Notre Dame of Greater Manila vs Laguesma ● Leading to the petition at hand.
Panganiban, June 29, 2004
Panganiban Summary: Unless it has filed a petition for certification election
pursuant to Art 258, of the Labor Code an employer has no standing to
question such election or to interfere therein. Being the sole concern of the
workers, the election must be free from the influence or reach of the
company.
Facts:
● Petition for Review 45, questioning the acts of the CA finding no
grave abuse of discretion in the decisions of the lower courts.
● Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union
(NGTMEU), legitimate labor association filed petition for direct
certification to be the SEBA of the rank and file employees of Pet.
● Med Arbiter Falconitin granted a petition for certification election and
directed the representation officer to conduct a pre-election
conference
o certification election instead of direct certfication was granted
due to Union’s failure to attend the scheduled hearing as well
as being an unorganized establishment under 257.
● On said pre-election conference on Jan 13, ‘92, it was agreed that
eligible voters shall be those employees appearing in the list
submitted by management as agreed upon by the parties by affxing
their signatures
● Pet(NDGM) registered a motion that probationary and substitute
employees in the list of qualified voters which Falconitin denied by a
handwritten notation on said motion
● 4 days after Pet filed an appeal against said handwritten order.
● After another day respondent conducted a certification election in
which the Union won with 56 Y to 23 N and 4 segregated and 1
spoiled ballot.
● Pet filed a protest on the same day stating that said election should
have been stayed pending their appeal.
● On Jan 27 a motion to cerify the union as the SEBA was filed which
was granted by Falconitin on March 16 simultaneously dismissing
the protest of Pet.
● 3 days after Pet lodged appeal with the DOLE which Undersectretary
Laguesma dismissed for lack of merit. Subsequent MR was also
dismissed.
● CA: Affirmed as the order questioned was not an order that could be
subject of an appeal to the SoLE. Staying the elections was
unneccesary. Complaints of the elections should be raised with the
registration Rep before close of proceedings. Also pet has no
standing regarding inclusion as it was merely an intruder in such
proceedings.
Issue #1: W/N the holding of the certification election was stayed by
petitioner’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation-order? NO
● Under Article 259 “Appeal from certification election orders. – Any
party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as
determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts
thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for
the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be
decided within fifteen (15) calendar days..”
● Sec 10 Rule V Bk V further states that such appeal stays the holding
of the election.
● Pet is mistaken in considering said notation-order as that which is
referred to in Art 259. It clearly refers only to the order of election.
● This is more obvious when considering that:
o Sec 6 states “...the Med Arbiter shall immediately order the
conduct of certification election”
o Sec 7 states “ any aggrieved party may appeal the order of
the Med Arbiter to the Secretary on the ground that the rules
and regulations...for the conduct of election have been
violated”
● Not all orders of Med-Arb are appealable as “interlocutory order…
prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders granting
motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a certification
election shall not be appealable. Any issue arising therefrom may
be raised in the appeal on the decision granting or denying the
petition.
● Intention is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding
of such election.
● DO 40 - an appeal of a Med-Arbs order to hold a cert. elec. will not
stay the holding thereof where
o employer company is an unorganized establishment and
o where no union has yet to been duly recognized or certified
as bargaining agent.
● Expediting such selection processs advances the primacy of free
collective bargaining in line with the state’s promotion and emphasis
of such and also ensures worker’s participation in policy making.
● Pet has no standing to file the appeal in the first place as such
election is the sole concern of the workers and is only a stranger
which had no right to interfere. It has no material interest in this case.
Only the employees themselves being the Real Parties in interest
may question their removal from the voter’s list.
● Ct. quoted Joya v PCGG in defining legal standing.
 ● Pet argument that it only interfered with the support of said excluded
employees and wrongly quoted Monark Intl v Noriel among others.
Such cases stated the opposite of the Pet assertion.
● True all employees should be given oppurtunity to participate, such
cannot clothe the employer with personality in any case.
● The Ct held on Monark Intl:
o “It is true that there may be circumstances where the interest
of the employer calls for it being heard on the matter (cert
elec)...This case certainly does not fall within the exception.
Sound policy dictates that as much as possible,
management is to maintain a strictly hands off policy. For if it
does not, it may lend itself to the legitimate suspicion that it
is partial to one of the contending [choices in the election].
● “This court would be the last agency to support an attempt to
interfere with a purely internal affair of labor.

PETITION DENIED