View full case

LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED v. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between two labor organizations, LEGEND and KML, regarding the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization and the holding of a certification election. LEGEND filed a petition for cancellation of KML's registration, alleging that KML's certificate of registration was improperly granted. However, the Bureau of Labor Relations denied LEGEND's petition and upheld the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization.

LEGEND appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, but it was denied. The appellate court held that the issue of KML's legitimacy had already been settled with finality in a previous case, where the Bureau of Labor Relations upheld the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization. As a result, the Court of Appeals ordered the holding of a certification election.

LEGEND filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that it had appealed the previous decision denying its petition for cancellation and that it was still pending resolution. However, the appellate court denied LEGEND's motion for reconsideration.

LEGEND then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court erred in ruling that the previous decision denying its petition for cancellation had become final and executory. LEGEND claimed that it had filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which had granted the petition and reversed the previous decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

KML argued that the decision upholding its legitimacy had already become final and executory, and therefore, there was no hindrance to the holding of a certification election. KML also claimed that the certification election sought to be prevented had already been conducted, rendering the instant petition moot.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations upholding the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has attained finality.

  2. Whether the cancellation of KML's certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance.

  3. Can a certification election be conducted during the pendency of union registration cancellation proceedings?

  4. Can the legal personality of a union be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election?

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals erred in disregarding LEGEND's allegation that the Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations has not yet attained finality, considering that LEGEND has timely appealed the same to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals should have looked into this allegation before dismissing LEGEND's motion for reconsideration.

  2. The cancellation of KML's certificate of registration should not retroact to the time of its issuance. LEGEND's claim that KML's petition for certification election and its demand to enter into a collective bargaining agreement should be dismissed due to KML's lack of legal personality is not valid. The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude certification proceedings and collective bargaining. Even if there is a pending cancellation petition, the union still had the legal personality to perform such acts at the time it filed the petition.

  3. Yes, a certification election can be conducted during the pendency of union registration cancellation proceedings. The legal personality of the union at the time of filing the petition for certification election is presumed, and there is no basis for asserting that the cancellation of the union's certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or nullify all of the union's activities.

  4. No, the legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election. The legitimacy of the legal personality of a union can only be questioned in a separate action specifically instituted for the purpose of assailing it.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of a petition for cancellation of a union's registration certificate.

  • The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective bargaining.

  • A certification election can be conducted despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the union registration certificate.

  • The legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election.

  • The legitimacy of the legal personality of a union can only be questioned in a separate action instituted for the purpose of challenging it.