View full case

NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review filed by Notre Dame of Greater Manila (NDGM) challenging the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. NDGM questioned the certification election conducted by the Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers & Employees Union (NGMTEU). The NGMTEU had filed a petition for direct certification to be recognized as the bargaining agent for the rank and file employees of NDGM.

The Med-Arbiter granted the petition filed by NGMTEU and ordered the pre-election conference to be conducted. However, NDGM filed a motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters, but their motion was denied.

On the day of the certification election, NDGM filed a written notice of protest against the conduct and results of the election. Despite this, the Med-Arbiter certified NGMTEU as the sole bargaining agent and dismissed NDGM's protest.

Not satisfied with the decision, NDGM filed an appeal, but it was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeals for lack of merit. NDGM then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was likewise rejected.

The Court of Appeals held that NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the workers included in the list of voters.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in dismissing the petition alleging violation of the Labor Code in the issuance of the Orders.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed errors in fact and law.

  3. Whether the petitioner has legal standing to question the certification election.

  4. Whether the employer has the personality to interfere in the certification election.

RULING:

  1. The petition has no merit.

  2. Main Issue:

  3. The appeal of the Med-Arbiter's handwritten denial of the motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters does not stay the holding of the certification election. The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding of a certification election. An appeal of a med-arbiter's order to hold a certification election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an unorganized establishment and no union has yet been recognized or certified as a bargaining representative. The appeal of the med-arbiter's notation on the list of voters should not stay the holding of the certification election.

  4. The petitioner does not have legal standing to question the certification election as it does not sustain direct injury as a result of the non-inclusion of its employees in the voters' list. Only the employees themselves, being the real parties-in-interest, may question their removal from the list.

  5. The employer does not have the personality to interfere in the certification election. The provisions of the Labor Code were enacted to protect the right of employees to choose their own bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these proceedings and are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees' rights under the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The appeal of a med-arbiter's denial of a motion to include certain employees in the list of qualified voters does not stay the holding of a certification election, unless the employer company is an unorganized establishment and no union has yet been recognized or certified as a bargaining representative.

  • Not all orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable.

  • It is the workers' sole concern to question the qualification of workers included in the list of voters and to participate in the election of their bargaining representative. The employer, unless it filed a petition for a certification election, has no standing to question the election.

  • Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act being challenged.

  • The interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.

  • The employer does not have the personality to question the certification election.

  • The institution of collective bargaining is designed to assure that the other party, labor, is free to choose its representative.

  • Employers should maintain a strictly hands-off policy in certification elections.

  • Employers are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees' rights under the law. They should not affect or stay the holding of a certification election.