G.R. No. 155306 - Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner, Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc., and NLMS-Olalia (Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Stayfast) vied to be the exclusive bargaining agent of Stayfast Philippines, Inc.’s employees.
A certification election was held on December 29, 1995, where out of 223 valid votes, petitioner secured 109 votes while NLMS-Olalia obtained 112 votes (with 2 votes for “No Union”).
The Med-Arbiter, who supervised the election, issued an Order on January 9, 1996, certifying NLMS-Olalia as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

Petitioner appealed the Med-Arbiter’s Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Initially, the Secretary set aside the Med-Arbiter’s Order and ordered a run-off election; however, upon NLMS-Olalia’s motion, the Secretary reconsidered and reinstated the Order.
Petitioner then elevated the matter by filing a petition for certiorari (docketed as G.R. No. 125957), which was dismissed by this Court in a Resolution dated January 14, 1998.

NLMS-Olalia demanded to collectively bargain with the respondent company, which refused to negotiate with any union other than the one officially certified.
NLMS-Olalia went on strike on April 1, 1997, but was temporarily restrained eight days later.
On June 5, 1997, petitioner filed its own notice of strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), but respondent company opposed the move, arguing that petitioner lacked standing since it was not the certified bargaining agent.
During conciliation-mediation, concessions led to petitioner withdrawing its notice of strike, a fact later certified by the NCMB on July 31, 1997.

On July 21, 1997, petitioner's members staged a “sit-down strike” to dramatize a demand for fair and equal treatment, alleging discriminatory practices by respondent company.
The respondent company issued a memorandum requiring participants in the sit-down strike to explain their actions within 24 hours; non-compliance resulted in the termination of the participants on July 22, 1997.
On July 23, 1997, petitioner conducted a full-blown strike and filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, union-busting, and illegal lockout against respondent company and its General Manager, Maria Almeida.
The complaint alleged repeated discriminatory practices (e.g., denial of use of the company canteen for strike votes, unequal treatment in leave applications, and suspension of petitioner's president), and claimed that the termination of about 127 officers and members amounted to union-busting and unlawful lockout.

On April 27, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled that while petitioner could file a notice of strike on behalf of its members, it failed to substantiate discriminatory acts timely; further, the strike became illegal due to prohibited acts (violence, coercion, obstruction) and failure to cease strike actions once a labor dispute was submitted for compulsory arbitration. The petition was dismissed.
The NLRC, in its Resolution dated January 31, 2000, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, emphasizing that petitioner’s actions—including the illegal sit-down strike shortly after withdrawing its prior notice—rendered the strike illegal, and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on April 10, 2000.
Petitioner then elevated the matter by filing a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 59465), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and seeking remedies such as reinstatement, full backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals (in its Decision dated July 1, 2002) upheld the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, ruling that the decisions were supported by substantial evidence and that petitioner’s claims of grave abuse of discretion were unsubstantiated.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, interposing arguments that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by upholding the lower tribunals’ findings and by allegedly dismissing petitioner's claims regarding discrimination, union-busting, and unlawful lockout.
Respondents argued that the proper remedy was an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (filed within 15 days) rather than a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, further noting that petitioner’s actions and strike conduct were illegal.
The petition was also criticized for failing to file the required prior motion for reconsideration and for attempting to challenge established findings of fact, matters which are not within the scope of a certiorari review.

Whether petitioner could resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of applying the prescribed remedy—a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45—given that an appeal was available.
Whether petitioner’s petition was timely, especially considering the 15-day period prescribed for filing an appeal after the Court of Appeals’ Decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Whether petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the lower tribunals acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whether petitioner was entitled to question the established factual findings regarding the legality of its strike actions and the alleged discriminatory practices by respondent company.
Whether the petition properly raised issues of law or impermissibly re-litigated factual determinations already assessed by the lower labor tribunals.