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

Elizalde and Company versus Court of Agrarian Relations

The Case

This is a petition brought by Elizalde and Company, Incorporated, as owner and operator of five sugar cane plantations, against the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Associated Labor Union, and the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions. Elizalde asks the Supreme Court to review and reverse three orders of the agrarian court concerning the holding of certification elections and the choice of bargaining representatives for its agricultural workers. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules for the Bar: that the determination of an appropriate bargaining unit lies primarily in the discretion of the trial court, and that a final order of the Court of Agrarian Relations must be appealed within the fifteen-day reglementary period, failing which it becomes executory.

Procedural History

The Associated Labor Union filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations in Bacolod City, asking for a single certification election among all the agricultural workers of the five haciendas. The Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions and the Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Labor Organization intervened, praying instead for separate elections in each plantation and for separate units for permanent and seasonal workers. After hearing, the agrarian court issued an order on August 20, 1964, directing separate certification elections for permanent and for seasonal workers in each of the five plantations. Elizalde moved for reconsideration, and that motion was denied on September 12, 1964. Elections were then conducted by the Department of Labor in November 1964, and on January 11, 1965 the agrarian court issued an order certifying the winning unions. Elizalde received a copy of that last order on February 4, 1965, and filed its petition with the Supreme Court on February 20, 1965.

Facts

Elizalde and Company owned or operated five sugar cane plantations in the district of La Carlota, Occidental Negros: Haciendas Esperanza, Najalin, Consuelo, Balbina, and Caiñaman. The Associated Labor Union sought one certification election covering all the workers, permanent and seasonal alike, across the five haciendas, and management did not disagree with that proposal. Two other unions intervened and asked for separate elections in each plantation, with one unit for permanent workers and another for the seasonal workers, called sacadas.

The agrarian court found that although the haciendas are owned or operated by one company, they are administered separately by different individuals; that each plantation is big enough to be considered an employer unit; and that the unions drew their memberships differently, the Associated Labor Union from all five plantations, the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions from the permanent employees of three, and the Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Labor Organization from the permanent workers of one. On these findings the court ordered separate elections for permanent and seasonal workers in each plantation, reasoning that this arrangement would promote the best interests of the workers in each hacienda.

Elizalde moved for reconsideration, complaining that to require it to deal with ten small units virtually amounted to harassment of management, but the motion was denied. Elections were held in November 1964. Following the results, the agrarian court certified the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions as the sole bargaining representative of the permanent workers in Haciendas Esperanza, Najalin, and Balbina, and the Associated Labor Union as bargaining agent of the seasonal workers in those same haciendas and of all the workers in Hacienda Consuelo. No representative was certified for Hacienda Caiñaman, whose workers returned no-union votes.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal from the orders of August 20, 1964 and September 12, 1964 was filed within the fifteen-day reglementary period.
• Whether or not the appeal from the certification order of January 11, 1965 was filed on time.
• Whether or not the agrarian court abused its discretion in designating separate bargaining units for permanent and seasonal workers in each of the five plantations.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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 from receipt of the order, ruling or decision being contested.

This fixes the period within which Elizalde had to bring its appeal, and its failure to comply rendered the challenged orders final.

Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court is invoked in the same breath by the Court as governing the same fifteen-day period for the petition for review or certiorari.

Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 43

These are the provisions the Court applies in holding that the appeals were filed out of time.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the appeal from the orders of August 20, 1964 and September 12, 1964 must be ruled out for being out of time. The presumption that these orders had become executory was rendered conclusive not only by the holding of the certification elections in November 1964, but also by the petitioner's failure to state in its petition that the appeal was made within the period.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the appeal from the order of January 11, 1965 must likewise be dismissed. Elizalde was notified of that order on February 4, 1965, and it filed its petition on February 20, 1965, clearly beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period.

On the third issue, the Court held that even assuming the orders could still be entertained, nothing in the petition justified reversal. The determination of what constitutes a proper bargaining unit lies primarily in the discretion of the trial court, since no individual factor is given by law decisive weight, and the Court saw nothing indicating arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. The fact that each hacienda has its own separate administrator strongly supported the orders, because labor conflicts arising from management practices in one plantation would not necessarily involve the others. Since the issue of the constitution of appropriate bargaining units could no longer be passed upon, having been barred by prescriptive limitations and being in any event conformable to law and jurisprudence, the attack on the certification order necessarily failed.

Doctrine

First, 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, because no individual factor is given by law decisive weight. Absent a showing of arbitrariness or abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb that determination.

Second, a final order of the Court of Agrarian Relations must be appealed within fifteen days from receipt, in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. Once that period lapses, the order becomes executory, and the appellate court may no longer pass upon the merits of the very issue the order resolved.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without costs, and the challenged orders of the Court of Agrarian Relations stood.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the choice of an appropriate bargaining unit rests primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that a final agrarian order unappealed within fifteen days becomes executory. Examiners use this case to test the prescriptive period for appealing Court of Agrarian Relations orders and the deference owed to the trial court's determination of bargaining units.