GR L 18019; (December, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18019 December 29, 1962
PHILEX MINERS UNION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION, etc., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered a certification election among the non-supervisory employees of Philex Mining Corporation, with the National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF), the Philex Miners Union, and the Philippines Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) as contending unions. The Philex Miners Union filed a motion for reconsideration of this order. The CIR en banc subsequently dismissed this motion for reconsideration on a technical ground, ruling that the motion was not properly verified under oath as required by Sections 15, 16, and 17 of the CIR Rules. Consequently, the CIR also denied the union’s urgent motion to suspend the certification election, which the Department of Labor had scheduled. The certification election proceeded as scheduled on January 20, 1961, resulting in a victory for NAMAWUMIF. The Philex Miners Union then filed the present petition for certiorari, challenging the CIR’s dismissal of its motion for reconsideration and the holding of the election. This Court issued a preliminary injunction, but only after the election had already taken place.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the CIR correctly dismissed the motion for reconsideration for lack of a proper verification under oath.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that the CIR committed an error in dismissing the motion for reconsideration on purely technical grounds. The motion, signed by counsel, contained an acknowledgment in the usual form “Subscribed and sworn to before me,” which constituted a substantial compliance with the verification requirement under the CIR rules. Citing Arambulo v. Perez, the Court emphasized that such an acknowledgment suffices as a verification. Furthermore, the verification requirement under Section 15 of the CIR Rules is intended to vouch for the correctness of allegations of fact within the motion. A cursory examination of the motion for reconsideration revealed that it impugned conclusions of law, not facts, making a formal verification both useless and superfluous under the circumstances. The CIR’s insistence on a strict technicality was therefore unwarranted.
However, this error did not justify granting the petition. The Court ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the CIR did not automatically suspend the scheduled certification election. Under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 875, the Department of Labor was mandated to conduct the election thirty days after receipt of the court’s order. In the absence of a restraining order from a competent court, the election could proceed. The preliminary injunction from this Court was issued only on February 20, 1961, one month after the election had been held. Since the election had already been conducted, there was no act left to enjoin. To rule otherwise would allow a party to frustrate the collective bargaining process through dilatory appeals. Thus, the petition for certiorari was denied, and the preliminary injunction was dissolved.