Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc. v. Philippine Trade and General Workers Organization

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244110. February 27, 2019.]

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.PHILIPPINE TRADE AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION AND/OR COCA-COLA PHILIPPINES SPECIAL MARKET EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO, LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 972, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 27, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244110 — (Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc. v. Philippine Trade and General Workers Organization and/or Coca-Cola Philippines Special Market Employees Union-PTGWO, Local Chapter No. 972)

After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its May 25, 2018 Decision 1 and January 10, 2019 Resolution 2 to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

As correctly ruled by the CA, it is a well-established ruling that an employer is not a party to a certification election, which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. 3 In certification elections, the employer is a mere bystander as it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election. 4 The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers' request to bargain collectively pursuant to the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election is issued, the employer's involvement ceases and it again becomes a neutral bystander. 5

Moreover, there was no fraud or any irregularity in the conduct of election to warrant the intervention of petitioner. In fact, the certification election had yet to be conducted when petitioner filed its opposition to respondents' petition for certification election. The petition for certification election was filed precisely to determine the will of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. Petitioner, however, interfered with the valid exercise of the labor organization's right to a certification election from the outset and consistently took the adversary position in the petition. Petitioner's act cannot be countenanced.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 25, 2018 Decision and the January 10, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153230 are AFFIRMED. AcICHD

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., and Carandang, J., both on official leave. Jardeleza, J., took no part; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 18, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 21-27; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring.

2.Id. at 29-31.

3. See R. Transport Corp. v. Laguesma, et al., 298 Phil. 631, 638 (1993).

4.SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six Movement v. Titan Megabags Industrial Corp., 472 Phil. 577, 582 (2004).

5. See Trade Unions of the Phil. and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, et al., 205 Phil. 41, 43 (1983).