FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 111836.
PAMBANSANG KAPATIRAN NG MGA ANAK PAWIS SA FORMEY PLASTIC
NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioner,
vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, SECRETARY BIENVENIDO
LAGUESMA, FORMEY PLASTIC, INC., KALIPUNAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMAPI) and
MED-ARBITER RASIDALI C. ABDULLAH, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The rank and file workers of Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY),
formed a local union known as Pambansang
Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic (KAPATIRAN) under the
auspices of the National Workers Brotherhood (NWB). They ratified their Constitution and By-Laws
on
On
FORMEY moved to dismiss the petition[2]
while Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI)
intervened and likewise moved to dismiss[3] on
the ground that there was already a duly registered CBA covering the period
Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah found that a valid and existing CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI effectively barred the filing of the petition for certification election.[7]
KAPATIRAN appealed[8]
imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Med-Arbiter in applying the “contract
bar rule” and in not adopting the case of Progressive
Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,[9] as authority to disregard the CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI. The Secretary of Labor acting through
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma upheld the decision of the Med-Arbiter.[10] The Motion
for Reconsideration having been denied[11] KAPATIRAN now files this Petition for Certiorari[12] charging the Secretary of Labor with grave
abuse of discretion in applying the “contract bar rule” literally and in ruling
that the Progressive Development
Corporation[13] case could not be invoked.
Pending resolution of the petition KAMAPI filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss[14] the instant petition contending that it
had become moot and academic due to the cancellation of NWB’s[15]
certificate of registration and its delisting from the roll of labor federations.[16] KAPATIRAN opposed the motion[17] claiming that the cancellation and
delisting were not yet final and executory considering that it had filed a
motion for reconsideration[18] with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The rule is that findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies will not be disturbed unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion. We find none in the case at bench. We therefore affirm that there is a validly executed collective bargaining agreement between FORMEY and KAMAPI.
Art. 253-A of the Labor Code provides that “(n)o petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be
entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department
of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty (60) day period immediately before
the date of expiry of such five-year term of the collective bargaining
agreement.” Sec. 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that “x x x (i)f a collective
bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article .231
of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention
can only be entertained within sixty (60)
days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.”
The subject agreement was made effective
The resolution of this issue hinges on the determination of factual matters which certainly is not within the ambit of the present petition for certiorari. Besides, the contention is without any legal basis at all; it is purely speculative and bereft of any documentary support. Petitioner itself even admitted the existence of an agreement but argued that its provisions were not being implemented nor adhered to at all. Suffice it to mention that the filing of the petition for certification election is not the panacea to this allegedly anomalous situation. Violations of collective bargaining agreements constitute unfair labor practice as provided for under Art. 248, par. (i), of the Labor Code. In consonance thereto, Art. 261 equips petitioner with the proper and appropriate recourse
-Art. 261. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement x x x Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provision of such agreement.
The CBA entered into between FORMEY and KAMAPI stipulates among others –
Article IX - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Sec. 1. Any complaint, grievance, difficulty, disagreement or dispute arising out of any section taken (sic) by the Company and/or by the Union concerning the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and/or which may arise regarding (sic) the terms and conditions of employment shall be settled in the manner provided for under this Article.
Sec. 2. The Company and
the
Sec. 3. In case a
complaint or grievance has been filed by either the
Sec. 4. Within five (5) days from the time the top officers
of the
Sec. 5. The mutually
agreed or chosen arbitrator shall proceed to try and hear the case and for (sic) the reception of evidence and to
call witnesses to testify and after the submission of the case by both parties
an award or order shall be issued in accordance with the rules and guidelines
promulgated by the Honorable Department of Labor and Employment based on the
pertinent laws and established jurisprudence.
The expenses of the arbitration proceedings shall be borned (sic) equally by the Company and the
By filing the petition for certification election it is clear that KAPATIRAN did not avail of the abovementioned grievance procedure.
It is further argued that the CBA has no binding force since it was entered into by KAMAPI as a federation and not by the local union. Perusal of the agreement proves the contention flawed. The signatories for KAMAPI consisted of its national president and of the duly elected officers of the local union. Thus the fact that KAMAPI was particularly mentioned as the bargaining party without specifying the local union cannot strip it of its authority to participate in the bargaining process. The local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger national federation.[20]
The doctrine laid down in Progressive
Development Corporation[21] is a mere clarification of the
principle enunciated in Liberty Cotton
Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.[22] Both cases have provided that “the mother
union acting for and in behalf of its affiliate ha(s) the status of an agent
while the local union remained the basic unit of the association free to serve
the common interest of all its members subject only to the restraints imposed
by the Constitution and By-Laws of the association.” Nonetheless, the facts and
principles laid down in both cases do not jibe squarely with the case at
bench. The controversy in Progressive Development Corporation[23] centered on the requirements before a local
or chapter of a federation may file a petition for certification election and
be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, while in Liberty Cotton Mills Workers[24] the issue involved was the disaffiliation of
the local union from the federation The question of whether there was a valid
and existing CBA, which is the question being resolved in the case at bench,
was never raised in the two cited cases since it was already an accepted fact
that the CBA was validly executed and existing.
Anent the Urgent Motion to
Dismiss[25] filed by KAMAPI on the ground that the
instant petition had become moot and academic due to the cancellation by the
Bureau of Labor Relations of NWB’s certificate of registration and its
consequent delisting from the roll of labor federations, suffice it to state
that at this juncture we cannot properly rule on the issue considering that KAMAPI
has not proven that the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations has become final and executory taking into account KAPATIRAN’s
filing of a motion for reconsideration with the Bureau. This notwithstanding, Sec. 9, Rule II, Book V
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Cose requires that an appeal be filed with the Bureau, or in case of
cancellation by the Bureau, with the Secretary of Labor and Employment whose
decision shall become final and no longer subject of appeal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment dated
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Docketed as NCR-OD-M-9304-037; Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[2] Rollo, p.29.
[3]
Annex “D”;
[4] Art. 253-A of the Labor Code provides: Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. - Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date Of the expiry of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later that three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within Six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date x x x.
[5] Rollo pp. 40-41.
[6]
[7] The Med-Arbiter also noted petitioner’s persistence in pursuing the petition for certification election considering that the same petition previously filed was already dismissed based on contract bar rule.
[8] Rollo, pp. 56-62.
[9] G.R. No. 96425,4 February 1992,205 SCRA 802.
[10] Rollo, p. 66.
[11]
[12]
[13] See note 9.
[14] Rollo pp. 254-255.
[15] Petitioner’s mother union.
[16] As decreed by Benedicto Emesto R. Bitonio Jr., Director of the Bureau ofLabor Relations in BLR Case No. A-5-19-94 (NCR-OD-M9306-035) In re. Milagros Lim, doing business under the name and style Anscon Commercial v. UNLAD-National Workers Brotherhood (NWB) and Leoncio (Leo) Garcia; Rollo, pp. 256-26 1.
[17] Rollo, pp. 264-266.
[18]
[19] Annex “D-2”; Rollo, pp. 33-36.
[20]
St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 99395,
[21] See note 9.
[22]
No. L-33987,
[23] See note 9.
[24] Supra, see note 22.
[25] Rollo, pp. 254-255.