied with finality in a Resolution dated February 25, 1998. In a Resolution dated March 23, 1998, the Court reinstated the petition and required respondents to comment on the petition.
In their respective Comments, both PIGLAS and the Solicitor General argue, and we are inclined to agree, that petitioner can no longer question the certification election since the company did not file its appeal on time. Failing thus, the filing of the appeal did not work to suspend the certification election since the rule presumes that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
In its Reply, petitioner claims that the motion for intervention of two unions in these proceedings prove its employees' desire to hold a new certification election. Petitioner refers to the separate motions for intervention filed by Superlines Transportation Employees Association on March 23, 1998 and that filed by the Obrero Pilipino on September 15, 1998.
Superlines Transportation Employees Association claims that majority of the employees who are among its members do not support private respondent union. It prays that the case be remanded to the Med-Arbiter for purposes of conducting a new certification election.
In turn, Obrero Pilipino filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE. Upon learning of the present case, it filed a motion for intervention, contending that the election was not validly conducted thus resulting in the deprivation of the right of the employees to vote. According to Obrero Pilipino, the strike prevented the notification of the employees of such election.
Required to comment on these motion for intervention, PIGLAS argues that such motions should have been filed before the finality of the order calling for a certification election.
We find no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of petitioner's appeal not only for the reasons cited in said Resolution but because petitioner has no standing to question a certification election; it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto.2 [San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant vs. Laguesma, 263 SCRA 68 (1996); Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investment Agency vs. Torres, 224 SCRA 682 (1993).] In a long line of cases,3 [Furusawa Ruibber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 282 SCRA 635 (1997); San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant vs. Laguesma, supra; Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 234 SCRA 517 (1994); Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency vs. Torres, supra; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. vs. Laguesma, 223 SCRA 452 (1993); California Manufacturing Corporation vs. Laguesma, 209 SCRA 606 (1992); Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 174 SCRA 477 (1989); Trade Unions of the Phils. And Alliance Services vs. Trajano, 120 SCRA 64 (1993); Filipino Metals Corp. vs. Ople, 107 SCRA 211 (1981); Consolidated Frams, Inc. vs. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469 (1978).] this Court has ruled that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer, a mere bystander in such proceedings.
The Protection Technology case invoked by petitioner has no application in the case at bar. The petitioner in that case was able to show that the union did not submit said requirement to the BLR. This is not the case herein. In the absence of such proof, the union is presumed to have file the same.
Even if the Protection Technology case were applicable, the same cannot help petitioner. There, the Court ruled that the holding of the certification election had rendered the case moot and academic. The Court merely required the union to submit said requirement to ensure its status as a legitimate labor union. The same ruling should apply in the case at bar.
Finally, Superlines Transportation Employees Association and Obrero Pilipino should have filed their intervention while the certification election proceedings were pending before the Med-Arbiter pursuant to Section 5, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules. This Court is not the proper forum for such intervention. The denial of their motions for intervention, however, is without prejudice to their filing of a petition for certification election before the DOLE Regional Office, in accordance with law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure of petitioner to show that the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal from the order of the Med-Arbiter.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGININIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
