G.R. No. 102084 August 12, 1998 2.
2. Herein petition seeks for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, petitioner,
vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of Labor and Employment; ROLANDO S. DE LA
CRUZ, Med-Arbiter Regional Office No. IV, DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE
OF MEDICINE SUPERVISORY UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
TOPIC: Commingling/ Mixture of Membership | The Toyota Doctrine
SUMMARY: Petitioner DLSUMCCM opposed the certification election filed by the FFW-
DLSUMCCMSUC, a local chapter of FFW, a national federation of labor unions.
DLSU opposed on two grounds: (1) that some of the employees in the FFW-DLSU are managerial
employees; and (2) the FFW-DLSU was composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees.
The med-arbiter ruled in favor of the union, holding that the FFW and the FFW-DLSU are separate
with each other and their affiliation would not make the supervisory and R&F employees members of
the same union.
Issue: Can the supervisory employees of DLSU join the FFW-DLSU.
Ruling: Yes. Under the labor code, supervisory employees are allowed to join labor organizations for
the purpose of self-organization. They are, however, subject to the limitation imposed under Art. 145
of the labor code, which provides that supervisory employees cannot join the same labor unions to
which the R&F employees belong but they can form their own unions.
The SC explained the reason behind the segregation:
The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company with respect to
the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in their interests. Supervisory employees
are more closely identified with the employer than with the rank-and-file employees. If supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in a company are allowed to form a single union, the conflicting interests of
these groups impair their relationship and adversely affect discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.
Furthermore, the SC held that a union of supervisory employees that seeks to affiliate with a national
federation of unions of R&F employees can only be barred from doing so when two (2) conditions are
present. These are:
1. The rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of supervisory employees;
2. The national federation is actively involved in union activities of the company.
In the present case, although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union
composed of rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same
national federation, the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that
the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the
supervisory employees.
FACTS: Petitioner De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine (DLSUMCCM) is
a hospital and medical school at Dasmariñas, Cavite. Private respondent Federation of Free
Workers-De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter
(FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC), on the other hand, is a labor organization composed of the
supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM.
On April 17, 1991, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a national federation of labor unions,
issued a certificate to private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local
chapter. On the same day, it filed on behalf of private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition
for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. Its petition
was opposed by petitioner DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees who signed the
petition for certification election were managerial employees and that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC
was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company.  WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of
In its reply dated May 29, 1991, private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC denied petitioner's
allegations. It contended that —
employees of herein respondent. It does not intend to include managerial employees.
x x x           x x x          x x x
6. It is not true that supervisory employees are joining the rank-and-file
employees' union. While it is true that both regular rank-and-file employees and
supervisory employees of herein respondent have affiliated with FFW, yet there
are two separate unions organized by FFW. The supervisory employees
have a separate charter certificate issued by FFW. 
On July 5, 1991, respondent med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz, of the Department of Labor and
Employment Regional Office No. IV, issued an order granting respondent union's petition for
certification election. He said;
. . . [petitioner] . . . claims that based on the job descriptions which will be presented at the hearing, the covered
employees who are considered managers occupy the positions of purchasing officers, personnel officers,
property officers, cashiers, heads of various sections and the like.
[Petitioner] also argues that assuming that some of the employees concerned are not managerial but mere supervisory
employees, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) cannot extend a charter certificate to this group of employees
without violating the express provision of Article 245 which provides that "supervisory employees shall not be
eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own" because the FFW had similarly issued a charter certificate to its rank-and-
file employees.
x x x           x x x          x x x
In its position paper, [petitioner] stated that most, if not all, of the employees listed in . . . the petition are considered
managerial employees, thereby admitting that it has supervisory employees who are undoubtedly qualified to join or form
a labor organization of their own. The record likewise shows that [petitioner] promised to present the job descriptions of
the concerned employees during the hearing but failed to do so. Thus, this office has no basis in determining at this point
in time who among them are considered managerial or supervisory employees. At any rate, there is now no question that
[petitioner] has in its employ supervisory employees who are qualified to join or form a labor union. Consequently, this
office is left with no alternative but to order the holding of certification election pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code,
as amended, which mandates the holding of certification election if a petition is filed by a legitimate labor organization
involving an unorganized establishment, as in the case of herein respondent.
As to the allegation of [petitioner] that the act of the supervisory employees in
affiliating with FFW to whom the rank-and-file employees are also affiliated is violative
of Article 245 of the Labor Code, suffice it to state that the two groups are considered
separate bargaining units and local chapters of FFW. They are, for all intents and
purposes, separate with each other and their affiliation with FFW would not make
them members of the same labor union. This must be the case because it is settled that
the locals are considered the basic unit or principal with the labor federation assuming the
role of an agent. The mere fact, therefore, that they are represented by or under the same
agent is of no moment. They are still considered separate with each other. 
On July 30, 1991, petitioner DLSUMCCM appealed to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, citing substantially the same arguments it had raised before the med-arbiter. However, its appeal
was dismissed. In his resolution, dated August 30, 1991, respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment
Bienvenido E. Laguesma found the evidence presented by petitioner DLSUMCCM concerning the alleged
managerial status of several employees to be insufficient. He also held that, following the ruling of this Court
in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR,   unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-
and-file employees of a company may legally affiliate with the same national federation.
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied. In his order dated September 19,
1991, respondent Laguesma stated:
We reviewed the records once more, and find that the issues and arguments
adduced by movant have been squarely passed upon in the Resolution sought to
be reconsidered. Accordingly, we find no legal justification to alter, much less set
aside, the aforesaid resolution. Perforce, the motion for reconsideration must fail.
merit and the resolution of this office dated 30 August 1991 STANDS.
No further motions of a similar nature shall hereinafter be entertained. 
Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Petitioner DLSUMCCM contends that respondent Laguesma gravely abused his discretion. While it does not
anymore insist that several of those who joined the petition for certification election are holding managerial positions
in the company, petitioner nonetheless pursues the question whether unions formed independently by
supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly affiliate with the same national
federation. With respect to this question, it argues:
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, IN A CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER ERRED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO ACTING WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN HE DENIED THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL AND ORDERED THE HOLDING OF A
CERTIFICATION ELECTION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPERVISORY UNION EMPLOYED IN PETITIONER'S
COMPANY DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID SUPERVISORY UNION WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS TO WHICH THE RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME
COMPANY ARE LIKEWISE AFFILIATED, CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 245 OF
THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED. 
ISSUE: WON to allow the supervisory employees to join the FFW (the same labor union to which the
rank and file employees belong) would violate Art. 245, prohibiting comingling of Supervisory and
R&F employees (NO. The supervisory employees can join the FFW)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
RATIO: The contention has no merit.
Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other classes of employees
save only managerial ones. The Constitution states that "the right of the people, including those
employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law, shall not be abridged."   As we recently held in United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union
v. Loguesma,   the framers of the Constitution intended, by this provision, to restore the right of
supervisory employees to self-organization which had been withdrawn from them during the
period of martial law. Thus:
Commissioner Lerum sought to amend the draft of what was later to become Art. 111, §8 of the present Constitution:
x x x           x x x          x x x
MR. LERUM. . . . Also, we have unions of supervisory employees and of security guards. But what is tragic
about this is that after the 1973 Constitution was approved and in spite of an express recognition of the right
to organize in P.D. No. 442, known as the Labor Code, the right of government workers, supervisory
employees and security guards to form unions was abolished.
x x x           x x x          x x x
We are afraid that without any corresponding provision covering the private sector, the security guards, the
supervisory employees . . . will still be excluded and that is the purpose of this amendment.
x x x           x x x          x x x
In sum, Lerum's proposal to amend Art. III, § 8 of the draft Constitution by including labor unions in the guarantee of
organizational right should be taken in the context of statements that his aim was the removal of the statutory ban against
security guards and supervisory employees joining labor organizations. The approval by the Constitutional Commission of
his proposal can only mean, therefore, that the Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government
workers, supervisory employees, and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed.  federation are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that their organizations are actually just one.
Conformably with the constitutional mandate, Art. 245 of the Labor Code now provides for the
right of supervisory employees to self-organization, subject to the limitation that they cannot
join an organization of rank-and-file employees:
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-
and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.
The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company with
respect to the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in their interests.
Supervisory employees are more closely identified with the employer than with the rank-and-
file employees. If supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a company are allowed to form a
single union, the conflicting interests of these groups impair their relationship and adversely
affect discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.   These consequences can obtain not only in
cases where supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the same company belong to a single union
but also where unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a
company are allowed to affiliate with the same national federation. Consequently, this Court has held
in Atlas Lithographic Services Inc. v. Laguesma   that —
To avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the
supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests, then a local
supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of
unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in
union activities in the company.
As we explained in that case, however, such a situation would obtain only where two conditions
concur: First, the rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of supervisory
employees.   Second, the national federation is actively involved in union activities in the
company.   Indeed, it is the presence of these two conditions which distinguished Atlas Lithographic
Services, Inc. v. Laguesma from Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR   where a different conclusion was
reached.
The affiliation of two local unions in a company with the same national federation is not by itself a
negation of their independence since in relation to the employer, the local unions are considered as the
principals, while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. This conclusion is in accord with the
policy that any limitation on the exercise by employees of the right to self-organization guaranteed in the
Constitution must be construed strictly. Workers should be allowed the practice of this freedom to the
extent recognized in the fundamental law. As held in Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty
Cotton Mills, Inc.: 
The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an
equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee members in the
economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the
association of locals into the national union . . . was in furtherance of the same end. These
associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their
members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common
enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the
terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to
serve their own and the common interest of all, . . . and free also to renounce the affiliation
for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it to existence. 
The questions in this case, therefore, are whether the rank-and-file employees of petitioner
DLSUMCCM who compose a labor union are directly under the supervisory employees whose
own union is affiliated with the same national federation (Federation of Free Workers) and
whether such national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company so as
to make the two unions in the same company, in reality, just one union.
Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rank-and-
file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same national federation,
the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-
file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory
employees. As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR,   the fact that the two groups of workers are
employed by the same company and the fact that they are affiliated with a common national
Their immediate professional relationship must be established. To borrow the language of Adamson
& Adamson, Inc. v. CIR: 
We find without merit the contention of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed, only one union will in
fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an
indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that there
would be a merging of the two bargaining units; and that the respondent union will lose its independence
because it becomes an alter ego of the federation. 
Mention has already been made of the fact that the petition for certification election in this case was
filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. This circumstance, while showing active involvement by
the FFW in union activities at the company, is by itself insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art.
245 since there is no proof that the supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority
over the rank-and-file employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the
FFW. This fact differentiates the case from Atlas Lithographic Services. Inc. v. Laguesma,   in which,
in addition to the fact that the petition for certification election had been filed by the national
federation, it was shown that the rank-and-file employees were directly under the supervisors
organized by the same federation.
It follows that respondent labor officials did not gravely abuse their discretion.
G.R. No. 155395             June 22, 2006
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE UNION REGISTRATION OF AIR PHILIPPINES
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION, AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and AIR PHILIPPINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
ASSOCIATION, Respondents.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
TOPIC: Commingling/Mixture of Membership | Toyota and Dunlop no longer apply under the
present state of the law and rules
For resolution is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, filed by petitioner Air Philippines Corporation (APC), assailing the Resolutions of
the Court of Appeals dated 10 January 2002 and 13 September 2002.
SUMMARY: The APFLAA is the labor union to which the employees of Air Philippines Corporation
(APC) belong. For this purpose, they have been issued a certificate of registration by the DOLE and
they have been duly elected in a certification election by the employees of APC.
Later, APC filed a petition for de-certification and cancellation of union registration against APFLAA
on the ground that some employees under that union are supervisory employees. These were the
lead cabin attendants who belonged to APFLAA. They alleged that there was a commingling of
members from the supervisory employees and the R&F employees.
Issue: Can a union be de-certified and cancelled on the ground that employees belonging thereto are
composed of supervisory and R&F employees?
Ruling: No. The SC held in the recently concluded case of Tagaytay Highlands International Golf-
Club v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO that the inclusion in a union of disqualified
employees is not among the grounds for cancellation unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud as indicated by paragraphs (a) and (c) of Art. 239 of the
Labor Code.
The misrepresentation that Article 239 speaks of relates to those in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure
to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their
postal addresses to the BLR.
In the present case, APC did not impute on APFLAA such misrepresentation of the character
necessitated under Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. APC merely argued that APFLAA was
not qualified to become a legitimate labor organization by reason of its mixed composition of rank-
and-file and supervisory employees; and that APFLAA committed misrepresentation by making it
appear that its composition was composed purely of rank-and-file employees. Such
misrepresentation (if it can be called as such) as alleged by APC, is not conformable to Article 239 (a)
and (c) of the Labor Code.
FACTS: The case initially centered on the union registration of respondent Air Philippines Flight
Attendants Association (APFLAA), which was issued a Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-
3-2067-99 by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). APFLAA filed on 17 March 1999 a
petition for certification election as the collective bargaining representative of the flight
attendants of APC. After the Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering the holding of a certification
election, such election was held on 5 August 1999, with majority of the votes cast in favor of APFLAA.
On 25 November 1999, APC filed a Petition for De-Certification and Cancellation of Union
Registration against APFLAA with the DOLE.
APC alleged that APFLAA could not be registered as a labor organization, as its composition
consisted of "a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file flight attendants." Particularly, APC
alleged that flight attendants holding the position of "Lead Cabin Attendant," which according to
it is supervisory in character, were among those who comprised APFLAA.
On 18 July 2001, the DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Director Alex E. Maraan
rendered a Decision dismissing the petition. The DOLE-NCR held that Article 245 of the Labor
Code, which states that supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in labor
organizations of rank-and-file employees, does not provide a ground for cancellation of union
registration, which is instead governed by Article 239 of the Labor Code.
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal regarding this Decision of the DOLE-NCR. In a Resolution dated
18 July 2001, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) denied the appeal, affirming the rationale of the DOLE-NCR.
APC then immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari dated 12 December 2001 with the Court of Appeals,
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BLR in denying its appeal. However, the petition was
dismissed outright by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 10 January 2002, on the ground that APC had
"failed to avail of the remedy of a prior Motion for Reconsideration" before the filing of the certiorari petition,
which step, it stressed, is a "condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari."
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 5 February 2002, but this too was denied by the Court
of Appeals in a Resolution dated 13 September 2002. This time, the appellate court ruled that the
Motion for Reconsideration was "totally defective," for failing to contain the proof of service or registry
return receipts to the respondents. The Court of Appeals even noted that the Affidavit of Service
attached to the Motion for Reconsideration "failed to indicate the registry return receipts of the
registered mails to the respondents."
ISSUE: WON the APFLAA’s certificate of registration as the labor union of APC’s employees should
be revoked (NO)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
PROCEDURAL MATTERS; PROPRIETY OF CA APPEAL
APC argues that its petition before the Court of Appeals involved mere questions of law, among which is whether APFLAA’s union
registration may be cancelled considering that the union is allegedly composed of a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
It is posited that questions of law may be raised directly in a petition for certiorari without need of a prior motion for reconsideration.
However, it is clear from the petition filed by APC before the Court of Appeals that the issues involved do not consist of questions of law
only. It is insisted therein that employees holding the position of Lead Cabin Attendants are supervisory employees and hence
disallowed from joining a union of rank-and-file employees.  On the other hand, APFLAA countered before the DOLE-NCR and the BLR
that only rank-and-file flight attendants comprised its membership.  Thus, the very question of whether Lead Cabin Attendants are
indeed supervisory employees appears to be factual in nature, the proper resolution of which necessitates a factual determination of the
actual duties of Lead Cabin Attendants. Indeed, APC made reference therein to such documents as an employee’s manual in support
of its argument,  documents that would evidently require factual evaluation before accorded proper evidentiary value.
There is admittedly some leeway for the Court of Appeals if it was so minded to give due course to APC’s petition, notwithstanding the
failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Yet ultimately, the determination of whether or not to admit a petition attended with such
defect falls within the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals.
Should the Court of Appeals decide, as it did, to dismiss the petition outright on such ground, it would commit no reversible error of law
nor any grave abuse of discretion, considering that the rule requiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration before resorting to the
special civil action of certiorari is well entrenched in jurisprudence.
It also does not escape the attention of the Court that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by APC before the Court of Appeals was
itself fatally defective, allowing the appellate court to deny the same without having to evaluate its substantial arguments. The action of
the appellate court relative to APC’s missteps is consistent with procedural rules.
Still, the Court has deigned to give a close look at the substantial arguments raised in APC’s petition
before the Court of Appeals.
ART. 245 DOES NOT PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION CERTIFICATION
The DOLE-NCR Regional Director, in dismissing the petition for cancellation, cited our minute
resolution in SPI Technologies Incorporated v. DOLE  wherein the Court observed that Article 245
of the Labor Code, the legal basis for the petition for cancellation, merely prescribed the
requirements for eligibility in joining a union and did not prescribe the grounds for
cancellation of union registration.  
Since the filing of this petition, the Court has had occasion to rule, in Tagaytay Highlands
International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO,  that "[t]he inclusion in a
union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such
inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances
enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239  of the Labor Code."
Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the
rank-and-file union includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a)
and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement
or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in connection with the election of officers,
minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents
together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.

In its Petition for De-certification and Cancellation of Union Registration, APC did not impute on
APFLAA such misrepresentation of the character necessitated under Article 239 (a) and (c) of
the Labor Code. APC merely argued that APFLAA was not qualified to become a legitimate labor
organization by reason of its mixed composition of rank-and-file and supervisory employees;
and that APFLAA committed misrepresentation by making it appear that its composition was
composed purely of rank-and-file employees. Such misrepresentation (if it can be called as
such) as alleged by APC, is not conformable to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. Indeed,
it appears from the record that APC instead devoted the bulk of its arguments in establishing that
supervisory employees comprised part of the membership of APFLAA, a ground which is not
sufficient to cause the cancellation of union registration. And this is of course all under the
assumption that Lead Cabin Attendants are indeed supervisory employees, a claim consistently
denied by APFLAA and which was not confirmed by either the DOLE-NCR or the BLR.

There may be remedies available to enforce the proscription set forth in Article 245 of the Labor Code
on supervisory employees joining the union of rank-and-file employees. But consistent with
jurisprudence, the rule under Article 245 barring supervisory employees from joining the union
of rank-and-file employees is not a ground for cancellation of union registration. Accordingly,
we see no error on the part of the DOLE-NCR and the BLR in having dismissed APC’s petition, and
thus no cause to compel the Court of Appeals to disregard APC’s procedural errors and accept the
petition for certiorari.