Med-Arbiter’s Ruling on the Existence or Non-existence of Employer-employee Relationship

2016 January 13

On 1 July 2007, complainants formed a union and registered it with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On 24 August 2007, the union filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE.

In September 2007, complainants were terminated from their employment on the ground of cessation of business operations by the contractor-growers of Hijo Resources Corporation (HRC). On 19 September 2007, complainants, represented by the union, filed a case for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and illegal deductions with a prayer for damages and attorney’s fees before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On 19 November 2007, the DOLE Med-Arbiter issued an Order dismissing the union’s petition for certification election because no employer-employee relationship existed between the complainants and HRC. Complainants did not appeal the Med Arbiter’s Order but pursued the illegal dismissal case they filed.

Is the Labor Arbiter in the illegal dismissal case bound by the ruling of the Med-Arbiter regarding the existence or non-existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties in the certification election case?

No.

The Supreme Court applied Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. v. Pepito 1G.R. No. 143428, June 25, 2001, 412 PHIL 148-157, which cited Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court 2G.R. No. 64948, September 27, 1994, 307 PHIL 219-230, and reiterated the nature of a certification proceeding.

A decision in a certification election case regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship does not foreclose all further dispute between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of such relationship.

It is well settled that for res adjudicata, or the principle of bar by prior judgment, to apply, the following essential requisites must concur:

(1) there must be a final judgment or order;

(2) said judgment or order must be on the merits;

(3) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and

(4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of cause of action.

Clearly implicit in these requisites is that the action or proceedings in which is issued the ‘prior Judgment’ that would operate in bar of a subsequent action between the same parties for the same cause, be adversarial, or contentious, ‘one having opposing parties; (is) contested, as distinguished from an ex parte hearing or proceeding . . . of which the party seeking relief has given legal notice to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.’ and a certification case is not such a proceeding x x x

A certification proceeding is not a ‘litigation’ in the sense in which this term is commonly understood, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary, fact-finding character, in which the investigating agency plays the part of a disinterested investigator seeking merely to ascertain the desires of the employees as to the matter of their representation. The court enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by the employees. (Emphasis, mine.)

Further reading:

  • Hijo Resources Corp. v. Mejares, G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016.

Check Out My Latest YouTube Video:

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]