GR 169745; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169745 and G.R. No. 170091, July 18, 2014.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Petitioner, vs. Namboku Peak, Inc., Respondent. / Phil-Japan Workers Union-Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (PJWU-SUPER), Medarbiter Clarissa G. Beltran-Lerios and Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas of the Department of Labor and Employment, Petitioners, vs. Phil-Japan Industrial Manufacturing Corporation, Respondent.
FACTS
These are consolidated petitions involving the constitutionality of Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03, which states: “The order granting the conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment shall not be subject to appeal.”
In G.R. No. 169745 , Namboku Peak, Inc. (Namboku) opposed a petition for certification election filed by the Philippine Aircraft Loaders and Cargo Employees AssociationSUPER (PALCEA-SUPER), claiming its members were project, not regular, employees. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order on June 17, 2003, finding the members to be regular employees and granting the certification election. Namboku appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who, in a letter-resolution dated October 22, 2003, denied the appeal, citing Section 17, Rule VIII of D.O. 40-03. Namboku filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
In G.R. No. 170091, Phil-Japan Industrial Manufacturing Corporation (Phil-Japan) opposed a certification election petition filed by Phil-Japan Workers Union-SUPER (PJWU-SUPER), claiming the listed members were not its employees. The Med-Arbiter issued a Decision on August 25, 2003, ordering a certification election. Phil-Japan appealed to the Secretary of Labor, but the Hearing Officer informed it the appeal would not be acted upon pursuant to Section 17, Rule VIII of D.O. 40-03. Phil-Japan filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decisions, granted the petitions of Namboku and Phil-Japan, declaring Section 17, Rule VIII of D.O. 40-03 unconstitutional for being in conflict with Article 259 of the Labor Code, which allows any party to appeal an election order directly to the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor and the unions filed Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied. The Republic (through the DOLE Secretary) and the unions then filed these Petitions for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03 unconstitutional for violating Article 259 of the Labor Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions and AFFIRMED the Decisions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Section 17, Rule VIII of Department Order No. 40-03 is unconstitutional.
The Court ruled that Article 259 of the Labor Code is clear and explicit: “Any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment…” The Implementing Rules cannot contravene, diminish, or increase the law’s requirements. By prohibiting appeals from orders granting certification elections in unorganized establishments, Section 17 of D.O. 40-03 directly conflicts with and impermissibly diminishes the right to appeal expressly granted by Article 259. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law, and the law (Article 259) does not distinguish between organized and unorganized establishments. Therefore, the rule-making authority of the Secretary of Labor cannot validly restrict this statutory right.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural issue raised in G.R. No. 169745 regarding the Secretary of Labor’s legal standing to file the petition. The Court held that while the Secretary of Labor, as a quasi-judicial officer, generally should not appeal a decision reversing her own, she may do so when she is acting as a nominal party representing the state or the public interest, especially when the constitutionality of a department issuance is at stake. However, this did not affect the substantive ruling on the constitutional issue.