A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR FRANKLIN DRILON AND PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF LABOR (A’-1 PRIME SECURITY SER­VICES, INC. – U.S. EMBASSY …

A' Prime Security Services versus Secretary Franklin Drilon

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by A' Prime Security Services, Incorporated against the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Franklin Drilon, and the Philippine Federation of Labor, the union that sought to represent the company's security guards assigned to the United States Embassy. The company asks the Supreme Court to annul the Secretary's orders calling for a certification election limited to the Embassy detachment as a separate bargaining unit. The case matters because it fixes two enduring labor-law rules: jurisdiction over a certification election appeal is determined by the statute in force when the action commenced, and a party may not abandon the forum that ruled against it and seek a friendlier ruling from a higher office, for that is forum-shopping.

Procedural History

On October 3, 1988, the union filed a petition for certification election before the Bureau of Labor Relations among the security guards assigned to the United States Embassy. The company moved to dismiss on three grounds: the guards were ineligible to join a labor organization, the twenty percent subscription requirement was not met because only 77 of 872 guards joined, and the union did not represent the proper bargaining unit. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, holding that the guards could join a union but that the twenty percent requirement failed when measured against the whole employer unit. The union appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Bureau's Director, Pura Ferrer-Calleja, found no variance in the nature of the work but nonetheless set aside the Med-Arbiter's order and called a certification election among all the security guards in the company. The union's motion for reconsideration was denied, with a warning that no further motion of any nature would be entertained. The union then filed a second motion for reconsideration, this time before the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Secretary Drilon granted it, finding clear recognizable economic and occupational differences and limiting the election to the Embassy guards as a separate bargaining unit. The Acting Secretary denied the company's motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

A' Prime Security Services employed security guards, some of whom were assigned to the United States Embassy and its facilities. On October 3, 1988, the Philippine Federation of Labor filed a petition for certification election covering those Embassy-assigned guards. Only 77 out of 872 security guards under the company's employ joined the petition.

The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for failure to meet the twenty percent subscription requirement, using the entire employer unit as the proper bargaining unit. On appeal, the union argued that its 150 members at the Embassy formed a separate bargaining unit because they had to meet certain educational qualifications and received higher pay. The Bureau of Labor Relations found no variance in the nature of the work, yet still set aside the dismissal and ordered a certification election among all the security guards in the company.

The union's motion for reconsideration was denied with a warning against further motions. Undaunted, the union filed a second motion for reconsideration before the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Secretary granted it, recognized economic and occupational differences, and limited the election to the Embassy guards as a separate bargaining unit. The Acting Secretary denied reconsideration, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and Employment acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the proper bargaining unit is not the entire employer unit but only the security guards assigned to the United States Embassy and its facilities.
• Whether or not the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment had competent jurisdiction to entertain the union's second motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Provisions

Article 259 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as it stood when the petition for certification election was filed, provided:

Appeal from certification election orders. Any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen calendar days.

This is the amended text introduced by Republic Act Number 6715, which took effect on March 21, 1989, and it is the provision around which the jurisdictional dispute turns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits of the bargaining unit question, because it found the jurisdictional issue decisive. On the second issue, the Court held that the Secretary of Labor and Employment had no jurisdiction to entertain the union's second motion for reconsideration.

The Court applied the settled rule that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, and that once acquired, it continues until the case is finally terminated. When the union filed its petition on October 3, 1988, the law in force was Article 259 of the Labor Code, which provided that appeals from certification election orders issued by the Med-Arbiter were to be taken to the Bureau of Labor Relations. The union appealed to the Bureau, and the Bureau resolved the appeal in its order of April 27, 1989. Although Republic Act Number 6715 transferred jurisdiction to the Secretary, the Bureau continued to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal consistently with the rule that jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is terminated.

The Court found that the union, after obtaining an unfavorable ruling from the Bureau, filed its second motion for reconsideration before the Secretary in circumvention of the warning that no further motion would be entertained. The Court characterized this as trifling with the orderly administration of justice, because the union availed itself of a two-tiered review of the Med-Arbiter's ruling, first by the Bureau and second by the Secretary, contrary to the intent of speedy adjudication under the Labor Code.

The Court further held that the second motion for reconsideration constituted an act partaking of the nature of forum-shopping, and quoted its own definition:

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari, in another.

The Court added that the rule prohibiting forum-shopping applies equally to multiple petitions in the same tribunal or agency. Having found that the Secretary had no jurisdiction, the Court set aside the questioned orders.

Doctrine

Two rules must be retained. First, jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, and once acquired, it continues until the case is finally terminated. Thus, where a certification election petition was filed while appeals from Med-Arbiter orders lay with the Bureau of Labor Relations, the Bureau retains jurisdiction over that appeal even after a subsequent statute transfers appellate authority to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Second, forum-shopping exists whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari, in another. The prohibition applies equally to multiple petitions in the same tribunal or agency. A party that obtains an unfavorable ruling from the Bureau may not file a second motion for reconsideration before the Secretary in the hope of a favorable ruling, for that evades the final and unappealable character of the Bureau's orders and defeats the speedy adjudication intended by the Labor Code.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the orders of the Secretary and Acting Secretary were annulled and set aside, and the order of the Bureau of Labor Relations was revived and reinstated, with costs against the private respondent.

Remember This

Memorize this line: jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is terminated, and seeking a favorable ruling from another forum after an adverse one is forum-shopping. Examiners use this case to test the effect of Republic Act Number 6715 on pending certification election appeals and to illustrate forum-shopping within the same agency.