Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS
LIMITED, |
|
G.R. No. 169754 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
NACHURA,⃰ |
|
|
|
|
|
KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA |
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
NG LEGENDA (KML- |
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT), |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
February 23, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
This Petition for Review
on Certiorari assails the September
18, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72848 which found
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which ruled in favor of Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda (KML). Also assailed is the September 14, 2005
Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Factual
Antecedents
On June 6, 2001,
KML filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, San Fernando, Pampanga, a
Petition for Certification Election[1]
docketed as Case No. RO300-0106-RU-001.
KML alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization of the rank and
file employees of Legend International Resorts Limited (LEGEND). KML claimed that it was issued its
Certificate of Registration No. RO300-0105-UR-002 by the DOLE on May 18, 2001.
LEGEND moved to dismiss[2]
the petition alleging that KML is not a legitimate labor organization because
its membership is a mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees in
violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
LEGEND also claimed that KML committed acts of fraud and
misrepresentation when it made it appear that certain employees attended its general
membership meeting on April 5, 2001 when in reality some of them were either at
work; have already resigned as of March 2001; or were abroad.
In its Comment,[3]
KML argued that even if 41 of its members are indeed supervisory employees and therefore
excluded from its membership, the certification election could still proceed because
the required number of the total rank and file employees necessary for
certification purposes is still sustained.
KML also claimed that its legitimacy as a labor union could not be collaterally
attacked in the certification election proceedings but only through a separate
and independent action for cancellation of union registration. Finally, as to
the alleged acts of misrepresentation, KML asserted that LEGEND failed to
substantiate its claim.
Ruling of the
Med-Arbiter
On September 20, 2001, the
Med-Arbiter[4]
rendered judgment[5]
dismissing for lack of merit the petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter found that indeed there were
several supervisory employees in KML’s membership. Since Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly
prohibits supervisory employees from joining the union of rank and file
employees, the Med-Arbiter concluded that KML is not a legitimate labor
organization. KML was also found to have
fraudulently procured its registration certificate by misrepresenting that 70
employees were among those who attended its organizational meeting on April 5,
2001 when in fact they were either at work or elsewhere.
KML thus appealed to the Office of
the Secretary of the DOLE.
Ruling of the
Office of the Secretary of DOLE
On May 22, 2002, the Office of the
Secretary of DOLE rendered its Decision[6]
granting KML’s appeal thereby reversing and setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s
Decision. The Office of the Secretary of
DOLE held that KML’s legitimacy as a union could not be collaterally attacked,
citing Section 5,[7]
Rule V of Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.
The Office of the Secretary of DOLE also
opined that Article 245 of the Labor Code merely provides for the prohibition
on managerial employees to form or join a union and the ineligibility of
supervisors to join the union of the rank and file employees and vice versa.
It declared that any violation of the provision of Article 245 does
not ipso facto render the existence
of the labor organization illegal.
Moreover, it held that Section 11, paragraph II of Rule XI which
provides for the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election
does not include mixed membership in one union.
The dispositive portion of the
Office of the Secretary of DOLE’s Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the order of the Med-Arbiter dated 20
September 2001 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly,
let the entire record of the case be remanded to the regional office of origin
for the immediate conduct of the certification election, subject to the usual
pre-election conference, among the rank and file employees of LEGEND
INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED with the following choices:
1.
KILUSANG
MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML-INDEPENDENT); and
2.
NO
Pursuant to Rule XI, Section II.1 of D.O. No. 9,
the employer is hereby directed to submit to the office of origin, within ten
days from receipt of the decision, the certified list of employees in the
bargaining unit for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of this
decision.
SO DECIDED.[8]
LEGEND filed its
Motion for Reconsideration[9]
reiterating its earlier arguments. It
also alleged that on August 24, 2001, it filed a Petition[10]
for Cancellation of Union Registration of KML docketed as Case No.
RO300-0108-CP-001 which was granted[11]
by the DOLE Regional Office No. III of San Fernando, Pampanga in its Decision[12]
dated November 7, 2001.
In a Resolution[13]
dated August 20, 2002, the Office of the Secretary of DOLE denied LEGEND’s
motion for reconsideration. It opined that Section 11, paragraph II(a), Rule XI
of Department Order No. 9 requires a final order of cancellation before a
petition for certification election may be dismissed on the ground of lack of
legal personality. Besides, it noted
that the November 7, 2001 Decision of DOLE Regional Office No. III of
Ruling of the Court
of Appeals
Undeterred, LEGEND filed a Petition
for Certiorari[14] with the Court of Appeals docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 72848. LEGEND alleged
that the Office of the Secretary of DOLE gravely abused its discretion in reversing
and setting aside the Decision of the Med-Arbiter despite substantial and
overwhelming evidence against KML.
For its part,
KML alleged that the Decision dated March 26, 2002 of the Bureau of Labor Relations
in Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001 denying LEGEND’s petition for cancellation and upholding
KML’s legitimacy as a labor organization has already become final and
executory, entry of judgment having been made on August 21, 2002.[15]
The Office of the Secretary of DOLE also
filed its Comment[16]
asserting that KML’s legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally. Finally, the Office of the Secretary of DOLE stressed
that LEGEND has no legal personality to participate in the certification
election proceedings.
On September 18, 2003, the Court of Appeals
rendered its Decision[17]
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Secretary
of DOLE. The appellate court held that
the issue on the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has already been
settled with finality in Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001. The March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations upholding the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization had
long become final and executory for failure of LEGEND to appeal the same. Thus, having already been settled that KML is
a legitimate labor organization, the latter could properly file a petition for
certification election. There was
nothing left for the Office of the Secretary of DOLE to do but to order the
holding of such certification election.
The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and finding
that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
has been committed by the Department of Labor and Employment, the assailed May
22, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution in Case No. RO300-106-RU-001
are UPHELD and AFFIRMED. The instant
petition is DENIED due course and, accordingly, DISMISSED for lack of merit.[18]
LEGEND filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[19]
alleging, among others, that it has appealed to the Court of Appeals the March
26, 2002 Decision in Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001 denying its petition for
cancellation and that it is still pending resolution.
On September 14, 2005, the appellate
court denied LEGEND’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the lone assignment
of error, viz:
WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION OF LAW IN DENYING THE PETITIONER’S
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.[20]
Petitioner’s
Arguments
LEGEND submits
that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in ruling that the March 26, 2002
Decision denying its Petition for Cancellation of KML’s registration has
already become final and executory. It
asserts that it has seasonably filed a Petition for Certiorari[21] before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 72659 assailing said Decision. In
fact, on June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed the
March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations and reinstated the
November 7, 2001 Decision of the DOLE Regional Office III ordering the
cancellation of KML’s registration.
Finally, LEGEND posits that the
cancellation of KML’s certificate of registration should retroact to the time of
its issuance.[22] It thus claims that the petition for
certification election and all of KML’s activities should be nullified because
it has no legal personality to file the same, much less demand collective
bargaining with LEGEND.[23]
LEGEND thus prays that the September
20, 2001 Decision of the Med-Arbiter dismissing KML’s petition for
certification election be reinstated.[24]
Respondent’s
Arguments
In its Comment filed before this
Court dated March 21, 2006, KML insists that the Decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations upholding its legitimacy as a labor organization has already
attained finality[25]
hence there was no more hindrance to the holding of a certification
election. Moreover, it claims that the
instant petition has become moot because the certification election sought to
be prevented had already been conducted.
Our Ruling
The petition is partly
meritorious.
LEGEND has timely appealed the
March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations to the Court of
Appeals.
We cannot
understand why the Court of Appeals totally disregarded LEGEND’s allegation in
its Motion for Reconsideration that the March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau
of Labor Relations has not yet attained finality considering that it has timely
appealed the same to the Court of Appeals and which at that time is still
pending resolution. The Court of Appeals never bothered to look
into this allegation and instead dismissed outright LEGEND’s motion for
reconsideration. By doing so, the Court
of Appeals in effect maintained its earlier ruling that the March 26, 2002
Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations upholding the legitimacy of KML as a
labor organization has long become final and executory for failure of LEGEND to
appeal the same.
This is
inaccurate. Records show that (in the
cancellation of registration case) LEGEND has timely filed on September 6, 2002
a petition for certiorari[26]
before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72659 assailing
the March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. In fact, KML received a copy of said petition
on September 10, 2002[27]
and has filed its Comment thereto on December 2, 2002.[28]
Thus, we find it quite interesting for
KML to claim in its Comment (in the certification petition case) before this
Court dated March 21, 2006[29] that the Bureau of Labor Relations’
Decision in the petition for cancellation case has already attained finality. Even in its Memorandum[30]
dated March 13, 2007 filed before us, KML is still insisting that the Bureau of
Labor Relations’ Decision has become final and executory.
Our perusal of
the records shows that on June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered its
Decision[31]
in CA-G.R. SP No. 72659 reversing the March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations and reinstating the November 7, 2001 Decision of the
Med-Arbiter which canceled the certificate of registration of KML.[32] On September 30, 2005, KML’s motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.[33] On November 25, 2005, KML filed its Petition
for Review on Certiorari[34]
before this Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 169972. However, the same was denied in a Resolution[35]
dated February 13, 2006 for having been filed out of time. KML moved for reconsideration but it was
denied with finality in a Resolution[36]
dated June 7, 2006. Thereafter, the said
Decision canceling the certificate of registration of KML as a labor
organization became final and executory and entry of judgment was made on July
18, 2006.[37]
The cancellation of KML’s
certificate of registration should not retroact to the time of its issuance.
Notwithstanding the
finality of the Decision canceling the certificate of registration of KML, we
cannot subscribe to LEGEND’s proposition that the cancellation of KML’s
certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance. LEGEND claims that KML’s petition for
certification election filed during the pendency of the petition for
cancellation and its demand to enter into collective bargaining agreement with
LEGEND should be dismissed due to KML’s lack of legal personality.
This issue is
not new or novel. In Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor,[38]
we already ruled that:
Anent the issue of whether or not the Petition to
cancel/revoke registration is a prejudicial question to the petition for
certification election, the following ruling in the case of Association of the Court of Appeals
Employees (ACAE) v. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, x x x is in point, to wit:
x x x It is well-settled rule that ‘a
certification proceedings is not a litigation in the sense that the term is
ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact
finding character.’ (Associated Labor
Unions (ALU) v. Ferrer-Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989]; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, 183 SCRA
451 [1990]. Thus, the technical rules of
evidence do not apply if the decision to grant it proceeds from an examination
of the sufficiency of the petition as well as a careful look into the arguments
contained in the position papers and other documents.
At any rate, the Court applies the established
rule correctly followed by the public respondent that an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the
pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of
the respondent union. The rationale for
this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had
the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing the
cancellation.[39]
(Emphasis supplied.)
In Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Hon.
Trajano,[40]
we also held that “the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union
registration does not preclude collective bargaining.”[41] Citing the Secretary of Labor, we held viz:
That
there is a pending cancellation proceedings against the respondent
In Association of Court of Appeals Employees v.
Ferrer-Calleja,[43]
this Court was tasked to resolve the issue of whether “the certification
proceedings should be suspended pending [the petitioner’s] petition for the
cancellation of union registration of the UCECA[44].”[45] The Court resolved the issue in the negative
holding that “an order to hold a
certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for
cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time
the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to
perform such act absent an order directing a cancellation.”[46] We reiterated this view in Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v.
Hon. Laguesma[47]
where we declared that “a certification
election can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to cancel the union
registration certificate. For the
fact is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition for
certification, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an
order directing its cancellation.”[48]
Based on the
foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a certification election may be
conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for
certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal
personality to file the same. There is
therefore no basis for LEGEND’s assertion that the cancellation of KML’s
certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or that
it effectively nullified all of KML’s activities, including its filing of the
petition for certification election and its demand to collectively bargain.
The legitimacy of the legal
personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for
certification election.
We agree with
the ruling of the Office of the Secretary of DOLE that the legitimacy of the
legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for
certification election proceeding. This
is in consonance with our ruling in Laguna
Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment[49]
that “such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only
through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing
it.”[50] We further held therein that:
This is categorically prescribed by Section 5,
Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V, which states as follows:
SEC. 5.[51] Effect
of registration. – The labor organization or worker’s association shall be
deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of
its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be
subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.
Hence, to raise the issue of the respondent
union’s legal personality is not proper in this case. The pronouncement of the Labor Relations
Division Chief, that the respondent union acquired a legal personality x x x
cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election.
The discussion of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment on this point is also enlightening, thus:
. . . Section 5, Rule V of D.O. 9 is instructive
on the matter. It provides that the
legal personality of a union cannot be the subject of collateral attack in a
petition for certification election, but may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation of union registration. This has been the rule since NUBE v. Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274
(1981). What applies in this case is the
principle that once a union acquires a legitimate status as a labor
organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is
cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.
Equally important is Section 11, Paragraph II,
Rule IX of D.O. 9, which provides for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor
organization only in the following instances: (1) appellant is not listed by
the Regional Office or the BLR in its registry of legitimate labor
organizations; or (2) appellant’s legal personality has been revoked or
cancelled with finality. Since appellant
is listed in the registry of legitimate labor organizations, and its legitimacy
has not been revoked or cancelled with finality, the granting of its petition
for certification election is proper.[52]
“[T]he legal
personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a
collateral attack. The law is very clear
on this matter. x x x The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor
organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on
the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued
to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. In may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V,
Book V of the Implementing Rules.”[53]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition
is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 18, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 72848 insofar
as it affirms the May 22, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution of the
Office of the Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment is AFFIRMED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar
as it declares that the March 26, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations in Case No. RO300-0108-CP-001 upholding that the legitimacy of
KML as a labor organization has long become final and executory for failure of
LEGEND to appeal the same, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
⃰ In lieu of Justice Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro per Special Order No. 947 dated February 11, 2011.
[1] CA rollo,
pp. 51-54.
[2]
[3]
[4] Atty. Brigida C. Fadrigon.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 290-301.
[6]
[7] Section 5. Effect of registration. – The labor organization or workers’
association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the
date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be
subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. (
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered cancelling the registration of Kilusang
Manggagawa sa Legenda. Let copy of this
Decision be furnished the Bureau of Labor Relations, the central registry of
unions and collective bargaining agreements under Article 231 of the Labor
Code. (
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] See KML’s Comment, id. at 385-402.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo of G.R. No. 169754, p. 826.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Rollo of G.R. No. 169972 (Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda-KML Independent v. Legend International
Resorts, Ltd.), p. 59.
[28] Rollo of G.R. No. 169754, p. 559.
[29]
[30]
[31] Rollo of G.R. No. 169972, pp. 35-45; penned by
Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[32] The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, public
respondent’s impugned March 26, 2002 decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered ordering
the REINSTATEMENT of the November 7, 2001 Decision in Case No. RO300-0108-P-001.
SO
ORDERED. (
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] 371 Phil. 30 (1999).
[39]
[40] 501 Phil. 144 (2005).
[41]
[42]
[43] G.R. No. 94716, November 15, 1991, 203 SCRA 596.
[44]
[45] Association of Court of Appeals
Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note 43 at 606.
[46]
[47] 334 Phil. 955 (1997).
[48]
[49] 497 Phil. 255 (2005).
[50]
[51] Now Section 8, Rule IV, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
[52] Laguna
Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment, supra note 49 at 266-267. Italics in the
original.
[53] San Miguel Corporation Employees
Union-Phil. Transport and General Workers Org. v. San Miguel Packaging Products
Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153, September 12,
2007, 533 SCRA 125, 145-146.