Facts:

The case involves a Petition for Review filed by Air Philippines Corporation (APC) against the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA). The events leading to the petition began when APFLAA was issued a Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-3-2067-99 by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on March 17, 1999. Subsequently, APFLAA sought to be recognized as the collective bargaining representative for the flight attendants of APC, leading to a certification election held on August 5, 1999, where APFLAA won by a majority vote. On November 25, 1999, APC filed a Petition for De-Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration against APFLAA, arguing that the union's membership included both supervisory and rank-and-file flight attendants, specifically citing the inclusion of Lead Cabin Attendants as a supervisory role. On July 18, 2001, the DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Director dismissed APC's pet...

Facts:

Overview of the Proceedings

• The case involves a petition for review filed by petitioner Air Philippines Corporation (APC) challenging prior resolutions from the Court of Appeals.
• APC sought the cancellation of the union registration of the Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA) issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Background on the Union Registration and Certification Election

• APFLAA was issued Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-3-2067-99 by DOLE.
• On March 17, 1999, APFLAA filed a petition for a certification election to become the collective bargaining representative for APC’s flight attendants.
• A Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling that led to the holding of a certification election on August 5, 1999, wherein a majority voted in favor of APFLAA.

Filing of Petition for Cancellation

• On November 25, 1999, APC filed a Petition for De-Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration against APFLAA with the DOLE.
• APC alleged that APFLAA was an improper labor organization because it was composed of a mix of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
• Particular emphasis was placed on the inclusion of “Lead Cabin Attendants,” whom APC classified as supervisory employees.

DOLE-NCR and Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Proceedings

• On July 18, 2001, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, Alex E. Maraan, rendered a decision dismissing the petition.
• The dismissal was based on the distinction between eligibility requirements under Article 245 versus the grounds for cancellation under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
• APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal which was subsequently denied by the BLR in a Resolution dated the same day, affirming the DOLE-NCR’s reasoning.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Subsequent Filings

• APC filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on December 12, 2001, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the BLR.
• The petition was dismissed on January 10, 2002, for failing to exhaust the remedy of filing a prior Motion for Reconsideration—a pre-condition for filing a petition for certiorari.
• A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by APC on February 5, 2002, was also denied on September 13, 2002, on procedural grounds (lack of required proof of service and defective affidavit of service).

Contentions Raised by APC

• APC argued that the issues raised involved questions of law regarding the cancellation of union registration without the necessity of a prior motion for reconsideration.
• It asserted that the alleged presence of supervisory employees (namely Lead Cabin Attendants) within APFLAA’s membership should render the union ineligible for registration.

Arguments of APFLAA and Evaluation of the Alleged Misrepresentation

• APFLAA countered that its composition was exclusively that of rank-and-file employees.
• The factual determination of whether Lead Cabin Attendants perform supervisory duties was central to the dispute, requiring a separate evidentiary evaluation which had not been satisfactorily presented by APC.

Issue:

Procedural Issue

• Whether APC’s failure to file a proper and substantiated Motion for Reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari constitutes a fatal procedural defect.

Substantive Issue

• Whether the inclusion of employees alleged to be in supervisory positions (specifically the Lead Cabin Attendant) within the union’s membership provides a valid ground for the cancellation of its registration under the Labor Code.
• Whether a mere alleged mix of supervisory and rank-and-file employees constitutes misrepresentation or fraud under Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, thereby justifying cancellation of the union registration.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)