Case Digest (G.R. No. 181531) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries–Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, petitioner NUWHRAIN-MPHC challenged the results of a certification election held on June 16, 2006 among 353 rank-and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel. Of the 346 votes cast, NUWHRAIN-MPHC garnered 151, rival union HIMPHLU obtained 169, with one “No Union,” three spoiled ballots, and 22 segregated votes. The 22 ballots comprised votes by 11 dismissed employees (whose terminations were under appeal), six employees later promoted to supervisory positions, and five probationary workers. One probationary vote by Jose Gatbonton was counted. Med-Arbiter Calabocal ordered the opening of 17 segregated ballots (the dismissed and supervisory votes). The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) affirmed this order but excluded the six probationary ballots, citing Rule IX, Section 5 of the Omnibus Rules, and upheld HI Case Digest (G.R. No. 181531) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Petitioner National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries–Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) sought reversal of:
- Court of Appeals Decision (Nov. 8, 2007)
- Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) Resolution (Jan. 25, 2008)
- Respondents: Secretary of Labor and Employment; Bureau of Labor Relations; Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU); Acesite Philippines Hotel Corporation
- Certification Election and Segregated Votes
- Election held June 16, 2006 with 353 eligible voters; 346 votes cast: NUWHRAIN-MPHC 151, HIMPHLU 169, No Union 1, Spoiled 3, Segregated 22
- Grounds for segregation: dismissed employees (11), supervisory employees (6), probationary employees (5)
- Med-Arbiter Calabocal Order (Aug. 22, 2006) opened 17 segregated ballots (dismissed and supervisory)
- SOLE affirmed in Resolutions of Jan. 22 and Mar. 22, 2007; Court of Appeals affirmed on Nov. 8, 2007; SOLE denied reconsideration Jan. 25, 2008
- Petitioner filed petition for review before the Supreme Court
Issues:
- Are probationary employees at the time of the certification election eligible to vote?
- Did HIMPHLU obtain the required majority of valid votes cast to be certified as exclusive bargaining agent?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)