ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 142559.
MERCURY DRUG EMPLOYEES INDEPENDENT UNION vs. MERCURY DRUG CORP
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 142559 (Mercury Drug Employees Independent Union - Main Office, petitioner, vs. Mercury Drug Corporation and Undersecretary for Labor Relations, respondents.)
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision [1] cralaw dated December 13, 1999 and Resolution [2] cralaw dated March 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53144 reinstating the Decision [3] cralaw dated September 7, 1998 of the Med-Arbiter in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9705-015 which dismissed the petition for certification election filed by Mercury Drug Employees Independent Union - Main Office.
The antecedent facts giving rise to the controversy at bar are as follows:
Mercury Drug Corporation (herein respondent company) is a domestic corporation engaged in the retail of pharmaceutical and other allied products. Its main office comprises of 453 rank-and-file employees engaged in administration and warehousing, while its 240 branches nationwide have a total of 4,166 rank-and-file employees involved in selling and/or retailing.
Mercury Drug Employees Independent Union - Main Office (herein petitioner union) was, at the time of the filing of this petition, a legitimate labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) under Registration No. NCR-UR-11-1757-96.
On
In its opposition, respondent company alleged that the petitioner union has failed to present any justification for the formation of a bargaining unit comprising only of regular rank-and-file employees at its main office.
In due course, the Med-Arbiter rendered a decision dated
"Since the rank and file employees assigned at the main office cannot form a union separate and distinct from the rank and file employees assigned at several other branches of the establishment, the 20% membership requirement should be based on the number of rank and file employees nationwide, 20% of 4,166 is eight hundred thirty-three (833). With the 227 membership of the union, it is evident that the 20% requirement to an application for union registration has not been met.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certification election is hereby DISMISSED.
"SO ORDERED." [4] cralaw
On
In a decision dated
"WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by appellant Mercury Drug Employees
Independent Union - Main Office is hereby GRANTED, and the decision of the
Med-Arbiter dated
"Let, therefore the records of the case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of a certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees at main office of appellee Mercury Drug Corporation, subject to the usual pre-election conference, with the following choices:
'1. Mercury Drug Employees Independent Union-Main Office; and
'2. No Union.'
"The employer's current payroll in its main office as well as the appropriate payrolls for the last three months immediately preceding the issuance of this decision shall be the basis for determining the list of eligible voters.
"SO ORDERED." [5] cralaw
Respondent company's motion for reconsideration dated
Consequently, respondent company filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals on
On
"We find merit in the petition.
"As We see it, the primary issue to which all others must yield is whether or not the unit, that is, the petitioner's main office, in which private respondent seeks to operate is 'appropriate', as the term is legally understood, for purposes of collective bargaining. Subsumed to this issue is the question of whether or not the main office group of employees possesses a separate community of interests distinct from their co-workers assigned at the firm's branches as to justify a separate representation for the company's main office.
"xxx���� xxx�������� xxx
"Certainly, the all-important element of commonality or mutuality of interests exists among the petitioner's employees. Their functions mesh with one another; they are all interested in the progress and profitability of their company. One group needs the other. The employees at the main office in charge of the Personnel and Administrative Office, the workers at the Purchasing and Distribution Divisions who purchase and eventually distribute the merchandise to the branches are as needed and as important as the cashier, salespersons and utility personnel at the branches. Phlltranco , supra, puts it very well: 'IT]here may be differences as to the nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of separation unions'.
"xxx���� xxx�������� xxx
"To close, this Court finds the assailed decision and resolution to have been issued in utter disregard of extant jurisprudence on the 'one-company, one bargaining unit' rule, and without taking into account the equity of the petitioner as required by the spirit, if not the letter, of governing labor laws. It was grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent to have ruled along the foregoing line, ignoring clear statutory and more or less established decisional law commands.
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the decision dated March 17, 1999 and the resolution bearing date April 29, 1999, both of the respondent Undersecretary for Labor Relations, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and the Med-Arbiter's decision of September 7, 1998 REINSTATED .
"SO ORDERED." [6] cralaw
On
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. In sum, petitioner union contends that the Appellate Court erred in finding that there exist no substantial differences between the employees at the main office and at the branches.
As mentioned earlier, petitioner, at the inception of this case, was a legitimate union, being duly registered with the DOLE. Unfortunately, in another case, CA-G.R. SP No. 53145, entitled "Mercury Drug Corporation vs. The Honorable Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and Mercury Drug Employees Independent Union - Main Office," the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision, [7] cralaw dated July 13, 2000 ordering that the registration of petitioner as a union be cancelled and be delisted from the roll of registered labor organizations. This Decision was rendered subsequent to the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 53144 now being challenged.
The Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, in an Entry of Judgment, certified that the said July 13, 2000 Decision has, on December 15, 2000, become final and executory and recorded in the court's Book of Entries of Judgments.
Obviously, with the cancellation of registration as a union of petitioner, it ceased to be a legitimate labor organization. As such, it lost its juridical personality and can no longer exercise its statutory rights and privileges, including the right to file a petition for certification election. It follows that in this case, it has been divested of its status as a real party-in-interest.
Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a petition for certification election in an unorganized establishment should be filed by a legitimate labor organization, thus:
"ART.257.Petitions in unorganized establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization."
Once a petition is filed by a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order the conduct of a certification election. But the application of Article 257 has to be initiated by a genuine petition from a legitimate labor organization. The Med-Arbiter is thus tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. [8] cralaw
Petitioner union, having been delisted from the roll of registered unions, can no longer be considered a real party-in-interest. Indeed, its case against respondent company has become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, for being moot, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Justice Cancio C. Garcia, then Chairman of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals, now its Presiding Justice, and concurred in by Justices Bernardo Ll. Salas and Mariano M. Umali (Retired), Rollo at 67-76.
[2] cralaw Annex "B" of the Petition, Rollo at 59-60.
[3] cralaw Annex "Q", Rollo at 227-245.
[4] cralaw Id. at 244-245.
[5] cralaw Rollo at 16-17.
[6] cralaw Annex "O" of Petition for Review, Rollo at 70-76.
[7] cralaw Annexes "A" to "A-13" of Memorandum of respondent company, Rollo at 636-649.
[8] cralaw Lopez Sugar Corp. vs. Secretary of Labor, National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NA CUSIP), G.R. No. 93117, August 1, 1995, 247 SCRA 1.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
