Facts:

The case revolves around G.R. No. 91987, involving A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. as the petitioner and Hon. Secretary of Labor Franklin Drilon and the Philippine Federation of Labor (A-1 Prime Security Services, Inc. - U.S. Embassy Chapter) Local - PFL as the respondents. The events leading to the petition began on October 3, 1988, when the respondent union filed a petition for a certification election among security guards employed by A’ Prime Security Services and assigned to the U.S. Embassy. The petitioner countered by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the security guards were ineligible to join a labor organization and that the required 20% subscription for the election had not been met, as only 77 out of 872 guards supported the petition. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on November 22, 1988, affirming that while the guards had the right to join a union, they did not meet the subscription requirement based on the entire employer unit.

The union appealed thi

...

Facts:

1. Petition for Certification Election: On October 3, 1988, the Philippine Federation of Labor (A-1 Prime Security Services, Inc. - U.S. Embassy Chapter) Local-PFL (respondent union) filed a petition for certification election (BLR Case No. A-12-327-88) among the security guards employed by A' Prime Security Services, Inc. (petitioner) and assigned at the U.S. Embassy.

2. Motion to Dismiss: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing:

   • The security guards assigned to the U.S. Embassy were ineligible to join a labor organization.
   • Even if eligible, the mandatory 20% subscription requirement was not met, as only 77 out of 872 security guards joined the petition.
   • The respondent union did not represent the proper bargaining unit.

3. Med-Arbiter's Decision: On November 22, 1988, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition, ruling that while the security guards had the right to join a labor organization, the 20% subscription requirement was not met when using the entire employer unit as the bargaining unit.

4. Appeal to BLR: Respondent union appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), arguing that its 150 members assigned to the U.S. Embassy constituted a separate bargaining unit due to higher educational qualifications and pay.

5. BLR Director's Decision: On April 27, 1989, BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja ruled that there was no variance in the nature of work between the union members and other security guards. However, she granted the appeal and ordered a certification election among all security guards in the company.

6. Second Motion for Reconsideration: Respondent union filed a second motion for reconsideration before the DOLE Secretary, which was granted. The DOLE Secretary ruled that the security guards at the U.S. Embassy constituted a separate bargaining unit and ordered a certification election limited to them.

7. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by Acting Secretary Dionisio De La Serna on January 16, 1990.

Issue:

1. Whether the DOLE Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the proper bargaining unit was limited to the security guards at the U.S. Embassy and not the entire employer unit.
2. Whether the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent union's second motion for reconsideration.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)