G.R. No. 142000; January 22, 2003
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO, respondent.

FACTS

On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV, claiming to represent a majority of the rank-and-file employees of Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated (THIGCI). THIGCI opposed the petition, alleging that the list of union members was defective and included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated, and AWOL employees of THIGCI, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a separate corporation. THIGCI claimed that out of 192 signatories, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. It submitted a tabulation detailing the disqualifications of the other signatories and alleged that some signatures were obtained fraudulently. THEU replied that it had complied with DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, and had been granted a Certification of Affiliation, and thus its legitimacy could not be collaterally attacked. The Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a certification election, ruling that issues regarding disqualified members should be resolved in exclusion-inclusion proceedings. THIGCI appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who initially set aside the Med-Arbiter’s order and dismissed the petition, citing a lack of “community or mutuality of interests” because THEU sought to represent two separate bargaining units and employees of two distinct corporations. Upon THEU’s motion for reconsideration, the DOLE Undersecretary, by authority of the Secretary, issued a resolution on November 12, 1998, reinstating the order for a certification election, holding that THEU’s legitimate status as a local chapter was not negated by the withdrawal of support from some members and that disqualified members could simply be removed from the roster. THIGCI’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 29, 1998. THIGCI filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied THIGCI’s petition on February 15, 2000, affirming the DOLE resolution. THIGCI then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DOLE resolution ordering a certification election despite allegations that the union included disqualified members (supervisors and non-employees) and that the union’s legitimacy should be resolved before holding a certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the inclusion of supervisory employees or employees of a separate corporation in a rank-and-file union does not automatically nullify the union’s legitimacy or its right to petition for a certification election. Citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, which prohibits supervisory employees from joining rank-and-file unions, the Court reiterated that the proper remedy is to remove the disqualified employees from the union’s membership roster, not to invalidate the entire union. The Court emphasized that the legitimacy of a union, once conferred by the Bureau of Labor Relations, cannot be collaterally attacked in a certification election proceeding. Issues regarding the eligibility of specific members, such as supervisory status, resignation, or AWOL status, should be resolved during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings at the pre-election conference. The Court also noted that THIGCI failed to provide substantial evidence, such as detailed job descriptions demonstrating the supervisory powers of the questioned employees, to support its claim of disqualification. The mere designation of an employee as a supervisor is insufficient; the actual job functions and the use of independent judgment must be proven. Thus, the DOLE and the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the holding of a certification election, subject to the usual pre-election conference for inclusion-exclusion proceedings.