View full case

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. LEPANTO CAPATAZ UNION

FACTS:

Apologies for the confusion. Here is the complete text for the excerpts:

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (Lepanto) operated several mining claims in Benguet. The Lepanto Capataz Union (Union) filed a petition for consent election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to represent the capatazes of Lepanto. Lepanto opposed the petition and argued that the capatazes were already part of the Lepanto Employees Union (LEU), the collective bargaining agent for rank-and-file employees. The Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the Union, stating that the capatazes could form a separate bargaining unit because they performed supervisory functions and were not rank-and-file employees. Lepanto appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who affirmed the ruling and ordered the conduct of a certification election for the capataz employees.

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (Lepanto) and the Labor Congress of the Philippines-National Federation of Labor Unions (LCU) were parties to a certification election dispute. Lepanto opposed the conduct of the certification election and sought a consent election instead. However, Lepanto later withdrew its consent and opposed the conduct of the election. As a result, the petition became a petition for a certification election, which would be ordered by the Med-Arbiter.

During the certification election held on November 28, 2000, the Union garnered 109 out of the 111 total valid votes cast. However, on the day of the certification election, Lepanto presented an opposition/protest. A hearing was subsequently held on February 8, 2001, to address Lepanto's opposition/protest. Lepanto chose not to submit its position paper and argued that the identified issues did not require a position paper.

On April 26, 2001, Med-Arbiter Florence Marie A. Gacad-Ulep of DOLE-CAR rendered a decision certifying the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all capatazes (foremen) of Lepanto. Lepanto appealed the decision to the DOLE Secretary on May 18, 2001. Eventually, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the Med-Arbiter's decision on September 17, 2002, dismissing Lepanto's accusation of grave abuse of discretion in failing to resolve the motion to modify the order to submit position papers. Lepanto claimed that the issues raised by the Med-Arbiter required separate position papers from each party, and failure to do so rendered the Med-Arbiter's decision biased toward the Union. However, the DOLE Secretary held that simultaneous submission of position papers was authorized by the rules and Lepanto had the opportunity to clarify any issues during the hearing but failed to do so. The DOLE Secretary also noted that the Med-Arbiter discussed both the merits of Lepanto's motion and the merits of its protest in the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant company is allowed to participate in the proceedings at this belated stage.

  2. Whether the arguments raised during the pre-election conferences and in the protests are valid.

  3. Whether the Med-Arbiter resolved the protest based solely on appellee LCU's position paper.

  4. Whether the challenge to the eligibility of voters was proper.

  5. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the challenge to the eligibility of voters.

  6. Whether the alleged membership of appellee LCU's member with another union LEU has already been resolved.

  7. Whether a motion for reconsideration was a prerequisite in the filing of the petition for certiorari.

  8. Whether the capatazes could form their own union independently of the rank-and-file employees.

  9. Whether the capatazes or foremen can constitute a separate bargaining unit.

  10. Whether a certification election is proper in this case.

RULING:

  1. The appellant company is not allowed to participate in the proceedings at this belated stage.

  2. The arguments raised during the pre-election conferences and in the protests are not valid.

  3. The Med-Arbiter did not resolve the protest based solely on appellee LCU's position paper.

  4. The challenge to the eligibility of voters was proper.

  5. There is insufficient evidence to support the challenge to the eligibility of voters.

  6. The alleged membership of appellee LCU's member with another union LEU has already been resolved.

  7. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari to assail the decision of the DOLE Secretary. The requirement of the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration as a precondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari is in line with the principle of exhausting administrative remedies and allows the respondent agency the opportunity to resolve the matter and correct any errors.

  8. The capatazes are not rank-and-file employees and can form their own union. The capatazes perform functions different from the rank-and-file employees, such as supervising and instructing workers, assessing and evaluating performance, and recommending new systems and procedures. Therefore, they have distinct interests and can form their own union separate from the rank-and-file employees.

  9. The capatazes or foremen can constitute a separate bargaining unit. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary affirmed the findings of her subordinates in the DOLE, who determined that the capatazes can be a separate bargaining unit from the rank-and-file employees. The DOLE Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is entitled to great respect. The Court cannot review the factual findings of the DOLE Secretary in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  10. The certification election is proper. Since the capatazes are a separate bargaining unit and there is no other labor organization of capatazes within the employer unit, the DOLE correctly ordered the conduct of a certification election in accordance with the provisions of the Department Order No. 9.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Parties must raise their issues and objections during the appropriate stage of proceedings or they may be deemed to have waived their right to do so.

  • The presence of minutes or records of proceedings can be used to determine what issues were already discussed and agreed upon by the parties.

  • The failure to challenge the eligibility of voters during the election does not necessarily result in the dismissal of the protest.

  • Challenges to the eligibility of voters must be supported by sufficient evidence.

  • A prior motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

  • The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari to exhaust administrative remedies and afford the respondent agency the opportunity to correct any errors.

  • The special civil action of certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review decisions of the DOLE Secretary from which the Labor Code affords no remedy, but it should be initiated only in the Court of Appeals in deference to the hierarchy of courts.

  • A motion for reconsideration should be timely filed and is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law before resorting to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

  • Capatazes, who perform functions different from rank-and-file employees, can form their own union separate from the rank-and-file employees.

  • Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect due to their expertise in their respective fields. Judicial review of labor cases is limited to errors of law and does not include a second analysis of the evidence.

  • Capatazes or foremen are not considered rank-and-file employees because they are an extension of management and may influence the rank-and-file workers to engage in activities detrimental to the interests of the employer.