Certification Election: Responsible Agency
These contractor-growers received compensation from
G.R. No. 208986 – January 13, 2016
Hijo Resources Corp. vs Epifanio Mejares
CARPIO, J.
Farm workers who organized a union and filed a petition for
certification election, were terminated from employment. They filed a
case for illegal dismissal. While the illegal dismissal case was
pending, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification
election on the ground that no ER-EE relationship existed between the
employees and the company. The Company invoked this decision in
the illegal dismissal case, arguing that this constituted res judicata and
should bind the Labor Arbiter. The SC disagreed and remanded the
case back to the LA for further proceedings.
DOCTRINE
Under Art. 226 (now Art. 232), the BLR has the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to decide all disputes, grievances or problems arising from
or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural. Necessarily, in the exercise of this
jurisdiction over labor-management relations, the med-arbiter (under
the BLR) has the authority, original and exclusive, to determine the
existence of an ER-EE relationship between the parties. The med-
arbiter’s decision is only appealable to the Secretary of Labor.
FACTS
1. Epifanio Mejares and 4 others were employed as farm workers by
Hijo Plantation Incorporated (HPI), occupying various positions
such as area harvesters, packing house workers, loaders, or
labelers.
2. HPI was then renamed as Hijo Resources Corp (HRC), and HRC
absorbed the employees but the employees then worked under
three contractor-growers.
a.
HRC and were under the control of HRC.
b. They also did not have their own capitalization, farm
machineries, and equipment.
3. Sometime after, the employees formed their union which was
registered with the DOLE. They filed a petition for certification
election before the DOLE.
4. When HRC learned that they formed a union, the three contractor-
growers filed a notice of cessation of business operations and the
employees were terminated from employment on the ground of
cessation of business operations.
5. The employees, represented by their union, 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.
6. Meanwhile, the Med-Arbiter ruled on the petition for certification
election (mentioned in fact no. 3) dismissing the same on the
ground that no employer-employee relationship existed
between the employees, and HRC.
a. They did not appeal the order of the Med-Arbiter but instead
pursued the illegal dismissal case they filed. (Thus, the
order became final and executory).
7. Back to the illegal dismissal case, HRC moved to dismiss the same
on the ground that res judicata already applied (because of the
med-arbiter order finding no ER-EE relationship).
8. The LA denied the motion to dismiss, holding that res judicata did
not apply.
9. HRC filed a petition for certiorari with the NLRC and the NLRC
granted the petition, holding that the LA gravely abused her
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, because res judicata
already applied.
10. The CA reversed the NLRC, and affirmed the LA order. They
remanded the case to the LA for further proceedings on the illegal
dismissal case.
11. Hence this petition for review with the SC.
1
ISSUE with HOLDING ii. Having no personality to appeal the Med-Arbiter’s
1. WoN the Labor Arbiter is bound by the ruling of the med-arbiter decision, the employees were then left with no option
finding no employer-employee relationship constitutes res but to pursue their illegal dismissal case before the
judicata. NO. LA.
a. The Court held that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to iii. If the illegal dismissal case were to be dismissed on
determine the existence of an ER-EE relationship between the basis of the Med-Arbiter’s decision finding no ER-
the parties in a petition for certification election. EE relationship, which the Union could not appeal
i. Under Art. 226 (now Art. 232), the BLR has the because of their member-employees’ dismissal, this
original and exclusive jurisdiction to decide all would be tantamount to denying due process to
disputes, grievances or problems arising from or the complainants in the illegal dismissal case.
affecting labor-management relations in all
workplaces, whether agricultural or non-agricultural. DISPOSITIVE PORTION
ii. Necessarily, in the exercise of this jurisdiction over WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the decision of the
labor-management relations, the med-arbiter (under CA.
the BLR) has the authority, original and exclusive, to
determine the existence of an ER-EE relationship SO ORDERED.
between the parties.
iii. The med-arbiter’s decision is only appealable to the OTHER NOTES
Secretary of Labor. Art 226 (now 232) was superseded by EO 251 which created the
b. However, as held in the cases of Manila Golf & Country NCMB and absorbed the conciliation and mediation functions of the
Club vs IAC and Sandoval Shipyards vs Pepito, the BLR (as per maam’s syllabus).
decision of the Med-Arbiter in a certification election case,
by the nature of such proceedings, does not foreclose
further dispute between the parties as to the existence or DIGESTER: Xave
non-existence of employer-employee relationship between
them.
c. Also, the Med-Arbiter’s order in this case dismissing the
petition for certification election on the basis of non-
existence of ER-EE relationship was issued after the
employees were dismissed from employment.
i. Because of this, the union, without its member-
employees, was stripped of its personality to
challenge the Med-Arbiter’s decision in the
certification election case (there were would be no
one to represent).