National Union of Garments Textile Cordage and General Workers of the Philippines v. Ministry of Labor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 15, 1978, rank and file workers of Gelmart Industries (Phils.) Inc. disaffiliated from petitioner National Union of Garment, Textile, Cordage & General Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) and organized Bagong Pilipino Gelmart Workers (BPGWU). BPGWU was issued a certificate of registration on October 24, 1978. On December 6, 1978, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed a petition for certification election. On December 13, 1978, GATCORD filed a complaint for unfair labor practice (company domination) against BPGWU and Gelmart Industries. On December 19, 1978, BPGWU filed a petition for direct certification, which was treated as an intervention. National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) filed a motion for intervention on December 27, 1978. Procedural History: On January 11, 1979, Med-Arbiter Edgardo de la Cruz ordered a certification election among TUPAS, GATCORD, BPGWU, NAFLU, and 'No union'. Federation of Free Workers (FFW) filed a motion for intervention on January 20, 1979. GATCORD appealed the Med-Arbiter's resolution, objecting to BPGWU's inclusion due to the pending unfair labor practice charge, arguing it constituted a prejudicial question. On February 16, 1979, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) denied GATCORD's appeal and included FFW as a contending union. GATCORD's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: GATCORD filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging that the BLR acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the resolutions denying its appeal and motion for reconsideration. GATCORD sought to nullify these resolutions and enjoin their implementation.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is moot and academic. Whether the charge of company domination constitutes a prejudicial question that bars a certification election.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court found the petition to be moot and academic. The records indicated that the unfair labor practice charge against respondent BPGWU and respondent company had already been dismissed by Labor Arbiter Ernilo V. Peñalosa on April 25, 1979, and GATCORD did not appeal this decision, making it final. Furthermore, the certification election sought to be stopped had already been held on May 10, 1979. Respondent BPGWU garnered a majority of the votes and was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent by order of Med-Arbiter Edgardo de la Cruz on May 16, 1979. Subsequently, BPGWU and the company signed a 3-year Collective Bargaining Agreement on December 13, 1979. The Court reiterated the settled rule that courts will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions where no practical relief can be granted, citing Emilio Bongat, et al. vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.. On the issue of prejudicial question: While not explicitly ruled upon due to mootness, the Court's dismissal of the petition implicitly addressed this by noting the prior dismissal and finality of the unfair labor practice charge. The Court's reasoning that the election had proceeded and a bargaining agent was certified, coupled with the dismissal of the ULP charge, rendered the argument of a prejudicial question moot in this context. The Court's focus was on the supervening events that made the original issue of whether to hold the election irrelevant.
Main Doctrine
A petition seeking to stop a certification election becomes moot and academic when the election has already been conducted, the results declared, and a collective bargaining agent certified, especially when the underlying unfair labor practice charge has been dismissed and has become final.