FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO AND RICARDO C. CASTRO, FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC.…

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set
aside the decision of the respondent Director which affirmed the Order of the
Med-Arbiter in the petition for certification election (NCR-LRD-N-2-050-86)
filed by private respondent, thus ordering the holding of a certification elect­ion
among the rank and file employees of the herein petitioner.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner, Far Eastern University-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Memorial
Foundation, Inc., has a work force of about 350 rank and file employees,
majority of whom are members of private respondent Alliance of Filipino
Workers.

On February 13, 1986, private respondent filed a Peti­tion for
Consent and/or Certification Election with The Ministry of Labor and
Employment.  The petitioner opposed the
petition on the ground that a similar petition involving the same issues and
the same parties is pending resolution before the Supreme Court, docketed as
G.R. No. L-49771.

In its position paper, private respondent admitted:  that as early as May 10, 1976, private
respondent filed a similar petition for certification election with the
Ministry of Labor and Employment but the petition was denied by the MED Arbiter
and the Secretary of Labor on appeal, on the ground that the petitioner was a
non-stock, non-profit medical institution, therefore, its employees may not
form, join, or organize a union pursuant to Article 244 of the Labor Code; that
private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-49771) assailing the constitutionality of Article
244 of the Labor Code; that pending resolution of the aforesaid petition, or on
May 1, 1980, Batas Pambansa Bilang 70 was enacted amending Article 244 of the
Labor Code, thus granting even employees of non-stock, non-profit institutions
the right to form, join and organize labor unions of their choice; and that in
the exercise of such right, private res­pondent filed another petition for
certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment
(NCR-LRD-N-2-050-86).

On April 17, 1986, the Med Arbiter issued an Order grant­ing the
petition, declaring that a certification election be conducted to determine the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of the
petitioner (p. 4, Rollo).

Respondent Director
affirmed said Order on appeal.  In
dismissing the appeal, however, respondent Director said that:

“xxx respondent’s (petitioner herein) reliance on the petition
with the Supreme Court involving as it does the provisions of Article 244 of
the Labor Code vis-a?vis the
character of the hospital, which has been alleged as a non-profit medical
foundation, has been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the amendatory
BP#70, which allows employees of non-profit medi­cal institutions to unionize.

Whatever doubt there may be on the right of the workers in a
medical institution has been laid to rest by BP#70.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit and the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated 17 April
1986 affirmed x x x.” (p. 19, Rollo)

Hence, this petition,
raising the issue of whether or not respondent Director gravely abused his
discretion in granting the petition for certification election, despite the
pendency of a similar petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 49771) which
involves the same parties for the same cause.

The Petition is devoid of
merit.

At the time private
respondent filed its petition for certification election on February 13, 1986,
Article 244 of the Labor Code was already amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70,
to wit:

“Art.
244.  Coverage and employees’ right to
self-organization. – All persons employed in commercial, industrial and
charitable, medical, or educational insti­tutions whether operating
for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. 
Ambulant inter­mittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people,
rural workers and those without any
definite employers may form labor organ­izations for the purpose of enhancing
and defending their interests and for their mutual aid and protection.”

(underscoring supplied).

Under the aforequoted
provision, there is no doubt that rank and file employees of non-profit medical
institutions (as herein petitioner) are now permitted to form, organize or join
labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective bar­gaining.  Since private respondent had complied with
the requi­sites provided by law for calling a certification election (p. 15,
Rollo), it was incumbent upon respondent Director to con­duct such
certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of
petitioner’s employees (Samahang Manggagawa Ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel,
134 SCRA 152).

As held in Quimpo v. Dela
Victoria, 46 SCRA 139, in order that the pendency of another action between the
same par­ties for the same cause may be availed of as a ground to dismiss a
case, there must be, between the action under consideration and the other
action:  (1) identity of parties, or at
least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two preceding particulars
should be such that any judg­ment which may be rendered on the other action
will, regard­less of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.

In the instant case, any
judgment which may be rendered in the petition for certiorari pending
before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-49771) will not constitute res judicata in the
petition for certification election under consideration, for while in the
former, private respondent questioned the constitutionality of Article 244 of
the Labor Code before its amendment, in the latter, private respondent invokes
the same article as already amended.

Petitioner, however, has
pointed out that respondent Director
should not have arrogated upon himself the power to declare the aforesaid
petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-­49771) moot and academic, as the
same is sub–judice
and only the Supreme Court can
decide the matter.  The Director
cannot be faulted for he had to make a decision.

WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED, and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz,
and Gancayco, JJ., concur.