Case Summary (G.R. No. 176249)
Background of the Dispute and Procedural Posture
FVCLU-PTGWO signed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with FVC Philippines initially for five years, from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003. Pursuant to the CBA, renegotiation was conducted at the end of the third year, resulting in a modification extending the CBA period by four months, now until May 31, 2003. This renegotiated CBA was ratified by the bargaining unit members.
Before the expiration of the original five-year term, SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO filed a petition for certification election on January 21, 2003, aiming to challenge the FVCLU-PTGWO's status as exclusive bargaining agent. FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that it was filed outside the 60-day “freedom period” prescribed by law, which they argued should be reckoned from the extended expiration date of May 31, 2003.
Initial Administrative and DOLE Secretary Decisions
The Med-Arbiter initially dismissed SANAMA-SIGLO's petition citing its filing outside the 60-day freedom period calculated from the amended CBA expiration date of May 31, 2003. SANAMA-SIGLO appealed and the DOLE Secretary, Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, reversed the Med-Arbiter’s dismissal, ruling the petition was timely as it was filed within 60 days prior to the expiration of the original CBA term on January 30, 2003.
Subsequently, Acting DOLE Secretary Manuel G. Imson reinstated the dismissal, reasoning that SANAMA-SIGLO’s members had ratified and accepted the amended CBA's extended term and benefits, thus estopping them from disputing the extended expiration date. The original DOLE Secretary later denied SANAMA-SIGLO's motion for reconsideration of this reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Decision
SANAMA-SIGLO elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the DOLE Secretary. The CA ruled in favor of SANAMA-SIGLO, annulled the DOLE Secretary’s orders dismissing the certification election petition, and reinstated the first DOLE Secretary’s order mandating the conduct of a certification election.
The CA interpreted the law and implementing rules to mean that the five-year term of the CBA — specifically the representation aspect — is fixed and cannot be extended by renegotiation. Consequently, the “freedom period” for filing a certification election petition must be reckoned only within 60 days before the original expiration date of the five-year CBA term, irrespective of any extended term agreed upon in renegotiations covering economic and non-economic provisions.
Petitioner's Arguments Before the Supreme Court
FVCLU-PTGWO contested the CA's interpretation, claiming the extended term of the CBA, which they argued was ratified by the same bargaining unit members, necessarily extended their exclusive bargaining representation status. Therefore, the 60-day freedom period for filing a petition should also be reckoned from the amended expiration date of May 31, 2003, rendering SANAMA-SIGLO's petition filed on January 21, 2003, premature and thus dismissible. The petitioner also argued that SANAMA-SIGLO was estopped from challenging the extension due to their prior approval and acceptance of the amended CBA. Lastly, FVCLU-PTGWO maintained that the certification petition was moot due to their entering into a new five-year CBA effective June 1, 2003.
Respondent’s Manifestation and Case Developments Before the Supreme Court
SANAMA-SIGLO manifested that since the CA ruling, the union's leadership and members largely abandoned their efforts to contest FVCLU-PTGWO’s exclusive bargaining status, citing lack of local union support and the undertaking of a new CBA. Consequently, SANAMA-SIGLO ceased active litigation and adopted the CA’s decision as its position while seeking relief of its counsel from further participation.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis and Conclusion
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of resolving the question of law surrounding the duration of exclusive bargaining representation and the timing of challenges to it, noting the issue’s prospective recurrence in labor relations.
The Court clarified that under Article 253-A of the Labor Code and its implementing rules, the exclusive bargaining representation status of a union is strictly limited to a five-year term coinciding with the term of the collective bargaining agreement’s representation aspect. While parties are allowed to renegotiate and extend other terms of the CBA (economic or non-economic) beyond the initial five years, such extension does not prolong the union’s exclusive bargaining representation status.
The Court cited the pertinent implementing rules, which explicitly state that the sixty-day period to file a petition challenging the incumbent bargaining agent shall be computed based on the original five-year CBA term, unaffected by any amendment, extension, or renewal of the CBA. Hence, exclusive bargaining status cannot legally extend beyond five years even if the CBA’s other provisions are amended to cover a longer period.
Accordingly, the filing by SANAMA-SIGLO on January 21, 2003, within the 60-day period before the original expiration date of January 30, 2003, was timely and proper. The CA’s reinstatement of the DOLE order calling for a certification election was legally correct.
Final Disposition and Rationale
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and r
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176249)
Facts and Background
- The petitioner, FVCLU-PTGWO, was the recognized bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of FVC Philippines, Inc.
- On December 22, 1997, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company signed a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), effective from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003.
- After the third year of the CBA’s original term, the parties renegotiated certain provisions including extending the CBA’s term by four months to expire on May 31, 2003.
- On January 21, 2003, nine days before the original CBA’s expiration date, SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO filed a petition for certification election before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), covering the same bargaining unit.
- FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition because it was filed outside the “freedom period” — defined as within 60 days before the expiration of a CBA — which they claimed coincided with the extended CBA expiration date of May 31, 2003.
Proceedings at the Department of Labor and Employment
- On June 17, 2003, Med-Arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco dismissed SANAMA-SIGLO’s petition as filed outside the 60-day freedom period based on the amended CBA expiration date.
- SANAMA-SIGLO appealed to DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, who reversed the dismissal, holding the petition was filed within 60 days of the original CBA expiration date, and ordered a certification election.
- FVCLU-PTGWO filed for reconsideration.
- On November 6, 2003, Acting Secretary Manuel G. Imson set aside Secretary Sto. Tomas’s decision, reinstating the dismissal based on the ground that the amended CBA’s extension had been ratified by employees including SANAMA-SIGLO members.
- Acting Secretary Imson reasoned that those members who accepted benefits under the amended CBA were estopped from filing the petition based on the original CBA term.
- SANAMA-SIGLO moved for reconsideration, but Secretary Sto. Tomas denied it on January 30, 2004.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
- SANAMA-SIGLO filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion by the Labor Secretary.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DOLE Secretary’s dismissal, holding that the freedom period for filing certification elections must be counted from the expiration of the original five-year CBA term, regardless of extensions.
- The CA ruled that extensions or amendments to other provisions of the CBA do not affect the union’s exclusive bargaining status or the timing for filing a petition.
- The CA declared if another union wins a certification election, it is bound to honor the extended provisions of the amended CBA.
- FVCLU-PTGWO moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution dated January 15, 2007.
Petitioner’s Arguments before the Supreme Court
- FVCLU-PTGWO challenged the CA’s interpret