Capitol Medical Center v.

Laguesma Facts: Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (CMCAE-AFW) petitioned for certification of election and Capitol Medical Center (Hospital for brevity) appealed and questioned the legal status of the union and its affiliation with the Alliance of Filipino Workers (AFW). The Union then withdrew its petition to correct any impediment, so it registered itself independently and filed another petition. The petition for certification election was then granted however the hospital appealed anew. Upon appeal, the deciding Med-Arbiter affirmed the granting of the certification election. The petition for certification elections having been granted an election was held. Out of 380 votes, the union garnered 204 votes compared to 168 votes for no-union and 8 for spoiled. The union then became the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file at the hospital. The Hospital, unsatisfied, filed several appeals. In one of its appeals, the hospital received a favorable judgment from Med-Arbiter Adap, declaring the certificate of registration of the union null and void. However this was reversed on appeal of the union. Note that all of the other appeals of the Hospital were denied. The union then, being the sole representative of the workers in the Hospital, presented economic proposals for the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). However, the Hospital contended that the judgment rendered by Med-Arbiter Adap should be followed. Because no CBA has ever been held, the union held a strike. During this time, another union, Capitol Medical Center of Concerned Employees-Unified Filipino Service Workers (CMC-ACE-UFSW), sought and petitioned for a certification election. It alleged the following: 1. 331 out of 400 rank and file employees signed the petition for certification election; 2. They are withdrawing their authorization for CMCAE-AFW, the first union, to represent them. 3. A certification election can now be conducted; 12 months have lapsed since the last certification election was held. 4. No CBA has been concluded upon despite the lapse of 12 months from the time the union was voted to represent the workers in CBA. Hence the labor case between the two unions; the older union argued that it is still the sole and exclusive bargaining unit and that it is not remiss or it did not sleep on its right to negotiate a CBA with the Hospital. It further argued that they held a strike for the commencement of the CBA negotiation and that the signatories that supported the new petition included managerial and confidential employees. The labor case was concluded with the following: the petition for the certification election of the new labor union was denied and the Hospital, Capital Medical Center was directed to negotiate a CBA with the older union.

Issues 1. Whether the denial of the petition for certification election of CMC-ACE-UFSW is valid. 2. Whether Capitol Medical Center, may be directed to negotiate a CBA with the CMCAE-AFW. Held 1. Yes, the denial of the petition for valid. According to the Supreme Court, the Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (CMCAE-AFW) is still the sole an exclusive bargaining unit. Although the circumstances presented in Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code where a certification election should be conducted, viz: (1) that one year had lapsed since the issuance of a final certification result; and (2) that there is no bargaining deadlock to which the incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration, or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout; are present, the delay cannot be attributed to the older union. It has been vigilant in negotiating a CBA and had even resorted to a strike. 2. Yes. According to Article 252 which states: Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. the duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.

Other Notes (This may be asked as well): Kaisahan Case - Similar case but the union (NAFLU) did not resort to legal means to that it may coerce the negotiation of a CBA with the company. *The union in this case resorted to legal means i.e. strike. Deadlock - In the case of Divine Word University of Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, "A 'deadlock' is . . . the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage; . . . There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces . . . The word is synonymous with the word impasse, which . . . 'presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite noble intentions, does not conclude in agreement between the parties.'" *No deadlock here since there should be mutual impasse. In the case, it was just the Hospital who ignores the demands of the union.