004 St. James School of QC v. SM of St.

James
AUTHOR:
Nov. 23, 2005
Topic: Bargaining Agent, Certification Election Proceedings
FACTS: (chronological order)
1. The respondent union filed a petition for Certification Election to determine the Collective Bargaining
Representative of the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the petitioner school.
2. Certification Election was granted and it was conducted on June 26, 1999 in the office of the DOLE in Intramuros.
2.1 the total eligible voters were 149, and out of this, 84 voted.
3. The petitioner filed a protest challenging the 84 employees who voted.
3.1 Petitioner alleged that they had 179 rank and file employees and none of those voted in the said election.
3.2 Further, the petitioner argued that those who voted were not their regular employees but rather the
construction workers of their contractor, Arch. Bacoy.
4. Med-Arb. Tomas Falconitin held in favor of the petitioner.
4.1 Holding that at the time of the election the 84 who voted were no longer the employees of the petitioner.
4.2 In support of this ruling, the Med-Arb used the list of eligible employees provided by the petitioner wherein
none of the 84 employees who voted were included.
4.3 It appears that some of the construction projects have already ceased, thus the said employees were no
longer entitled.
4.4 Further, Med-Arb held that even if the 84 workers were to be included in the 179 total employees of the
petitioner, it would total to 263 and thus the majority requirement is still not met to constitute a valid CE.
5. The respondent appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
6. DOLE: decision of med-Arb reversed.
6.1 DOLE held that union sought to represent the non-teaching staff of the petitioner.
6.2 The Med-Arb erred in including all the employees of the petitioner whether teaching or non-teaching.
6.3 Also, the list submitted by the petitioner contained only the administrative, teaching, and officer personnel.
7. MR of the petitioner denied.
8. The petitioner now files a petition for certiorari under R65 before the CA.
9. CA: petitioner dismissed. DOLE did not commit GAD in reversing the Med-Arb.
10. MR of petitioner with CA also denied.
11. Hence this petition.
11.1
St. James alleges that it has 179 rank and file employees in its Quezon City Campus. When the
certification election was held, none of these qualified rank and file employees cast their votes because they
were all on duty in the school premises. The 84 voters who cast their votes are employees of Architect Bacoy.
11.2
St. James also alleges that it has 570 rank and file employees in all its campuses. Even if the 84 voters
are its employees, the votes do not constitute a majority vote of its rank and file employees because the
quorum should be based on its 570 rank and file employees.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the CE is valid?
HELD: Yes. Argument of the petitioner finds no merit.
RATIO:
1. The members of Samahang Manggagawa are employees in the Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and
by-laws, Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of
the Tandang Sora campus. Thus, the computation of the quorum should be based on the rank and file motor pool,
construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in St.
James five campuses. x x x
2. The motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters
at the time of the certification election. Hence, the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence
of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in the

certification election.
3. Section 2, Rule XII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules provides:
Section 2. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings.All employees who are members of the
appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the certification or consent
election shall be qualified to vote. A dis missed employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case
shall be allowed to vote in the election.
In case of disagreement over the voters list or over the eligibility of voters, all contested voters shall be allowed to
vote. However, their votes shall be segregated and sealed in individual envelopes in accordance with Section 9 of
these Rules.