Bautista vs CA

GR No. 123375; February 28, 2005 FACTS: (presented in chronological order of petitions and motions filed before several fora) Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) is a union in the said public sector (MWSS) created and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180.
On May 7, 1993, a petition for election of officers was filed by Bonifacio de

Guzman, former auditor of KKMK-MWSS before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR); The BLR granted the petition and the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau shall supervise the conduct of said elections; A motion for reconsideration was filed by the incumbent officers of KKMKMWSS, led by its president, Genaro Bautista, but was denied by BLR; An appeal was filed with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment where the order of the BLR was assailed as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction, and so dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; The then incumbent officers filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, Quezon City, with the issuance of temporary restraining order, but the petition was dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance, and for want of genuine justiciable issue. The resolution became final; However, on November 25, 1993, a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer of Temporary Restraining/Injunction was filed by Bautista, et al., before RTC Quezon City (Branch 87) to enjoin the respondents (present officers, BLR, etc.) from proceeding with the election of officers scheduled on December 2, 1993. The petition was granted; On December 2, 1993, the election proceeded in defiance to the order of the court. Hence, an order was issued by the court to refrain from giving effect of the election and recognizing the persons supposedly elected, and hereby ordering the latter to refrain from assuming office and acting as officers of the KKMKMWSS. The court subsequently issued a writ of preliminary injunction; The case was re-raffled to Branch 220 of RTC Quezon. The respondents filed a Reiteration of Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Lift Writ Preliminary Injunction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the injunction does not anymore served its purpose. The instant case was dismissed; A motion for reconsideration was filed by Bautista, et al alleging that the RTC has jurisdiction considering that the case before it is an action for prohibition, as a result of which, the said writ was reinstated; A motion for reconsideration was filed by private respondents but was denied. Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, before the Court of Appeals;

 On October 9, 1995, a decision was rendered by the CA finding for the private respondents, upholding that the BLR had jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Bautista, et al but the same was denied. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was now filed before the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not BLR has jurisdiction over the conduct of election of officers (intraunion conflict) of an employees association in the public sector. RULING: The court ruled in the affirmative. It is quite clear from the provision of Article 226 of the Labor Code that BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute, one occurring or carried on between or among unions. The subject of the case at bar, which is the election of the officers and members of the board of KMKK-MWSS, is, clearly, an intra-union conflict, being within or inside a labor union. It is well within the powers of the BLR to act upon. Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section 16 thereof, is completely lucid as to the settlement of disputes involving government employees, viz: SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees.

NOTE: Kindly relate this on our assignment in Labor Review, in particular with item no. 9 (whether or not the labor arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction on disputes involving the inter-union and intra-union conflicts). On my end, I believe the answer is yes relating to the case discussed above. P.S.: I apologize for the quite SHORT digest of the facts above. But I think this is the only manner I can make the case understandable to those who will be reading this. At any rate, you have no choice but instead thank me for I have done my part..haha! Prepared by: Michelle S. Benitez LLB-4