ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240453. December 5, 2022.]
PHILIPPINES DONG YUN PLATE-MAKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.SAMAHAN AT UGNAYAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PHILIPPINES DONG YUN [SUMAPHI-DY-NAFLU-KMU] and OBRERO PILIPINO-DONG YUN PLATE-MAKING CHAPTER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court's First Division issued a Resolution datedDecember 5, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240453 (Philippines Dong Yun Plate-Making Corporation vs. Samahan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawa sa Philippines Dong Yun [SUMAPHI-DY-NAFLU-KMU] and Obrero Pilipino-Dong Yun Plate-Making Chapter). — This is an Appeal by Certiorari1 filed by Philippines Dong Yun Plate-Making Corporation (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the March 13, 2018 Decision 2 and the July 2, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146707, whereby the CA ruled that the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) did not gravely abuse his or her discretion in holding that petitioner's election protest was filed out of time and that the allegations therein were insufficient to invalidate the certification election.
Antecedents
On September 8, 2015, a certification election was held among petitioner's rank-and-file employees where Samahan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawa sa Philippines Dong Yun [SUMAPHI-DY-NAFLU-KMU] (SUMAPHI) and Obrero Pilipino-Dong Yun Plate-Making Chapter (Obrero Pilipino; collectively, respondent unions) vied to be declared as their bargaining representative. The results of the certification election were as follows:
|
|
Number of Votes |
|
Obrero Pilipino |
41 |
|
[SUMAPHI] |
44 |
|
No [Union] |
[0] |
|
Challenged |
2 |
|
Spoiled |
1 |
|
Total |
88 4 |
Petitioner alleged that some officers and members of respondent unions resorted to illegal campaigning during the day of the election. 5 More specifically, petitioners alleged that respondents shouted at the voters, distributed and wore election paraphernalia (i.e., red rubber/roller bands or wristbands), and brought mobile phones to the election premises. 6 On the basis of these alleged irregularities, petitioner filed an Election Protest 7 on September 11, 2015 and a [Supplemental] Election Protest 8 on September 14, 2015, praying that the results of the certification election be declared null and void, and a new election be conducted. 9 DETACa
Ruling of the Mediator-Arbiter
In an Order 10 dated October 20, 2015, the mediator-arbiter of the DOLE Regional Office No. IV-A Calabarzon ruled that the protest was filed out of time. The Order stated that since the election protest was allegedly filed on September 21, 2015, it did not comply with the requirements set forth in Section 12, Rule IX of DOLE Department Order (D.O.) No. 40-03, 11 which provides that the protesting party must formalize its protest with the mediator-arbiter within five days after the close of the election proceedings.
On November 5, 2015, petitioner filed an Appeal 12 from the Order of the mediator-arbiter. Pending resolution of its appeal, the mediator-arbiter issued an Order 13 dated November 27, 2015, certifying SUMAPHI as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of petitioner's rank-and-file employees. Aggrieved, petitioner timely filed an Appeal 14 with the DOLE Secretary.
Ruling of the DOLE Secretary
In a Resolution 15 dated April 5, 2016, the DOLE dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. The DOLE Secretary ruled that even if the election protest was timely filed, the acts allegedly committed by respondent unions during the certification election neither constitute illegal acts of campaigning that tainted the results of the election nor materially or substantially vitiated the will of the voters. 16
On May 18, 2016, the DOLE resolved to deny 17 the Motion for Reconsideration 18 filed by petitioner for lack of merit. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO/Preliminary Injunction) 19 with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOLE Secretary.
Ruling of the CA
In its March 13, 2018 Decision, the CA denied the petition. While the CA noted that the election protest was timely filed, the same failed to comply with the second paragraph of Sec. 12, Rule IX of DOLE D.O. No. 40-03 which states that a protest not recorded in the minutes of the certification election shall be dropped. The CA similarly observed that petitioner's allegations of irregularities during the certification election were insufficient to invalidate the results of the election. 20
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its July 2, 2018 Resolution.
Issue
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether petitioner's election protest should be given due course.
Petitioner reiterates that respondent unions committed serious irregularities before, during, and after the conduct of the certification election that may have affected its results. 21 SUMAPHI filed an Opposition to [the] Petition for Review 22 primarily arguing that petitioner had no personality to file the instant petition. As an employer, petitioner is a mere bystander who has no right to question the proceedings or manner in which the certification election was conducted. 23
In its July 28, 2021 Resolution, 24 the Court resolved to furnish Obrero Pilipino a copy of the Resolution 25 dated November 21, 2018 ordering respondent unions to file their comment. In view of Obrero Pilipino's failure to file the required pleading, the Court hereby resolves to dispense with its comment and decide the instant petition based on available records. aDSIHc
The Court's Ruling
The petition must be denied for lack of merit.
At the outset, it bears to state that the petition raises questions of fact. However, it is settled that the office of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law. "Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official's findings rest." It is likewise not the duty of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the DOLE Secretary and the CA on the matter coincide — such as in the case at bar. 26
Petitioner failed to comply with
It remains undisputed that petitioner failed to comply with the second paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule IX of DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, which provides:
Section 13. Protest; When Perfected. — Any party-in-interest may file a protest based on the conduct or mechanics of the election. Such protests shall be recorded in the minutes of the election proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived.
xxx xxx xxx
The protesting party must formalize its protest with the Mediator-Arbiter, with specific grounds, arguments and evidence, within five (5) days after the close of the election proceedings. If not recorded in the minutes and formalized within the prescribed period, the protest shall be deemed dropped. (Emphases supplied)
Furthermore, it is well-settled in jurisprudence that as a general rule, an election protest in a certification election may be given due course only if it was previously entered in the minutes of such election. In the case of National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union-United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines, 27 the Court affirmed the findings of the Bureau of Labor Relations, to wit:
With regards to the second and third issues raised by petitioner, the public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations in its order dated September 24, 1986 found the following, to wit:
x x x Indeed, the minutes of said certification elections conducted both at the sawmill and logging departments on August 15 and 21, 1986 respectively, of the respondent/employer showed that there was no protest on massive vote buying accompanied with grave and serious threats, force and intimidation raised by any of the parties who were ably represented in said elections. Paragraph 2, Section 9, Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines (now Section 3, Rule VI, Book 5 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) provides that protests not so raised and contained in the minutes of the proceedings are deemed waived. Allegations of vote buying, grave and serious threats, force and intimidation are questions of fact which should be contained in the minutes of said proceedings. There is no clear and convincing proof presented by the protestant in support of its contention, hence, we have no other alternative than to uphold the election results. 28 (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, in Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 29 the Court ruled that there was no valid reason to annul the certification election when no such protest on any matter concerning the election proceedings was registered in the minutes of the certification election. 30 In the present case, the mediator-arbiter, the DOLE Secretary, and the CA 31 were all one in finding that the minutes of the September 8, 2015 certification showed no recorded protest. As found by the DOLE Secretary: TIADCc
In this case, a scrutiny of the minutes of the 08 September 2015 certification election shows no recorded protest. On the contrary, the minutes disclose that all of the parties duly signed it, and certified that the results of the election are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. It was also certified that the election was free, honest and orderly. 32
Well-settled is that factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect in view of their expertise in their respective field. 33 We find no reason to rule otherwise. Petitioner's failure to record its protest in the minutes of the certification election as required by law is deemed as a waiver on its part.
Moreover, petitioner's reliance on the Court's ruling in National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor34(National Federation of Labor) is misplaced. As aptly observed by the CA, the Court, in National Federation of Labor, found merit in the election protest notwithstanding the failure to register such protest because the election was marred by massive fraud and irregularities, and because a substantial number of the employees were actually disenfranchised based on the letters of the employees themselves. 35 Such is not the case here.
Respondent unions' conduct
Even assuming that petitioner was able to comply with the requirements under Sec. 13, Rule IX of DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, its allegations of irregularities during the certification election are not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. To recall, petitioner alleges that the election was marred by the following irregular acts: (a) shouting at the voters by an alleged SUMAPHI affiliate organization, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU); (b) distribution and wearing of red rubber wristbands by alleged members of KMU; (c) demand by some KMU members to remove the cameras inside the meeting room where the election was being held; (d) employees discussing among themselves within the area where the election was held; (e) confiscation of a cellular phone during voting; (f) SUMAPHI handing out sample ballots; and (g) presence of campaign posters on the wall. 36
Invalidating certification elections due to irregular conduct of participating unions is not unheard of. However, jurisprudence reveals that irregularities that may invalidate a certification election involve conduct that disenfranchises the employee-voters. In National Federation of Labor37 and Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions v. Noriel, 38 the protests were granted due to: (1) a significant number of employees not being able to vote; (2) lack of secrecy in the voting; and (3) the presence of bribery. Meanwhile, in DHL-URFA-FFW v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phil. Corp., 39 the certification was set aside because the union was found to have made false statements or misrepresentations that interfered with the free choice of the employees. 40
In the present case, there is no clear showing of disenfranchisement, or any material and substantial impairment of the will of the voters. As correctly observed by the DOLE Secretary and affirmed by the CA, respondent unions' alleged irregular conduct did not call for the election of a particular union or defeat of a specific candidate of choice:
The affidavit referring to the alleged act of shouting of an alleged KMU member to voters on the day of the election does not particularly specify that the words uttered call for the election or defeat of a choice of union. The affidavits referring to the alleged wearing of red roller bands do not particularly call for the election or defeat a particular union. A close examination of the photo of the red roller band shows that there is nothing in it that would imply that it was used as election paraphernalia. The sworn statement referring to the alleged bringing of cellular phone on the day of the election and in the election premises does not amount to campaigning. 41
Finally, petitioner argues, on the basis of National Federation of Labor, that as the employer, it is not merely a bystander to the certification election proceedings, thus it is not improper for it to show interest in the conduct of such election. 42 Petitioner is once again mistaken. Concern over the validity of certification elections must come from the employees themselves. 43 Time and again, the Court has ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. 44 The only exception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code, 45 because it was requested to bargain collectively. 46 Undoubtedly, the employer is deemed an intruder as far as a certification election is concerned. Thus, petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for the certification election, and should stand aside as a mere bystander who cannot appeal the mediator-arbiter's orders relative to the conduct of the certification election. 47 As the Court explained in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.: 48 AIDSTE
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. 49
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in rejecting imputations of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOLE Secretary when it dismissed the election protest.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the March 13, 2018 Decision and the July 2, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146707. Costs against petitioner.
It appearing that the copies of the Resolutions dated October 6, 2021 and June 28, 2021 sent to respondent Obrero Pilipino-Dong Yun Plate Making Chapter at Suite 714, Future Point Plaza I, No. 112 Panay Avenue, South Triangle, 1103 Quezon City, were both returned to this Court on October 24, 2022 and October 28, 2022, respectively, unserved with postal notation "RTS-moved out," the Court resolves to NOTE the same and to REITERATE the Resolution dated March 9, 2022 requiring petitioner to INFORM the Court of the current address of respondent Obrero Pilipino-Dong Yun Plate Making Chapter.
SO ORDERED." Hernando, J., on wellness leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-31.
2. Id. at 54-67; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon.
3. Id. at 33-39.
4. Id. at 14.
5. Id. at 12-14.
6. Id. at 362.
7. Id. at 74-85.
8. Id. at 153-161.
9. Id. at 160.
10. Id. at 164-168; penned by Mediator-Arbiter Atty. Maureen Zena O. Serazon-Tongson.
11. Entitled "Amending the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines" dated February 17, 2003.
12. Rollo, pp. 239-251.
13. Id. at 207-209.
14. Id. at 226-238.
15. Id. at 358-363; signed by Undersecretary Rebecca C. Chato.
16. Id. at 362.
17. Id. at 378-379.
18. Id. at 364-377.
19. Id. at 380-403.
20. Id. at 60-61 and 65.
21. Id. at 18-21.
22. Id. at 406-412.
23. Id. at 408.
24. Id. at 446-447.
25. Id. at 413-414.
26. Sumifru (Philippines) Corp. v. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm, 810 Phil. 692, 702 (2017); Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, 704 Phil. 10, 26 (2013); see also Olan v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 950, 955 (1998).
27. 270 Phil. 716 (1990).
28. Id. at 721.
29. 256 Phil. 237 (1989).
30. Id. at 242; see also Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Laguesma, 334 Phil. 955, 964 (1997); Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 288 Phil. 903, 909 (1992).
31. Rollo, pp. 60-62, 168, and 361.
32. Id. at 361.
33. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, supra note 26.
34. 351 Phil. 94 (1998).
35. Id. at 104-105.
36. Rollo, pp. 13-14.
37. Supra.
38. 202 Phil. 249 (1982).
39. 478 Phil. 842 (2004).
40. Id. at 855-856.
41. Rollo, pp. 64 and 362.
42. National Federation of Labor v. the Secretary of Labor, supra note 34, at 103.
43. Asian Design and Manufacturing Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note 29, at 242.
44. The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 739 Phil. 351, 362 (2014); T & H Shopfitters Corp./Gin Queen Corp. v. T & H Shopfitters Corp./Gin Queen Workers Union, 728 Phil. 168, 180 (2014); Hercules Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, supra note 30, at 908; Rizal Workers Union v. Ferrer-Calleja, 264 Phil. 805, 813 (1990).
45. The provision partly states: Art. 258. When an Employer May File Petition. When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
46. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services v. Trajano, 205 Phil. 41, 43 (1983).
47. San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union, 670 Phil. 421, 436 (2011); The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, supra at 362.
48. 581 Phil. 359 (2008).
49. Id. at 380.