Benguet Electric Cooperative v. Ferrer-Calleja
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the eligibility of employees who are also members and co-owners of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) to form or join a labor union for collective bargaining purposes. A labor union, Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (BWLU-ADLO), filed a petition for direct certification as the exclusive bargaining representative for BENECO's rank-and-file employees. Another union, Beneco Employees Labor Union (BELU), opposed the petition, asserting its prior certification and pending cases against BENECO. BENECO itself moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that its employees, being members and co-owners, were ineligible to form or join a labor organization. Procedural History: The med-arbiter initially granted the petition for a certification election but limited it to rank-and-file employees who were not members or co-owners of BENECO, identifying thirty-seven such employees. Both BELU and BENECO appealed this order, but their appeals were dismissed. BENECO then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 74209), which was also dismissed. A certification election was held on October 1, 1986, where BELU received a majority of the votes cast. BENECO filed a protest, arguing that member-employees were improperly allowed to vote. The med-arbiter dismissed the protest, and the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirmed this dismissal, certifying BELU as the exclusive bargaining agent. The Petition: Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the BLR Director. BENECO argued that the certification election was null and void because employees who were members and co-owners of the cooperative, and thus ineligible to join a labor union, were allowed to vote. The Supreme Court, referencing prior rulings, held that members of a cooperative who are also co-owners cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining because an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. The Court found that the certification election was invalid as it could not be determined if the majority of eligible voters cast their votes, given the inclusion of ineligible voters. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, annulled the BLR Director's resolution, and set aside the certification election, ordering new proceedings among only the non-member employees.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying respondent BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of BENECO. Whether employees of a cooperative who are also members and co-owners are eligible to form, assist, or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution of the respondent director is ANNULLED. The certification election conducted on October 1, 1986, is SET ASIDE. The Regional Office No. 1 of San Fernando, La Union is directed to immediately conduct new certification election proceedings among the rank and file employees of the petitioner who are not members of the cooperative.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying respondent BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative: The Court finds that the respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion. The certification election held on October 1, 1986, was null and void because it allowed employees who are members and co-owners of the cooperative to vote. The Labor Code, specifically Article 256, requires that for a valid certification election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes, and the labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified. In this case, it could not be determined whether respondent union was duly elected by the eligible voters since ineligible employees were allowed to vote. The med-arbiter's finding that only thirty-seven (37) employees were eligible was contradicted by the fact that eighty-three (83) employees voted, many of whom were members and co-owners. On the issue of whether employees of a cooperative who are also members and co-owners are eligible to form, assist, or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining: The Court reiterates its ruling in previous cases, such as Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja, et al., that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who is also a member and co-owner thereof. This is because an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. The disqualification stems from the fact of ownership, not merely involvement in management. Therefore, irrespective of their degree of participation in the cooperative's management, all members who are co-owners are disqualified from forming or joining a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes. Conversely, employees who are neither members nor co-owners are entitled to exercise their constitutional and statutory rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.
Main Doctrine
Employees of a cooperative who are also members and co-owners thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining, as an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. However, employees who are neither members nor co-owners are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.