This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-03-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| [This] Court notes that it is petitioner, the employer, which has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its monthly-paid rank-and-file employees. This must not be so, for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively, which exception finds no application in the case before us. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere bystander. It has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto. . .[36] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In its Comment, the Union points out that for almost seven (7) years following the filing of its petition, no certification election has yet been conducted among the rank-and-file employees. If this be the case, the delay has gone far enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. The CA is right when it said that Ventures should not interfere in the certification election by actively and persistently opposing the certification election of the Union. A certification election is exclusively the concern of employees and the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge it.[24] In fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employer's interference in a certification election for such interference unduly creates the impression that it intends to establish a company union. [25] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A legitimate labor organization[19] is defined as "any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof."[20] The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure strict compliance with the requirements on registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code,[21] and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public interest. Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends.[22] Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative[23] of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.[24] The acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.[25] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Certiorari is a remedy narrow in its scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[67] Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal if the aggrieved party raised factual and legal issues; or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if only questions of law are involved.[68] | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Equally important is Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule IX of D.O. 9, which provides for the dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a labor organization only in the following instances: (1) appellant is not listed by the Regional Office or the BLR in its registry of legitimate labor organizations; or (2) appellant's legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality. Since appellant is listed in the registry of legitimate labor organizations, and its legitimacy has not been revoked or cancelled with finality, the granting of its petition for certification election is proper.[22] Finally, on the issue of whether the petitioner has the legal standing to oppose the petition for certification election, we rule in the negative. Our ruling in San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Laguesma[23] is still sound, thus: In any case, this Court notes that it is petitioner, the employer, which has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its monthly-paid rank-and-file employees. This must not be so, for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively, which exception finds no application in the case before us. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere bystander. It has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto. …[24] In conclusion, we find no reversible error in the CA's decision dismissing the petition for certiorari for the nullification of the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. It should be stressed that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of judgment or mistakes in the tribunal's findings and conclusions.[25] The petitioner failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in granting the petition for certification election. | |||||