581 Phil. 359
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
We scrutinize the facts and evidences presented by the parties and arrived at a decision that at least two (2) members of [KFWU], namely: Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are supervisory employees, having a number of personnel under them. Being supervisory employees, they are prohibited under Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended, to join the union of the rank and file employees. Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr., Chief Engineers of the Maintenance and Manufacturing Department, respectively, act as foremen to the line engineers, mechanics and other non- skilled workers and responsible [for] the preparation and organization of maintenance shop fabrication and schedules, inventory and control of materials and supplies and tasked to implement training plans on line engineers and evaluate the performance of their subordinates. The above-stated actual functions of Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are clear manifestation that they are supervisory employees.On the basis of the aforecited decision, respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU,[13] the final outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the records.
x x x x
Since petitioner's members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees, petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory employees from it membership before it can attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. The above judgment is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Toyota Case[10] wherein the High Tribunal ruled:"As respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five Positions, the union could not prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election." (Underscoring omitted.)x x x x
Furthermore, the commingling of rank and file and supervisory employees in one (1) bargaining unit cannot be cured in the exclusion- inclusion proceedings [at] the pre-election conference. The above ruling is supported by the Decision of the Supreme Court in Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), Inc. vs. Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. 131248 dated December 11, 1998[11] x x x.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certification election is hereby dismissed for lack of requisite legal status of petitioner to file this instant petition.
SO ORDERED. [12] (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated 17 May 2000 of the Med-Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let the entire records of the case be remanded to the office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election, subject to the usual pre-election conference, among the rank-and-file employees of Kawashima Textile Manufacturing Philippines, Inc. with the following choices:The DOLE held that Med-Arbiter Bactin's reliance on the decisions of the Court in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union[16] and Dunlop Slazenger, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment[17] was misplaced, for while Article 245 declares supervisory employees ineligible for membership in a labor organization for rank-and-file employees, the provision did not state the effect of such prohibited membership on the legitimacy of the labor organization and its right to file for certification election. Neither was such mixed membership a ground for cancellation of its registration. Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule XI of Department Order No. 9 "provides for the dismissal of a petition for certification election based on lack of legal personality of a labor organization only on the following grounds: (1) [KFWU] is not listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate labor organizations; or (2) [KFWU's] legal personality has been revoked or canceled with finality."[18] The DOLE noted that neither ground existed; on the contrary, KFWU's legal personality was well-established, for it held a certificate of creation and had been listed in the registry of legitimate labor organizations.Pursuant to Rule XI, Section 11.1 of the New Implementing Rules, the employer is hereby directed to submit to the office of origin the certified list of current employees in the bargaining unit for the last three months prior to the issuance of this decision.
- Kawashima Free Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No. 803; and
- No union.
SO DECIDED. [15]
Since respondent union clearly consists of both rank and file and supervisory employees, it cannot qualify as a legitimate labor organization imbued with the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election. This infirmity in union membership cannot be corrected in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during the pre-election conference.KFWU filed a Motion for Reconsideration[23] but the CA denied it.
Finally, contrary to the pronouncement of public respondent, the application of the doctrine enunciated in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union was not construed in a way that effectively denies the fundamental right of respondent union to organize and seek bargaining representation x x x.
For ignoring jurisprudential precepts on the matter, the Court finds that the Undersecretary of Labor, acting under the authority of the Secretary of Labor, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 18 August 2000 of the Undersecretary of Labor, acting under the authority of the Secretary, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated 17 May 2000 of the Med-Arbiter dismissing the petition for certification election filed by Kawashima Free Workers Union- PTGWO Local Chapter No. 803 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED. [22] (Emphasis supplied)
First, whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election in view of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule that "[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards;" andThe petition is imbued with merit.
Second, whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile Manufacturing Phils., Inc.[24]
Section 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows:Moreover, under Section 4, a pending petition for cancellation of registration will not hinder a legitimate labor organization from initiating a certification election, viz:"Art. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees. - Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union."Section 9. A new provision, Article 245-A is inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:"Art. 245-A. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. - The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said union." (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 4. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as Article 238-A to read as follows:Furthermore, under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no personality to interfere with or thwart a petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:"Art. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. - A petition for cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings for certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification election.
In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek just and equitable remedies in the appropriate courts." (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007;[26] hence, it applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after said date.[27] As the petition for certification election subject matter of the present petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000,[28] R.A. No. 9481 cannot apply to it. There may have been curative labor legislations[29] that were given retrospective effect,[30] but not the aforecited provisions of R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already vested would be impaired in the process.[31]"Art. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med- Arbiter act favorably on the petition."(Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 3. Employees' right to self-organization. - Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. (Emphasis supplied)Nothing in R.A. No. 875, however, tells of how the questioned mingling can affect the legitimacy of the labor organization. Under Section 15, the only instance when a labor organization loses its legitimacy is when it violates its duty to bargain collectively; but there is no word on whether such mingling would also result in loss of legitimacy. Thus, when the issue of whether the membership of two supervisory employees impairs the legitimacy of a rank-and-file labor organization came before the Court En Banc in Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees Association,[41] the majority pronounced:
It may be observed that nothing is said of the effect of such ineligibility upon the union itself or on the status of the other qualified members thereof should such prohibition be disregarded. Considering that the law is specific where it intends to divest a legitimate labor union of any of the rights and privileges granted to it by law, the absence of any provision on the effect of the disqualification of one of its organizers upon the legality of the union, may be construed to confine the effect of such ineligibility only upon the membership of the supervisor. In other words, the invalidity of membership of one of the organizers does not make the union illegal, where the requirements of the law for the organization thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and met.[42] (Emphasis supplied)Then the Labor Code was enacted in 1974 without reproducing Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875. The provision in the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is Article 290,[43] which is deafeningly silent on the prohibition against supervisory employees mingling with rank-and-file employees in one labor organization. Even the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code[44] (Omnibus Rules) merely provides in Section 11, Rule II, thus:
Sec. 11. Supervisory unions and unions of security guards to cease operation. - All existing supervisory unions and unions of security guards shall, upon the effectivity of the Code, cease to operate as such and their registration certificates shall be deemed automatically cancelled. However, existing collective agreements with such unions, the life of which extends beyond the date of effectivity of the Code shall be respected until their expiry date insofar as the economic benefits granted therein are concerned.The obvious repeal of the last clause of Sec. 3, R.A. No. 875 prompted the Court to declare in Bulletin v. Sanchez[45] that supervisory employees who do not fall under the category of managerial employees may join or assist in the formation of a labor organization for rank-and-file employees, but they may not form their own labor organization.
Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees shall become eligible to join or assist the rank and file organization. The determination of who are managerial employees and who are not shall be the subject of negotiation between representatives of supervisory union and the employer. If no agreement s reached between the parties, either or both of them ma bring the issue to the nearest Regional Office for determination. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as followsUnfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization."Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own" (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 1. Who may join unions. - x x x Supervisory employees and security guards shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own; Provided, that those supervisory employees who are included in an existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x x. (Emphasis supplied)and Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules, viz:
Sec. 1. Where to file. - A petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.By that provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election.
Sec. 2. Who may file. - Any legitimate labor organization or the employer, when requested to bargain collectively, may file the petition.
The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among others:
x x x x
(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise require; and provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory employees and/or security guards. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.In Dunlop, [50] in which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees, the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members.[51]
x x x x
In the case at bar, as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election.[49] (Emphasis supplied)
x x x xIn Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano,[53] the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved therein was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, to wit:
Sec. 4. Forms and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain, among others, the following: x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.[52]
Sec. 1. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter; (b) the names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and (c) the local/ chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list of its members.
All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.
Sec. 2. All associations which are duly organized and registered with, and permitted to operate by, the Department of Labor, shall have the right to collective bargaining with employers x x x. The registration of, and the issuance of a permit to any legitimate labor organization shall entitle it to all the rights and privileges granted by law.[40] Commonwealth Act No. 213 contained no provision on the matter.
R.A. No. 875 provides:
Sec. 24. Rights of Labor Organizations. -- A legitimate labor organization shall have the right -- (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining, pursuant to section three of this Act; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of the employees in a collective bargaining unit, as provided in section twelve (a) x x x.
P.D. No. 442 as amended by E.O. No. 111 and, thereafter, R.A. No. 6715, provides:
Section 17. Article 242 of the same Code is amended to read as follows:
"Article 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: -(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining;-(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining x x x.