REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK V. LAGUESMA 8.

Petitioner filed an MR and submitted additional documentary evidence

prepared by some of the contractual employees, namely Garcia,
GR No. 119675 | Nov. 21, 1996 Guevarra, David, Samson, and Tabernilla. Private respondent opposed
FACTS: the MR, questioning the admissibility of the evidence presented.
1. On January 21, 1991, petitioner for a petition for certification election to 9. On May 10, 1993, Usec. Laguesma modified the December 21 resolution
be the exclusive bargaining agent of all regular employees outside the and declared that Garcia, Guevarra, David, Samson, and Tabernilla are
bargaining unit of private respondent. regular employees of private respondent and therefore part of the
2. The proposed bargaining unit is composed of clerks, messengers, existing rank and file unit.
janitors, plumbers, telex operators, mailing and printing personnel, 10. Both parties moved for reconsideration:
drivers, mechanics and computer personnel, who are allegedly regular a. Petitioner wanted everyone in the proposed bargaining unit to be
employees but considered as contractual employees by the private considered as employees of private respondents, and submitted
respondent. documents containing job descriptions.
3. The existing collective bargaining agreement between private b. Private respondents reiterated its objection to the admissibility of
respondent bank and Republic Planters Bank Employees Union the new evidence.
(RPBEU), the certified bargaining representative of the regular 11. On February 24, 1995, Usec Laguesma set aside the May 10, 1993
employees of private respondent, excluded those in the proposed Order and reinstated the December 21, 1992 resolution. (Basically, the
bargaining unit. resolution which finds that there is no EER)
4. Private respondent opposed the petition for certification election, arguing:
a. Petitioner union is comprised of 30 employees of Superior ISSUES:
Maintenance Services, Inc. (SMSI) who are assigned to the bank 1. Whether or not the petitioners should be allowed to file the petition for
as messengers and janitors under a Contract of Service. certification election. – NO (Main issue)
b. Other employees in the proposed bargaining unit are contractual
and not members of petitioner. 2. Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of
c. There is already a pre-existing bargaining unit represented by discretion in not giving value to the documents submitted on appeal. -
RPBEU. NO
d. Failure to state the total number of employees in the proposed
bargaining unit, as well as the lack of prior determination that the RATIO:
members of petitioners are private respondent’s employees. 1. The petition should not be allowed because it is premature, and
5. Petitioner argued that: also because there was no employer- employee relationship.
a. Proposed bargaining unit is not part of the existing bargaining As a general rule, no petition for certification election may be entertained if
unit between private respondent and RPBEU. filed outside the 60-day period immediately before the expiration of the
b. Some of its members had been in the employ of private collective bargaining agreement. This is to ensure the insure the industrial
respondents for more than 6 months, and that their services are peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the
necessary and desirable to the usual business operations of CBA.
private respondent.
c. SMSI is engaged in labor-only contracting. In Trade Unions of the Philippines v. Laguesma, it was held that when a
6. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election, and legitimate labor organization has been certified as the sole and exclusive
declared that the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are to be bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of a given employer, it shall
considered employees of private respondent, and also that these remain as such during the existence of the CBA, and no petition questioning
employees who were excluded may join the existing bargaining unit if the majority status of said incumbent agent or any certification election may
they are qualified, in accord with the one-union, one-company policy of be conducted outside the sixty-day freedom period immediately before the
DOLE. expiry date of the CBA.
7. Private respondent appealed the finding of Employer-employee
relationship, and on December 21, 1992, Undersecretary Bienvenido In this case, the petition for certification election was filed on January 21,
Laguesma reversed the Order of the Med-Arbiter. 1991, while the CBA between the RPBEU and private respondents was
effective until June 30, 1991. The filing of the petition for certification election
was clearly premature.

Petitioner also cannot question the standing of private respondents because

it only raised the issue on appeal. Petitioner is also wrong to invoke Golden
Farms because the facts of that case and this case are not similar. Golden
Farms, Inc. v. Sec. of Labor provides that the general rule is that an
employer has no legal standing to question a certification election since this
is the sole concern of the workers. Golden Farms is not applicable because
in that case, the EER was not disputed, the petition for certification election
was filed within the 60-day freedom period, and the main issue concerned
two groups of employees, i.e. monthly paid office employees as against daily
paid rank-and-file employees.

The more applicable case is Singer Sewing Maching Company v. Drilon,

where it was ruled that if the union members are not employees, no right to
organize for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as bargaining agent
can be recognized.

The question of whether employer-employee relationship exist is a primordial

consideration before extending labor benefits under the workmen’s
compensation, social security, medicare, termination pay and labor relations
law. It is important in the determination of who shall be included in the
proposed bargaining unit because, it is the sine qua non, the fundamental
and essential condition that a bargaining unit be composed of employees.
Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the union members and
the employer affects the legality of the union itself. It means the ineligibility of
the union members to present a petition for certification election as well as to
vote therein.

2. The rejection of the evidence was based on sound reason

Technical rules of procedure need not be strictly followed by the public
respondent in rendering decisions if they are impediments in giving justice
and equity to the litigants. The documents were rejected because they were
self-serving and did not bear the approval of their employer. The rejection is
based on sound reason.