ELIZALDE & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION AND PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Elizalde & Co., Inc., as owner
and/or operator of the sugar cane plantations known as Haciendas Esperanza, Najalin, Consuelo, Balbina and Caiñaman, filed the present petition, praying for the
review and reversal of the orders of the Court of Agrarian Relations (in its
Case No. L-216, Bacolod
City), dated August 20, 1964, September 12, 1964 and January 11, 1965.

On April 20, 1964,
the Associated Labor Union (ALU) petitioned the Court of Agrarian Relations in Bacolod City
(No. L?216) for the holding of a certification election among all the
agricultural workers in the five sugar cane plantations owned and/or operated
by Elizalde & Co., Inc., in the district of La
Carlota, Occidental Negros, to enable them to select
their exclusive bar­gaining representative. 
It proposed the selection of only one bargaining agent for all the
workers, permanent and seasonal alike, in the five haciendas (Esperanza,
Najalin, Consuelo, Balbina
and Caiñaman) to
which proposal the management
did not disagree.

The Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) and the
Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Labor Organization (CAILO), however,
intervened, praying that separate certification elections be conducted in each
of the five sugar cane plantations, and that one bargaining unit be designated
for the permanent workers and another for the seasonal workers or sacadas. 
After the hearing, during which the parties entered into certain
stipulations of fact, the court issued an order, dated August 20, 1964,
directing the conducting of separate certification elections – one for
permanent workers and one for seasonal workers – in each of the five planta­tions,
reasoning that the arrangement would promote the best interests of the workers
in each hacienda.  The ruling was
based on the court’s finding that although the haciendas are owned
and/or operated by Elizalde & Co., Inc., they are
administered separately by different individuals; that each of the plantations
is big enough to be considered an employer unit; and that, the petitioner union
(ALU) counts memberships among all the employees of the five planta­tions; the intervenor PAFLU, among the
permanent employees of three plantations, while intervenor
CAILO has members only among the permanent workers of one plantation.

It does not appear when the management received notice of this
order, which is dated August 20, 1964,
but the records show that Elizalde & Co., Inc., filed a motion for its reconsideration dated September 1, 1964,^[1]
complaining that to require it to deal with ten small units virtually amounts
to harassment of the manage­ment.  This
motion was denied on September 12,
1964.  It also appears on
record that in compliance with the August 20, 1964 – order of the Court,
certification elections were conducted by the Department of Labor on November
16, 18, 23, 24 and 25, 1964.  And,
following the results of these elections, the Agrarian Court, on January 11,
1965 issued an order^[2]
certifying PAFLU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the
permanent workers in Haciendas Esperanza, Najalin
and Balbina, while the Associated Labor Union was certified as the bargaining agent
of the temporary or seasonal workers in the same haciendas Esperanza, Najalin and Balbina, as well as
of all the workers (permanent and seasonal) in hacienda Consuelo.  No representative was certified far the workers in hacienda Caiñaman, who returned “no-union” votes.  On February
20, 1965, Elizalde & Co., Inc., filed the present petition in this Court for the purpose
already stated at the beginning of this opinion.

Herein petitioner is taking an appeal from the orders of the
Agrarian Court of August 20, 1964, holding that there should be separate bargaining units for permanent workers
and seasonal workers, in each of the five sugar cane plantations; from the order of September 12, 1964,
denying its motion for reconsideration; and from the order of January 11, 1965,
certifying the unions voted for in the certification elections conducted by the
Department of Labor.

Under the Revised Rules of Court, any party may appeal from a
final order, ruling or decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations by filing
with said tribunal a notice of appeal and with this Court, the required number
of petition for review or certiorari, within 15 days (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 43) from receipt of the order, ruling
or decision being contested.

The presumption that the first two orders have become executory for lack of timely appeal is rendered conclusive,
not only by the holding of the certification elections on November 16, 18, 23,
24 and 25, 1964, but also by petitioner’s failure to state in the petition that
the appeal from the aforesaid orders is made within the period.^[3]
The appeal from the orders of August
20, 1964 and September 12,
1964, therefore, must be ruled out for being out of time.

Similarly, the appeal fruit the order of January 11, 1965 must be dismissed.  Petitioner, having been notified of this
order on February 4, 1965,
the filing of the petition in this Court on February 20, 1965, was clearly beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

But even assuming that the correctness and legality of the orders
of November 1964 and January 11, 1965
could still be properly entertained by this Court, there is nothing in the
allegations of the petition that would justify reversal.  It is well to reiterate, in this connection,
that the determination of what constitutes a proper bargaining unit, like any
other phase of certification proceedings, lies primarily in the discretion of
the trial Court, since no individual factor is given by law decisive weight,
and we see nothing that indicates arbitrariness or abuse of discretion by the
Court below.^[4]
Further, that each Hacienda has its separate administrator strongly
supports the orders complained of, as labor conflicts due to manage­ment
practices in one plantation will not necessarily involve the others.

Petitioner’s claim of nullity of the certification-order of January 11, 1965 is further weakened
in that it is premised on its main proposition that the designation of separate
bargaining units for the workers in the five sugar cane plantations is not
supported by law and existing jurisprudence. 
As the issue of the constitution of appropriate bargaining units for the
workers can no longer be passed upon, the same having been barred by
prescriptive limitations, besides being conformable to law and jurisprudence,
the attack against the certification-order necessarily must fail.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed, without
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, J.J., concur.

^[1]
Supplemented on September 9 and 24, 1964.

^[2]
Copy of this order was received by Elizalde & Co.
on February 4, 1965. (p. 4,
Petition)

^[3]
See Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation vs. Progressive
Labor Association, L-21725, Sept. 15, 1967.

^[4]
LVN Pictures Inc. vs. Musicians Guild (FFW) et al. L-12582, January 28, 1961; Benguet
Consolidated Inc. vs. Bobok Lumber Jack
Association, L-11029, May 23, 1958.