Samahang Manggagawa ng Via Mare v. Noriel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa ng Via Mare (SAMAVIM) requested respondent Via Mare Catering Services and Food Specialties, Inc. to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The corporation allegedly terminated four union members and neither assented nor refused to bargain, while also harassing union members. SAMAVIM filed a Notice of Strike. Procedural History: The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), through Med-Arbiter Roberto Landas, facilitated a conference where the parties agreed to negotiate. They entered into a Preliminary Agreement and an Initial Agreement outlining steps for CBA negotiation and a consent election. However, the corporation refused to negotiate on November 27, 1979, leading to a walk-out by union members on November 28, 1979. Director Carmelo C. Noriel issued a Return-To-Work Order. The parties agreed to a consent election on December 3, 1979. Subsequently, on December 4, 1979, the corporation terminated seventy-three union members without prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor and hired replacements. SAMAVIM filed a motion to cite respondents in contempt for violating the Return-To-Work Order, union-busting, and bad faith. The corporation's counsel assured reinstatement, but failed to appear at a subsequent hearing. Director Noriel allegedly refused to act on the contempt motion, claiming loss of jurisdiction due to the corporation's application to dismiss the seventy-three members, which was filed with the Regional Director. The Petition: Petitioner SAMAVIM filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the alleged divestment of jurisdiction of respondent Director Noriel. The core argument was that Director Noriel retained jurisdiction over the labor dispute and the contempt proceedings, and that the corporation's application for clearance to dismiss employees was a stratagem to avoid its duty to bargain collectively and to deplete the union's membership.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel was divested of his jurisdiction to settle the labor dispute. Whether the application for clearance to terminate the employment of union members could be used to defeat the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Ruling
The petition is granted. Respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel is ordered to proceed with the holding of the certification election as agreed upon by the petitioner and the respondent corporation. Costs are against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel was not divested of his jurisdiction to settle the labor dispute. The filing of an application for clearance to terminate the employment of seventy-three union members by the respondent corporation was deemed a suspect maneuver intended to frustrate the corporation's duty to bargain collectively. By depleting the union's membership, the corporation aimed to assure its defeat in any certification election. Such a stratagem cannot be used to defeat the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, who was tasked with overseeing the labor dispute and the agreed-upon consent election. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed that the application for clearance to terminate the employment of union members cannot be used to defeat the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Court distinguished the issue before Director Noriel, which was the determination of the petitioner's status as the exclusive bargaining representative and the holding of a consent or certification election, from the issue before Regional Director Estrella, which was the justification for the termination of employment. These two issues were deemed unrelated and resolvable independently, especially since the dismissed employees were to be included in the certification election. The employer's duty to bargain collectively under Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code requires prompt and good faith negotiation, and attempts to evade this duty through procedural means do not divest the labor authorities of their jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations over a labor dispute is not divested by the employer's subsequent filing of an application for clearance to terminate the employment of union members, particularly when such an application is deemed a tactic to avoid the duty to bargain collectively. The Court emphasized that the duty to bargain collectively, as defined in Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code, requires employers and employee representatives to meet and negotiate in good faith, and attempts to frustrate this duty through procedural maneuvers are suspect and will not oust the labor director of jurisdiction.