PAPERTECH, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. MED ARBITER MARION S. SEVILLA AND PAPERTECH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEAS)-ALU-TUCP, RESPONDENTS.
LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:
Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing public
respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla’s (i) Order dated November 23,
2012[1] in
NCR-P-CE-01-09-10-12 which granted private respondent’s petition for
certification election and ordered the election officer to conduct a
certification election among petitioner’s regular rank and file
employees, and (ii) Orders contained in the Minutes of the Pre-Election
Conference dated January 11, 2013[2] and Order/Instruction dated January 18, 2013,[3]
both of which directed the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office to proceed with the conduct of a certification election.
THE ANTECEDENTS
Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and packaging of various tissue, napkin and paper products
in wholesale and retail basis. It also supplies said products to
pharmaceutical, food and retail establishments.[4]
Private respondent Papertech Employees Association (PEAS)-ALU-TUCP is a
chartered local/chapter of Associated Labor Unions-Trade Union Congress
of the Philippines (ALU-TUCP).[5] Its members are employees of petitioner, while other employees are members of Papertech Labor Union (PALU)-NAFLU-KMU.
On October 23, 2007, PALU-NAFLU-KMU filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election.[6]
In an Order dated January 7, 2008, Med-Arbiter Michael Angelo T. Parado
granted the petition and ordered petitioner to submit a list of all its
rank and file employees.[7]
During the pre-election conference, petitioner submitted a list consisting of 165 names of its rank and file employees.[8] On January 30, 2008, PALU-NAFLU-KMU sent a letter to DOLE questioning sixty-four (64) names in the list.[9]
Allegedly, said employees were not known to the other members of
PALU-NAFLU-KMU. After the conduct of the certification election, the
votes cast by said sixty-four (64) employees were ordered to be
segregated and sealed in individual envelopes.[10]
Petitioner and PALU-NAFLU-KMU were directed by Med-Arbiter Michael Angelo T. Parado to file their respective position papers[11] concerning the sixty-four (64) segregated ballots. In an Order dated July 15, 2008,[12]
Med-Arbiter Michael Angelo T. Parado ordered the sixty-four (64)
segregated ballots to be opened and counted. In an Order dated September
3, 2008,[13] Med-Arbiter Alma
E. Magdaraog-Alba held that PALU-NAFLU-KMU “cannot be certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file workers of”
petitioner because when the sixty-four (64) segregated ballots were
opened and counted, it became clear that the employees preferred not to
be represented.
PALU-NAFLU-KMU filed an appeal[14]
with the Secretary of DOLE. While said appeal was awaiting resolution,
private respondent filed with the DOLE a petition for certification
election dated October 8, 2012.[15] Petitioner opposed private respondent’s petition.[16]
In an Order dated November 23, 2012,[17]
public respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla granted private
respondent’s petition for certification election and ordered the same to
be conducted by the election officer among the regular rank and file
employees of petitioner. Thus:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, a certification election among all the regular rank and file employees of PAPERTECH, INC. is hereby ORDERED CONDUCTED by the Election Officer, subject to the inclusion-exclusion proceedings, with the following choices:
1.) PAPERTECH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEAS)-ALU-TUCP; and
2.) No Union.
The petitioner and the company are hereby directed to submit
with the Election Officer during the initial pre-election conference a
certified list of employees in the bargaining unit, or where necessary,
the payrolls covering the said bargaining unit for the last three (3)
months prior to the issuance of this Order.SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[18]
of the Order dated November 23, 2012. During the pre-election
conference held on January 11, 2013, public respondent Med-Arbiter
Marion S. Sevilla treated petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as a
“protest on the conduct and result of the” certification election.[19]
During the pre-election conference held on January 15, 2013,
private respondent submitted a notice of dissolution effective January
8, 2013.[20] The records of the case were then forwarded to the Regional Director for action.
In a letter dated January 18, 2013,[21]
public respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla ordered the
certification election to proceed, maintaining that voluntary
dissolution is just one of the grounds for cancellation of registration
of labor organizations. Thus:
“Ms. Malou,
Please proceed with the conduct of Certification Election.
Section 3, Rule XIV of D.O.40F-03 provides ‘voluntary dissolution by the
members’ as just one of the grounds for cancellation of registration of
labor organization; as such cancellation of registration is not
automatic even if there is submission of the requirements provided
therein. Consequently, until and unless the Regional Director declares
the cancellation of union’s registration by reason of voluntary
dissolution, conduct of Certification Election shall proceed.Atty. Marion”
Thus, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition which is premised on the following grounds:
“A.
THE HONORABLE MED-ARBITER ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS
JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDING WITH THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDENCY OF PALU-NAFLU-KMU’S APPEAL WHICH UNDER
DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 40-03 SUSPENDS THE RUNNING OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.B.
THE HONORABLE MED-ARBITER ACTED WITHOUR OR IN EXCESS OF ITS
JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDING WITH THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF PEAS-ALU-TUCP.”[22]
THE ISSUE
Whether public respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the certification
election to proceed despite PALU-NAFLU-KMU’s appeal before the Secretary
of DOLE and private respondent’s notice of voluntary dissolution.
THE COURT’S RULING
Petitioner argues that “a petition for certification election
is not allowed pending appeal from the order of the Med-Arbiter because
at this time, there is yet no declaration of final certification
result.” Allegedly, “PALU-NAFLU-KMU’s appeal is still pending
resolution” by the Secretary of DOLE and “it is the Honorable DOLE
Secretary that has jurisdiction” over the same, not the Med-Arbiter.[23]
Furthermore, “assuming arguendo that the Honorable Med-Arbiter can rule
on the Appeal, it is nonetheless clear that the 15 July 2008 Order
could not possibly be considered interlocutory because there is nothing
else to be done after the contested ballots were ordered opened and
counted.”[24]
It must be stated at the outset that the when the sixty-four
(64) segregated ballots of PALU-NAFLU-KMU were opened and counted, the
votes for “No Union” won. Thus, PALU-NAFLU-KMU was not certified as
petitioner’s sole and exclusive bargaining unit, per Order dated
September 3, 2008.[25]
It is basic that a certification election is the process of
determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining refers to the negotiated contract between a
legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours
of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining
unit.[26]
Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended, explicitly provides
that a certification election shall be automatically conducted upon the
filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization in unorganized
establishments. Thus:
“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.”
Jurisprudence teaches that the employer’s participation in matters
concerning labor, particularly the choice of a collective bargaining
representative, is frowned upon and deserves no encouragement. While
employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such
nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with an
inalienable right to oppose it.[27] Thus:
“Even if there was no procedural flaw on the part of respondent,
still the Appellate Court should have denied respondent’s petition for
certiorari. We have held that “in certification elections, the employer
is a bystander, it has no right or material interest to assail the
certification election.”Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a
legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to
have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the
bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or
informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be
considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it.”
Public respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla cannot be said to
have acted arbitrarily when he ordered the conduct of a certification
election based on the petition filed by private respondent. As pointed
out in his Order dated November 23, 2012, “there exists no certification
election ban to prevent the conduct of another certification election
in the company,” and a certification election in an unorganized
establishment, like petitioner, must be immediately conducted. Thus:
“Examination of the records shows that the appeal that the
company (petitioner) is citing as a ban to the conduct of a
certification election, as pointed out by the petitioner, is an appeal
from the Order of the Med-Arbiter directing the opening and counting of
the segregated ballot. Clearly, the Order is an interlocutory one which
cannot be subject to appeal. True enough, the appeal was not taken into
consideration and the Order dated 3 September 2008 finally disposing of
the certification election was issued. Consequently, there exists no
certification election ban to prevent the conduct of another
certification election in the company.Furthermore, the company is unorganized and, and as embodied in
Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended, when the petition is filed by
a legitimate labor organization in an unorganized establishment, the
certification election should immediately be conducted.”[28]
Petitioner further posits that the petition for certification
election filed by private respondent should not have proceeded because
with with its voluntary dissolution, it lost “its standing to file a
petition for certification election and to represent the members of the
rank and file employees for purposes of collective bargaining since
there is no more union to speak of.” Allegedly, “unlike
inter/intra-union disputes, voluntary dissolution of a union does not
require the adjudication of rights and claims between parties,” “it is
simply an exercise by the union members of their corollary right to
disassociate on their own which must be recognized and respected by the
State.”[29]
It suffices to stress that there is no showing that a decree
of voluntary dissolution or final order cancelling private respondent’s
registration as a legitimate organization has been issued. Moreover,
although private respondent’s notice of dissolution was mentioned in the
minutes of the pre-election conference held on January 15, 2013,
private respondent “manifested that the C.E. (certification election)
must proceed per D.O. 40” and that “the mgt. (management) is just a mere
by-stander of this proceedings.”[30]
There is nothing in said minutes indicating that private respondent
backed out of its intention to conduct a certification election. Thus,
public respondent Med-Arbiter Marion S. Sevilla was correct in ordering
the certification election to proceed.
Noteworthy is the following ruling of the Secretary of DOLE in In
Re: Petition for Direct Certification/Consent of Certification Election
Among the Rank-and-File Employees of Paragon Printing Corporation:
“The union is the real party in interest in a petition for
certification election, and absent a decree of voluntary dissolution or a
final order cancelling its registration as a legitimate organization,
the resignation of some of its officers and members will not adversely
affect its standing and its petition for certification election. More
importantly, the rank-and-file bargaining unit sought to be constituted
is existing hence, there is no basis in holding that the petition for
certification election has been mooted by the resignations.“The Rules is (sic) unambiguous when it mandated that a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the
Mediator-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate
organization in unorganized establishment. Thus, since the subject
bargaining unit is unorganized, the Mediator-Arbiter has no choice but
to order the conduct of the certification election conformably with the
law.”[31]
As held by the Supreme Court in Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) vs. Samma Corporation:
“Furthermore, the grounds for dismissal of a petition for
certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor
organization are the following: (a) petitioner is not listed by the
Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of
legitimate labor organizations or (b) its legal personality has been
revoked or cancelled with finality in accordance with the rules.As mentioned, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of
the registration of petitioner on December 14, 2002. In a resolution
dated April 14, 2003, petitioner’s charter certificate was revoked by
the DOLE. But on May 6, 2003, petitioner moved for the reconsideration
of this resolution. Neither of the parties alleged that this resolution
revoking petitioner’s charter certificate had attained finality.
However, in this petition, petitioner prayed that its charter
certificate be “reinstated in the roster of active legitimate labor
[organizations].” This cannot be granted here. To repeat, the
proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration are
independent of those of a petition for certification election. This case
originated from the latter. If it is shown that petitioner’s legal
personality had already been revoked or cancelled with finality
in accordance with the rules, then it is no longer a legitimate labor
organization with the right to petition for a certification election.”[32]
Verily, there is grave abuse of discretion only when a court,
board, tribunal or official acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary
or despotic manner in the exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.[33] No
grave abuse of discretion has been shown to exist in the present case,
since the assailed Orders of public respondent are in accordance with
law and settled jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Sorongon[*] and Manahan[**], JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, per Office Order No. 240-14-ABR dated May 23, 2014
[**] Vice Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, per Office Order No. 241-14-ABR dated May 23, 2014
[1] pp. 26-30, Rollo
[2] p. 36, Ibid.
[3] p. 38, Ibid.
[4] p. 40, Ibid.
[5] p. 165, Ibid.
[6] p. 7, Ibid.
[7] p. 41, Ibid.
[8] pp. 51-64, Ibid.
[9] pp. 41-42, Ibid.
[10] pp. 42-43, Ibid.
[11] pp. 40-49, Ibid.; pp. 141-148, Ibid.
[12] pp. 149-155, Ibid.
[13] pp. 191-192, Ibid.
[14] pp. 156-164, Ibid.
[15] pp. 165-167, Ibid.
[16] pp. 170-174, Ibid.
[17] pp. 26-30, Ibid.
[18] pp. 31-35, Ibid.
[19] p. 36, Ibid.
[20] p. 37, Ibid.
[21] p. 38, Ibid.
[22] p. 9, Ibid.
[23] p. 11, Ibid.
[24] p. 12, Ibid.
[25] pp. 191-192, Ibid.
[26] Honda Phils, Inc. vs. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, 460 SCRA 186, June 15, 2005
[27] SMC Quarry 2 Worker’s Union-FSM Local Chapter No. 1564 vs. Titan Megabags Industrial Corp., 428 SCRA 524, May 19, 2004
[28] pp. 27-28, Rollo
[29] p. 15, Ibid.
[30] p. 37, Ibid.
[31] In OS-A-5-1-08, August 19, 2008. (Lex Libris)
[32] 581 SCRA 211, March 13, 2009
[33] Arsenio Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 864, March 27, 2000