G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993
G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, I
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (P
NC. (PAL),
AL),
petitioner,petitioner, vs.vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA
!" PHILIPPINE
!" PHILIPPINE AIRLINES E
AIRLINES EMPLO
MPLO#EES ASSOCIA
#EES ASSOCIATION (PALEA),
TION (PALEA),
respondents.respondents. Solon Garcia for petitioner.Solon Garcia for petitioner. Adolpho M. Guerzon fo
Adolpho M. Guerzon for respondent Pr respondent PALEA.ALEA.
MELO,
MELO,
J.: J.:In the instant petition for
In the instant petition for certioraricertiorari, the Court is presented the issue of whether or not the, the Court is presented the issue of whether or not the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of the employer formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees.
and the employees. On
On MarMarch ch 15, 15, 1!1!5, 5, the the "hi"hiliplippinpine e #ir#irlilines, Inc. nes, Inc. $"$"#%& #%& cocomplmpleteetely ly rerevisvised ed its its 1'1'' ' CodCode e of of Disc
Discipliipline. ne. (he (he Code was Code was circirculatculated ed among the among the emploemployees yees and and was immediatewas immediately ly implimplementeemented,d, and some employees were forthwith
and some employees were forthwith sub)ected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein.sub)ected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. (hus, on #ugust *+, 1!5,
(hus, on #ugust *+, 1!5, the "hilippine #irlines mpthe "hilippine #irlines mployees #ssociation $"loyees #ssociation $"#%#& -led a compla#%#& -led a complaintint before the ational %abor
before the ational %abor /elat/elations Commission ions Commission $%/$%/C& for C& for unfair labor practice $Case unfair labor practice $Case o. C/00o. C/00 *+5
*+510!10!5& 5& wiwith th the the folfollowlowing ing reremarmar2s3 2s3 4%4%" " witwith h arbarbitritrary ary impimplemlementaentatiotion n of of ""#%6s #%6s CodCode e of of Discipline without notice and prior discussion with nion by Management4 $
Discipline without notice and prior discussion with nion by Management4 $ RolloRollo, p. 71&. In its, p. 71&. In its position paper, "#%# contended that "#%, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was position paper, "#%# contended that "#%, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice, speci-cally "aragraphs and 8 of #rticle *7 and #rticle *59 of guilty of unfair labor practice, speci-cally "aragraphs and 8 of #rticle *7 and #rticle *59 of the %abor Code. "#%# alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers: the %abor Code. "#%# alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers: that being penal in nature the
that being penal in nature the Code must conform with the Code must conform with the re;uirements of su<cient publication,re;uirements of su<cient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and pre)udicial to the rights of the employees. It and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and pre)udicial to the rights of the employees. It pra
prayed that yed that impimplemlemententatiation on of of the the CodCode e be be helheld d in in ababeyaeyancence: : thathat t ""#% #% shoshould discuuld discuss ss thethe substance of the Code with "#%#: that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and substance of the Code with "#%#: that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases sub)ected to further hearing: and that "#% be declared guilty of unfair labor practice their cases sub)ected to further hearing: and that "#% be declared guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages $pp. 017, /ecord.&
and be ordered to pay damages $pp. 017, /ecord.&
"#% -led a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescibe "#% -led a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescibe rules and regulations regarding employess6 conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, rules and regulations regarding employess6 conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, and
and alallegleging ing thathat t by by impimplemlemententing ing the the CodCode, e, it it had had not not vioviolatlated ed the the cocollellectictive ve barbargaigainingning agreement $C=#& or any provision of the %abor Code. #ssailing the complaint as unsupported by agreement $C=#& or any provision of the %abor Code. #ssailing the complaint as unsupported by evidence, "#% maintained that #rticle *59 of the %abor Code cited by "#%# re>ered to the evidence, "#% maintained that #rticle *59 of the %abor Code cited by "#%# re>ered to the re;uirements for negotiating a C=# which was inapplicable as indeed the current C=# had been re;uirements for negotiating a C=# which was inapplicable as indeed the current C=# had been negotiated.
negotiated.
In its reply to "#%6s position paper, "#%# maintained that #rticle *7 $& of the %abor Code was In its reply to "#%6s position paper, "#%# maintained that #rticle *7 $& of the %abor Code was violated when "#% unilaterally implemented the Code, and cited provisions of #rticles I? and I of violated when "#% unilaterally implemented the Code, and cited provisions of #rticles I? and I of Chapter II of the Code as defective for, respectively, running counter to the construction of penal Chapter II of the Code as defective for, respectively, running counter to the construction of penal laws and ma2ing punishable any o>ense within "#%6s contemplation. (hese provisions are the laws and ma2ing punishable any o>ense within "#%6s contemplation. (hese provisions are the following3
following3
@ec. *.
@ec. *. Non-exclusivity Non-exclusivity . A (his Code does not contain the entirety of the rules and. A (his Code does not contain the entirety of the rules and regulations of the company. very employee is bound to comply with all applicable regulations of the company. very employee is bound to comply with all applicable rule
rules, s, reregulgulatiationsons, , polpoliciicies, es, prproceocedurdures es and and stastandandardrds, s, incincludluding ing stastandandardrds s of of ;uality, productivity and behaviour, as issued and promulgated by the company ;uality, productivity and behaviour, as issued and promulgated by the company through its duly authoriBed o<cials. #ny violations thereof shall be punishable with through its duly authoriBed o<cials. #ny violations thereof shall be punishable with a penalty to be determined by the gravity andor
a penalty to be determined by the gravity andor fre;uency of the o>ense.fre;uency of the o>ense. @ec. .
@ec. . u!ulative Recordu!ulative Record. A #n . A #n employee6s record of o>enses shall be cumulative.employee6s record of o>enses shall be cumulative. (he
(he penalty penalty for for an an o>ense o>ense shall shall be be determined determined on on the the basis basis of of his his past past record record of of o>enses of any nature or the absence thereof. (he more habitual an o>ender has o>enses of any nature or the absence thereof. (he more habitual an o>ender has been, the greater shall be the penalty for the latest o>ense. (hus, an employee may been, the greater shall be the penalty for the latest o>ense. (hus, an employee may be
be didismsmisissesed d if if ththe e numnumbeber r of of hihis s papast st o>o>ensenses es wawarrrranants ts susuch ch pepenanaltlty y in in ththee )udgment
)udgment of of management management even even if if each each o>ense o>ense considered considered separately separately may may notnot warrant dismissal. abitual o>enders or recidivists have no place in "#%. On the warrant dismissal. abitual o>enders or recidivists have no place in "#%. On the other hand, due regard shall be given to the length of time between commission of other hand, due regard shall be given to the length of time between commission of ind
occasional lapses $which may nevertheless re;uire sterner disciplinary action& or a occasional lapses $which may nevertheless re;uire sterner disciplinary action& or a pattern of incorrigibility.
pattern of incorrigibility.
%abor #rbiter Isabel ". Ortiguerra handling the case called the parties to a conference but they %abor #rbiter Isabel ". Ortiguerra handling the case called the parties to a conference but they failed to appear at the scheduled date. Interpreting such failure as a waiver of the parties6 right failed to appear at the scheduled date. Interpreting such failure as a waiver of the parties6 right to present evidence, the labor arbiter considered the case submitted for decision. On ovember to present evidence, the labor arbiter considered the case submitted for decision. On ovember , 1!', a decision was rendered -nding no bad faith on the part
, 1!', a decision was rendered -nding no bad faith on the part of "of "#% in adopting the Code and#% in adopting the Code and ruling that no unfair labor practice had been committed. owever, the arbiter held that "#% was ruling that no unfair labor practice had been committed. owever, the arbiter held that "#% was 4not totally fault free4 considering that while the issuance of rules and regulations governing the 4not totally fault free4 considering that while the issuance of rules and regulations governing the conduct of employees is a 4legitimate management prerogative4 such rules and regulations must conduct of employees is a 4legitimate management prerogative4 such rules and regulations must meet the test of 4reasonableness, propriety and fairness.4 @he found @ection 1 of the Code meet the test of 4reasonableness, propriety and fairness.4 @he found @ection 1 of the Code afore;uoted as 4an all embracing and all encompassing provision that ma2es punishable any afore;uoted as 4an all embracing and all encompassing provision that ma2es punishable any o>
o>enense se onone e cacan n ththinin2 2 of of in in ththe e cocompmpanany4y4: : whwhilile e @@ecectition on , , lili22ewewisise e ;u;uototed ed ababovove, e, isis 4ob)ectionable for it violates the rule against double )eopardy thereby ushering in two or more 4ob)ectionable for it violates the rule against double )eopardy thereby ushering in two or more punishment for the
punishment for the same misdemeanorsame misdemeanor.4 $pp. 9!09,.4 $pp. 9!09, RolloRollo.&.& (he
(he labor arbiter labor arbiter also found also found that that ""#% #% 4failed to 4failed to prove that prove that the the new new Code was Code was amply circulated.4amply circulated.4 o
otiting ng ththat at ""#%#%6s 6s asassesertrtioion n ththat at it it hahad d fufurnrnisishehed d alall l itits s ememplployoyeeees s cocopipies es of of ththe e CoCode de isis unsupported by documentary evidence, she stated that such 4failure4 on the part of "#% resulted unsupported by documentary evidence, she stated that such 4failure4 on the part of "#% resulted in the imposition of penalties on employees who thought all the while that the 1'' Code was in the imposition of penalties on employees who thought all the while that the 1'' Code was still being followed. (hus, the arbiter concluded that 4$t&he phrase ignorance of the law eEcuses still being followed. (hus, the arbiter concluded that 4$t&he phrase ignorance of the law eEcuses no one from compliance . . . -nds application only after it has been conclusively shown that the no one from compliance . . . -nds application only after it has been conclusively shown that the law was circulated to all the parties concerned and e>orts to disseminate information regarding law was circulated to all the parties concerned and e>orts to disseminate information regarding the new law have been eEerted. $p. 9,
the new law have been eEerted. $p. 9, RolloRollo.& @he thereupon disposed3.& @he thereupon disposed3 F/GO/, premises considered, respondent "#% is
F/GO/, premises considered, respondent "#% is hereby ordered as follows3hereby ordered as follows3 1. Gurnish all employees with the
1. Gurnish all employees with the new Code of Discipline:new Code of Discipline:
*. /econsider the cases of employees meted with penalties under the ew Code of *. /econsider the cases of employees meted with penalties under the ew Code of Discipline and remand the same for further hearing:
Discipline and remand the same for further hearing: andand
9. Discuss with "#%# the ob)ectionable provisions speci-cally tac2led in the body of 9. Discuss with "#%# the ob)ectionable provisions speci-cally tac2led in the body of the decision.
the decision.
#ll other claims of the complainant union $is& Hare hereby, dismissed for lac2 of #ll other claims of the complainant union $is& Hare hereby, dismissed for lac2 of merit.
merit.
@O O/D/D. $p. 7+,
@O O/D/D. $p. 7+, RolloRollo.&.&
"#% appealed to the %/C. On #ugust 1, 1!!, the %/C through Commissioner ncarnacion, "#% appealed to the %/C. On #ugust 1, 1!!, the %/C through Commissioner ncarnacion, wit
with h "r"resiesidinding g ComCommismissiosioner ner =o=onto0nto0"e"erereB B and and ComCommismissiosioner ner MagMaglaylaya a conconcurcurrinring, g, foufound nd nono evidence of unfair labor
evidence of unfair labor practice committed by "#% and a<rmed the dismissal of practice committed by "#% and a<rmed the dismissal of ""#%#6s charge.#%#6s charge. onetheless, the %/C made the
onetheless, the %/C made the following observations3following observations3
Indeed, failure of management to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of Indeed, failure of management to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of dis
discipciplinline e whiwhich ch shashall ll govgoverern n the the conconducduct t of of its its empemployloyees ees wowould uld reresulsult t in in thethe er
erosiosion on and and detdeterierioraoratiotion n of of an an othotherwerwise ise harharmonmoniouious s and and smosmooth oth rerelatlationionshipship between them as did happen in the instant case. (here is no dispute that adoption between them as did happen in the instant case. (here is no dispute that adoption of rules
of rules of conduct or of conduct or discdisciplinipline e is a is a prerprerogatogative of ive of managmanagement and ement and is imperativis imperativee and essential if an industry, has to survive in a competitive world. =ut labor climate and essential if an industry, has to survive in a competitive world. =ut labor climate has progressed, too. In the "hilippine scene, at no time in our contemporary history has progressed, too. In the "hilippine scene, at no time in our contemporary history is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship between labor is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship between labor and management more 2eenly felt if we are to survive economically. Management and management more 2eenly felt if we are to survive economically. Management ca
can n no no lolongnger er eEeEclcludude e lalabobor r in in ththe e dedelilibeberaratition on anand d adadopoptition on of of ruruleles s anandd regulations that will a>ect them.
regulations that will a>ect them. (he
(he complainant union complainant union in in this this case case has has the the right right to to feel isolated feel isolated in in the the adoption of adoption of the ew Code of Discipline. (he Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and the ew Code of Discipline. (he Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and loss of employment A a property rightJ It is time that management realiBes that to loss of employment A a property rightJ It is time that management realiBes that to attain e>ectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness attain e>ectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, our
our ConstConstitutiitution on has has recrecogniBogniBed ed the the princprinciple of iple of 4shar4shared ed respresponsibonsibilityility4 4 betwbetweeneen em
emplployoyerers s anand d wowor2r2erers s anand d hahas s lili2e2ewiwise se rerecocogngniBiBed ed the the ririghght t of of wowor2r2erers s toto participate in 4policy and decision0ma2ing process a>ecting their rights . . .4 (he participate in 4policy and decision0ma2ing process a>ecting their rights . . .4 (he
occasional lapses $which may nevertheless re;uire sterner disciplinary action& or a occasional lapses $which may nevertheless re;uire sterner disciplinary action& or a pattern of incorrigibility.
pattern of incorrigibility.
%abor #rbiter Isabel ". Ortiguerra handling the case called the parties to a conference but they %abor #rbiter Isabel ". Ortiguerra handling the case called the parties to a conference but they failed to appear at the scheduled date. Interpreting such failure as a waiver of the parties6 right failed to appear at the scheduled date. Interpreting such failure as a waiver of the parties6 right to present evidence, the labor arbiter considered the case submitted for decision. On ovember to present evidence, the labor arbiter considered the case submitted for decision. On ovember , 1!', a decision was rendered -nding no bad faith on the part
, 1!', a decision was rendered -nding no bad faith on the part of "of "#% in adopting the Code and#% in adopting the Code and ruling that no unfair labor practice had been committed. owever, the arbiter held that "#% was ruling that no unfair labor practice had been committed. owever, the arbiter held that "#% was 4not totally fault free4 considering that while the issuance of rules and regulations governing the 4not totally fault free4 considering that while the issuance of rules and regulations governing the conduct of employees is a 4legitimate management prerogative4 such rules and regulations must conduct of employees is a 4legitimate management prerogative4 such rules and regulations must meet the test of 4reasonableness, propriety and fairness.4 @he found @ection 1 of the Code meet the test of 4reasonableness, propriety and fairness.4 @he found @ection 1 of the Code afore;uoted as 4an all embracing and all encompassing provision that ma2es punishable any afore;uoted as 4an all embracing and all encompassing provision that ma2es punishable any o>
o>enense se onone e cacan n ththinin2 2 of of in in ththe e cocompmpanany4y4: : whwhilile e @@ecectition on , , lili22ewewisise e ;u;uototed ed ababovove, e, isis 4ob)ectionable for it violates the rule against double )eopardy thereby ushering in two or more 4ob)ectionable for it violates the rule against double )eopardy thereby ushering in two or more punishment for the
punishment for the same misdemeanorsame misdemeanor.4 $pp. 9!09,.4 $pp. 9!09, RolloRollo.&.& (he
(he labor arbiter labor arbiter also found also found that that ""#% #% 4failed to 4failed to prove that prove that the the new new Code was Code was amply circulated.4amply circulated.4 o
otiting ng ththat at ""#%#%6s 6s asassesertrtioion n ththat at it it hahad d fufurnrnisishehed d alall l itits s ememplployoyeeees s cocopipies es of of ththe e CoCode de isis unsupported by documentary evidence, she stated that such 4failure4 on the part of "#% resulted unsupported by documentary evidence, she stated that such 4failure4 on the part of "#% resulted in the imposition of penalties on employees who thought all the while that the 1'' Code was in the imposition of penalties on employees who thought all the while that the 1'' Code was still being followed. (hus, the arbiter concluded that 4$t&he phrase ignorance of the law eEcuses still being followed. (hus, the arbiter concluded that 4$t&he phrase ignorance of the law eEcuses no one from compliance . . . -nds application only after it has been conclusively shown that the no one from compliance . . . -nds application only after it has been conclusively shown that the law was circulated to all the parties concerned and e>orts to disseminate information regarding law was circulated to all the parties concerned and e>orts to disseminate information regarding the new law have been eEerted. $p. 9,
the new law have been eEerted. $p. 9, RolloRollo.& @he thereupon disposed3.& @he thereupon disposed3 F/GO/, premises considered, respondent "#% is
F/GO/, premises considered, respondent "#% is hereby ordered as follows3hereby ordered as follows3 1. Gurnish all employees with the
1. Gurnish all employees with the new Code of Discipline:new Code of Discipline:
*. /econsider the cases of employees meted with penalties under the ew Code of *. /econsider the cases of employees meted with penalties under the ew Code of Discipline and remand the same for further hearing:
Discipline and remand the same for further hearing: andand
9. Discuss with "#%# the ob)ectionable provisions speci-cally tac2led in the body of 9. Discuss with "#%# the ob)ectionable provisions speci-cally tac2led in the body of the decision.
the decision.
#ll other claims of the complainant union $is& Hare hereby, dismissed for lac2 of #ll other claims of the complainant union $is& Hare hereby, dismissed for lac2 of merit.
merit.
@O O/D/D. $p. 7+,
@O O/D/D. $p. 7+, RolloRollo.&.&
"#% appealed to the %/C. On #ugust 1, 1!!, the %/C through Commissioner ncarnacion, "#% appealed to the %/C. On #ugust 1, 1!!, the %/C through Commissioner ncarnacion, wit
with h "r"resiesidinding g ComCommismissiosioner ner =o=onto0nto0"e"erereB B and and ComCommismissiosioner ner MagMaglaylaya a conconcurcurrinring, g, foufound nd nono evidence of unfair labor
evidence of unfair labor practice committed by "#% and a<rmed the dismissal of practice committed by "#% and a<rmed the dismissal of ""#%#6s charge.#%#6s charge. onetheless, the %/C made the
onetheless, the %/C made the following observations3following observations3
Indeed, failure of management to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of Indeed, failure of management to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of dis
discipciplinline e whiwhich ch shashall ll govgoverern n the the conconducduct t of of its its empemployloyees ees wowould uld reresulsult t in in thethe er
erosiosion on and and detdeterierioraoratiotion n of of an an othotherwerwise ise harharmonmoniouious s and and smosmooth oth rerelatlationionshipship between them as did happen in the instant case. (here is no dispute that adoption between them as did happen in the instant case. (here is no dispute that adoption of rules
of rules of conduct or of conduct or discdisciplinipline e is a is a prerprerogatogative of ive of managmanagement and ement and is imperativis imperativee and essential if an industry, has to survive in a competitive world. =ut labor climate and essential if an industry, has to survive in a competitive world. =ut labor climate has progressed, too. In the "hilippine scene, at no time in our contemporary history has progressed, too. In the "hilippine scene, at no time in our contemporary history is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship between labor is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship between labor and management more 2eenly felt if we are to survive economically. Management and management more 2eenly felt if we are to survive economically. Management ca
can n no no lolongnger er eEeEclcludude e lalabobor r in in ththe e dedelilibeberaratition on anand d adadopoptition on of of ruruleles s anandd regulations that will a>ect them.
regulations that will a>ect them. (he
(he complainant union complainant union in in this this case case has has the the right right to to feel isolated feel isolated in in the the adoption of adoption of the ew Code of Discipline. (he Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and the ew Code of Discipline. (he Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and loss of employment A a property rightJ It is time that management realiBes that to loss of employment A a property rightJ It is time that management realiBes that to attain e>ectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness attain e>ectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, our
our ConstConstitutiitution on has has recrecogniBogniBed ed the the princprinciple of iple of 4shar4shared ed respresponsibonsibilityility4 4 betwbetweeneen em
emplployoyerers s anand d wowor2r2erers s anand d hahas s lili2e2ewiwise se rerecocogngniBiBed ed the the ririghght t of of wowor2r2erers s toto participate in 4policy and decision0ma2ing process a>ecting their rights . . .4 (he participate in 4policy and decision0ma2ing process a>ecting their rights . . .4 (he
lat
latter ter prproviovisiosion n was was intinterperprereted ted by by the the ConConstistituttutionional al ComCommismissiosioners ners to to meameann participation in 4management46
participation in 4management46 $/ecor$/ecord of d of the Constitutional Commission, the Constitutional Commission, ??ol. II&.ol. II&. In a sense, participation by the union in the adoption of the code if conduct could In a sense, participation by the union in the adoption of the code if conduct could have accelerated and enhanced their feelings of belonging and would have resulted have accelerated and enhanced their feelings of belonging and would have resulted in
in coocooperperatiation on ratrather her thathan n reresissistantance ce to to the the CodCode. e. In In facfact, t, lablaboror0man0manageagemenmentt cooperation is now 4the
cooperation is now 4the thing.4 $pp. 907, %/C Decision >. p. thing.4 $pp. 907, %/C Decision >. p. 17, Original /ecord.17, Original /ecord.&& /espondent Commission thereupon disposed3
/espondent Commission thereupon disposed3
F/GO/, premises considered, we modify the appealed decision in the sense F/GO/, premises considered, we modify the appealed decision in the sense that the ew Code of
that the ew Code of Discipline should be reviewed and discussed with complainantDiscipline should be reviewed and discussed with complainant union, particularly the disputed provisions H. $(&hereafter, respondent is directed to union, particularly the disputed provisions H. $(&hereafter, respondent is directed to furnish each employee with a copy of the appealed Code of Discipline. (he pending furnish each employee with a copy of the appealed Code of Discipline. (he pending cases adverted to in the appealed decision if still in the arbitral level, should be cases adverted to in the appealed decision if still in the arbitral level, should be reconsidered by the respondent "hilippine #ir %ines. Other dispositions of the %abor reconsidered by the respondent "hilippine #ir %ines. Other dispositions of the %abor #rbiter are sustained.
#rbiter are sustained. @O O/D/D. $p. 5,
@O O/D/D. $p. 5, %/C Decision.&%/C Decision.& "#% then -led the instant petition for
"#% then -led the instant petition for certioraricertiorari charging public respondents with grave abuse of charging public respondents with grave abuse of discretion in3 $a& directing "#% 4to share its management prerogative of formulating a Code of discretion in3 $a& directing "#% 4to share its management prerogative of formulating a Code of Discipline4: $b& engaging in ;uasi0)udicial legislation in ordering "#% to share said prerogative Discipline4: $b& engaging in ;uasi0)udicial legislation in ordering "#% to share said prerogative with the union: $c& deciding beyond the issue of unfair labor practice, and $d& re;uiring "#% to with the union: $c& deciding beyond the issue of unfair labor practice, and $d& re;uiring "#% to reconsider pending cases still in the arbitral level $p. , "etition: p. !,
reconsider pending cases still in the arbitral level $p. , "etition: p. !, RolloRollo.&.&
#s stated above, the "rincipal issue submitted for resolution in the instant petition is whether #s stated above, the "rincipal issue submitted for resolution in the instant petition is whether management may be compelled to share with the union or its employees its prerogative of management may be compelled to share with the union or its employees its prerogative of formulating a code of discipline.
formulating a code of discipline.
"#% asserts that when it revised its Code on March 15, 1!5, there was no law which mandated "#% asserts that when it revised its Code on March 15, 1!5, there was no law which mandated the sharing of
the sharing of responsibilitresponsibility therefor between employer and y therefor between employer and employee.employee.
Indeed, it was only on March *, 1!, with the approval of /epublic #ct o. '15, amending Indeed, it was only on March *, 1!, with the approval of /epublic #ct o. '15, amending #rticle *11 of the %abor Code, that the law eEplicitly considered it a @tate policy 4$t&o ensure the #rticle *11 of the %abor Code, that the law eEplicitly considered it a @tate policy 4$t&o ensure the participation of wor2ers in decision and policy0ma2ing processes a>ecting the rights, duties and participation of wor2ers in decision and policy0ma2ing processes a>ecting the rights, duties and we
welflfarare.e.4 4 oowewevever, r, eveven en in in ththe e ababsesencnce e of of sasaid id clcleaear r prprovovisisioion n of of lalaw, w, ththe e eEeEerercicise se of of management prerogatives was never considered boundless. (hus, in
management prerogatives was never considered boundless. (hus, in ruz vs. Medinaruz vs. Medina $1 @C/#$1 @C/# 5'5 H1!& it was held
5'5 H1!& it was held that management6s prerogatives must be that management6s prerogatives must be without abuse of discretion.without abuse of discretion. In
In San Mi"uel #re$ery Sales %orce &nion 'P(G)*+ vs. *pleSan Mi"uel #re$ery Sales %orce &nion 'P(G)*+ vs. *ple $1+ @C/# *5 H1!&, we upheld the$1+ @C/# *5 H1!&, we upheld the company6s right to implement a new system of distributing its products, but gave the following company6s right to implement a new system of distributing its products, but gave the following caveat3
caveat3
@o long as a company6s management prerogatives are eEercised in good faith for @o long as a company6s management prerogatives are eEercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer6s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or the advancement of the employer6s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or ci
circrcumvumvententining g ththe e ririghghts ts of of ththe e ememplployoyeeees s undunder er spspececiaial l lalaws ws or or unundeder r vavalilidd a
aggrreeeemmeennttss, , tthhiis s CCoouurrt t wwiilll l uupphhoolld d tthheemm.. $at p. *!.&
$at p. *!.&
#ll this points to the conclusion that
#ll this points to the conclusion that the eEercithe eEercise of managerial prerogatives isse of managerial prerogatives is not not unlimited. It is unlimited. It is circumscribed by limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general circumscribed by limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general principles of fair play and )ustice $
principles of fair play and )ustice $ &niversity of Sto. (o!as vs. NLR&niversity of Sto. (o!as vs. NLR , 1+ @C/# 5! H1+&., 1+ @C/# 5! H1+&. Moreover, as enunciated in
Moreover, as enunciated in A,,ott A,,ott La,oratories La,oratories 'Phil.+ 'Phil.+ vs. vs. NLRNLR $157 19 H1!&, it must be$157 19 H1!&, it must be duly established that the
duly established that the prerogprerogative being invo2ed is clearly a ative being invo2ed is clearly a managerial one.managerial one.
# close scrutiny of the ob)ectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not purely # close scrutiny of the ob)ectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not purely business0oriented nor do they concern the management aspect of the business of the company business0oriented nor do they concern the management aspect of the business of the company a
as s iin n ththee San San Mi"Mi"ueluel cacasese. . (h(he e prprovovisisioions ns of of ththe e CoCode de clcleaearlrly y hahave ve rerepepercrcususioions ns on on ththee employee6s right to security of tenure. (he implementation of the provisions may result in the employee6s right to security of tenure. (he implementation of the provisions may result in the deprivation of an employee6s means of livelihood which, as correctly pointed out by the %/C, is deprivation of an employee6s means of livelihood which, as correctly pointed out by the %/C, is a property right $
a property right $allanta vs arnation Philippines ncallanta vs arnation Philippines nc ., 175 @C/# *'! H1!'&. In view of these., 175 @C/# *'! H1!'&. In view of these aspects of the case which border on infringement of constitutional rights, we must uphold the aspects of the case which border on infringement of constitutional rights, we must uphold the constitutional re;uirements for the protection of labor and the promotion of social )ustice, for constitutional re;uirements for the protection of labor and the promotion of social )ustice, for these factors, according to Kustice Isagani CruB, tilt 4the scales of )ustice when there is doubt, in these factors, according to Kustice Isagani CruB, tilt 4the scales of )ustice when there is doubt, in
favor of the wor2er4 $E!ployees Association of the Philippine A!erican Life nsurance o!pany vs. NLR, 1 @C/# '*! H11 '95&.
?erily, a line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which a>ect the rights of the employees. In treating the latter, management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes action. "#% asserts that all its employees have been furnished copies of the Code. "ublic respondents found to the contrary, which -nding, to say the least is entitled to great respect. "#% posits the view that by signing the 1!011 collective bargaining agreement, on Kune *, 1+, "#%# in e>ect, recogniBed "#%6s 4eEclusive right to ma2e and enforce company rules and regulations to carry out the functions of management $ithout having to discuss the same with "#%# and much less, obtain the latter6sconfor!ity thereto4 $pp. 1101*, "etitioner6s Memorandum: pp 1!+01!1, Rollo.& "etitioner6s view is based on the following provision of the agreement3
(he #ssociation recogniBes the right of the Company to determine matters of management it policy and Company operations and to direct its manpower. Management of the Company includes the right to organiBe, plan, direct and control operations, to hire, assign employees to wor2, transfer employees from one department, to another, to promote, demote, discipline, suspend or discharge employees for )ust cause: to lay0o> employees for valid and legal causes, to introduce new or improved methods or facilities or to change eEisting methods or facilities and the right to ma2e and enforce Company rules and regulations to carry out the functions of management.
(he eEercise by management of its prerogative shall be done in a )ust reasonable, humane andor lawful manner.
@uch provision in the collective bargaining agreement may not be interpreted as cession of employees6 rights to participate in the deliberation of matters which may a>ect their rights and the formulation of policies relative thereto. #nd one such mater is the formulation of a code of discipline.
Indeed, industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their )ust participation in the discussion of matters a>ecting their rights. (hus, even before #rticle *11 of the labor Code $".D. 77*& was amended by /epublic #ct o. '15, it was already declared a policy of the @tate, 4$d& (o promote the enlightenment of wor2ers concerning their rights and obligations . . . as employees.4 (his was, of course, ampli-ed by /epublic #ct o '15 when it decreed the 4participation of wor2ers in decision and policy ma2ing processes a>ecting their rights, duties and welfare.4 "#%6s position that it cannot be saddled with the 4obligation4 of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code, /epublic #ct o. '15 had not yet been enacted $"etitioner6s Memorandum, p. 77: Rollo, p. *1*&, cannot thus be sustained. Fhile such 4obligation4 was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a harmonious labor0management relationship and the then already eEisting state policy of enlightening wor2ers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of transparency in managerial moves a>ecting employees6 rights.
"etitioner6s assertion that it needed the implementation of a new Code of Discipline considering the nature of its business cannot be overemphasiBed. In fact, its being a local monopoly in the business demands the most stringent of measures to attain safe travel for its patrons. onetheless, whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the absence of full cooperation of the employees. @uch cooperation cannot be attained if the employees are restive on account, of their being left out in the determination of cardinal and fundamental matters a>ecting their employment.
F/GO/, the petition is DI@MI@@D and the ;uestioned decision #GGI/MD. o special pronouncement is made as to costs.
G.R. No. 11$1%& O'to* 1+, 199$
SAN MIGUEL OO-S, INC. CEBU BMEG EE- PLANT,
petitioner, vs.HON. BIEN/ENI-O E. LAGUESMA, U!"*s'*t*0 o -OLE !" ILA2 AT BULO- NG
MANGGAGA2A (IBM),
respondents.HERMOSISIMA, 4R.,
J.: p(his is a petition for certiorari under /ule '5 to review and set aside two /esolutions of Mediator0#rbiter #chilles ?. Manit, dated Kanuary 5, 17 and #pril ', 17, and the a<rmation Order on appeal of the public respondent, ndersecretary =ienvenido . %aguesma of the Department of %abor and mployment. (he petition below was entitled3 4In /e3 "etition for Direct Certi-cation as the @ole and Eclusive =argaining #gent of #ll Monthly "aid mployees of @MGI0Cebu =0Meg Geeds "lant,4 doc2eted as O@0M#0#0905107 $/+++09+0/0+9'&.
(he essential facts are not disputed.
On @eptember *7, 19, a petition for certi-cation election among the monthly0paid employees of the @an Miguel Good, Inc.0Cebu =0Meg Geeds "lant was -led by private respondent labor federation Ilaw at =u2lod ng Mangagawa $I=M, for brevity& before Med0 #rbiter #chilles ?. Manit, alleging, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organiBation duly registered with the Department of %abor and mployment $DO%& under /egistration Certi-cate o. 59'0I". @MGI0Cebu =0Meg Geeds "lant $@MGI, for brevity&, herein petitioner, is a business entity duly organiBed and eEisting under the laws of the "hilippines which employs roughly seventy0-ve $5& monthly paid employees, almost all of whom support the present petition. It was submitted in said petition that there has been no certi-cation election conducted in @MGI to determine the sole and eEclusive bargaining agent thereat for the past two years and that the proposed bargaining unit, which is @MGI6s monthly paid employees, is an unorganiBed one. It was also stated therein that petitioner I=M $herein private respondent& has already complied with the mandatory re;uirements for the creation of its local or a<liate in @MGI6s establishment.
On October *5, 19, herein petitioner @MGI -led a Motion to Dismiss the aforementioned petition dated @eptember *7, 19 on the ground that a similar petition remains pending between the same parties for the same cause of action before Med0#rbiter #chilles ?. Manit.
@MGI was referring to an evidently earlier petition, doc2eted as C C#@ O /+++09+70 /0+1', -led on #pril *!, 19 before the o<ce of Med0#rbiter Manit. Indeed, both petitions involved the same parties, cause of action and relief being prayed for, which is the issuance of an order by the Med0#rbiter allowing the conduct for a certi-cation election in @MGI6s establishment. (he contention is that the )udgment that may be rendered in the -rst petition would be determinative of the outcome of the second petition, date @eptember *7, 19.
On December *, 19, private respondent I=M -led its Opposition to @MGI6s Motion to Dismiss contending, among others, that the case referred to by @MGI had already been resolved by Med0#rbiter Manit in his /esolution and Order dated Kuly *', 19 1 and @eptember *, 19, & respectively, wherein I=M6s -rst petition for certi-cation election was denied mainly due to I=M6s failure to comply with certain mandatory re;uirements of the law. (his denial was a<rmed by the Med0#rbiter in another Order dated ovember 1*,
19 3 wherein the /esolutions dated Kuly *', 19 and @eptember *, 19 were made to stand. (hus, I=M argues that there having been no similar petition pending before Med0 #rbiter Manit, another petition for certi-cation election may be re-led as soon as the said re;uirements are met. (hese re;uirements were -nally satis-ed before the second petition for certi-cation election was brought on @eptember *7, 19.
On Kanuary 5, 17, Med0#rbiter Manit, this time, granted the second petition for certi-cation election of private respondent I=M in this wise3
%et, therefore, a certi-cation election be conducted among the monthly paid ran2 and -le employees of @MGI0C= =0M8 GD@ "%#( at %o0oc, Mandaue City. (he choices shall be3 L@0for I=M #( @MGI0C= =0M8: and O A for o nion.
(he parties are hereby noti-ed of the pre0election conference which will ta2e place on Kanuary 1, 17 at 93++ o6cloc2 in the afternoon to set the date and time of the election and to thresh out the mechanics thereof. On said date and time the respondent is directed to submit the payroll of its monthly paid ran2 and -le employees for the month of Kune 19 which shall be the basis for the list of the eligible voters. (he petitioner is directed to be ready to submit a list of the monthly paid ran2 and -le employees of @MGI0C= =0M8 GD@ "%#( when the respondent fails to submit the re;uired payroll.
@O O/D/D.
"etitioner @MGI appealed the foregoing Order to the @ecretary of %abor and mployment alleging that the Med0#rbiter erred in directing the conduct of certi-cation election considering that the local or chapter of I=M at @MGI is still not a legitimate labor organiBation with a right to be certi-ed as the eEclusive bargaining agent in petitioner6s establishment based on two grounds3 $1& the authenticity and due eEecution of the Charter Certi-cate submitted by I=M in favor of its local at @MGI cannot yet be ascertained as it is still not 2nown who is the legitimate and authoriBed representative of the I=M Gederation who may validly issue said Charter Certi-cate: and $*& a group of wor2ers or a local union shall ac;uire legal personality only upon the issuance of a Certi-cate of /egistration by the =ureau of %abor /elations under #rticle *97 of the %abor Code, which I=M at @MGI did not possess.
In a resolution dated #pril ', 17, public respondent ndersecretary =ienvenido %aguesma, by authority of the @ecretary of %abor and mployment, denied petitioner6s appeal, viz .3
F/GO/, the appeal is hereby denied for lac2 of merit and the Order of the Med0#rbiter is hereby a<rmed.
%et the records of this case be forwarded to the /egional O<ce of origin for the immediate conduct of certi-cation election sub)ect to the usual pre0election conference.
@O /@O%?D. 5
(hereafter, a Motion for /econsideration was -led which was also denied by the public respondent in his Order dated May *7, 17. $
ence, the instant petition interposing the following )usti-cations3
1& ( OO/#=% D/@C/(#/L =I?IDO . %#8@M# 8/#?%L #=@D I@ DI@C/(IO F #/=I(/#/I%L /%D (#( 4# %OC#% O/ C#"(/ OG # %#=O/ GD/#(IO, %I /@"OD( I=M, D O( O=(#I # C/(IGIC#( OG /8I@(/#(IO G/OM ( =/# OG %#=O/ /%#(IO@ (O #CNI/ %8#% "/@O#%I(L,4 F #/(IC% *97 OG ( %#=O/ COD OG ( "I%I""I@ #D @C(IO 9 OG /% II OG =OO ? OG ( /%@ IM"%M(I8 ( %#=O/ COD, #@ #MDD, C%#/%L "/O?ID@ (#( # 8/O" OG FO//@ O/ # %OC#% IO @#%% #CNI/ %8#% "/@O#%I(L O%L "O ( I@@#C OG ( C/(IGIC#( OG /8I@(/#(IO =L ( =/# OG %#=O/ /%#(IO@. #D,
*& ( OO/#=% D/@C/(#/L =I?IDO . %#8@M# 8/#?%L #=@D I@ DI@C/(IO F "/M#(/%L #D #/=I(/#/I%L /%D (#( /@"OD( I=M I@ # %8I(IM#( %#=O/ O/8#I#(IO F ( #((ICI(L #D D PC(IO OG ( C#/(/ C/(IGIC#( @=MI((D =L /@"OD( I=M C#O( L( = #@C/(#ID =C#@ I( I@ @(I%% O( OF FO #/ ( %8I(IM#( OGGIC/@ OG ( I=M GD/#(IO FO M#L ?#%ID%L I@@ @#ID C#/(/ C/(IGIC#( #@ ( C#@ GI%D (O /@O%? ( I@@ O FO #/ ( %8I(IM#( OGGIC/@ OG ( I=M GD/#(IO I@ @(I%% "DI8 /@O%(IO =GO/ (I@ OO/#=% @"/M CO/(. %
(he petition has no merit.
"etitioner asserts that I=M at @MGI is not a legitimate labor organiBation notwithstanding the fact that it is a local or chapter of the I=M Gederation. (his is so because under #rticle *97 of the %abor Code, any labor organiBation shall ac;uire legal personality only upon the issuance of the Certi-cate of /egistration by the =ureau of %abor /elations.
Fe do not agree.
I
#rticle *1*$h& of the %abor Code de-nes a legitimate labor organiBation as 4any labor organiBation duly registered with the Department of %abor and mployment, and includes any ,ranch or local thereof .4
It is important to determine whether or not a particular labor organiBation is legitimate since legitimate labor organiBations have eEclusive rights under the law which cannot be eEercised by non0legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certi-ed as the eEclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. (hese rights are found under #rticle *7* of the %abor Code, to wit3
#rt. *7*. /ights of legitimate labor organiBations. A # legitimate labor organiBation shall have the right3
$a& (o act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining:
$b& (o ,e certi/ed as the exclusive representative of all the e!ployees in an appropriate collective ,ar"ainin" unit for purpose of collective ,ar"ainin" :
$c& (o be furnished by the employer, upon written re;uest, with his annual audited -nancial statement, including the balance sheet and the pro-t and loss statement, within thirty $9+& calendar days from the date of receipt of the re;uest, after the union has been duly recogniBed by the employer or certi-ed as the sole and eEclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within siEty $'+& calendar days before the eEpiration of the eEisting collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation:
$d& (o own property, real or personal, for the use and bene-t of the labor organiBation and its members:
$e& (o sue and be sued in its registered name: and
$f& (o underta2e all other activities designed to bene-t the organiBation and its members, including cooperative, housing welfare and other pro)ects not contrary to law.
EEE EEE EEE
(he pertinent ;uestion, therefore, must be as2ed3 Fhen does a labor organiBation ac;uire legitimacyQ
Ordinarily, a labor organiBations attains the status of legitimacy only upon the issuance in its name of a Certi-cate of /egistration by the =ureau of %abor /elations pursuant to #rticles *97 and *95 of the %abor Code, viz .3
#rt. *97. /e;uirements of registration. A #ny applicant labor organiBation, association or group of unions or wor2ers shall ac0uire le"al personality and shall ,e entitled to the ri"hts and privile"es "ranted ,y la$ to le"iti!ate la,or or"anizations upon issuance of the certi/cate of re"istration based on the following re;uirements3 $a& Gifty pesos $"5+.++& registration fee:
$b& (he names of its o<cers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organiBation, the minutes of the organiBational meetings and the list of the wor2ers who participated in such meetings:
$c& (he names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent $*+R& of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it see2s to operate:
$d& If the applicant union has been in eEistence for one or more years, copies of its annual -nancial reports: and
$e& Gour $7& copies of the constitution and by0laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or rati-cation, and the list of the members who participated in it.
#rt. *95. #ction on application. A (he =ureau shall act on all applications for registration within thirty $9+& days from -ling.
#ll re;uisite documents and papers shall be certi-ed under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the organiBation, as the case may be, and attested to by its president.
(he foregoing procedure is not the only way by which a labor union may become legitimate, however. Fhen an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned re;uirements for registration are no longer re;uired. 8 @ection 9, /ule II, =oo2 ? of the Implementing /ules of the %abor Code governs the procedure for union a<liation, the relevant portions of which provide3
@ec. 9. nion #<liation3 Direct Membership with ational nion. A #n a<liate of a labor federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union.
$a& (he la,or federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certi/cate indicatin" the creation or esta,lish!ent of a local or chapter copy of $hich shall ,e su,!itted to the #ureau of La,or Relations $ithin thirty '12+ days fro! issuance of such charter certi/cate.
$b& #n independently registered union shall be considered an a<liate of a labor federation or national union after submission to the =ureau of the contract or agreement of a<liation within thirty $9+& days after its eEecution.
EEE EEE EEE
$e& (he local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by0laws, set of o<cers and boo2s of accounts. Gor reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.
"aragraph $a& refers to a local or chapter of a federation which did not undergo the rudiments of registration while paragraph $b& refers to an independently registered union which a<liated with a federation. Implicit in the foregoing di>erentiation is the fact that a local or chapter need not be independently registered. =y force of law $in this case, #rticle *1* Hh&, such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organiBation upon compliance with the aforementioned provisions of @ection 9 9 $a& and $e&, without having to be issued a Certi-cate of /egistration in its favor by the =%/.
(he cases of Lopez Su"ar orporation v . Secretary of La,or and E!ploy!ent , 1+ Phoenix ron and Steel orporation v . Secretary of La,or and E!ploy!ent
11
and Protection (echnolo"y nc. v . Secretary 3epart!ent of La,or and E!ploy!ent , 1& all going bac2 to our landmar2 holding in Pro"ressive 3evelop!ent orporation v . Secretary 3epart!ent ofLa,or and
E!ploy!ent , 13 une;uivocably laid down the rule, thus3
# local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organiBation only upon submission of the following to the =%/3
1& # charter certi-cate, within 9+ days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and
*& (he constitution and by0laws, a statement on the set of o<cers, and the boo2s of accounts all of which are certi-ed under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.
#bsent compliance with these mandatory re;uirements, the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organiBation.
Corollarily, the satisfaction of all these re;uirements by the local or chapter shall vest upon it the status of legitimacy with all its concomitant statutory privileges, one of which is the right to be certi-ed as the eEclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
In the case at bench, public respondent =ienvenido . %aguesma, in a<rming the -nding of the Med0#rbiter that I=M at @MGI is a legitimate labor organiBation, 1 made the following material pronouncement amply supported by the records:
Hthe resolution of the issue raised by the respondent on whether or not petitioner is a legitimate labor organiBation will depend on the documents submitted by the petitioner in the second petition.
# close scrutiny of the records shows that at the time of the -ling of the sub)ect petition on *7 @eptember 19 by the petitioner Ilaw at =u2lod n g Manggagawa, for and in behalf of its local a<liate I=M at @MGI0C= =0M8, the latter has been clothed with the status andor character of a legitimate labor organiBation. (his is so, because on 1 Kuly 19, petitioner submitted to the =ureau of %abor /elations $=%/&, this Department, the following documents3 charter certi-cate, constitution and by0laws, names and addresses of the union o<cers and certi-cation of the union6s secretary on the non0availability of the union6s =oo2s of #ccounts. @aid documents $eEpect the charter certi-cate& are certi-ed under oath and attested to by the local union6s secretary and "resident, respectively. 15
"etitioner @MGI does not dispute the fact that I=M at @MGI has complied with the second set or re;uirements, i.e., constitution, by0laws, et. al. Fhat is controverted is the non0 compliance with the re;uirement as to the charter certi-cate which must be submitted to the =%/ within thirty $9+& days from its issuance by the labor federation. Fhile the presence of a charter certi-cate is conceded, petitioner maintains that the validity and authenticity of the same cannot yet be ascertained as its is still not 2nown who is the legitimate and authoriBed representative of the I=M Gederation who may validly issue said charter certi-cate in favor of its local, I=M at @MGI. #ccording to petitioner, there are two $*& contending sets of o<cers of the I=M Gederation at the time the charter certi-cate was issued in favor of I=M at @MGI, the faction of Mr. @everino O. Meron and that of Mr. dilberto =. 8alveB.
On this point, public respondent, in upholding the legitimate status of I=M at @MGI, bac2ed up by the @olicitor 8eneral, had this to say3
(he contention of the respondent that unless and until the issue on who is the legitimate national president, of the Ilaw at =u2lod ng Mangagawa is resolved, the petitioner cannot claim that is has a valid charter certi-cate necessary for it to ac;uire legal personality is untenable. Fe wish to stress that the resolution of the said issue will not in any way a>ect the validity of the charter certi-cate issued by the I=M in favor of the local union. It must be borne in mind that the said charter
certi-cate was issued by the I=M in its capacity as a labor organiBation, a )uridical entity which has a separate and distinct legal personality from its members. Fhen as in this case, there is no showing that the Gederation acting as a separate entity is ;uestioning the legality of the issuance of the said charter certi-cate, the legality of the issuance of the same in favor of the local union is presumed. (his, notwithstanding the alleged controversy on the leadership of the federation. 1$
Fe agree with this position of the public respondent and the @olicitor 8eneral. In addition, private respondent6s Comment to this petition indicates that in the election of o<cers held to determine the representatives of I=M, the faction of Mr. Meron lost to the group of Mr. dilberto 8alveB, and the latter was ac2nowledged as the duly elected I=M ational "resident. 1
%
(hus, the authority of Mr. 8alveB to sign the charter certi-cate of I=M at @MGI, as "resident of the I=M Gederation, 18 can no longer be successfully ;uestioned. # punctilious eEamination of the records presents no evidence to the contrary and petitioner, instead of s;uarely refuting this point, s2irted the issue by insisting that the mere presence of two contending factions in the I=M prevents the issuance of a valid and authentic charter certi-cate in favor of I=M at @MGI. (his averment of petitioner simply does not deserve any merit.II
In any case, this Court notes that it is petitioner, the employer, which has o>ered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certi-cation election among its monthly0paid ran20 and0-le employees. (his must not be so, for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. 19 (he only eEception to this rule is where the employer has to -le the petition for certi-cation election pursuant to #rticle *5! &+ of the %abor Code because it was re;uested to bargain collectively, &1 which eEception -nds no application in the case before us. Its role in a certi-cation election has aptly been described in (rade &nions of the Philippines and Allied Services '(&PAS+ v . (ra4ano, && as that of a !ere ,y-stander . It has no legal standing in a certi-cation election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med0#rbiter6s orders related thereto. #n employer that involves itself in a certi-cation election lends suspicion to the fact it wants to create a company union. &3 (his Court should be the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal a>air of labor. &
Fhile employers may rightfully be noti-ed or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with the concomitant right to oppose it. @ound policy dictates that they should maintain a strictly hands0o> policy. &5
It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certi-cation elections, &$ for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. &
%
(he certi-cation election is the most democratic and eEpeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the establishment where they are wor2ing. &8 It is the appropriate means whereby controversies and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the une;uivocal vote of the employees themselves. &9 Indeed, it is the 2eystone of industrial democracy. 3+"etitioner neEt asseverates that the Charter Certi-cate submitted by the private respondent was defective in that it was not certi-ed under oath and attested to by the organiBation6s secretary and "resident.
"etitioner is grasping at straws. nder our ruling in the Pro"ressive 3evelop!ent orporation 31 case, what is re;uired to be certi-ed under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local6s president are the 4constitution and by0laws, a statement on the set of o<cers, and the boo2s of accounts4 of the organiBation. (he charter certi-cate issued by the mother union need not be certi-ed under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local6s president.
I?
"etitioner, in its /eply to public respondent6s Comment, nevertheless calls the attention of this court to the fact that, contrary to the assertion of private respondent I=M that it is a legitimate labor federation and therefore has the capacity and authority to create a local or chapter at @MGI, the Chief of the %abor OrganiBations Division of the =ureau of %abor
/elations A Manila had allegedly issued a certi-cation last Kanuary 1, 15 to the e>ect that private respondent is not a legitimate labor federation. 3&
(his is a factual issue which petitioner should have raised before the Med0#rbiter so as to allow the private respondent ample opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. (his Court is de-nitely not the proper venue to consider this matter for it is not a trier of facts. It is noteworthy that petitioner did not challenge the legal personality of the federation in the proceedings before the Med0#rbiter. or was this issue raised in petitioner6s appeal to the O<ce of the @ecretary of %abor and mployment. (his matter is being raised for the -rst time in this petition. #n issue which was neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the -rst time before this Court. It would be o>ensive to the basic rule of fair play, )ustice and due process. 33 ertiorari is a remedy narrow in its scope and inSeEible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal wor2shop. 3 Gactual issues are not a proper sub)ect for certiorari, as the power of the @upreme Court to review labor cases is limited to the issue of )urisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.35 It is simply unthin2able for the public respondent ndersecretary of %abor to have committed grave abuse of discretion in this regard when the issue as to the legal personality of the private respondent I=M Gederation was never interposed in the appeal before said forum.
?
Ginally, the certi-cation election sought to be stopped by petitioner is, as of now, fait acco!pli. (he monthly paid ran20and0-le employees of @MGI have already articulated their choice as to who their collective bargaining agent should be. In the certi-cation election held on #ugust *+, 17, 3$ the @MGI wor2ers chose I=M at @MGI to be their sole and eEclusive bargaining agent. (his democratic decision deserve utmost respect. #gain, it bears stressing that labor legislation see2s in the main to protect the interest of the members of the wor2ing class. It should never be used to subvert their will. 3
%
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs !in petitione"
