G.R. No. 107610 November 25, 1994
CRUZVALE, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-ARBITER ANGELI M. TUYAY AND UNION OF FILIPINO WORKERS (UFW), respondents.

FACTS

On July 23, 1991, private respondent Union of Filipino Workers (UFW) filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner Cruzvale, Inc. with DOLE Regional Office No. IV. Petitioner opposed the petition on three grounds: (1) no charter certificate for a local union was attached to the petition; (2) the union failed to prove it was a legitimate labor organization; and (3) Regional Office No. IV lacked jurisdiction as petitioner’s principal place of business was in Cubao, Quezon City, which is under the National Capital Region (NCR) Office. The Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the union, finding it was a legitimate organization with Dole Registration Certificate No. 11106 LC (FED) and a local chapter evidenced by Charter Certificate No. 82, and that the petition was proper under Article 257 of the Labor Code for unorganized establishments. The DOLE Undersecretary affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision. Petitioner then filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Union of Filipino Workers was a legitimate labor organization at the time the petition was filed.
2. Whether the certification election was properly limited to employees at the garment factory in Cainta, Rizal, excluding those in the cinema business.
3. Whether the petition for certification election was filed in the proper venue (Regional Office No. IV).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. On the first issue, the Court upheld the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter and the Undersecretary that UFW was a legitimate labor organization, as evidenced by its Certificate of Registration No. 11106 and Charter Certificate No. 82 for its local chapter. The Court found the cited case of Progressive Development Corporation inapplicable, as there the union failed to submit a sworn certification of its constitution and by-laws, a defect not present here.
2. On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Undersecretary that the certification election properly covered only the regular rank-and-file employees at the garment manufacturing operation in Cainta. The employees at the cinema operation performed entirely different work and did not share a community of interest with the garment workers, justifying their separation into two distinct bargaining units.
3. On the third issue, the Court ruled that the provision on venue (Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules) refers to the convenience of the parties and not to jurisdiction. The rule requiring filing with the Regional Office having jurisdiction over the employer’s principal office applies only when the workplace and principal office are within the same region. Here, the workplace (Cainta, Rizal) was under Regional Office No. IV, while the principal office (Quezon City) was under NCR. The worker, as the economically disadvantaged party, should have the nearest governmental machinery available. Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the administrative officials’ acceptance of the Med-Arbiter’s stance that the venue objection should have been raised at the first hearing, which petitioner failed to do. The temporary restraining order was lifted.