Case Digest (G.R. No. 77951)
Facts:
Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Pura Ferrer‑Calleja, G.R. No. 77951, September 26, 1988, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc., a cooperative banking corporation partly government‑owned whose rank‑and‑file employees include members/co‑owners of the cooperative. The respondents are Pura Ferrer‑Calleja, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE); Felizard T. Serapio, Med‑Arbiter designate, Regional Office No. XI, MOLE, Davao City; and the Federation of Free Workers, a registered labor organization seeking to represent the bank’s rank‑and‑file employees.On August 27, 1986 the Federation filed a verified petition for a certification election before the MOLE Regional Office in Davao (docketed Case No. R‑325 ROXI MED‑UR‑73‑86). The Med‑Arbiter issued an Order on September 18, 1986 granting the petition. The petitioner bank filed an Appeal Memorandum on October 3, 1986, contending among other things that cooperatives are not covered by certification election rules because they are not operated for profit and that two signatories were managerial employees and therefore ineligible. The Federation moved to dismiss the appeal; the petitioner opposed.
On February 11, 1987 Director Calleja of the BLR affirmed the Med‑Arbiter’s Order and dismissed the appeal, finding the cooperative within the purview of Article 243 (PD 442) and that membership in a cooperative does not per se preclude union activity unless the persons are disqualified by law. The petitioner sought reconsideration (March 2, 1987), relying in part on an August 14, 1981 Opinion of the Solicitor General which had concluded that employees who are co‑owners of a cooperative could not bargain with themselves. Reconsideration was denied on March 26, 1987, and a certification election was scheduled for April 23, 1987.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court on April 9, 1987, alleging that the public respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the certification election. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on April 15, 1987, but the election proceeded on April 23 because the TRO was not timely transmitted to Davao. The Solicitor General contended the petition was moot because the election ha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for certiorari moot and academic because the certification election was already conducted?
- Did the public respondents commit jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion in allowing the certification election?
- Are employees of a cooperative who are members/co‑owners entitled to form, join, or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining?
- Are the two signatories to the petition managerial emp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)