ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 166285.� January 31, 2005]
EMPIRE TANTRADE vs. SEC. OF LABOR
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 31 2005.
G.R. No. 166285 (Empire Tantrade Technologies, Inc. vs. The Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment and Union Nework-Tantrade Technologies, Inc., National Federation of Labor (UNETTINFL).)
Before us is this petition for review on certiorari assailing the March 17, 2004 decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80993 dismissing the petition thereat filed by the petitioner which seeks the nullification of the Resolution issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment who upheld the order of the med-arbiter authorizing the conduct of certification election in the petitioner.
The antecedents:
On March 5, 2003, in Regional Office IV of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Laguna, respondent union filed a petition for certification election [2] cralaw among the rank-and-file employees of petitioner corporation. The petition was opposed by petitioner on the ground that the members of said union are not its employees but were merely supplied by its independent contractor, J.G. Manpower.
On May 21, 2003, the DOLE med-arbiter issued an Order [3] cralaw directing the conduct of a certification election. Petitioner appealed said Order to the Secretary of Labor who, in a Resolution dated September 3, 2003, [4] cralaw dismissed the appeal and affirmed the med-arbiter's order, ruling that lack of employer-employee relationship is not a ground to dismiss a petition for certification election.
Displeased, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80993.
When required by the appellate court to comment, respondent union instead filed a manifestation stating, among others, that on January 30, 2004, a certification election was conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment.
In view of said development, the Court of Appeals, in the herein assailed decision dated May 17, 2004, [5] cralaw declared the petition moot and academic and accordingly dismissed the same. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied by said court in its Resolution of November 8, 2004. [6] cralaw
Hence, petitioner's present recourse.
Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals and the DOLE Secretary erred in upholding the Order of the med-arbiter directing the conduct of certification election, insisting that the members of respondent union are not its regular employees. Ergo, the union's petition for certification election should not have been entertained in the first place.
We are not impressed.
As correctly ruled by the DOLE Secretary and reiterated by the Court of Appeals, the reason relied upon by petitioner is not among the grounds for dismissing a petition for certification election, which grounds are specifically provided for in Section 11.II, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, to wit:
II. The Med-Arbiter shall dismiss the petition on any of the following grounds:
(a)���� The petitioner is not listed by the Regional Office or Bureau in its registry of legitimate labor organizations, or that its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality in accordance with Rule VIII of these Rules;
(b)���� The petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly registered collective bargaining agreement; provided, that the sixty- day period based on the original collective bargaining agreement shall not be affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement;
(c)���� The petition was filed within one (1) year form a valid certification, consent or run-off election and no appeal on the results is pending thereon or from recording of the fact of voluntary recognition with the Regional Office;
(d)���� A duly recognized or certified union has commenced negotiations with the employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Code within the one-year period referred to in Section 3, Rule IX of these Rules, or there exists a bargaining deadlock which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party;
(e)���� In case of an organized establishment, failure to submit the twenty-five (25%) support requirement upon the filing of the petition; or
(f)����� Lack of interest or withdrawal on the part of the petitioner; provided, that where a motion for intervention has been filed during the freedom period, said motion shall be deemed and disposed of as an independent petition for certification election if it complies with all the requisites for the filing of a petition for certification election as prescribed in Section 4 of these Rules.
Truly, nowhere in the above is the absence of an employer-employee relationship a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election. Thus, the med-arbiter was correct in ordering the conduct of the subject certification election.
For sure, there is nothing under the Labor Code nor in its implementing rules which allows or justifies suspension of certification election on the ground invoked by the petitioner. It is thus of no moment that, as alleged by the petitioner, the issue on the existence of an employer-employee relationship was pending resolution before the DOLE in LSED-R0400-0301-CI-004-001, entitled Belinda Olata, et al. vs. Tecson Tan and/or Empire Tantrade Technologies, Inc. The mere pendency of a labor standards case involving the existence of such relationship does not operate to suspend the separate and independent certification election proceedings.
All told, we rule and so hold that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its assailed decision. Verily, the Certification Election sought to be prevented was already conducted, rendering the petition moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Association S. Labitoria and concurred in by Ass. Justices Jose L. Sabio Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid of the fifth division
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 48-49.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 50-52.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 31-33.
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 36-37.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
