MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION (DISTRIBUTION CENTER) EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, PETITIONER, VS. MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Mercury Drug Corporation Employees Union-FFW versus Mercury Drug Corporation

The Case

This is a labor law case between a labor union, the Mercury Drug Corporation Employees Union-FFW, and its employer, Mercury Drug Corporation. The union sought to be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the company's rank-and-file employees. The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari, and it matters because it clarifies two important rules: first, when a dismissed employee remains qualified to vote in a certification election, and second, the strict requirements of the certification against forum shopping in labor cases.

Procedural History

The union filed a request for certification election in March 2018. After the election, the company filed a protest, and the Mediator-Arbiter ruled against the union, declaring it failed to secure the required majority. The union appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who reversed the Mediator-Arbiter's order and remanded the case for the opening of a segregated ballot. The company then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition and reinstated the Mediator-Arbiter's order. The union's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting it to file the present petition with the Supreme Court.

Facts

In June 2018, a certification election was held among the rank-and-file employees of Mercury Drug Corporation. The union received 45 votes, while 44 employees voted for no union. One ballot was segregated because it belonged to Bernabe Valencia, the union president, who had been dismissed from employment just days before the election. The company protested the treatment of certain ballots and the appropriateness of the bargaining unit.

Valencia had filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board after his dismissal, but he did not file an illegal dismissal case with the National Labor Relations Commission until much later. While the case was pending before the Court of Appeals, the Mediator-Arbiter implemented the Secretary of Labor's directive to canvass Valencia's ballot, but the original envelope was missing, so Valencia was made to cast a new vote. The union was then certified as the sole bargaining agent. The company appealed, and a second case was filed before the Court of Appeals, which ruled against the union. The union failed to disclose this second case in its certification against forum shopping when it filed the present petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the union's failure to disclose the pending case before the Court of Appeals in its certification against forum shopping warrants the dismissal of the petition.
• Whether or not a dismissed employee who filed only a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, and not an illegal dismissal case with the National Labor Relations Commission, is an eligible voter in a certification election.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the union failed to secure the required majority of valid votes.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

This provision requires full disclosure of related cases, and the failure to comply is a ground for dismissal.

Section 5, Rule IX of the Department of Labor and Employment Department Order Number 40-03 provides:

SECTION 5. Qualification of Voters; inclusion-exclusion.— All employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a certification election shall be eligible to vote. An employee who has been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election.

This provision governs the eligibility of dismissed employees to vote in certification elections.

Article 224 of the Labor Code provides:

ARTICLE 224. [217] Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission.—(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: (1) Unfair labor practice cases; (2) Termination disputes; (3) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; (4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; (5) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and (6) Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

This provision vests original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes in the Labor Arbiters.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the union's failure to disclose the pending case in its certification against forum shopping was a violation of the mandatory requirement. However, the Court found that the omission was not willful, as the union acknowledged the pendency of the case in its reply. The Court chose to resolve the petition on the merits to settle the legal issues and prevent further uncertainty in the certification process.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that Valencia was not an eligible voter because he failed to contest his dismissal before a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the certification election. The Court reasoned that a termination dispute falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, and the filing of a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board cannot substitute for this jurisdictional requirement. The Court explained:

No act undertaken before any other office or tribunal, including the filing of a Notice of Strike with the NCMB, can substitute for the jurisdictional requirement that termination disputes be directly contested before the LA.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the union failed to secure the required majority of valid votes, regardless of whether the valid votes numbered 91 or 92.

Doctrine

A dismissed employee is qualified to vote in a certification election only if the legality of the dismissal was contested before a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of the election. The forum of appropriate jurisdiction for termination disputes is the Labor Arbiter, not the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. A Notice of Strike does not constitute a contest of dismissal. The certification against forum shopping requires full disclosure of all pending cases involving the same issues, and failure to comply is a ground for dismissal, though it may be excused in special circumstances.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the union's petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had nullified the Secretary of Labor's resolutions and reinstated the Mediator-Arbiter's order declaring that the union failed to secure the required majority.

Remember This

Remember that a dismissed employee must contest the dismissal before the Labor Arbiter to remain eligible to vote in a certification election, and a Notice of Strike is not enough. Examiners often use this case to test both the procedural rule on forum shopping and the substantive rule on voter eligibility in certification elections.