Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
REPUBLIC OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 160352 |
|
represented by
Department of Labor |
|
|
|
and Employment
(DOLE), |
|
Present: |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
QUISUMBING,* J., |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
- versus - |
|
Chairperson, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
KAWASHIMA TEXTILE |
|
|
|
MFG.,
PHILIPPINES, INC., |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
July 23, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The Republic of the Philippines
assails by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, the December 13, 2002 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the August 18, 2000 Decision[2]
of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), and reinstated the May 17, 2000 Order[3]
of Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin,
dismissing the petition of Kawashima Free Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No.
803 (KFWU) for the conduct of a certification election in Kawashima Textile
Mfg. Phils., Inc. (respondent); and the October 7, 2003 CA Resolution[4]
which denied the motion for reconsideration.
The relevant facts are of record.
On
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss[8]
the petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality
because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated
Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account
contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development Corporation
v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment.[9]
In an Order
dated
We scrutinize the facts and evidences presented by
the parties and arrived at a decision that at least two (2) members of [KFWU],
namely: Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are supervisory employees, having a number of
personnel under them. Being supervisory employees, they are prohibited under
Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended, to join the union of the rank and
file employees. Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr., Chief Engineers of the Maintenance and
Manufacturing Department, respectively, act as foremen to the line engineers,
mechanics and other non-skilled workers and responsible [for] the preparation
and organization of maintenance shop fabrication and schedules, inventory and
control of materials and supplies and tasked to implement training plans on
line engineers and evaluate the performance of their subordinates. The
above-stated actual functions of Dany I. Fernandez
and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are clear manifestation that
they are supervisory employees.
x
x x x
Since
petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees,
petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained the status of a
legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory
employees from it membership before it can attain the status of a legitimate
labor organization. The above judgment is supported by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Toyota Case[10]
wherein the High Tribunal ruled:
“As respondent union’s membership
list contains the names of at least twenty seven (27) supervisory employees in
Level Five Positions, the union could not prior to purging itself of its supervisory
employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not
being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for
certification election.” (Underscoring
omitted.)
x
x x x
Furthermore,
the commingling of rank and file and supervisory employees in one (1)
bargaining unit cannot be cured in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings [at] the
pre-election conference. The above ruling is supported by the Decision of the
Supreme Court in Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), Inc. vs. Honorable Secretary of
Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. 131248 dated December 11, 1998[11] x
x x.
x
x x x
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition for certification election is hereby
dismissed for lack of requisite legal status of petitioner to file this instant
petition.
SO ORDERED.[12] (Emphasis supplied)
On the basis of the aforecited
decision, respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a
Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU,[13] the
final outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the records.
Meanwhile, KFWU appealed[14]
to the DOLE which issued a Decision on
WHEREFORE,
the appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated
1.
Kawashima
Free Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No. 803; and
2.
No
union.
Pursuant
to Rule XI, Section 11.1 of the New Implementing Rules, the employer is hereby
directed to submit to the office of origin the certified list of current
employees in the bargaining unit for the last three months prior to the
issuance of this decision.
SO DECIDED.[15]
The DOLE held that Med-Arbiter Bactin's reliance on the decisions of the Court in Toyota
Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
Union[16]
and Dunlop Slazenger, Inc. v. Secretary of
Labor and Employment[17] was misplaced, for
while Article 245 declares supervisory employees ineligible for membership in a
labor organization for rank-and-file employees, the provision did not state the
effect of such prohibited membership on the legitimacy of the labor
organization and its right to file for certification election. Neither was such mixed membership a ground for
cancellation of its registration. Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule XI of
Department Order No. 9 “provides for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election based on lack of legal personality of a labor
organization only on the following grounds: (1) [KFWU] is not listed by the
Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate
labor organizations; or (2) [KFWU's] legal
personality has been revoked or canceled with finality.”[18] The DOLE noted that neither ground
existed; on the contrary, KFWU's legal personality was
well-established, for it held a certificate of creation and had been listed in
the registry of legitimate labor organizations.
As to the failure of KFWU to file
its books of account, the DOLE held that such omission was not a ground for
revocation of union registration or dismissal of petition for certification
election, for under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9, a local or
chapter like KFWU was no longer required to file its books of account.[19]
Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[20]
but the DOLE denied the same in its
However, on appeal by respondent,
the CA rendered the
Since respondent union clearly consists of both
rank and file and supervisory employees, it cannot qualify as a legitimate
labor organization imbued with the requisite personality to file a petition for
certification election. This infirmity in union membership cannot be corrected
in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during the pre-election conference.
Finally,
contrary to the pronouncement of public respondent, the application of the
doctrine enunciated in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Toyota Motor
Philippines Corporation Labor Union was not construed in a way that
effectively denies the fundamental right of respondent union to organize and
seek bargaining representation x x x.
For ignoring jurisprudential precepts on the
matter, the Court finds that the Undersecretary of Labor, acting under the
authority of the Secretary of Labor, acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 18
August 2000 of the Undersecretary of Labor, acting under the authority of the
Secretary, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated
SO ORDERED.[22] (Emphasis supplied)
KFWU filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[23]
but the CA denied it.
The Republic of the
First,
whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a
union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election in
view of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted
the phraseology in the old rule that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the
rank-and-file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or
security guards;” and
Second,
whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be
collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a
motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile Manufacturing
Phils., Inc.[24]
The petition is
imbued with merit.
The key to the closure that petitioner
seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481.[25] Sections 8 and 9 thereof provide:
Section 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 245. Ineligibility
of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory
Employees. -
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the
collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor
organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors' union
operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or
national union."
Section 9. A new provision, Article 245-A is inserted into
the Labor Code to read as follows:
"Art. 245-A. Effect
of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the
Bargaining Unit. - The inclusion as union
members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the
cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically
deemed removed from the list of membership of said union." (Emphasis
supplied)
Moreover, under Section 4, a pending
petition for cancellation of registration
will not hinder a legitimate labor
organization from initiating a certification election, viz:
Sec. 4. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code
as Article 238-A to read as follows:
"Art. 238-A.
Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration. - A petition for cancellation
of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings for certification
election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification
election.
In case of cancellation,
nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek just and equitable
remedies in the appropriate courts." (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no
personality to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification election
filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted
into the Labor Code to read as follows:
"Art. 258-A.
Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the
petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate
labor organization, the
employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to
oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation in
such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of
petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the
pre-election conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition." (Emphasis supplied)
However, R.A. No. 9481 took
effect only on
Instead, the law and rules in force
at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for certification election on
January 24, 2000 are R.A. No. 6715,[32]
amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor Code),[33]
as amended, and the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715,[34]
as amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.[35]
It is within the
parameters of R.A. No. 6715 and the Implementing Rules that the Court will now
resolve the two issues raised by petitioner.
If there is one
constant precept in our labor laws – be it Commonwealth Act No. 213 (1936),[36] R.A. No. 875 (1953),[37] P.D.
No. 442 (1974), Executive Order (E.O.) No. 111 (1986)[38]
or R.A. No. 6715 (1989) - it is that only a legitimate labor organization may exercise the right
to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.[39] What has varied over the years has been the
degree of enforcement of this precept, as reflected in the shifting scope of
administrative and judicial scrutiny of the composition of a labor organization
before it is allowed to exercise the right of representation.
One area of contention has been the
composition of the membership of a labor organization, specifically whether
there is a mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and how such
questioned mingling affects its legitimacy.
It was in R.A. No. 875, under
Section 3, that such questioned mingling was first prohibited,[40]
to wit:
Sec. 3. Employees’ right to self-organization. – Employees
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may
form separate organizations of their own.
(Emphasis supplied)
Nothing in R.A. No. 875, however,
tells of how the questioned mingling can affect the legitimacy of the labor
organization. Under Section 15, the only
instance when a labor organization loses its legitimacy is when it violates its
duty to bargain collectively; but there is no word on whether such mingling would
also result in loss of legitimacy. Thus,
when the issue of whether the membership of two supervisory employees impairs
the legitimacy of a rank-and-file labor organization came before the Court En Banc in Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees Association,[41]
the majority pronounced:
It may be observed that nothing is said of the
effect of such ineligibility upon the union itself or on the status of the
other qualified members thereof should such prohibition be disregarded.
Considering that the law is specific where it intends to divest a legitimate
labor union of any of the rights and privileges granted to it by law, the
absence of any provision on the effect of the disqualification of one of its
organizers upon the legality of the union, may be construed to confine the
effect of such ineligibility only upon the membership of the supervisor. In
other words, the invalidity of membership of one of the organizers does not
make the union illegal, where the requirements of the law for the organization
thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and met.[42] (Emphasis supplied)
Then the
Labor Code was enacted in 1974 without reproducing Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875. The provision in
the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is Article 290,[43] which is deafeningly silent on the
prohibition against supervisory employees mingling with rank-and-file employees
in one labor organization. Even the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code[44] (Omnibus Rules) merely provides in Section 11, Rule II,
thus:
Sec. 11. Supervisory unions and unions
of security guards to cease operation. – All existing supervisory
unions and unions of security guards shall, upon the effectivity
of the Code, cease to operate as such and their registration certificates shall
be deemed automatically cancelled. However, existing collective agreements with
such unions, the life of which extends beyond the date of effectivity
of the Code shall be respected until their expiry date insofar as the economic
benefits granted therein are concerned.
Members
of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial
employees shall become eligible to join or assist the rank and file organization.
The determination of who are managerial employees and who are not shall be the
subject of negotiation between representatives of supervisory union and the
employer. If no agreement s reached between the parties, either or both of them
ma bring the issue to the nearest Regional Office for determination. (Emphasis
supplied)
The obvious
repeal of the last clause of Sec. 3, R.A. No. 875 prompted the Court to declare
in Bulletin v. Sanchez[45]
that supervisory employees who do not fall under the category of managerial
employees may join or assist in the formation of a labor organization for
rank-and-file employees, but they may not form their own labor organization.
While
amending certain provisions of Book V of the Labor Code, E.O. No. 111 and its implementing
rules[46] continued to recognize the right of supervisory
employees, who do not fall under the category of managerial employees, to join
a rank-and-file labor organization.[47]
Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the questioned
mingling in one labor organization, viz:
Sec. 18. Article
245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows
“Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to
join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible
for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may
join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.” (Emphasis
supplied)
Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No.
6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition would
bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.
It
was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules) which supplied the deficiency by introducing the following amendment to
Rule II (Registration of Unions):
Sec. 1. Who may join unions. – x x x Supervisory employees and security guards
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own;
Provided, that those supervisory employees who are included in an
existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x
x. (Emphasis supplied)
and Rule V (Representation
Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules, viz:
Sec. 1. Where to file. – A
petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which
has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The petition shall
be in writing and under oath.
Sec. 2. Who may file. – Any legitimate labor
organization or the employer, when requested to bargain collectively, may file
the petition.
The
petition, when filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among
others:
x x x x
(c) description of
the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances
otherwise require; and provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit
of the rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory employees and/or
security guards. (Emphasis supplied)
By that
provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and
duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition
for certification election.
Thus, when the issue of the effect
of mingling was brought to the fore in
Clearly,
based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file
and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any
guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an
organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees
cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including
the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective
bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a
certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor
organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the
basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
x x x x
In the
case at bar, as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at
least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the
union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members,
attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot
possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification
election.[49] (Emphasis
supplied)
In Dunlop,[50] in
which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election
was one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-file
employees, the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right
to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of
supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its
members.[51]
It should be
emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved in Toyota and Dunlop were filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995,
respectively; hence, the 1989 Rules was
applied in both cases.
But then, on
June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules was further amended by Department
Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules - that the petition
for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees - was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules
requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit, thus:
Rule XI
Certification Elections
x x x
x
Sec. 4. Forms and contents of
petition. - The petition
shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain, among others, the following:
x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.[52]
In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano,[53] the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the
1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved therein
was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, to wit:
Sec. 1. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a
local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2)
copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or
national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;
(b) the names of the local/chapter’s officers, their addresses, and the
principal office of the local/chapter; and (c) the local/ chapter’s constitution and by-laws; provided
that where the local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws is the same as that of
the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.
All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath
by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its
President.
which does not require that, for its creation and
registration, a local or chapter submit a list of its members.
Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int’l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO[54] in which the core issue was whether
mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a
petition for certification election. This
time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a
prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in
one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects
thereof.[55] Thus, the Court held that after a labor
organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges
of a legitimate labor organization. Any
mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot
affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its
registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.[56]
In San Miguel Corp. (Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing
Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies
Rank-and-File Union-FFW,[57] the Court
explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or
chapter to provide a list of its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to
deny recognition to said local or chapter on account of any question pertaining
to its individual members.[58]
More to the point is Air
Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations,[59]
which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the
employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of
mixed membership:[60] the
Court therein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands that
the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for
cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c)
of Article 239 of the Labor Code.[61]
All said, while the latest issuance
is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, as interpreted by the Court
in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air
Philippines, had already
set the tone for it.
Consequently, the Court reverses the
ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting the petition for
certification election of KFWU.
Now to the second issue of whether
an employer like respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor
organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for
certification election.
Except when it is requested to
bargain collectively,[62] an employer is a mere bystander to any
petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and
merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which
organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with
the employer.[63] The choice of their representative is the
exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan
interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by
filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it;[64]
not even a mere allegation that
some employees participating in a petition for certification election are
actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block
the certification election.[65] The employer's only
right in the
proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.[66]
The amendments to the Labor Code and
its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
The December 13, 2002 Decision and October 7, 2003
Resolution of the Court of Appeals and the May 17, 2000 Order of
Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin are REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
while the August 18, 2000 Decision and September 28, 2000 Resolution of the
Department of Labor and Employment are REINSTATED.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice Chairperson |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
In lieu of
Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario,
per Special Order No. 508 dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico
and Regalado E. Maambong; rollo, p. 25.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] CA
rollo, p. 66.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] G.R.
No. 96425,
[10] Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation Labor Union, 335 Phil. 1045 (1997).
[11] 360 Phil. 306 (1998).
[12] CA
rollo, pp. 29-30.
[13]
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 55.
[16] Supra note 10.
[17] Supra note 11.
[18] Rollo, p. 54.
[19]
[20] CA
rollo, p. 39.
[21]
[22] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[23] CA
rollo, p. 213.
[24] Rollo, p. 14.
[25] An
Act Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional Right to Self-Organization,
Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 without the
signature of the President, in accordance with Article VI, Section 27 (1) of
the Constitution.
[26] Sec. 15. Effectivity
Clause. - This Act shall take effect
fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in
at least two newspapers of general circulation.
R.A. No. 9481 was published in
[27] San
Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Phil. Transport and General Workers Organization
v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang
Diwa ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 125.
[28] Supra
note 5.
[29] Of
retroactive effect are: a) laws expressly made retrospective in
application, except in cases of ex post
facto laws (United States. v. Diaz Conde, 42
Phil. 766 [1922]) or impairment of
obligation of contract (Asiatic
Petroleum, Co. v. Llanes, 49 Phil. 466 [1926]);
b) procedural laws, prescribing rules
and forms of procedures of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
invasion (Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142803, November 20, 2007,
537 SCRA 643; Subido, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 334 Phil. 346 [1997]); (c) curative
statutes which cure errors and irregularities and validate judicial or
administrative proceedings, acts of public officers, or private deeds and
contracts that otherwise would not produce their intended consequences due to
some statutory disability or failure to comply with technical rules (Government
of the Philippine Islands v. Municipality of Binalonan,
32 Phil. 634 [1915]); (e) laws interpreting others; (f) laws creating new
rights (Bona v. Briones, 38 Phil. 276 [1918]);
and (g) penal statutes insofar as they favor the accused who is not a habitual
criminal (Article 22, Revised Penal Code).
[30] Enriquez
Security Services, Inc. v. Cabotaje, G.R. No.
147993, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 169; Rufina
Patis v. Alusitain, 478
Phil. 544 (2004). See also Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. v. Dela
Serna, 370 Phil. 872 (1999), citing Briad
Agro Development v. Dela Cerna,
G.R. No. 82805, November 9, 1989, 179 SCRA 269.
[31] Land Bank of the
[32] An Act to Extend Protection to Labor, Strengthen the Constitutional
Rights of Workers to Self-Organization, Collective Bargaining and Peaceful
Concerted Activities, and Foster Industrial Peace and Harmony, effective
[33] The
Labor Code of the
[34] Approved on
[35] Effective
[36] An
Act to Define and Regulate Legitimate Labor Organizations; approved on November
21, 1936.
[37] An Act Proposing Industrial Peace and Other Purposes, effective
[38] Amending
Certain Provisions of the Labor Code of the
[39] Commonwealth Act No. 213 provides:
Sec. 2. All
associations which are duly organized and registered with, and permitted to
operate by, the Department of Labor, shall have the right to collective
bargaining with employers x x x.
The registration of, and the issuance of
a permit to any legitimate labor organization shall entitle it to all the
rights and privileges granted by law.
R.A. No. 875
provides:
Sec. 24. Rights of Labor Organizations.
— A legitimate labor organization shall have the right — (a) To act as the representative of its
members for the purpose of collective bargaining, pursuant to section three of
this Act; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of the employees
in a collective bargaining unit, as provided in section twelve (a) x x x.
P.D.
No. 442 as amended by E.O. No. 111 and, thereafter, R.A. No. 6715, provides:
Section 17. Article 242 of the same Code is amended to read as follows:
"Article 242. Rights of legitimate labor
organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
"(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining; "(b) To be certified as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit for purposes of collective bargaining x x x.
[40] Commonwealth
Act No. 213 contained no provision on the matter.
[41] 120 Phil. 1490 (1964).
[42]
[43] Art.
290. Coverage and employees’ rights
to self-organization. – All persons employed in commercial, industrial,
agricultural, religious, charitable, educational institutions, or enterprises,
whether engaged for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization
and to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining.
After several amendments and renumbering of P.D. No. 442, Art.
290 thereof later became Art. 243.
[44] Approved on
[45] 228 Phil. 600, 611 (1986). See also United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory
Union v. Laguesma, 351 Phil. 244, 279 (1998).
[46] Approved on
[47] Section
11, Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code
remained untouched.
[48] Supra
note 10.
[49]
[50] Supra
note 11.
[51]
[52] As
further amended by DOLE Department Order No. 40 s. 2003, approved on February
14, 2003, the Omnibus Rules now requires the following documents to support a
petition for certification election:
Section 4.
Form and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing, verified under
oath by the president of petitioning labor organization. Where the petition is
filed by a federation or national union, it shall verified
under oath by the president or its duly authorized representative. The petition
shall contain the following: (a) the name of petitioner, its address, and
affiliation if appropriate, the date and number of its certificate of
registration. If the petition is filed by a federation or national union, the
date and number of the certificate of
registration or certificate of creation of chartered local; (b) the name,
address and nature of employer's business; (c) the description of the
bargaining unit; (d) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining
unit; (e) the names and addresses of other legitimate labor unions in the
bargaining unit; (f) a statement indicating any of the following circumstances:
1) that the bargaining unit is unorganized or that there is no registered
collective bargaining agreement covering
the employees in the bargaining unit; 2) if there exists a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement, that the petition is filed within the sixty-day freedom period of
such agreement; or 3) if another union had been previously recognized
voluntarily or certified in a valid
certification, consent or run-off election, that the petition is filed
outside the one-year period from entry
of voluntary recognition or conduct of certification or run-off election and no appeal is pending thereon; (g) in an
organized establishment, the signature of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of
all employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit shall be attached to the petition at the time of its filing;
and (h) other relevant facts.
[53] 369 Phil. 617, 624 (1999).
[54] 443 Phil. 841 (2003).
[55]
[56]
[57] G.R.
No. 152356,
[58]
[59] G.R.
No. 155395,
[60]
[61]
[62] Art.
258. When an employer may file petition. - When requested to bargain
collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is
no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau
shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
[63] Belyca Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja,
G.R. No. L-77395,
[64] Laguna
Autorparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the
Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 157146, April 29,
2005, 457 SCRA 730, 742.
[65] Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v. Laguesma, G.R.
No. 101730, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 452, 456.
[66] SMC
Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six Movement (FSM) Local Chapter No. 1564 v.
Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation, G.R. No.
150761, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 524, 528; San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 362, 374 (1996).