G.R. No. 111836 - Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic National Workers Brotherhood vs. Secretary of Labor

The rank-and-file workers of Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY) organized themselves into a local union known as Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic (KAPATIRAN) under the umbrella of the National Workers Brotherhood (NWB).
The union ratified its Constitution and By-Laws on 4 April 1993, thereby formally instituting its operational framework.

On 22 April 1993, KAPATIRAN filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Department of Labor and Employment Med-Arbiter Division.
The petition alleged that there was no existing and effective collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between FORMEY and any union, and that no union had been duly recognized by the company.

Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY) filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI), which had intervened in the case, similarly moved to dismiss on the ground that a valid CBA existed covering the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996.
The contention revolved around the application of the “contract bar rule” as provided in Art. 253-A of the Labor Code and the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

The CBA executed between FORMEY and KAMAPI was fraudulently registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.
The registration was defective because the certified bargaining agent was KAMAPI—purportedly a federation—which, the petitioner argued, possesses no legal personality to sign on behalf of the local union.

Despite these assertions, the petitioner itself admitted the existence of an agreement, even though it claimed that its provisions were not being consistently implemented.

Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah found that a valid and existing CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI was in force; this finding effectively bar the filing of a certification election petition based on the “contract bar rule.”
KAPATIRAN appealed the Med-Arbiter’s ruling, alleging grave abuse of discretion, particularly in the literal application of the “contract bar rule” and the rejection of Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary case authority.
The Secretary of Labor, through Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision.
A motion for reconsideration by KAPATIRAN was denied, leading to the filing of a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor.

Meanwhile, KAMAPI filed an urgent motion to dismiss the petition on grounds that it had become moot and academic due to:

The cancellation of NWB’s certificate of registration by the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Its subsequent delisting from the roll of labor federations.

The cancellation and delisting were not yet final and executory, as it had already filed a motion for reconsideration with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Whether there existed a valid and effective CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI that barred the filing of a petition for certification election.
Whether the “contract bar rule,” as incorporated in Art. 253-A of the Labor Code and the Omnibus Rules, was correctly applied to dismiss the petition.

Whether KAPATIRAN’s contention that the CBA was fraudulently registered with the Department of Labor and Employment had any legal basis or evidentiary support.
Whether the signing by KAMAPI—as a federation on behalf of the local union—rendered the CBA defective, considering the separate personality of the local union.

Whether the instant petition became moot and academic in light of the cancellation of NWB’s certificate of registration and its delisting from the roll of labor federations, as claimed by KAMAPI.
Whether the pending motion for reconsideration with the Bureau of Labor Relations affected the finality of the cancellation decision.