G.R. No. L-52169 June 30, 1980
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG VIA MARE, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, VIA MARE CATERING SERVICES and FOOD SPECIALTIES, INC., and GLENDA R. BARRETO, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner union, Samahang Manggagawa ng Via Mare (SAMAVIM), requested the respondent corporation to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. Following the corporation’s alleged harassment of union members and termination of four employees, the union filed a Notice of Strike. The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), through Director Carmelo C. Noriel, assumed jurisdiction. The parties entered into several preliminary agreements wherein the corporation committed to negotiate and even agreed to hold a consent election. However, the corporation subsequently refused to bargain and, after a union walk-out and a Return-to-Work Order from Director Noriel, terminated seventy-three union members en masse without prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor.
The corporation then filed an application for clearance to terminate these employees with the Regional Director of the National Capital Region. Relying on this filing, Director Noriel declared he had lost jurisdiction over the entire labor dispute, including the pending motion to cite the corporation for contempt for violating the Return-to-Work Order and the agreed-upon certification election. The union filed this certiorari petition, arguing Noriel retained jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations was divested of his jurisdiction to settle the labor dispute by the corporation’s separate application to terminate employees filed with the Regional Director.

RULING

No, Director Noriel was not divested of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the filing of the application for clearance to terminate was a strategem to frustrate the collective bargaining process and deplete the union’s membership before a certification election. The legal logic is that the issue before Director Noriel—the determination of the exclusive bargaining representative through a consent election—and the issue before the Regional Director—the propriety of the individual dismissals—are separate and distinct matters that can be resolved independently. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the subsequent filing of a related but independent administrative action. The duty to bargain collectively under Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code is a separate obligation from the rules governing termination of employment. Allowing a separate clearance application to divest the BLR of jurisdiction over the core dispute would enable employers to evade their bargaining duties through procedural maneuvering. The Court ordered Director Noriel to proceed with the certification election as agreed, noting that even the dismissed employees could participate in the vote.