View full case

HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certification election filed by Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS) against the Holy Child Catholic School (HCCS). The petitioner alleged that HCCS is unorganized and there is no certified bargaining agent for the proposed bargaining unit. HCCS, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner is not a legitimate labor organization and lacks the personality to file a petition for certification election under Article 245 of the Labor Code.

The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification election, ruling that the bargaining unit sought by the petitioner is inappropriate. The Med-Arbiter based her decision on the definition of a bargaining unit in the Omnibus Rules and the requirement of community or mutuality of interest among the employees in the unit.

The case involves a dispute between the teaching and non-teaching staff of petitioner, Holy Child Catholic School. The employees can be categorized into two general classes: the teaching staff and the non-teaching staff. Private respondent appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), who ruled against the dismissal of the petition and ordered the conduct of separate certification elections for the teaching and non-teaching personnel. This decision was based on the Supreme Court case of University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja.

The petitioner filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), seeking to represent the managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees of private respondent. The DOLE Secretary dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal. The CA held that the Toyota ruling, which prohibits the commingling of supervisory/managerial and rank-and-file employees in a union, was inapplicable.

In this case, the issue revolves around the dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the argument that the labor organization's membership consists of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees. The petitioner argues that such mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a labor organization goes against the principle that a bargaining representative should be independent from management influence and owe loyalty only to the employees. The court refers to the 2008 case of Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc., where the employer-company also sought to dismiss a petition for certification election on the same ground.

Under R.A. No. 875, Section 3, which was the first law to prohibit the mingling of rank-and-file and supervisory employees, there is no provision indicating how this mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization. The only instance when a labor organization loses its legitimacy under Section 15 is when it violates its duty to bargain collectively. In the case of Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees Association, the court also noted that the law did not specify the effect of ineligibility upon the union itself or the status of its other qualified members if the prohibition on mingling is disregarded.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a petition for certification election can be dismissed on the ground that the labor organization's membership consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

  2. The issue in this case is whether the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a labor organization affects its legitimacy and right to file a petition for certification election.

  3. Whether the inclusion of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in the same labor organization affects its legitimacy.

  4. Whether a labor organization can be disqualified from filing a petition for certification election due to the improper mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel.

  5. Whether an employer can file a petition for cancellation of a union's certificate of registration due to the inclusion of disqualified employees.

  6. Whether separate bargaining units should be formed for teaching and non-teaching personnel.

  7. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (SOLE) that set aside the decision of the Med-Arbiter denying private respondent's petition for certification election.

  8. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE in ruling on the case.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that a petition for certification election cannot be dismissed on the ground that the labor organization's membership consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. The Court relied on previous cases and discussed the history of the prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization. The Court noted that while there is a prohibition, there is no provision specifying the effect of such violation on the legitimacy of a labor organization. It was only through the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) that the deficiency was addressed by introducing an amendment to the rules on the registration of unions.

  2. The Court held that the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a labor organization prevents it from attaining the status of a legitimate labor organization. As a result, the labor organization cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election. However, the Court also recognized that the Labor Code does not provide for the specific effects of mingling on a labor organization's legitimacy and right to file a petition for certification election.

  3. The inclusion of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in the same labor organization does not affect its legitimacy, unless it is brought about by misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud. Such mingling is not a ground for cancellation of registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code. The labor organization, once registered, may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate organization.

  4. The petition for certification election cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the improper mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel in a labor organization. The determination of whether union membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory employees is a factual issue that is best left for resolution in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings. Factual findings of labor officials, supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding.

  5. The proper procedure for an employer to challenge the inclusion of disqualified employees in a union is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code. The labor organization, once validly issued a certificate of registration, has acquired juridical personality which cannot be attacked collaterally.

  6. In determining the proper collective bargaining unit, factors such as the will of employees, affinity and unity of employees' interests, prior collective bargaining history, and employment status should be considered. The test for determining the acceptability of a bargaining unit is whether it is fundamentally the combination that best assures the exercise of collective bargaining rights. In the case at hand, separate bargaining units should be formed for teaching and non-teaching personnel.

  7. The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the decision of the SOLE that set aside the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The Court also held that the CA correctly determined the existence or want of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Employees have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. (Section 3, R.A. No. 875)

  • Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist, or form separate labor organizations of their own. (Section 18, R.A. No. 6715)

  • The effect of the disqualification of one of the organizers upon the legality of the union is confined to the membership of the supervisor. The invalidity of membership of one of the organizers does not make the union illegal, as long as the requirements of the law for the organization are satisfied and met. (Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees Association)

  • The Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) supply the deficiency in specifying the effect of the violation of the prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization. (Sec. 1, 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules)

  • A labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is not a legitimate labor organization.

  • Mingling of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a labor organization prevents it from attaining the status of a legitimate labor organization.

  • A labor organization that includes rank-and-file employees among its members cannot file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors.

  • The 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules required that a petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees.

  • The 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules removed the requirement of indicating the mingling of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a petition for certification election.

  • The Labor Code does not provide for the specific effects of mingling on a labor organization's legitimacy and right to file a petition for certification election.

  • After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization.

  • The inclusion of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in the same labor organization does not affect its legitimacy unless it is brought about by misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud.

  • The determination of whether union membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory employees is a factual issue that should be resolved in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings. Factual findings of labor officials, supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding.

  • The employer has no legal personality to block a certification election and has no partisan interest in the process. The choice of the employees' representative is their exclusive concern.

  • Once a labor organization is validly issued a certificate of registration, it acquires juridical personality which cannot be attacked collaterally.

  • Factors such as the will of employees, affinity and unity of employees' interests, prior collective bargaining history, and employment status should be considered in determining the proper collective bargaining unit.

  • The test for determining the acceptability of a bargaining unit is whether it is the combination that best assures the exercise of collective bargaining rights.

  • A certification election is conducted to ascertain the majority of employees' choice of an appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by a labor organization. (Issue 1)

  • In a Rule 45 review, the Court considers the correctness of the CA decision and limits its review to questions of law raised against the CA decision. (Issue 2)

  • The Court views the CA decision in the same context as the petition for certiorari it ruled upon and examines it from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it. (Issue 2)

  • The Court's review is limited to the determination of whether the CA correctly resolved the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the SOLE, not on the basis of whether the latter's decision on the merits of the case was strictly correct. (Issue 2)