G.R. No. L-27402 - De Pua vs. San Agustin

On May 12, 1989, the private respondent Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO) filed a petition for a certification election to be its bargaining agent for a group of employees of M.Y. San Biscuits, Inc. before the med-arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
After submission of the respective position papers, the med-arbiter issued an order on August 25, 1989 dismissing the petition on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the delivery drivers/helpers represented by the union.

Meanwhile, the union along with several other complainants filed a case before the NLRC Branch, Region No. IV, seeking relief for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, service incentive pay, COLA, damages, and attorney’s fees.
On February 9, 1990, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint, citing the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

On February 26, 1990, a private respondent appealed the financing decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the money claims.
In the certification election proceeding, the private respondent appealed to the Secretary of DOLE.
On December 15, 1989, then Secretary Franklin Drilon reversed the med-arbiter’s decision by issuing a resolution that declared the existence of an employer-employee relationship between M.Y. San Biscuits, Inc. and the drivers/helpers.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary’s resolution on January 22, 1990, followed by a manifestation on February 12, 1990, seeking to have proceedings held in abeyance pending the resolution of the issue in the pending labor arbiter case.
On April 16, 1990, the public respondent denied the relief sought in the petitioner’s manifestation.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioner was filed but then denied on June 18, 1990.

On September 19, 1990, without giving due course to the petition, the Court required the respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days and granted a temporary restraining order against the execution of the contested orders dated December 15, 1989, and June 18, 1990.
The petition fundamentally challenged the authority of the Secretary of DOLE, contending that the determination of an employer-employee relationship is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, not the Secretary.

The case highlights the application of Article 226 of the Labor Code, as amended, which confers upon the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and its officers, including the med-arbiter, the original and exclusive jurisdiction over labor-management disputes, including the determination of the employer-employee relationship.
The Secretary’s reversal of the med-arbiter’s decision was premised on the finding that there existed an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as selection and engagement of employees, payment of wages (despite administrative arrangements), the disciplinary power to dismiss, and the employer’s control over the employee’s work.

Based on the findings regarding the employer-employee relationship, a new certification election order was entered, calling for a choice between PTGWO and no union representation.
Later, on September 19, 1990, the NLRC promulgated its resolution corroborating the existence of the employer-employee relationship.
A motion for reconsideration by the petitioner before the NLRC was denied in a resolution dated November 16, 1990.

The petitioner, through a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and a temporary restraining order, argued that the Secretary of DOLE had overstepped his jurisdiction by determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Ultimately, the petition was struck down, and the temporary restraining order was lifted with costs imposed against the petitioner.

Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment (or the med-arbiter) has the jurisdiction to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship in a petition for a certification election.
Whether the determination of such a relationship should exclusively lie with the NLRC because of the pending labor arbiter case in a separate proceeding.

Whether the independent findings of the med-arbiter and the Secretary regarding the employer-employee relationship can be sustained, even if another tribunal (the NLRC) arrives at a contrary conclusion in a different proceeding.

Whether the determination of the employer-employee relationship is a necessary prerequisite for conducting a certification election, and if so, the implications of having conflicting determinations between administrative bodies.