Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48007)
Facts:
Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers v. Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations; Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union‑PTGWO; and Manila Jockey Club, Inc., G.R. No. L‑48007, December 15, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers (PLUM) filed a petition on May 5, 1976 seeking certification as sole and exclusive bargaining agent for rank‑and‑file employees of Manila Jockey Club, Inc. On June 18, 1976 the Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union‑PTGWO (intervenor) moved to intervene and opposed the petition, asserting it was the recognized bargaining representative and was negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement.
On August 30, 1976 intervenor filed a supplemental motion invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) Code of Ethics and contended that PLUM had not satisfied the statutory 30% support requirement. The BLR forwarded the entire record to the TUCP for its Congress to decide. By communication dated March 7, 1977, TUCP's National Executive Board approved referring the case back to the BLR and declared the intervenor the sole and exclusive bargaining agent; the record was returned March 16, 1977 and on March 22, 1977 the BLR endorsed the case to its Region IV Officer‑in‑Charge for action.
On May 5, 1977 Atty. Luna C. Piezas, Chief of the Med‑Arbiter Section, Region IV, promulgated an order dismissing PLUM’s petition pursuant to the TUCP letter. PLUM appealed to the Bureau Director, who on September 17, 1977 issued a resolution dismissing the appeal and expressly relied on the March 7 TUCP National Executive Board decision and the TUCP Code of Ethics as the basis for nonrecognition of PLUM’s claim and for refusing to reopen the case. PLUM’s motion for reconsideration was denied (dated March 14, 1978).
PLUM then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in this Court, arguing that TUCP—being a private labor center—had no legal authority to bar a statutorily‑mandated certification election or to supersede the BLR’s duties under the Labor Code; it also alleged that the BLR’s actions were in excess of jurisdiction and constituted grave abuse of discretion that impaired employees’ right to choose their representativ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Bureau of Labor Relations act in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing PLUM’s petition and deferring to the TUCP National Executive Board’s decision?
- May the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations call for a certification election despite doubts that the petition is supported by written consent of at least 30% of the bargaining unit, or does the absence of such showing preclude the election?
- Does TUCP, a private labor center, have authority under law or the BLR’s practice to determine and bar certification elect...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)