Philex Miners Union v. National Mines & Allied Workers Union
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF) filed a petition for certification election before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) concerning the employees of Philex Mining Corporation. The Philex Miners Association and the Philippines Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) intervened. On December 22, 1960, the CIR issued an order directing the Department of Labor to conduct a certification election among the non-supervisory employees. Procedural History: The Philex Miners Union (petitioner) filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 2, 1960, arguing the CIR's order was contrary to law, jurisprudence, and evidence. An argument in support was filed on January 5, 1961. The Department of Labor scheduled the certification election for January 20, 1961. Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend the Certification Election on January 9, 1961. On January 14, 1960, the CIR en banc dismissed the motion for reconsideration for not being filed in accordance with Sections 15, 16, and 17 of the CIR Rules, and consequently denied the motion to suspend the election. The Petition: On February 6, 1961, petitioner filed an appeal on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the CIR's order. A preliminary injunction was issued. The certification election proceeded on January 20, 1961, with petitioner losing by a wide margin.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in holding that the motion for reconsideration was not submitted in accordance with the CIR Rules. Whether the lower court erred in not suspending the certification election.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved. The dismissal of the motion for reconsideration by the CIR was erroneous, but this error does not justify granting the petition. The certification election proceeded as scheduled and the appeal did not suspend its effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (propriety of the motion for reconsideration): The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration by the CIR was erroneous. The Court found that the motion, signed by counsel and containing an acknowledgment "Subscribed and sworn to before me, etc.," substantially conformed to the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration to be "duly verified under oath." The Court noted that the verification requirement in Section 15 of the CIR Rules was to vouchsafe for the "correctness of the allegations of fact." However, the motion for reconsideration in this case did not contain allegations of fact but impugned conclusions of law, rendering a formal verification of facts useless and superfluous. The Court cited Arambulo v. Perez in support of the principle that an acknowledgment in the usual form constitutes substantial compliance. On the second issue (suspension of the certification election): Despite finding the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration erroneous, the Supreme Court ruled that this error did not justify granting the petition. The Court emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not ipso facto suspend a scheduled certification election. Such suspension requires a restraining order from a competent court. The Department of Labor was scheduled to conduct the election on January 20, 1961. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was dismissed on January 14, 1960, and its motion to suspend was denied. Petitioner did not obtain any restraining order. The appeal to the Supreme Court, without more, also did not suspend the effect of the certification election. It was only on February 20, 1961, a month after the election, that a preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court, by which time there was no longer any act to enjoin. The Court concluded that granting the petition would serve no practical purpose and would only thwart the rights of the chosen representatives of the respondent labor unions.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration, even if not strictly conforming to all technical requirements of verification, may be considered as substantially complying with the rules if it is signed by counsel and contains an acknowledgment, especially when the motion impugns conclusions of law rather than allegations of fact. However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not ipso facto suspend the proceedings, such as a scheduled certification election, in the absence of a restraining order from a competent court.