Manila v. Laguesma

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Unless it has filed a petition for a certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, an employer has no standing to question such election or to interfere therein. Being the sole concern of the workers, the election must be free from the influence or reach of the company. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the March 31, 2000 Decision2 and the August 28, 2001 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 51287.

The assailed Decision disposed as follows: "In sum, the Court finds that public respondents did not commit any abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed decision and order. There is no capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction and hence there is no room for the issuance of the equitable writ of certiorari. "WHEREFORE , the instant petition is dismissed."4 The challenged Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the CA as follows: "On October 14, 1991, private respondent Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers & Employees Union (NGMTEU for brevity) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and registered with the Department of Labor & Employment (DOLE) under Registration Certificate No. 9989 filed with the Med-Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, (DOLE) a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file employees of petitioner NDGM. "On November 18, 1991, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued an order [granting the petition for certification election and] directing Adelayda C. Francisco, Representation Officer, to undertake a pre-election conference. The order reads: 'Considering the manifestation of petitioner its legal counsel praying that this case be submitted for resolution; and considering further that the respondent failed to appear on November 13, 1991 scheduled hearing despite knowledge of said hearing; and considering furthermore [that] respondent is [an] unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code, as amended, we rule to grant certification election instead of direct certification as prayed for by petitioner, in order to give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining agent.

'Accordingly, the Representation Officer is hereby directed to conduct the usual pre-election conference in connection thereof, taking into account the following choices: 1. Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union (NDGMTEU); and 2. No Union.

'SO ORDERED.' "On January 8, 1992, a pre-election conference was conducted wherein the parties agreed, among others, that the certification election shall be conducted on January 18, 1992 from 10:00 o'clock in the morning to 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon and that the eligible voters shall be 'those employees appearing in the list submitted by management as agreed upon by the parties by affixing their signatures on said list.' "On January 13, 1992, petitioner NDGM registered a motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters. On the same day, respondent Med-Arbiter Falconitin denied said motion by handwritten notation on the motion itself - '1/13/92 - The Rep. officer allow[s] only regular employees to vote'. "On January 17, 1992, petitioner NDGM filed an appeal from the said handwritten 'order' dated January 13, 1992 of Med.

Arbiter Falconitin in the form of a notation, in effect excluding probationary and substitute employees from the list of voters.

"On January 18, 1992, public respondent conducted a certification election with the following results: 'YES………….…….. 56 NO………………….. 23 Number of segregated Ballots……… 4 Number of spoiled Ballots……… 1