Case Digest: UERM Employees Union v. Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 75838, August 31, 1989

 Labor Law | NLRC

  • UERM Employees Union is the bargaining representative of University of the East — Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center (UERM) employees.
  • The labor union seeks to annul decisions and orders by the Minister of Labor and Employment regarding salary increases and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) involving employees of the University of the East-Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center (UERM).
Whether the decision of the Minister of Labor and Employment became final and executory. NO.

With respect to service of orders and/or decisions, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 2. Papers to be filed and served. - Every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the complaint, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected thereby. If any of such parties has appeared by an attorney or attorneys, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one attorney appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.

Accordingly, when a party is represented by counsel, notices should be made upon the counsel of record at his given address, to which notices of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent. 

It is not disputed that both parties herein were represented by counsel. However, instead of proper service by Ministry process servers on the said lawyers of the parties, the xerox copy of the decision of March 18, 1986 was released to and received by representatives of the union who had been following up the case in the office of the Minister. Petitioner admits that its counsel, Atty. Ruben F. Santos, was then not with the union representatives. It was also through said union representatives that the original copy of said decision was delivered to the office of the chairman of the board of UERM. Counsel of record for UERM was not served a copy of the March 18, 1986 decision. In fact she filed a manifestation and motion dated March 26, 1986 praying that she be given a copy of the purported decision so that she could take appropriate action. Subsequently on April 9,1986, she followed up her request by a letter to the Minister of Labor and Employment.  However, in the Minister's reply of April 14, 1986, she was informed that subject decision is not yet official and still subject to review and was assured of the immediate release of an official resolution. 

Clearly, therefore, as correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the period of appeal has not commenced to run against private respondent UERM. 

Petitioner's insistence that the above procedure of service of a copy of the decision not by official process servers but by evidently unauthorized union officials to private respondent is not unusual at all in the Labor Ministry, is untenable. In the absence of any showing that such practice is sanctioned by the Implementing Rules of the Ministry of Labor or by the Rules of -Court, the party who took advantage of such irregular practice does so at its own risk and cannot now be heard to complain.

In addition, UERM's counsel of record has never been changed, so that petitioner cannot use the pretext of not knowing who is the present counsel of private respondent as an excuse for furnishing the copy of the decision on the chairman of UERM and not on its counsel. Under the circumstances, it is the consistent ruling of this Court that where no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel was shown, notice to counsel of record is for all purposes, notice to the client. Such notice is properly sent to the address of the counsel of record in the absence of due notice to the court of change of address and the date of receipt is considered the starting point from which the period of appeal prescribed by law shall begin to run. 

Be that as it may, we cannot condone the manner by which respondent Minister handled the disposition of this case. Observance of a modicum of prudence on the Minister's part and/or on the part of his subordinates would have prevented the premature release of the March 18, 1986 decision, and the complications engendered thereby and ensured the attainment of a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute. More than that, the records do not show any form of disciplinary action meted out on those responsible for the highly irregular service of the decision. The confusion caused by the change in leadership within the Ministry might have partly contributed to the fiasco. But that is not an excuse. The burden of strict observance of the law and propriety tilted heavily on the part of the Ministry officials and employees concerned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more