THE MED-ARBITER’S DECISION
RESPONDENTS Epifanio P. Mejares, Remegio C. Baluran, Jr., Dante Saycon, and Cecilio Cucharo were among the complainants represented by their labor union named “Nagkahiusang Mamumuo ng Bit, Djevon, at Raquilla Farms sa Hijo Resources Corporation” (NAMABDJERA-HRC), who filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) an illegal dismissal case against petitioner Hijo Resources Corp. (HRC).
On Aug. 24, 2007, respondents’ union filed a petition for certification election before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On Nov. 19, 2007, DOLE Med-Arbiter Lito A. Jasa issued an order dismissing the petition on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between complainants (members of NAMABDJERA-HRC) and HRC. Complainants did not appeal the order of med-arbiter Jasa but pursued the illegal dismissal case they filed.
On Jan. 4, 2008, HRC moved to dismiss the complaint for illegal dismissal anchored on the following arguments: (1) lack of jurisdiction under the principle of res judicata; and (2) the order of the Med-Arbiter finding that complainants were not employees of HRC, which complainants did not appeal, had become final and executory. Did the motion prosper? Ruling: No. In this case, the med-arbiter issued an order dated Nov. 19, 2007, dismissing the certification election case because of lack of employer-employee relationship between HRC and the members of the respondent union. The order dismissing the petition was issued after the members of the respondent union were terminated from their employment in September 2007, which led to the filing of the illegal dismissal case before the NLRC on Sept. 19, 2007. Considering their termination from work, it would have been futile for the members of the respondent union to appeal the med-arbiter’s order in the certification election case to the DOLE Secretary. Instead, they pursued the illegal dismissal case filed before the NLRC.
The Court is tasked to resolve the issue of whether the labor arbiter in the illegal dismissal case is bound by the ruling of the med-arbiter regarding the existence or non-existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties in the certification election case.
The Court rules in the negative. As found by the Court of Appeals, the facts in this case are very similar to those in the Sandoval case, which also involved the issue of whether the ruling in a certification election case on the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship operates as res judicata in the illegal dismissal case filed before the NLRC.
In Sandoval, the DOLE Undersecretary reversed the finding of the med-arbiter in a certification election case and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the members of the petitioner union and Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. (SSI), since the former were employees of the subcontractors. Subsequently, several illegal dismissal cases were filed by some members of the petitioner union against SSI. Both the labor arbiter and the NLRC ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties, citing the resolution of the DOLE Undersecretary in the certification election case.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC ruling and held that the members of the petitioner union were employees of SSI. On appeal, this Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and ruled that the labor arbiter and the NLRC erred in relying on the pronouncement of the DOLE Undersecretary that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf case that the decision in a certification election case, by the very nature of that proceeding, does not foreclose all further dispute between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship between them.
This case is different from the Chris Garments case cited by the NLRC where the Court held that the matter of employer-employee relationship has been resolved with finality by the DOLE Secretary, whose factual findings were not appealed by the losing party.
As mentioned earlier, the med-arbiter’s order in this case dismissing the petition for certification election on the basis of non-existence of employer-employee relationship was issued after the members of the respondent union were dismissed from their employment. The purpose of a petition for certification election is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The respondent union, without its member-employees, was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the med-arbiter’s decision in the certification election case. Thus, the members of the respondent union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal dismissal case filed before the labor arbiter. To dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the labor arbiter on the basis of the pronouncement of the MedArbiter in the certification election case that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties, which the respondent union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. This, we cannot allow (Carpio, J.; SC 2nd Division, Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Epifanio P. Mejares, et. al., G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016).