Case Digest (G.R. No. 77629)
Facts:
Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (KILUSAN-OLALIA), Roque Jimenez, Mario C. Rongaleros, and others, petitioners, vs. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc., Rodolfo Polotan, doing business under the firm-name "Rank Manpower Co." and United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (UKCEU-PTGWO), respondents, G.R. No. 77629 and G.R. No. 78791, May 09, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.The basic controversy arose during the 60-day freedom period prior to the expiration (June 30, 1986) of a three-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KIMBERLY) and UKCEU-PTGWO. Some members of the bargaining unit formed KILUSAN-OLALIA and on April 21, 1986 filed a petition for a certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (Regional Office No. IV, Case No. RO4-OD-M-4-15-86). KIMBERLY and UKCEU-PTGWO did not object to an election but disputed the inclusion as qualified voters of certain contractual/casual workers whose employment was routed through Rank Manpower Company (RANK).
While the certification petition was pending, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a notice of strike (May 7, 1986) and later struck on May 23, 1986, alleging several unfair labor practices. KIMBERLY petitioned the Ministry of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction (May 26, 1986). On May 30, 1986 then Minister Augusto S. Sanchez assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered the striking union to lift pickets and the company to reinstate employees, but enjoined the Med-Arbiter to decide the representation issue promptly. Pursuant to the assumption order, the strike ceased after a compliance agreement.
The Med-Arbiter (June 2, 1986) nevertheless ruled that eligible voters included regular employees, casuals with at least six months' service and contractual employees (through an independent contractor) with at least six months' service; parties agreed 64 challenged ballots would be segregated. The certification election (July 1, 1986) produced: KILUSAN-OLALIA 246 votes; UKCEU-PTGWO 266 votes; 64 challenged ballots. KILUSAN-OLALIA moved to open and count the 64 challenged votes; the med-arbiter declined to act pending resolution by the Minister.
On November 13, 1986 Minister Sanchez in BLR Case No. NS-5-164-86 issued a decision: he declared the service contract with RANK legal (for janitorial/yard maintenance), held other casuals to be labor-only contractuals and therefore regular employees effective as of the decision date, certified UKCEU-PTGWO as exclusive bargaining representative, ordered reinstatements and directed payment of certain benefits. Motions for reconsideration were denied by then Minister Franklin M. Drilon on January 9, 1987.
KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certiorari in this Court (G.R. No. 77629) on March 16, 1987; this Court issued a TRO on March 25, 1987 enjoining enforcement of the challenged portions of the November 13, 1986 decision. Meanwhile KIMBERLY and UKCEU-PTGWO negotiated and ratified a new CBA (December 18, 1986; signed March 10, 1987) which the company began implementing and for which dues remittances commenced.
Separately, after subsequent labor action by KILUSAN-OLALIA in May 1987, KIMBERLY sought injunctive relief from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC en banc issued temporary restraining orders (May 26 and June 19, 1987) and later a writ of preliminary injunction (July 14, 1987). KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a certiorari/prohibition petition in this Court (G.R. No. 78791) challenging the NLRC restraining orders and injunction. Later factual developments — the termination of the strike and an unconditional offer to return to work which the company allegedly refused — were alleged by KILUSAN-OLALIA to have rendered parts of G.R. No. 78791 moot.
The consolidated petitions reached the Court by original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (G....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the former Ministers of Labor commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring UKCEU-PTGWO the certified bargaining representative after excluding the 64 challenged ballots from the tally?
- When did the contested casual/contractual workers attain the status of regular employees for purposes of voting in the certification election and entitlement to benefits?
- Was the Minister justified in treating janitorial and yard maintenance workers supplied through RANK as employees of an independent contractor, not of KIMBERLY?
- Were KILUSAN-OLALIA and its members estopped from challenging the Minister’s decision because of alleged im...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)