ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), PETITIONER, VS. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS, TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, AND ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION…

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa versus Director of Labor Relations

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed directly with the Supreme Court by Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a duly registered labor union, against the Director of Labor Relations, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, General Milling Corporation, and the Associated Labor Unions. The petitioner asks the Court to compel the Director to decide an appeal in a certification election case, or in the alternative to order the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines to return the record of that case to the Director. The case matters because it fixes a constitutional-grade principle of labor administration: a public officer vested by the Labor Code with adjudicatory jurisdiction over representation cases cannot farm out that jurisdiction to a private federation, and an official public record cannot be handed over to a private entity.

Procedural History

The petition for certification election was filed by Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa with Regional Office Number 7 of the Ministry of Labor at Cebu City. The med-arbiter granted the petition in an order dated October 12, 1976 and directed that a certification election be held within twenty days from notice among the rank-and-file employees of the company at Lapu-Lapu City. The Associated Labor Unions appealed that order to the Director of Labor Relations. Instead of deciding the appeal, the Director turned over the record to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. After more than twenty months passed without a decision, Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa filed the present petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, alternatively praying that the federation be required to return the record to the Director.

Facts

On June 24, 1976, within sixty days prior to the expiration on August 19, 1976 of the unregistered collective bargaining agreement between the Associated Labor Unions and General Milling Corporation, Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa filed a petition for certification election with Regional Office Number 7 at Cebu City. The med-arbiter granted the petition on October 12, 1976 and ordered a certification election within twenty days from notice among the rank-and-file employees at Lapu-Lapu City.

The Associated Labor Unions appealed to the Director of Labor Relations. Rather than deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the record to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, allegedly by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry of Labor and the federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be referred to it for possible settlement under its Code of Ethics. The federation did not decide the controversy. More than twenty months after receiving the record, Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa filed this petition for mandamus.

The petitioner accused the federation of sitting indefinitely on the appeal because its president and the president of the appellant Associated Labor Unions are the same person. The federation admitted the common presidency but clarified that its executive board, not its president, would decide. The Director manifested willingness to decide the appeal and prayed that the record be returned to him immediately. The employer revealed that it had a registered collective bargaining agreement with the Associated Labor Unions expiring on August 19, 1979, presumably a renewal of the earlier unregistered agreement. The petitioner also alleged that it was affiliated with the federation only in 1978, long after the appeal was taken, and that other certification cases referred to the federation in 1976 remained unacted upon.

Issues

• Whether or not it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case.
• Whether or not the Director may lawfully deliver the original record of a labor case, an official public record, to a private person or entity.

Applicable Provisions

Article 226 of the Labor Code provides:

The Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.

This peremptory grant of original and exclusive authority is the basis for holding that the Director cannot surrender his adjudicatory jurisdiction to a private federation.

Article 259 of the Labor Code provides:

All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days.

This mandatory period shows that the law demands speedy action and forbids the delay caused by the referral.

Article 260 of the Labor Code provides that the Bureau of Labor Relations should decide appeals in representation cases:

within fifteen (15) working days

This deadline, read with the implementing rules, reinforces the policy of expeditious settlement of labor disputes.

Section 10, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code provides:

the decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and unappealable

This provision confirms that the appeal belonged to the Bureau and the Director, not to any outside body.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the referral of the appeal to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines is glaringly illegal and void. The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director's adjudicatory jurisdiction in representation cases. The Court stressed that the provisions on exclusive authority and on the mandatory periods for deciding certification cases and appeals are mandatory and should be strictly adhered to, being part and parcel of the adequate administrative machinery established by the Labor Code for the expeditious settlement of labor disputes. The referral is not only contrary to law but a patent nullification of the policy of the Labor Code to avoid delay in the adjudication of labor controversies.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Labor Code never intended that the original record of a labor case, an official public record, should be removed from its legitimate custodian and entrusted to a private person or entity. The delivery of an official public record to a private person is fraught with mischievous consequences. By imprudently and illegally delivering the record to the federation instead of a transcript, the Director placed himself in the pitiable situation of having to beg for its return and then to ask for a court order to compel it. The Court noted that the petitioner and the Director could have reconstituted the record and decided the appeal on that basis instead of awaiting the pleasure of the federation's officers.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the adjudicatory jurisdiction over certification election cases and representation cases is vested by law in the Bureau of Labor Relations and the regional labor relations divisions, and the Director of Labor Relations cannot delegate, abdicate, or relinquish that jurisdiction to a private person, entity, or labor federation; any such referral is void. Second, the periods fixed by the Labor Code for deciding certification cases and appeals are mandatory and must be strictly observed, because they implement the State policy of expeditious settlement of labor disputes. Third, the original record of a labor case is an official public record that must remain with its legitimate custodian and may not be delivered to a private party; at most, a transcript may be furnished. These rules flow directly from Article 226, Article 259, and Article 260 of the Labor Code as quoted above.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition: it ordered the president, secretary, or any responsible officer of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines to return to the Director of Labor Relations within forty-eight hours from notice the original record of the case, directed the Director to decide the appeal within ten days from receipt of the record, and taxed the costs against the federation.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Director of Labor Relations cannot abdicate, delegate, and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or federation, for such surrender is a void renunciation of adjudicatory jurisdiction. Examiners use this case on the non-delegability of labor adjudicatory power, on the mandatory periods for deciding certification cases, and on the irremovability of official public records from their lawful custodian.