Hijo Resources V Mejares

2/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 780
G.R. No. 208986. January 13, 2016.*

HIJO RESOURCES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
EPIFANIO P. MEJARES, REMEGIO C. BALURAN, JR.,
DANTE SAYCON, and CECILIO CUCHARO, represented
by NAMABDJERA-HRC, respondents.
Labor Law; Certification Elections; Med-Arbiters;

Jurisdiction; Employer-Employee Relationship; There is no
question that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties
in a petition for certification election.—There is no question that
the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the existence of
an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a
petition for certification election.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; The purpose of a petition for
certification election is to determine which organization will
represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer.—This case is different from the Chris Garments Corp.
v. Hon. Sto. Tomas, 576 SCRA 13 (2009), 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 certifi-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

618
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Mejares
cation election on the basis of nonexistence of

employer-employee relationship was issued after the
members of the respondent union were dismissed from
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001692cc9dbdd3f13936d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
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 Med-Arbiter 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Dominguez, Paderna & Tan Law Offices Co. for
petitioner.
Jayma Law for respondents.
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This petition for review1 assails the 29 August 2012
Decision2 and the 13 August 2013 Resolution3 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 04058-MIN. The Court of
Appeals
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 Rollo, pp. 41-54. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with
Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla,
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 57-60.

619
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 619

reversed and set aside the Resolutions dated 29 June

2009 and 16 December 2009 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC No. MIC-03-
000229-08 (RAB XI-09-00774-2007), and remanded the
case to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Region XI, Davao
City for further proceedings.

The Facts

Respondents Epifanio P. Mejares, Remegio C. Baluran,
Jr., Dante Saycon, and Cecilio Cucharo (respondents) 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 NLRC an illegal
dismissal case against petitioner Hijo Resources
Corporation (HRC).
Complainants (which include the respondents herein)
alleged that petitioner HRC, formerly known as Hijo
Plantation, Incorporated (HPI), is the owner of agricultural
lands in Madum, Tagum, Davao del Norte, which were
planted primarily with Cavendish bananas. In 2000, HPI
was renamed as HRC. In December 2003, HRC’s
application for the conversion of its agricultural lands into
agri-industrial use was approved. The machineries and
equipment formerly used by HPI continued to be utilized
by HRC.
Complainants claimed that they were employed by HPI
as farm workers in HPI’s plantations occupying various
positions as area harvesters, packing house workers,
loaders, or labelers. In 2001, complainants were absorbed
by HRC, but they were working under the contractor-
growers: Buenaventura Tano (Bit Farm); Djerame Pausa
(Djevon Farm); and Ramon Q. Laurente (Raquilla Farm).
Complainants asserted that these contractor-growers
received compensation from HRC and were under the
control of HRC. They further alleged that the contractor-
growers did not have their own capitalization, farm
machineries, and equipment.

620

On 1 July 2007, complainants formed their union

NAMABDJERA-HRC, which was later registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On 24
August 2007, NAMABDJERA-HRC filed a petition for
certification election before the DOLE.
When HRC learned that complainants formed a union,
the three contractor-growers filed with the DOLE a notice
of cessation of business operations. In September 2007,
complainants were terminated from their employment on
the ground of cessation of business operations by the
contractor-growers of HRC. On 19 September 2007,
complainants, represented by NAMABDJERA-HRC, filed a
case for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and illegal
deductions with prayer for moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees before the NLRC.
On 19 November 2007, DOLE Med-Arbiter Lito A. Jasa
issued an Order,4 dismissing NAMABDJERA-HRC’s
petition for certification election 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 4 January 2008, HRC filed a motion to inhibit Labor
Arbiter Maria Christina S. Sagmit and moved to dismiss
the complaint for illegal dismissal. The motion to dismiss
was 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.

The Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

On 5 February 2008, Labor Arbiter Sagmit denied the
motion to inhibit. Labor Arbiter Sagmit likewise denied the
mo-
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 154-160.

621
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 621
tion to dismiss in an Order dated 12 February 2008.

Labor Arbiter Sagmit held that res judicata does not apply.
Citing the cases of Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v.
IAC5 and Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. v. Pepito,6 the Labor
Arbiter ruled that the decision of the Med-Arbiter in a
certification election case, by the nature of that
proceedings, does not foreclose further dispute between the
parties as to the existence or nonexistence of employer-
employee relationship between them. Thus, the finding of
Med-Arbiter Jasa that no employment relationship exists
between HRC and complainants does not bar the Labor
Arbiter from making his own independent finding on the
same issue. The non-litigious nature of the proceedings
before the Med-Arbiter does not prevent the Labor Arbiter
from hearing and deciding the case. Thus, Labor Arbiter
Sagmit denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the
parties to file their position papers.
HRC filed with the NLRC a petition for certiorari with a
prayer for temporary restraining order, seeking to nullify
the 5 February 2008 and 12 February 2008 Orders of Labor
Arbiter Sagmit.

The Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC granted the petition, holding that Labor
Arbiter Sagmit gravely abused her discretion in denying
HRC’s motion to dismiss. The NLRC held that the Med-
Arbiter Order dated 19 November 2007 dismissing the
certification election case on the ground of lack of
employer-employee relationship between HRC and
complainants (members of NAMABDJERA-HRC)
constitutes res judicata under the concept of conclusiveness
of judgment, and thus, warrants the dismissal of the case.
The NLRC ruled that the Med-Arbiter exercises quasi-
judicial power and the Med-Arbiter’s decisions and orders
_______________
5 G.R. No. 64948, 27 September 1994, 237 SCRA 207.

6 412 Phil. 148; 359 SCRA 555 (2001).

622

have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a final

judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
On the issue of inhibition, the NLRC found it moot and
academic in view of Labor Arbiter Sagmit’s voluntary
inhibition from the case as per Order dated 11 March 2009.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals found the ruling in the Sandoval
case more applicable in this case. The Court of Appeals
noted that the Sandoval case, which also involved a
petition for certification election and an illegal dismissal
case filed by the union members against the alleged
employer, is on all fours with this case. The issue in
Sandoval on the effect of the Med-Arbiter’s findings as to
the existence of employer-employee relationship is the very
same issue raised in this case. On the other hand, the case
of Chris Garments Corp. v. Hon. Sto. Tomas7 cited by the
NLRC, which involved three petitions for certification
election filed by the same union, is of a different factual
milieu.
The Court of Appeals held that the certification
proceedings before the Med-Arbiter are non-adversarial
and merely investigative. On the other hand, under Article
217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases. Although
the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter are also described
as non-litigious, the Court of Appeals noted that the Labor
Arbiter is given wide latitude in ascertaining the existence
of employment relationship. Thus, unlike the Med-Artbiter,
the Labor Arbiter may conduct clarificatory hearings and
even avail of ocular inspection to ascertain facts speedily.
Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the decision
in a certification election case does not foreclose further
dispute
_______________
7 596 Phil. 14; 576 SCRA 13 (2009).

623
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 623
as to the existence or nonexistence of an employer-

employee relationship between HRC and the complainants.
On 29 August 2012, the Court of Appeals promulgated
its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED
and the assailed Resolutions dated June 29, 2009 and
December 16, 2009 of the National Labor Relations
Commission are hereby REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. Let NLRC CASE No. RAB-XI-09-00774-0707
be remanded to the Regional Arbitration Branch,
Region XI, Davao City for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.8

The Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the
NLRC ruling and remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter
for further proceedings.

The Ruling of the Court

We find the petition without merit.
There is no question that the Med-Arbiter has the
authority to determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between the parties in a petition for
certification election. As held in M.Y. San Biscuits, Inc. v.
Acting Sec. Laguesma:9
Under Article 226 of the Labor Code, as amended,

the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), of which the
med-arbiter is an officer, has the following
jurisdiction —
“ART. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations.—
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
Relations Division[s] in the regional offices of
_______________
8 Rollo, p. 53.
9 273 Phil. 482; 196 SCRA 256 (1991).

624

the Department of Labor shall have original

and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union
conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or
problems arising from or affecting labor-
management relations in all workplaces whether
agricultural or nonagricultural, except those
arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining
agreements which shall be the subject of
grievance procedure and/or voluntary
arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working
days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
extension by agreement of the parties.” (Italics
supplied)
From the foregoing, the BLR has the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to inter alia, decide all disputes,
grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-
management relations in all workplaces whether
agricultural or nonagricultural. Necessarily, in the
exercise of this jurisdiction over labor-management
relations, the med-arbiter has the authority, original
and exclusive, to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Apropos to the present case, once there is a
determination as to the existence of such a
relationship, the med-arbiter can then decide the
certification election case. As the authority to
determine the employer-employee relationship is
necessary and indispensable in the exercise of
jurisdiction by the med-arbiter, his finding thereon
may only be reviewed and reversed by the Secretary
of Labor who exercises appellate jurisdiction under
Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, which
provides —
“ART. 259. Appeal from certification
election orders.—Any party to an election may
appeal the order or results of the election as
determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment on the
ground that the rules and regulations or parts
thereof established by the


625
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 625

Secretary of Labor and Employment for the

conduct of the election have been violated. Such
appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15)
calendar days.”10

In this case, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order dated 19
November 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 19 September 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
nonexistence 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
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 485-486; pp. 259-260.

626

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 Golf11 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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence 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.12 The respondent union, without its
member-employees,
_______________
11 Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. IAC, supra note 5 at p. 214.
12 Heritage Hotel Manila v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R.
No. 172132, 23 July 2014, 730 SCRA 400, 413, citing Republic v.
Kawashima Textile Mfg. Philippines, Inc., 581 Phil. 359, 380; 559 SCRA
386, 408 (2008).

627
VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 627

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 Med-
Arbiter 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.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM
the 29 August 2012 Decision and the 13 August 2013
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
04058-MIN.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—The purpose of a certification election is

precisely to ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice
of an appropriate bargaining unit — to be or not to be
represented by a labor organization and, if in the
affirmative case, by which one. (Holy Child Catholic School
vs. Sto. Tomas, 701 SCRA 589 [2013])
Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the
certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and
the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the
certification election is concerned. (Heritage Hotel Manila
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 730 SCRA 400
[2014])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hijo Resources V Mejares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Hijo Resources V Mejares

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Hijo Resources V Mejares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

2/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 780

G.R. No. 208986. January 13, 2016.*

Labor Law; Certification Elections; Med-Arbiters;

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cation election on the basis of nonexistence of

their employment. The purpose of a petition for certification

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 619

reversed and set aside the Resolutions dated 29 June

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 1 July 2007, complainants formed their union

4 Id., at pp. 154-160.

VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 621

Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Mejares

tion to dismiss in an Order dated 12 February 2008.

5 G.R. No. 64948, 27 September 1994, 237 SCRA 207.

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Mejares

have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a final

7 596 Phil. 14; 576 SCRA 13 (2009).

VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 623

Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Mejares

as to the existence or nonexistence of an employer-

Under Article 226 of the Labor Code, as amended,

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Department of Labor shall have original

VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 625

Secretary of Labor and Employment for the

10 Id., at pp. 485-486; pp. 259-260.

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Shipyards, Inc. (SSI), since the former were employees

VOL. 780, JANUARY 13, 2016 627

was thus stripped of its personality to challenge

Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The purpose of a certification election is

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like