A' Prime Security Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor Franklin Drilon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a petition for certification election filed by the Philippine Federation of Labor (PFL) for security guards employed by A' Prime Security Services, Inc. (A' Prime) and assigned to the U.S. Embassy. A' Prime moved to dismiss, arguing the ineligibility of U.S. Embassy security guards, failure to meet the 20% subscription requirement, and that the union did not represent the proper bargaining unit. 2. Procedural History: The Med-Arbiter initially dismissed the petition, finding a failure to meet the 20% subscription requirement for the entire employer unit. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) granted the appeal and ordered a certification election for all security guards, despite finding no variance in work. The BLR denied a motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the respondent union filed a second motion for reconsideration with the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE), who modified the BLR order to limit the certification election to U.S. Embassy security guards, creating three choices for the ballot. A motion for reconsideration of this order was denied by the Acting Secretary of DOLE. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the DOLE Secretary's and Acting Secretary's orders. The petitioner argues that the DOLE Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion by ruling that the proper bargaining unit was limited to U.S. Embassy security guards and by entertaining the second motion for reconsideration, which petitioner contends was a circumvention of the BLR's warning and constituted forum-shopping, thereby exceeding the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the proper bargaining unit is limited to security guards at the U.S. Embassy and its facilities. Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment had competent jurisdiction to entertain the private respondent's second motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated November 24, 1989, of the DOLE Secretary and January 16, 1990, of the DOLE Acting Secretary are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated April 27, 1989, of the Bureau of Labor Relations is REVIVED and REINSTATED. Costs against private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper bargaining unit: While the Court found the jurisdiction issue decisive, it implicitly set aside the DOLE Secretary's ruling on the bargaining unit by reviving and reinstating the BLR's Order. The BLR Director had initially found no variance in the nature of work between the union members and other security guards, but still granted the appeal to call for a certification election among all security guards. The DOLE Secretary, however, found "clear recognizable economic and occupational differences" and limited the election to U.S. Embassy guards. By setting aside the DOLE Secretary's order and reinstating the BLR's order, the Supreme Court effectively rejected the DOLE Secretary's determination of a separate bargaining unit for the U.S. Embassy security guards. On the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the second motion for reconsideration: The Court found this issue decisive. It reiterated the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action and, once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated. When the petition for certification election was filed, appeals from Med-Arbiter orders went to the BLR. Although R.A. No. 6715 amended Article 259 of the Labor Code, transferring jurisdiction over appeals directly to the Secretary of Labor, the BLR had already acquired jurisdiction over the appeal and issued its Order of April 27, 1989. The respondent union's filing of a motion for reconsideration before the BLR, which was denied, indicated its recognition of the BLR's jurisdiction. The subsequent filing of a second motion for reconsideration before the DOLE Secretary, after the BLR had warned that no further motions would be entertained, was considered a circumvention of that warning and a trifling with the orderly administration of justice. This act constituted forum shopping, as the union sought a favorable ruling in another forum after obtaining an unfavorable one from the BLR, thereby availing itself of a two-tiered review contrary to the intent of speedy adjudication. Therefore, the DOLE Secretary had no jurisdiction to entertain the second motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
The Secretary of Labor and Employment acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a second motion for reconsideration filed before his office, which constituted forum shopping and trifled with the orderly administration of justice, as jurisdiction over the appeal had already been exercised by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and its decision had become final and unappealable.