Case Digest: Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union v. Hon. Carmelo O. Noriel, G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988

  Labor Law | Appeal

• Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union and Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union agreed to a consent election. The agreement stipulated a consent election upon approval of their registration applications.
• Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union filed a petition for certification election, citing a consensus for a consent election and no existing collective bargaining agreement.
• On the same day, Modern Fishing Gear Labor Union filed a collective agreement for certification. The alleged collective agreement was later certified.
• 78 members of the Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union were dismissed, leading to illegal dismissal charges.
• Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union filed for decertification of the alleged CBA.
• BLR: Ordered decertification on October 29, 1979.
• Med-Arbiter: Dismissed the petition for certification election based on the contract-bar rule applying P.D. 1391 which states that a duly filed or certifiable CBA shall be a bar to a petition for certification election.
• Modern Fishing Gear Workers Union appealed, arguing the certification of a CBA is subject to the proviso that there is no pending petition for certification election nor a pending request for union recognition.
• Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations: Ordered the holding of a certification election and the withdrawal of the BLR CBA forged between the company and the petitioner union.

WoN the non-compliance with the appeal procedure from a med-arbiter's decision to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations is a mere technicality or a jurisdictional error. YES

The petitioner union contends that for the respondent union to have perfected its appeal, it should have filed the same with the Regional Office where the case originated in accordance with Section 8, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, and not directly with the BLR and that it must have served a copy of the said appeal on the petitioner within ten (10) working days from receipt of the order, resolution or decision, in accordance with Section 9 of the same implementing rule. Hence, it contends that the decision of the respondent BLR on the appeal is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.

The above contentions are without merit. The fact that the respondent union filed its appeal directly with the BLR instead of its regional office is of little significance when we consider that the petitioner was given every opportunity to oppose the appeal of the respondent union. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong in the BLR's taking cognizance of the appeal although the same was not coursed through the regional office since it is the BLR which will actually decide the appeal. Section 9, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code (7th Edition, 1979) provides:

Section 9. Period to file appeal. — The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) working days from receipt of the order by the appellant. Likewise the appellee shall file his answer thereto within ten (10) working days from receipt of the appeal. The Regional Director shall immediately forward the entire records of the case to the Bureau. (emphasis supplied).

Thus, it is clear that the BLR had the jurisdiction and function to decide the appeal.

Another procedural flaw which is alleged to be fatal to the respondent union's appeal and which, therefore, invalidates the decision of the BLR is the fact that a copy of the appeal was not furnished the petitioner union within ten (10) days from receipt of the order, decision or resolution appealed from.

This contention is likewise without merit.

As the decision of the respondent BLR aptly states, the petitioner union failed to show that it was prejudiced by the delay in the service of the copy of the appeal. On the contrary, the records will show that the petitioner was not only invited for conference by the BLR regarding the appeal of the respondent union but it was also given fifteen (15) working days within which to file its memorandum and other relevant pleadings. Thus, in the absence of a showing that the petitioner was denied due process of law under the circumstances, we cannot adhere to the automatic application of the implementing rules so as to defeat a meritorious appeal. As we have ruled in Lamsan Trading, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr. (144 SCRA 571, 578):

The absence of a rule on the filing of an appellant's memorandum is not the principal reason for our affirmance of the respondent Deputy Minister's order allowing respondent employees' appeal. More compelling is the policy that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interests of substantial justice. The dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds is frowned upon by to Court, especially considering in the case at bar, the merit of respondent employees' clarification of the delay for which they should rot be faulted.

Likewise, in Remerco Garments Manufacturing v. Minister of Labor and Employment, (135 SCRA 167), we said:

... Finally, labor law determinations, to quote from Bultmann, should be not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem More recently, we held that in appeals in labor cases, non- service of the copy of the appeal or appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a jurisdictional defect, and does not justify dismissal of the appeal. (Estrada v. NLRC, 112 SCRA 688 (1982); J.D. Magpayo v. NLRC, 118 SCRA 645 (1982). Likewise it was held that dismissal of an employee's appeal on a purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor. (Pagdonsalan v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 463 (1984).

We, therefore, rule that the BLR acted within its jurisdiction and validly rendered the assailed decision. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that the holding of certification elections is one of the more important rights accorded to workers and employees. Thus, its exercise should not be defeated by the blind observance of procedural technicalities such as that being urged by herein petitioner. As we ruled in George and Peter Lines, Inc. Associated Labor Union (134 SCRA 82, 84-86).

The employees have the constitutional right to choose the labor organization which it (sic) desires to join (FOITAF v. Noriel, 72 SCRA 24 [1976]). The exercise of such right would be rendered nugatory and ineffectual if they would be denied the opportunity to choose in a certification election, which is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character (Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines v. CIR, 76 SCRA 274 [1977]), the bargaining unit to represent them NAMAWUIF v. Estrella, 87 SCRA [1978]). The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented [ATU v. Noriel, 89 SCRA 264 [1979]).

... Certification election is the best and most appropriate means of pertaining the will of the employees as to their choice of and exclusive bargain representative (National Mines and Allied Workers Union V. Luna, 83 SCRA 607 [1978]); Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, 84 SCRA 469 [1978]).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned decision of the public respondent is AFFIRMED.