The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) challenging the orders of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) regarding a union election. The Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, finding that the requisites for certiorari were not present. Specifically, PALEA did not await the final election results and the BLR officials were performing ministerial rather than judicial functions in enforcing the election order.
Original Description:
Original Title
PALEA v. CACDAC_Special Civil Action For Certiorari_Sumira.docx
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) challenging the orders of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) regarding a union election. The Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, finding that the requisites for certiorari were not present. Specifically, PALEA did not await the final election results and the BLR officials were performing ministerial rather than judicial functions in enforcing the election order.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) challenging the orders of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) regarding a union election. The Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, finding that the requisites for certiorari were not present. Specifically, PALEA did not await the final election results and the BLR officials were performing ministerial rather than judicial functions in enforcing the election order.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), herein
represented by ALEXANDER O. BARRIENTOS v. Hon. HANS LEO J.
CACDAC (Director of Bureau of Labor Relations), Hon. ALEXANDER MARAAN (Regional Director, National Capital Region), CYNTHIA J. TOLENTINO (Representation Officer, Labor Relations Division, National Capital Region, Department of Labor and Employment), NIDA J. VILLAGRACIA, DOLLY OCAMPO, GERARDO F. RIVERA (In their respective capacities as candidates for President of petitioner PALEA) G.R. No. 155097, September 27, 2010, THIRD DIVISION, (Bersamin, J.)
Relief in a special civil action for certiorari is available only when
the following requisites concur: (a) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
PALEA was the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all
regular rank-and-file employees of PAL. Due to the expiration of the five-year term of its set of officers, PALEA held a general election for its new officers through COMELEC. After the casting of votes, the COMELEC thereafter canvassed the votes and proclaimed the winners.
In a resolution, the Regional Director of BLR, acting upon the
petition of some of the presidential candidates as well as some members of PALEA, nullified the general election and the proclamation of the winners on the ground that the general election was found to be riddles with fraud and irregularities; and ordered the holding of another general election under the direct supervision of the DOLE. On appeal, the BLR Director of NCR affirmed the decision of BLR Regional Director.
Jose Peñas III, the proclaimed president in the nullified general
election, filed a petition for certiorari in the CA to annul the resolution. The CA dismissed the same.
During the pre-election proceeding carried out by DOLE, some
PALEA members filed with the BLR Regional Director a petition to conduct a plebiscite to amend the PALEA Constitution and By-Laws. BLR Regional Director dismissed the petition. On appeal, respondent BLR Director denied the appeal because the assailed order was not appealable for being interlocutory order in nature pursuant to Section 5, Rule XXV of DO NO. 9 of DOLE. PALEA filed a petition for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Regional Director and Director. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari. ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction
to rule in the issue presented for its resolution by the petitioners.
RULING:
No. Relief in a special civil action for certiorari is available only
when the following requisites concur: (a) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
There is no concurrence of the requisites in the case at bar. Firstly, PALEA
should have first awaited for the final election results as certified by DOLE-NCR before filing the petition for certiorari. As the BLR Director pointed out in the letter, the petition for plebiscite to amend PALEA’s Constitution and By-Laws was merely incidental to the conduct of the general election pursuant to final and executor decision of the BLR. As such, the recourse open to PALEA was not to forthwith file the petition for certiorari to assail such denial, but to first await the final election results as certified by DOLE-NCR. That PALEA did not so wait signified that it ignored the character of certiorari as an extraordinary recourse to resort to when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. And, secondly, the Regional Director and the BLR Director were definitely not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respectively issuing the order. Instead, they were thereby performing the purely ministerial act of enforcing the already final and executor BLR Resolution directing the conduct of the general election.
Q: PALEA was the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
all regular rank-and-file employees of PAL. Due to the expiration of the five-year term of its set of officers, PALEA held a general election for its new officers through COMELEC. After the casting of votes, the COMELEC thereafter canvassed the votes and proclaimed the winners. In a resolution, the Regional Director of BLR, acting upon the petition of some of the presidential candidates as well as some members of PALEA, nullified the general election and the proclamation of the winners on the ground that the general election was found to be riddled with fraud and irregularities; and ordered the holding of another general election under the direct supervision of the DOLE. BLR Director of NCR affirmed the decision of BLR Regional Director. Jose Peñas III, the proclaimed president in the nullified general election, filed a petition for certiorari in the CA to annul the resolution. CA dismissed the petition. During the pre-election proceeding carried out by DOLE, some PALEA members filed with the BLR Regional Director a petition to conduct a plebiscite to amend the PALEA Constitution and By-Laws. BLR Regional Director dismissed the petition. BLR Director denied the appeal because the assailed order was not appealable for being interlocutory order in nature pursuant to Section 5, Rule XXV of DO NO. 9 of DOLE. PALEA filed a petition for certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Regional Director and Director. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari. Does the CA have jurisdiction to rule on the issue presented by petitioners?
A: None. Relief in a special civil action for certiorari is available
only when the following requisites concur: (a) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no concurrence of the requisites in the case at bar. Firstly, PALEA should have first awaited for the final election results as certified by DOLE-NCR before filing the petition for certiorari. As the BLR Director pointed out in the letter, the petition for plebiscite to amend PALEA’s Constitution and By-Laws was merely incidental to the conduct of the general election pursuant to final and executor decision of the BLR. As such, the recourse open to PALEA was not to forthwith file the petition for certiorari to assail such denial, but to first await the final election results as certified by DOLE-NCR. That PALEA did not so wait signified that it ignored the character of certiorari as an extraordinary recourse to resort to when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. And, secondly, the Regional Director and the BLR Director were definitely not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respectively issuing the order. Instead, they were thereby performing the purely ministerial act of enforcing the already final and executor BLR Resolution directing the conduct of the general election. (PALEA v. Cacdac, et. Al, G.R. No. 155097, September 27, 2010)
Republic Act No 16 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES TO OBTAIN SUCH LOANS OR INCUR SUCH INDEBTEDNESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES
REPUBLIC ACT No 9 AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Christy Greer, by and Through Her Father as Next Friend Gary Greer, Gary Greer v. Rome City School District, Rome City Board of Education, Larry B. Atwell, Dr., in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Schools, 956 F.2d 1025, 11th Cir. (1992)