G.R. No. 115077. April 18, 1997.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Undersecretary of Labor, and NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM)-KATIPUNAN, respondents.

FACTS

Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the rank-and-file employees of Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut). The petitioner-employer filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition, alleging that the union’s registration was void due to fraud and falsification. Specific allegations included forged or multiple signatures in the ratification of its constitution and by-laws, discrepancies in the dates of the organizational meeting and the issuance of its charter certificate, and violations of procedural requirements such as the lack of a secret ballot.
The petitioner subsequently filed a separate Petition for Cancellation of the union’s registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations on the same grounds. It also filed a motion with the Med-Arbiter to suspend the certification election proceedings pending resolution of the cancellation case, arguing that the union’s legal personality was a prejudicial question. The Med-Arbiter denied the motion and ordered the holding of a certification election, ruling the union was legitimate until its certificate is cancelled. This order was affirmed by the Undersecretary of Labor.

ISSUE

Whether the Med-Arbiter and the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite serious challenges to the union’s legal personality due to allegations of fraud in its registration and the pendency of a cancellation petition.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the assailed resolutions. The Court ruled that the legal personality of a labor organization is a fundamental prerequisite for its right to petition for or participate in a certification election. Allegations of fraud, falsification, and misrepresentation in obtaining registration are not merely collateral issues but strike at the very heart of the union’s legitimacy.
The Court emphasized that the Bureau of Labor Relations does not perform a merely ministerial function in registering a union; it must ensure strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Labor Code. A union that acquires legitimacy through fraudulent means is not a legitimate labor organization at all and acquires no rights, including the right to ask for a certification election. Since the employer’s petition for cancellation directly challenged the union’s very existence as a legitimate entity, it was a grave abuse of discretion for the labor officials to proceed with the certification election without first resolving the prejudicial question of the union’s legal status. The case was remanded to the Med-Arbiter to resolve the cancellation petition with dispatch.