G.R. No. L-22243 November 29, 1968
RILECO, INC., petitioner, vs. MINDANAO CONGRESS OF LABOR-RAMIE UNITED FARM WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION (LOCAL) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The Mindanao Congress of Labor-Ramie United Farm Workers’ Association-Local, a legitimate labor organization, filed a petition for certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) among the workers of the Manolita Plantation owned by Rileco, Inc. The union claimed that more than 10% of the plantation’s employees were its members and that no certification election had been held in the past twelve months. Rileco, Inc. moved to dismiss the petition on two grounds: first, that a valid collective bargaining agreement already existed with the Ledesma Plantation Laborers Union, which represented a majority of the employees; and second, that the CIR lacked jurisdiction because the Manolita plantation was engaged solely in agricultural work, making its laborers agricultural laborers. The CIR issued an order directing the Department of Labor to conduct an election among the eligible workers in the ramie culture of the plantation. Rileco, Inc. appealed this order via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the ramie culture undertaken by Rileco, Inc. at its Manolita plantation is an agricultural or an industrial undertaking, which determines the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over the petition for certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the ramie culture process is purely agricultural in character. The process, as described in the appealed order, involves soil preparation, planting of ramie roots, caring for the plants, cutting the stalks, stripping them using decorticating machines powered by electricity, sun-drying the wet fibers, and then cleansing them of impurities through a brusher, after which the fibers are ready for market. The Court found this process similar to the agricultural functions described in the case of Benjamin Celestial, et al. vs. The Southern Mindanao Experimental Station, et al., which involved tilling soil, planting, cultivating, and harvesting crops. The Court also noted the CIR’s own prior ruling in a similar case (No. 95-MC-DB) that the production of hemp, abaca, and copra, including the use of stripping machines and processing until ready for marketing, constituted “purely agricultural work,” and that the use of modern machines does not alter the agricultural nature of the product. Applying this reasoning to ramie processing, the Court held that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, the writ of certiorari was granted, and the decision under review was set aside.