G.R. No. L-44110. March 29, 1977.
BENGUET EXPLORATION MINERS’ UNION, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Atty. ERUDITO E. LUNA, Med-Arbiter Designate of Labor Relations Division, Baguio City and NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU-MIF), respondents.

FACTS

The National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a petition for certification election among the employees of Benguet Exploration, Inc. The petitioner, Benguet Exploration Miners’ Union (BXMU), the incumbent bargaining agent, moved to dismiss the petition. BXMU argued that the Bureau of Labor Relations lacked jurisdiction because, under a previous Memorandum Circular from the Secretary of Labor, no certification election could be entertained where there was a certified union or an existing collective bargaining agreement. BXMU claimed it was a certified union and that a CBA existed, albeit expired.
The Med-Arbiter, instead of ruling on the motion to dismiss, issued an order stating that the motion would remain part of the records to be considered upon the final resolution of the petition on the merits, citing the implementing rules of the Labor Code. BXMU argued this order extensively in subsequent hearings and filed further motions pressing for a resolution on the jurisdictional issue. The Med-Arbiter later issued an order finding the jurisdictional requirements for the petition in order. BXMU appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, who affirmed the Med-Arbiter. BXMU then filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion for not dismissing the petition outright and for a denial of procedural due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the certification election petition based on BXMU’s motion and in its procedural handling of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court explained that the respondent officials correctly applied the procedural rules under the Labor Code. The Implementing Rules explicitly provided that motions to dismiss or other incidental motions “shall not be given due course, but shall remain as part of the records for whatever they may be worth when the case is decided on the merits.” This rule aligns with the Labor Code’s fundamental policy to minimize technical objections and ensure the expeditious resolution of labor disputes. The Med-Arbiter’s act of deferring the consideration of the motion to dismiss until the final merits of the case was therefore legally sound and within his discretion.
On the claim of denial of due process, the Court found it unmeritorious. The records showed that BXMU’s counsel was given ample opportunity to argue its motion to dismiss extensively during at least three separate hearings. The jurisdictional issue raised by BXMU was, in fact, subsequently addressed and resolved by the Med-Arbiter in a later order, which was affirmed on appeal. The essence of due process—the right to be heard—was thus satisfied. The petition failed to demonstrate any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion.