Labor Relation

Sec 271-277

Philippine Scout Veterans Security v. Torres, 1993

Philippine Scout Veterans Security

vs Torres
NOVEMBER 6, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

Philippine Scout Veterans Security vs Torres

GR 92357

Facts:

On April 6, 1989, private respondent labor union, PGA Brotherhood Association –

Union of Filipino Workers (UFW), hereinafter referred to as “the Union ” filed a
petition for Direct Certification/Certification Election among the rank and file
employees of Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency
(PSVSIA), GVM Security and Investigations Agency, Inc. (GVM). and Abaquin
Security and Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDA). These three agencies were
collectively referred to by private respondent Union as the “PGA Security
Agency,” which is actually the first letters of the corporate names of the agencies.

On April 11, 1989, summons was issued to the management of PSVSIA, GVM,
ASDA (PGA Security Agency) at 82 E. Rodriquez Avenue, Quezon City.

On April 11, 26, 1986, petitioners filed a single comment alleging therein that the
said three security agencies have separate and distinct corporate personalities
while PGA Security Agency is not a business or corporate entity and does not
possess any personality whatsoever; the petition was unclear as to whether the
rank-and-file employees mentioned therein refer to those of the three security
agencies collectively and if so, the labor union cannot seek a certification election
in three separate bargaining units in one petition.

Issue: WON petitioners can interfere with the certification election proceeding.
Held:
Except where the employer has to file a petition for certification election
pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain
collectively, it has nothing to do with a certification election which is the sole
concern of the workers. Its role in a certification election has aptly been
described in Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v.
Trajano, as that of a mere by-stander. It has no legal standing in a certification
election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders
related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a certification election lends
suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company union.

This Court’s disapprobation of management interference in certification

elections is even more forceful in Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel, where we
held:

On a matter that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the choice of a

collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder. His
participation, to say the least, deserves no encouragement. This Court should be
the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely
internal affair of labor.

MY San Biscuits vs Laguesma

Santuyo v. Remerco Garments

Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Brillantes

PH Graphic Arts v. NLRC

San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC June 10, 2003

Ludo & Luym Corp v. Saornido January 2003

Viviero v. Court of Appeals, October 24, 2000

Continental Marble Corp v. NLRC, May 9, 1988

Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia vs. CA

Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Dev. Bank Employees