G.R. No. 172132 , July 23, 2014
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; MED-ARBITER TOMAS F. FALCONITIN; and NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT and ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondents.

FACTS

On October 11, 1995, respondent NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed a petition for certification election to represent all supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel Manila. The petitioner employer opposed and, after the Med-Arbiter ordered the election, appealed. A pre-election conference was suspended due to the union’s non-appearance. On January 29, 2000, the union moved to conduct the conference. The petitioner filed a comment seeking to exclude some employees from the list for holding confidential or managerial positions and later filed a motion to dismiss based on the union’s alleged prolonged lack of interest. On May 12, 2000, the petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration for failure to submit required annual reports and an updated member list. On June 1, 2000, it filed a motion to dismiss or suspend the certification election proceedings due to the pending cancellation petition. Despite this, the DOLE scheduled the certification election for June 23, 2000. The petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, which was dismissed for nonexhaustion of administrative remedies. The election proceeded, and the union won. The petitioner filed a protest, insisting on the union’s illegitimacy. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the protest, certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent, and ruled that the pending cancellation petition was not a bar to the election. The petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, arguing the union had mixed membership (managerial, confidential, and rank-and-file), failed reportorial requirements, and that the Med-Arbiter ignored legitimacy questions, citing Toyota Motor and Dunlop Slazenger cases. The DOLE Secretary denied the appeal, affirming the Med-Arbiter, noting that the cited cases were overturned by SPI Technologies, Inc. and that a union’s legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked. The CA dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari, ruling that the union’s legal personality remained until cancelled in an independent action and that the pendency of a cancellation petition is not a ground to dismiss a certification election under the applicable rules.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration, based on grounds of mixed membership (managerial/supervisory and rank-and-file) and failure to submit reportorial requirements, bars the conduct of a certification election.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The pendency of a cancellation proceeding does not bar a certification election. A labor union’s legal personality, conferred by its certificate of registration, cannot be collaterally attacked in a certification election proceeding but can only be questioned through an independent action for cancellation. The grounds raised by the petitioner (mixed membership and non-compliance with reportorial duties) are proper subjects for a cancellation proceeding, not for opposing a certification election. The ruling in Toyota Motor, which suggested a union with mixed membership could not file a certification election, has been superseded. The appropriate remedy regarding ineligible members is to exclude them during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings of the certification election, not to dismiss the petition altogether. The policy of the law is to promote free trade unionism and the employees’ right to self-organization, and certification elections are the sole concern of the workers, with the employer being a mere bystander.