Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis v. Secretary of Labor

G.R. No. 111836 (February 1, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves the rank-and-file workers of Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY), who established a local union named Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic (KAPATIRAN) under the National Workers Brotherhood (NWB). The union ratified its Constitution and By-Laws on April 4, 1993. On April 22, 1993, KAPATIRAN filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Med-Arbiter Division, asserting that there was no existing and effective Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between FORMEY and any union, nor was there a recognized union within the company.

FORMEY opposed the petition, moving to dismiss it, while Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI) intervened, also seeking dismissal on the grounds that a duly registered CBA covering the period from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1996, was in effect, invoking the "contract bar rule." KAPATIRAN countered that the CBA with KAMAPI was fraudulently registered and defective, as KAMAPI, being a federation, lacked the legal personality to act on behalf of the local union.

Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah ruled that a valid CBA existed between FORMEY and KAMAPI, which barred the certification election petition. KAPATIRAN appealed, claiming grave abuse of discretion by the Med-Arbiter for applying the contract bar rule and not following the precedent set in the case of Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment. The Secretary of Labor, through Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, upheld the Med-Arbiter's decision. KAPATIRAN's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Labor.

While the petition was pending, KAMAPI filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the case had become moot due to the cancellation of NWB's certificate of registration and its delisting from labor federations. KAPATIRAN opposed this motion, asserting that the cancellation was not yet final as they had filed a motion for reconsideration.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor erred in applying the "contract bar rule" to dismiss KAPATIRAN's petition for certification election.
2. Whether the CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI was valid and binding, despite KAPATIRAN's claims of its fraudulent registration.
3. The implications of the cancellation of NWB's registration on the ongoing proceedings.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (KAPATIRAN):

  • Argued that the CBA with KAMAPI was fraudulently registered and thus invalid.
  • Contended that the contract bar rule should not apply as the CBA was not a legitimate agreement.
  • Asserted that the Med-Arbiter's decision was a grave abuse of discretion and that the precedent set in Progressive Development Corporation should have been followed.

• Respondents (FORMEY, KAMAPI, Secretary of Labor):

  • Maintained that a valid CBA existed, which effectively barred the certification election petition.
  • Argued that the petition was filed outside the 60-day freedom period before the CBA's expiration, as stipulated in Article 253-A of the Labor Code.
  • Contended that the claims of fraudulent registration were speculative and lacked documentary support.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Labor, ruling that there was a validly executed CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI. It emphasized that the findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Med-Arbiter, are generally not disturbed unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case.

The court reiterated the provisions of Article 253-A of the Labor Code, which prohibits the filing of a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent outside the specified period. Since the petition for certification election was filed on April 22, 1993, well before the 60-day freedom period prior to the CBA's expiration on December 31, 1996, it was deemed invalid.

The court also addressed KAPATIRAN's claims regarding the CBA's validity, stating that the issue of whether the CBA was fraudulently registered involved factual determinations that were not within the scope of the certiorari petition. The court noted that KAPATIRAN had not utilized the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA to address their concerns, which further weakened their position.

Regarding KAMAPI's motion to dismiss based on the cancellation of NWB's registration, the court found that the issue could not be resolved at that time, as KAPATIRAN's motion for reconsideration was still pending.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The "contract bar rule" under Article 253-A of the Labor Code prohibits the filing of certification election petitions outside the designated period before the expiration of a CBA.
2. The validity of a CBA is upheld unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality, and claims regarding its validity must be substantiated with documentary evidence.
3. The grievance procedures outlined in a CBA must be exhausted before resorting to petitions for certification elections or other legal remedies.