Notre Dame v.

Laguesma
Facts:
-

Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union filed a petition
for certification election which the Med-Arbiter granted
- Notre Dame registered a motion to include probationary and substitute
employees in the list of qualified voters but was denied by the Med-Arbiter
who thru a notation on the same motion ruled that only regular employees be
allowed to vote
- Notre Dame filed a written notice of protest against the conduct and results
of the certification election
- Because the results favored the Union, it moved for certification as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent which the Med-Arbiter ordered done
- Notre Dame appealed to the SOLE who dismissed the appeal for lack of merit
- CA:
o Med-Arbiters notation was not an order that could be subject of an
appeal with SOLE
o In any case, it was deemed to have abandoned such appeal when it
appealed again to the SOLE to contest the Order of the Med-Arbiter to
certify the Union
o Conduct of the certification election should have been raised with the
registration officer before the close of the proceedings
o Notre Dame, as employer, had no standing to question the qualification
of workers who should be included in the list of voters because in the
process of choosing their bargaining representative, the employer was
definitely an intruder
Issue(s):
w/n notation can be subject of appeal as with certification election orders (Art. 259)
w/n the employer has standing to question the certification election (TOPICAL)
Held:
1. No. Art. 259 and Section 10, Rule V, Book Five of the Omnibus Rules contemplate
an appealable order as the Order granting the petition for certification election. This
is likewise supported by Sections 6 and 7 of the implementing rules.
Not all orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact, interlocutory orders
issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including
orders granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a
certification election, shall not be appealeable (Sec. 12, Rule XI, Book Five, Omnibus
Rules). The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the
holding of a certification election.
Under the new rules, an appeal of a med-arbiters order to hold a certification
election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an
unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly recognized or
certified as a bargaining representative.

This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may impede the
selection by employees of their bargaining representative. Expediting such
selection process advances the primacy of free collective bargaining, in accordance
with the States policy to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
bargaining x x x; and to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policymaking processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
Consequently, the appeal of the med-arbiters January 13, 1992handwritten
notation -- pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters -- should not stay
the holding of the certification election

2. Unless, the employer filed a petition for certification election pursuant to Art. 258
(unorganized establishment, on behalf of the workers), the employer has no
standing to question the election, which is the sole concern of the workers. Although
the Labor Code states that any party to an election may appeal the decision of the
Med-Arbiter, it should be remembered that the employer is not a party-in-interest in
the proceedings. In fact, it is a stranger.
The provisions of the Labor Code relating to the conduct of certification elections
were enacted precisely for the protection of the right of the employees to determine
their own bargaining representative. Employers are strangers to these
proceedings. They are forbidden from influencing or hampering the employees
rights under the law. They should not in any way affect, much less stay, the holding
of a certification election by the mere convenience of filing an appeal with the labor
secretary. To allow them to do so would do violence to the letter and spirit of
welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice.