View full case

REPUBLIC OF PIDLIPPINES v. NAMBOKU PEAK

FACTS:

The case involves two separate petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA). In one petition, Namboku Philippines Corporation (Namboku) sought the reversal of the Secretary of Labor's letter-resolution, claiming that the members of PALCEA-SUPER are project employees and should not be considered as similarly situated with the regular rank-and-file employees. Namboku also argued that Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03 is unconstitutional. In another petition, Phil-Japan Ind. Mfg. Corporation (Phil-Japan) sought the reversal of the Med-Arbiter's decision ordering the conduct of a certification election. Phil-Japan claimed that the members of PJWU-SUPER are not its employees and that the issue of employer-employee relationship should be resolved before extending any labor benefits. The CA granted Namboku's petition, declaring the members of PALCEA-SUPER as project employees and nullifying Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03. The CA also granted Phil-Japan's petition, ruling that the determination of employer-employee relationship is a primordial consideration before extending labor benefits.

PJWU-SUPER, a labor union, filed two separate petitions for certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against Namboku Development Corporation (Namboku) and Phil-Japan Electronics Corporation (Phil-Japan), respectively. The Med-Arbiter granted both petitions and ordered the holding of certification elections. Phil-Japan appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor. However, on the ground that Phil-Japan is already a certified bargaining unit, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the appeal.

Phil-Japan sought recourse before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the dismissal is contrary to Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03. The CA sided with Phil-Japan and declared Section 17 as null and void for being violative of Article 259 of the Labor Code. The CA also found that out of the 69 members of PJWU-SUPER, 67 were not employees of Phil-Japan. The CA denied the subsequent motions for reconsideration.

Subsequently, the Secretary of Labor filed two separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision. The first petition challenged the CA's declaration of Section 17 as null and void, while the second petition questioned whether project employees may be included in the petition for certification election involving regular employees. The Supreme Court consolidated both petitions.

The Secretary of Labor argued that Section 17 is in harmony with Article 259 and does not deny the right to appeal. She also contended that Article 259 does not cover the order of the Med-Arbiter granting the conduct of certification election and that the appeal must be filed by a party to the certification election proceedings. Namboku, on the other hand, questioned the Secretary of Labor's locus standi. Phil-Japan defended the CA's decision and argued that the right to appeal is available to any party under Article 259 without distinction whether the establishment is organized or unorganized.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Secretary of Labor is a real party-in-interest with personality to file the present petitions.

  2. Whether the Secretary of Labor has the authority to appeal the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

  3. Whether the Ombudsman has the right to intervene in a Petition for Review filed before the CA questioning his dismissal.

  4. Whether the CA erred in allowing the Ombudsman to actively participate in the case.

  5. Whether the Secretary of Labor can appeal to the Supreme Court after the nullification of Department Order No. 40-03.

  6. Whether the Secretary of Labor should have remained impartial and detached throughout the appeal process.

RULING:

  1. The Secretary of Labor is not the real party-in-interest vested with personality to file the present petitions. The real parties-in-interest in these cases are PALCEA-SUPER and PJWU-SUPER, as they stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. The Secretary of Labor was impleaded as a nominal party in the petitions before the Court of Appeals due to an issue of error of jurisdiction. However, being a nominal party does not make her a real party-in-interest or give her authority to appeal the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

  2. The Secretary of Labor does not have the authority to appeal the decisions of the Court of Appeals. Only real parties-in-interest who participated in the litigation of the case before the Court of Appeals can avail an appeal by certiorari, as stated in Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  3. No, the Ombudsman does not have the right to intervene in a Petition for Review filed before the CA questioning his dismissal.

  4. Yes, the CA erred in allowing the Ombudsman to actively participate in the case.

  5. The government party that can appeal to the Supreme Court is the one prosecuting the administrative case against the respondent, not the disciplining authority or tribunal that imposed the penalty.

  6. Yes, the Secretary of Labor should have remained impartial and detached throughout the appeal process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

  • The judge in his official capacity should not be made to appear as a party seeking reversal of a decision that is unfavorable to the action taken by him.

  • Under Section 5 of Rule 65, the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to whom grave abuse of discretion is imputed are denominated only as public respondents and are not entitled to be classified as real parties-in-interest.

  • A judge must detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review.

  • The court or quasi-judicial agency must be impartial and detached even when its judgment is brought on appeal before a higher court.

  • The disciplining authority or tribunal hearing the case should not become an active participant in prosecuting the respondent.

  • A quasi-judicial body must remain impartial and detached and not become an advocate or litigator.

  • The issue of the constitutionality of a provision cannot be resolved in a petition if it would countenance the objectionable actions of a party and run afoul of settled decisions.