Case Digest (G.R. No. 219062)
Facts:
The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is The Heritage Hotel Manila, acting through its owner Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation; the respondents are the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin, and the labor organization National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries‑Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC).
On October 11, 1995, NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC filed a petition for a certification election to represent the hotel's supervisory employees. The hotel opposed; the opposition was deemed denied on February 14, 1996 when a Med‑Arbiter (Napoleon V. Fernando) ordered the election. The hotel’s administrative appeals were denied and a pre‑election conference was set but suspended on February 20, 1998 because NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC repeatedly failed to appear.
NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC later moved to pursue the pre‑election (January 29, 2000). The hotel submitted comments contesting the list of employees and sought exclusion of persons it asserted were managerial or confidential; it also moved to dismiss the petition for lack of prosecution (April 17, 2000). On May 12, 2000 the hotel filed a separate petition to cancel NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC’s registration for failure to submit required reports and an updated member list (docketed as Case No. NCR‑OD‑0005‑004‑IRD). On June 1, 2000 the hotel asked that the certification proceedings be dismissed or suspended because of the pending cancellation petition.
Despite that pending cancellation action, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) scheduled the certification election for June 23, 2000. The hotel filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 14, 2000; the CA dismissed it on June 23, 2000 for non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies. The election proceeded on June 23, 2000 and NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC obtained a majority. The hotel filed a protest and moved to defer certification.
On January 26, 2001, Med‑Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin denied the hotel’s protest and certified NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the supervisory bargaining unit. The hotel appealed to the DOLE Secretary, arguing (inter alia) that NUWHRAIN‑HHMSC’s membership was a mixture of managerial/confidential and rank‑and‑file employees and that the union had failed to comply with reportorial requirements. The hotel relied on earlier Supreme Court pronouncements (notably Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. Labor Union and Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.) v. Secretary of Labor and Employment) to argue that a mixed membership invalidated the union’s petitioning capacity.
On August 21, 2002, DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas denied the hotel’s appeal and affirmed Med‑Arbiter Falconitin’s order, holding that the pendency of a cancellation petition did not bar the conduct of a certification election and that challenges to a union’s legal personality should be raised in an independent cancellation proceeding rather than by collateral attack in an election case. Reconsideration was denied on October 21, 2002. The hotel then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
On December 13, 2005, the CA dismissed the hotel’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the resolutions of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The CA reconciled earlier Supreme Court decisions, concluding that the controlling principle is found in Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Inc....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the ruling in Tagaytay Highlands apply to bar collateral attacks on a union’s legitimacy in a certification election where mixed membership is alleged?
- Should the certification election have been suspended under the prudential rule in Progressive Development pending final resolution of the cancellation petition?
- Did the passage of time and alleged changes in union composition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)