Law Philippines - Case Digest - Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Sto

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 4

1

HigitPa SusunodnaBlog

Law Philippines
Effect and Application of Laws

What is remedial law? [Philippines]

Case Digest: Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Sto.


Tomas, et al.
G.R.No.179146:July23,2013
HOLYCHILDCATHOLICSCHOOL,Petitioner,v.HON.PATRICIASTO.TOMAS,in
herofficialcapacityasSecretaryoftheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment,
andPINAGISANGTINIGATLAKASNGANAKPAWISHOLYCHILDCATHOLIC
SCHOOLTEACHERSANDEMPLOYEESLABORUNION(HCCSTELUPIGLAS),
Respondents.
PERALTA,J.:
FACTS:
OnMay31,2002,apetitionforcertificationelectionwasfiledbyprivaterespondent
PinagIsangTinigatLakasngAnakpawisHolyChildCatholicSchoolTeachersand
EmployeesLaborUnion(HCCSTELUPIGLAS).InitsCommentandPositionPaper,
petitionerraisedthatthemembersoftheunionareamixtureofmanagerial,
supervisory,andrankandfileemployeesasthree(3)areviceprincipals,one(1)isa
departmenthead/supervisor,andeleven(11)arecoordinators.Itislikewiseamixture
ofteachingandnonteachingpersonnel.Itinsistedthat,fornotbeinginaccordwith
Article245oftheLaborCode,privaterespondentisanillegitimatelabororganization
lackinginpersonalitytofileapetitionforcertificationelection,asheldinToyotaMotor

BumuongBlog Magsignin

PhilippinesCorporationv.ToyotaMotorPhilippinesCorporationLaborUnionandin
DunlopSlazenger(Phils.),Inc.v.SecretaryofLaborandEmployment.
Themedarbiterdeniedthepetitionforcertificationelectiononthegroundthatthe
bargainingunitisinappropriate.PrivaterespondentappealedtotheSOLEandthe
latterreversedtherulingofthemedarbiterandorderedtwocertificationelections,
oneamongteachingpersonnelandanotherfornonteachingpersonnel.Petitioner
filedapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCAwithprayerforTemporaryRestrainingOrder
andPreliminaryInjunction.TheCAdismissedthepetitionandruledthatthevice
principals,coordinatorsanddepartmentheadsarenotmanagerialnorsupervisory
employees.Anenttheallegedmixtureofteachingandnonteachingpersonnel,the
CAagreedwithpetitionerthatthenatureoftheformersworkdoesnotcoincidewith
thatofthelatter.
Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdenied.Hence,this
petitionbeforetheSC.
ISSUE:WhetherornottheCAerredinallowingtheconductofcertificationelection
HELD:
LaborLaw
WhentheissueoftheeffectofminglingwasbroughttotheforeinToyota,theCourt,
citingArticle245oftheLaborCode,asamendedbyR.A.No.6715,itwasheld:

Other Posts

CaseDigest:
Disiniv.
Secretaryof
Justice

Clearly,basedonthisprovision,alabororganizationcomposedofbothrankandfile
andsupervisoryemployeesisnolabororganizationatall.Itcannot,foranyguiseor
purpose,bealegitimatelabororganization.Notbeingone,anorganizationwhich
carriesamixtureofrankandfileandsupervisoryemployeescannotpossessanyof
therightsofalegitimatelabororganization,includingtherighttofileapetitionfor
certificationelectionforthepurposeofcollectivebargaining.

CaseDigest:
Southern
Hemisphere
Engagement
Networkv.
AntiTerrorism
Council,etal.

InDunlop,inwhichthelabororganizationthatfiledapetitionforcertificationelection
wasoneforsupervisoryemployees,butinwhichthemembershipincludedrankand
fileemployees,theCourtreiteratedthatsuchlabororganizationhadnolegalrightto
fileacertificationelectiontorepresentabargainingunitcomposedofsupervisorsfor
aslongasitcountedrankandfileemployeesamongitsmembers.

CaseDigest:
Imbongvs.
Ochoa,Jr.

ItshouldbeemphasizedthatthepetitionsforcertificationelectioninvolvedinToyota
andDunlopwerefiledonNovember26,1992andSeptember15,1995,respectively
hence,the1989Ruleswasappliedinbothcases.

CaseDigest:
UPvs.Dizon
CaseDigest:
Shuv.Dee
CaseDigest:
Republicv.
Sandiganbaya
n
Article1231of
theCivilCode
ofthe
Philippines
MustRead,
BarArea,
Landmark
CasesinLegal
Ethics
Delegationof
Powers

Butthen,onJune21,1997,the1989AmendedOmnibusRuleswasfurtheramended
byDepartmentOrderNo.9,seriesof1997(1997AmendedOmnibusRules).
ThencameTagaytayHighlandsInt'l.GolfClub,Inc.v.TagaytayHighlandsEmployees
UnionPTGWOinwhichthecoreissuewaswhetherminglingaffectsthelegitimacyof
alabororganizationanditsrighttofileapetitionforcertificationelection.Thistime,
giventhealteredlegalmilieu,theCourtabandonedtheviewinToyotaandDunlop
andrevertedtoitspronouncementinLopezthatwhilethereisaprohibitionagainst
theminglingofsupervisoryandrankandfileemployeesinonelabororganization,the
LaborCodedoesnotprovidefortheeffectsthereof.
Thus,theCourtheldthatafteralabororganizationhasbeenregistered,itmay
exercisealltherightsandprivilegesofalegitimatelabororganization.Anymingling
betweensupervisoryandrankandfileemployeesinitsmembershipcannotaffectits
legitimacyforthatisnotamongthegroundsforcancellationofitsregistration,unless
suchminglingwasbroughtaboutbymisrepresentation,falsestatementorfraudunder
Article239oftheLaborCode.
InSanMiguelCorp.(MandauePackagingProductsPlants)v.MandauePacking
ProductsPlantsSanMiguelPackagingProductsSanMiguelCorp.MonthliesRank

Popular Posts

CaseDigest:
Imbongvs.
Ochoa,Jr.
CaseDigest:
Disiniv.
Secretaryof
Justice
CaseDigest:
BayanMunav.
Romulo
CaseDigest:
Atong
Paglaumv.
COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Boracay
Foundationv.
Provinceof
Aklan
CaseDigest:
Reyesv.
COMELEC
CaseDigest:
Southern
Hemisphere
Engagement
Networkv.
AntiTerrorism
Council,etal.
MustRead,
BarArea,
Landmark
CasesinLegal
Ethics
CaseDigest:
Samsonv.
Restrivera
AnEbookof
Paras'
Obligationand
Contracts
(BookIVofthe
CivilCode)

CaseDigest:
Samsonv.
Restrivera

andFileUnionFFW,theCourtexplainedthatsincethe1997AmendedOmnibus
Rulesdoesnotrequirealocalorchaptertoprovidealistofitsmembers,itwouldbe
improperfortheDOLEtodenyrecognitiontosaidlocalorchapteronaccountofany
questionpertainingtoitsindividualmembers.
MoretothepointisAirPhilippinesCorporationv.BureauofLaborRelations,theCourt
thereinreiterateditsrulinginTagaytayHighlandsthattheinclusioninaunionof
disqualifiedemployeesisnotamongthegroundsforcancellation,unlesssuch
inclusionisduetomisrepresentation,falsestatementorfraudunderthe
circumstancesenumeratedinSections(a)and(c)ofArticle239oftheLaborCode.
Allsaid,whilethelatestissuanceisR.A.No.9481,the1997AmendedOmnibus
Rules,asinterpretedbytheCourtinTagaytayHighlands,SanMiguelandAir
Philippines,hadalreadysetthetoneforit.ToyotaandDunlopnolongerholdswayin
thepresentalteredstateofthelawandtherules.
Incaseofallegedinclusionofdisqualifiedemployeesinaunion,theproperprocedure
foranemployerlikepetitioneristodirectlyfileapetitionforcancellationoftheunions
certificateofregistrationduetomisrepresentation,falsestatementorfraudunderthe
circumstancesenumeratedinArticle239oftheLaborCode,asamended.Toreiterate,
privaterespondent,havingbeenvalidlyissuedacertificateofregistration,shouldbe
consideredashavingacquiredjuridicalpersonalitywhichmaynotbeattacked
collaterally.
Ontheotherhand,abargainingunithasbeendefinedasa"groupofemployeesofa
givenemployer,comprisedofallorlessthanalloftheentirebodyofemployees,
whichthecollectiveinterestsofalltheemployees,consistentwithequitytothe
employer,indicatedtobebestsuitedtoservereciprocalrightsanddutiesofthe
partiesunderthecollectivebargainingprovisionsofthelaw."
Petitionerappearstohaveconfusedtheconceptsofmembershipinabargainingunit
andmembershipinaunion.Inemphasizingthephrase"totheexclusionofacademic
employees"statedinU.P.v.FerrerCalleja,petitionerbelievedthatthepetitioning
unioncouldnotadmitacademicemployeesoftheuniversitytoitsmembership.But
suchwasnottheintentionoftheSupremeCourt.
Abargainingunitisagroupofemployeessoughttoberepresentedbyapetitioning
union.Suchemployeesneednotbemembersofaunionseekingtheconductofa
certificationelection.Aunioncertifiedasanexclusivebargainingagentrepresentsnot
onlyitsmembersbutalsootheremployeeswhoarenotunionmembers.
Inthesamemanner,theteachingandnonteachingpersonnelofpetitionerschool
mustformseparatebargainingunits.Thus,theorderfortheconductoftwoseparate
certificationelections,oneinvolvingteachingpersonnelandtheotherinvolvingnon
teachingpersonnel.Itshouldbestressedthatinthesubjectpetition,private
respondentunionsoughttheconductofacertificationelectionamongalltherank
andfilepersonnelofpetitionerschool.SincethedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthe
U.P.caseprohibitsusfromcomminglingteachingandnonteachingpersonnelinone
bargainingunit,theyhavetobeseparatedintotwoseparatebargainingunitswithtwo
separatecertificationelectionstodeterminewhethertheemployeesintherespective
bargainingunitsdesiredtoberepresentedbyprivaterespondent.
DENIED
+1 Recommend this on Google

1 comment

Add a comment

Top comments

JK V shared this via Google+ 8 months ago - Shared publicly

1 Reply

NewerPost

Home

Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)

Simpletemplate.PoweredbyBlogger.

OlderPost

You might also like