Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services v. Laguesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The rank-and-file employees of Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation (PDIC), represented by petitioner Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS), had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on April 31, 1991. On March 8, 1991, PDIC was informed of the union's resolution to disaffiliate from TUPAS and affiliate with private respondent National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU). PDIC had reservations due to uncertainty about whether the disaffiliation was ratified by the majority of members and reports of coercion. Procedural History: On April 24, 1991, within the 60-day freedom period, PDIC and NAFLU filed separate petitions for certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. 3. These were consolidated. Petitioner TUPAS filed a motion to refer the case to the LACC Fraternal Relations Committee, citing the LACC Code of Ethics on non-union raiding. On June 3, 1991, the Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election. This order was appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order on August 15, 1991. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 7, 1991. The Petition: Petitioners filed an original action for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, seeking to annul the Resolution dated August 15, 1991, and the Order dated October 7, 1991.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Med-Arbiter's Order for a certification election. Whether the LACC Code of Ethics can supplant the provisions of Article 256 of the Labor Code regarding certification elections.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Resolution dated August 15, 1991, and the Order dated October 7, 1991, of respondent Department of Labor and Employment Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma are AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: Public respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Med-Arbiter's Order. The order for the holding of a certification election finds legal warrant in Article 256 of the amended Labor Code. Under this provision, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order a certification election by secret ballot in an organized establishment, provided that a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the sixty-day freedom period, the petition is verified, and it is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all employees in the bargaining unit. It is undisputed that all these requirements were met by private respondent NAFLU in its petition before the DOLE Regional Office No. 3. Thus, Med-Arbiter Cortez, acting in accordance with Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended, had no recourse but to automatically order the holding of a certification election. On the issue of the LACC Code of Ethics supplanting the Labor Code: Article 256 of the Labor Code cannot be supplanted by the Code of Ethics of the LACC. The Code of Ethics cannot amend or repeal a law. It merely provides for a voluntary mechanism to settle intra-union disputes and applies only when both parties seek the mediation of the LACC Fraternal Relations Committee. When one of the parties decides to avail of the remedy provided for under Article 256 of the Labor Code and files the proper petition with the DOLE, jurisdiction over the dispute is exclusively acquired by the Med-Arbiter and cannot be wrested away. Jurisdiction is vested by law, not by agreement between parties. Furthermore, labor disputes involve public interest, and any private agreement on their settlement cannot prevail over statutory provisions. The emphasis given by the Code of Ethics on the right of local unions to decide for themselves during the freedom period is in accordance with the Labor Code, which allows another union to question the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within the freedom period. The certification election is the most democratic method of determining the employees' choice of their bargaining representative, and it is the keystone of industrial democracy.
Main Doctrine
The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. When the requirements of Article 256 of the Labor Code are met, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order a certification election, and this statutory mandate cannot be supplanted by internal codes of ethics.