G.R. No. 167426 January 12, 2009
CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS and CHRIS GARMENTS WORKERS UNION-PTGWO LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 832, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Chris Garments Corporation is engaged in the manufacture and export of garments. On February 8, 2002, respondent Chris Garments Workers UnionPTGWO, Local Chapter No. 832, filed a petition for certification election to represent petitioner’s rank-and-file employees not covered by its existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with another union, SMCGC-SUPER. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing the CBA’s contract bar rule and that the union members were employees of independent contractors, not its regular employees. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, citing lack of employer-employee relationship and the contract bar rule. The Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed on December 27, 2002, ruling that while the union members could be considered part of the bargaining unit, the petition was filed outside the 60-day freedom period of the CBA. The union filed a second petition, which was dismissed as barred by prior judgment. On June 4, 2004, the union filed a third petition. The Med-Arbiter dismissed it, but on appeal, the Secretary of Labor and Employment granted it in a Decision dated January 18, 2005, ordering a certification election. Petitioner received the decision on January 25, 2005, and on February 4, 2005, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals without first filing a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for this failure. A certification election was subsequently conducted, and SMCGC-SUPER was certified as the sole bargaining agent. Petitioner assails the Court of Appeals’ dismissal.

ISSUE

1. Is a motion for reconsideration necessary before filing a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment?
2. Is the case barred by res judicata or conclusiveness of judgment?
3. Is there an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the union members?

RULING

1. No, a motion for reconsideration was not necessary. Department Order No. 40-03 explicitly states that the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment “shall become final and executory after ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the parties” and that “[n]o motion for reconsideration of the decision shall be entertained.” Therefore, such a motion is dispensable. Petitioner filed the certiorari petition on the tenth day, which was the proper remedy.
2. No, the case is not barred by res judicata or conclusiveness of judgment. For res judicata (bar by prior judgment) to apply, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and third petitions. Here, the cause of action differed. The first petition was dismissed because it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period of the existing CBA (July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2004). The third petition was filed on June 4, 2004, which was within the freedom period (May 1 to June 30, 2004). Thus, the dismissal of the first petition did not bar the third. The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment also does not apply, as the issue in the third petition (its timeliness) was not actually litigated and resolved in the first.
3. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of this issue, as the petition was resolved on procedural grounds. The Court noted that a certification election had already been conducted and a union certified, rendering the issue moot. The Court emphasized that the holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be hindered by procedural technicalities, and the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit is best left to the employees’ choice through a certification election.