CELINE MARKETING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND CONFEDERATION OF FILIPINO WORKERS (CFW), RESPONDENTS.

Celine Marketing Corporation filed a petition for certiorari
to review the resolution dated March 5, 1991 of the Undersecretary of Labor and
Employment. Bienvenido Laguesma,
ordering the holding of a certification election among its rank-and-file employees,
as prayed for in a petition filed on August 26, 1990, by the Confederation of
Filipino Workers (or CFW), praying that it be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner.

On September 10, 1990, the petition was amended to include all
the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner in its outlets at
Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North; Ginza-Esperanza-Shoe Mart;
SM Car Park-Celine Marketing; Gold Crest-Makati; Greenbelt-Celine; Makati Ginza-Esperanza-Tesoro
Building; Mabini-Celine, Mabini; Escolta-Celine Escolta; and Escolta
Ginza-Esperanza Escolta, comprising more or less 100 employees.

The petitioner moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that
the CFW had not been authorized by a majority of the rank-and-file-employees,
and that it failed to submit a copy of the charter certificate issued to the
local union.

At the hearing before the Labor Arbiter on October 16, 1991, CFW
submitted a xerox copy of the charter certificate issued to its local union, “Celine
Marketing Corp. Workers Chapter-CFW.”

The petitioner moved to strike it from the records for
non-production of the original and for lack of proof that the organizational
documents of the union had been filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

On October 19, 1990, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on
those grounds.

The union appealed the order to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, who, on March 5, 1991, through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma,
granted the appeal. The dispositive
portion of the resolution reads:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby granted and the Order
appealed from set aside. A new Order is
hereby entered directing the conduct of a certification election among the
rank-and-file employees of Celine Marketing Corporation/Ginza Esperanza and all
its outlets at Landmark-Makati; Shoppesville-Greenhills; SM-North; Ginza
Esperanza Shoe Mart; SM-Car Park-Celine Marketing; Gold Crest?Makati-Celine
Makati; Greenbelt? Celine; Makati Ginza Esperanza ?Tesoro Building;
Mabini-Celine Mabini; Escolta-Celine Escolta; Escolta Ginza Esperanza Escolta
with the following choices:

“1. CFW-Celine Marketing Corp. Workers Chapter;
and

“2. No Union.

“The payroll three (3) months prior to the filing of the
petition shall be the basis for determining the list of eligible voters.

“Let therefore, the pertinent records of the case be forwarded
to the Office of origin for the conduct of certification election.” (pp.
12-13, Rollo.)

Hence, this petition for certiorari in which petitioner
assails the resolution of respondent Undersecretary Laguesma on the grounds
that:

1. The Undersecretary of Labor and Employment
acted in excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s order to
conduct a certification election because the appeal of CFW was addressed to the
Secretary of Labor & Employment himself who could not delegate the power of
review to the Undersecretary.

2. The Undersecretary of Labor & Employment
erred in setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s order despite the failure of the
private respondent to comply with the mandatory requirements in Section 3, Rule
II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code as amended.

The petition has no merit.

The issuance of the questioned resolution by Undersecretary of Labor Laguesma was not irregular for he did
so by authority of the Secretary
of Labor & Employment. Not having
been repudiated or reversed by the
head of office, that resolution has the
force and effect of a resolution of the Secretary himself. (Hannibal Bridge Co. vs. U.S., 221 U.S. 194,
55 L. ed. 699, 31 CT. 603; Alvord vs. U.S.,
95 U.S. 356, 24 L. ed. 414; pp. 53-54, 2 Am. Jur. 2d.)

While it may be true that the petition for certification election
did not carry the authorization of a majority of the rank-and-file employees of
the petitioner, their consent is not necessary when the bargaining unit that
the union seeks to represent, is still unorganized. The petition for certification election may be filed by any
union, not by the employees. Thus,
Article 257 of the Labor Code,
as amended by R.A. 6715, provides:

“Art. 257. Petitions
in unorganized establishments. – In any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification
election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a
legitimate labor organization.”

The law assumes that the
union is the real party in interest in a petition for certification
election. Anyway, the certification
election itself is the appropriate forum for the employees to express their
choice of a bargaining representative or none at all.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
Undersecretary’s resolution ordering the holding of a certification election
among the petitioner’s employees, this petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.