PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY (PSVSIA), GVM SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY (GVM) AND ABAQUIN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. (ASDA), PETITIO…

The sole issue presented for resolution in this petition for certiorari
with prayer for preliminary injunction is whether or not a single petition for
certification election or for recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent can validly or legally be filed by a labor union in three (3)
corporations each of which has a separate and distinct legal personality
instead of filing three (3) separate petitions.

On April 6, 1989, private respondent labor union, PGA Brotherhood
Association – Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), hereinafter referred to as
“the Union” filed a petition for Direct Certification/Certification
Election among the rank and file employees of Philippine Scout Veterans
Security and Investigation Agency (PSVSIA), GVM Security and Investigation
Agency, Inc. (GVM) and Abaquin Security and Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDA). These three agencies were collectively
referred to by private respondent Union as the “PGA Security Agency,”
which is actually the first letters of the corporate names of the agencies.

On April 11, 1989, summons was issued to the management of
PSVSIA, GVM, ASDA (PGA Security Agency) at 82 E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City.

On April 26, 1986, petitioners filed a single comment alleging
therein that the said three security agencies have separate and distinct
corporate personalities while PGA Security Agency is not a business or
corporate entity and does not possess any personality whatsoever; the petition
was unclear as to whether the rank-and-file employees mentioned therein refer
to those of the three security agencies collectively and if so, the labor union
cannot seek a certification election in three separate bargaining units in one
petition; the labor union included in their organization “security
supervisors,” in violation of R.A. 6715; and though R.A. 6715 is already
in effect, there were still no implementing rules therefor.

On May 4, 1989, the security agencies filed a Consolidated Motion
to Dismiss on the grounds that the 721 supporting signatures do not meet the
20% minimum requirement for certification election as the number of employees
totals 2374 and that there are no implementing rules yet of R.A. 6715.

On May 8, 1989, the Union filed an Omnibus Reply to Comment and
Motion to Dismiss alleging that it is clear that it is seeking a certification
election in the three agencies; that the apparent separate personalities of the
three agencies were used merely to circumvent the prohibition in R.A. 5847, as
amended by P.D. 11 and P.D. 100, that a security agency must not have more than
1,000 guards in its employ; that the three security agencies’ administration,
management and operations are so intertwined that they can be deemed to be a
single entity; and that the security supervisors cannot be deemed part of
management since they do not meet the definition of “supervisory
employees” found in Article 212(m), Labor Code, as amended by Section 4,
R.A. No. 6715.

On May 18, 1989, the security agencies filed a Rejoinder claiming
that there is no violation of R.A. 5487, as amended by P.D. 11 and P.D. 100
since the three agencies were incorporated long before the decrees’ issuance;
that mere duplication of incorporators does not prove that the three security
agencies are actually one single entity; and that security guard supervisors,
most especially detachment commanders, fall within the definition of the term
“supervisors.”

On July 6, 1989, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah issued an Order
in favor of the labor union finding that PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA should be deemed
as a single entity and bargaining unit for the purpose of union organizing and
the holding of a certification election. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a certification election
be conducted among the rank and file security guards of PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA
within twenty (20) days from receipt hereof with the usual pre-election
conference of the parties. The list of
eligible voters shall be based on the security agencies’ payroll three (3)
months prior to the filing of this petition with the following choices:

a) PGA Brotherhood
Association-Union of Filipino Workers (UFW); and

b) No union.

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

On July 21, 1989, the security agencies appealed the Med
Arbiter’s Order to the Secretary of Labor and employment claiming that said
Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the three
security agencies could be considered as a single bargaining entity for
purposes of the holding of a certification election.

On December 15, 1989, then Labor Secretary Franklin M. Drilon
denied the appeal for lack of merit while at the same time affirming the
Med-Arbiter’s Order of July 6, 1989. He
also ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. The dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal of respondents
Security agencies is hereby denied for lack of merit and the Order dated 6 July
affirmed.

“Let therefore, the pertinent records of this case be
immediately forwarded to the Regional Office for the immediate conduct of the
certification election.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

On January 5, 1990, the three security agencies filed a Motion
for Reconsideration arguing that they were denied their rights to due process
and that jurisdiction was not acquired over them by the labor authorities.

On January 26, 1990, the succeeding Labor Secretary, Ruben D.
Torres, likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and
reiterated the directive that a certification election be conducted without
further delay.

On March 14, 1990, the instant petition was filed by the three
security agencies, raising the following grounds:

“I

“SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.

“II

“GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR.”^[3]

Petitioners insist that there are three (3) corporations in this
petition, each of which has a separate and distinct corporate personality of
its own with separate registrations with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and different Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws; with separate sets
of corporate officers and directors; and no common business address except for
GVM and ASDA which are located at 1957 España corner Craig Streets, Sampaloc,
Manila.

Petitioners claim that the facts and circumstances of the case of
La Campana Coffee Factory, Inc. v. Kaisahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa La Campana^[4]
which public respondent claims to be on all fours with the instant case, are
very distinct from the facts and circumstance obtaining in the case at
bar. As to form of business
organization, in the La Campana case, only one of two (2) businesses was
a corporation i.e., the La Campana Coffee Factory, Inc. and the other, the La
Campana Gaugau Packing, is a “non-entity,” being merely a business
name. In the case at bar, all three (3)
agencies are incorporated. Moreover,
the issue involved in the instant case is one of representation while in the La
Campana case, the issue involved is the validity of a demand for wage
increases and other labor standards benefits.

Petitioners likewise contend that it was error to hold that the
three companies should be treated as one in a single bargaining unit in one
petition for certification elections resulting in a violation of the right to
due process of each corporation as no notice of hearing and other legal
processes were served on each of said corporations. Consequently, no jurisdiction was acquired on them by the
Department of Labor and Employment.

Petitioners’ arguments deserve scant consideration. The facts and circumstances extant in the
record indicate that the Med-Arbiter and Secretaries Drilon and Torres were not
mistaken in holding that the three security companies are in reality a single
business entity operating as a single company called the “PGA Security
Group” or “PGA Security Services Group.” Factual findings of labor
officials are conclusive and binding on the Court when supported by substantial
evidence.^[5]

The public respondent noted the following circumstances in the La
Campana case similar to the case at bar, as indicative of the fact that the La
Campana Coffee Factory and La Campana Gaugau Packing were in reality only one
business with two trade names: (1) the
two factories occupied the same address, wherein they had their principal place
of business; (2) their signboards, advertisements, packages of starch, delivery
trucks and delivery forms all use one appellation, “La Campana Starch and
Coffee Factory”; (3) the workers in either company received their pay from
a single cashier, and (4) the workers in one company could easily transfer to
the other company, and vice-versa. This
Court held therein that the veil of corporate fiction of the coffee factory may
be pierced to thwart the attempt to consider it apart from the other business
owned by the same family. Thus, the
fact that one of the businesses is not incorporated was not the decisive factor
that led the Court to consider the two factories as one. Moreover, we do not find any materiality in
the fact that the La Campana case was instituted to demand wage increases and
other labor standard benefits while this case was filed by the labor union to
seek recognition as the sole bargaining agent in the establishment. If businesses operating under one management
are treated as one for bargaining purposes, there is not much difference in
treating such businesses also as one for the preliminary purpose of labor
organizing.

Indeed, the three agencies in the case at bar failed to rebut the
fact that they are managed through the Utilities Management Corporation with
all of their employees drawing their salaries and wages from said entity; that
the agencies have common and interlocking incorporators and officers; and that
the PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA employees have a single Mutual Benefit System and
followed a single system of compulsory retirement.

No explanation was also given by petitioners why the security
guards of one agency could easily transfer from one agency to another and then
back again by simply filling-up a common pro forma slip called
“Request for Transfer”. Records also show that the PSVSIA, GVM and ASDA always hold joint yearly
ceremonies such as the “PGA Annual Awards Ceremony”. In emergencies, all PSVSIA Detachment
Commanders were instructed in a memorandum dated November 10, 1988 to get in
touch with the officers not only of PSVSIA but also of GVM and ASDA. All of these goes to show that the security
agencies concerned do not exist and operate separately and distinctly from each
other with different corporate directions and goals. On the contrary, all the cross-linking of the three agencies’
command, control and communication systems indicate their unitary corporate
personality. Accordingly, the veil of
corporate fiction of the three agencies should be lifted for the purpose of
allowing the employees of the three agencies to form a single labor union. As a single bargaining unit, the employees
therein need not file three separate petitions for certification election. All of these could be covered in a single
petition.

Petitioners’ claim of alleged defect in the petition for
certification election which although addressed to the three security agencies
merely alleged that there are only 1,000 employees when the total number of
employees in said security agencies is about 2,374 (PSVSIA – 1252; GVM – 807;
and ASDA – 315) thereby failing to comply with the legal requirement that at
least twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the bargaining unit must support
the petition, betrays lack of knowledge of the amendments introduced by R.A.
6715 which became effective on March 21, 1989, prior to the filing of the
petition for certification election on April 6, 1989. Under the amendments, there is no need for the labor union to
prove that at least 20% of the security guards in the three agencies supported
the petition. When a duly organized
union files a petition for certification election, the Med-Arbiter has the duty
to automatically conduct an election. He has no discretion on the matter. This is clearly the mandate of Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Section 24 of R.A. 6715, which now reads:

“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.”

The designation of the three agencies collectively as “PGA
Security Agency” and the service of summons to the management thereof at
82 E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City did not render the petition defective. Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon correctly
noted the fact that the affidavits executed separately and under oath by the
three managers of the three security agencies indicated their office address to
be at PSVSIA Center II, E. Rodriguez Sr. Blvd., Quezon City. Besides, even if there was improper service
of summons by the Med-Arbiter, the three (3) security agencies voluntarily
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the labor authorities. The summons were clearly sent to and
received by their lawyer who filed motions and pleadings on behalf of the three
security agencies and who always appeared as their legal counsel. It puzzles this Court why petitioners, who
claim to be separate entities, continue to be represented by one counsel even
in this instant petition.

Finally, except where the employer has to file a petition for
certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a
request to bargain collectively, it has nothing to do with a certification
election which is the sole concern of the workers. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade
Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano,^[6]
as that of a mere by-stander. It
has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the
petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a
certification election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a
company union.

This Court’s disapprobation of management intereference in
certification elections is even more forceful In Consolidated Farms, Inc. v.
Noriel,^[7]
where we held:

“On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor,
the choice of a collective bargaining representative, the employer is
definitely an intruder. His
participation, to say the least, deserves no encouragement. This Court should be the last agency to lend
support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair of
labor.”

Indeed, the three security agencies should not even be adverse
parties in the certification election itself. We note with disapproval the title given to the petition for
certification election of the Union by the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of
Labor naming the three security agencies as respondents. Such is clearly an error. While employers may rightfully be notified or
informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered
parties thereto with concomitant right to oppose it. Sound policy dictates that they should maintain a strictly
hands-off policy.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned
decision of the Secretary of Labor, the instant petition for certiorari
is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Puno, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 36.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 20

^[3]
Ibid., p. 9.

^[4]
93 Phil. 160, (1968).

^[5]
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna, G.R. No. 88538, 199 SCRA 568
(1991).

^[6]
G.R. No. 61153, 120 SCRA 64 (1983).

^[7]
L-47752, 84 SCRA 469 (1978).