Holy Child Catholic School v.

HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS
July 23, 2013
Doctrine: Certification election is the sole concern of workers. Employers are bystanders.
Doctrine: Legitimacy of labor organization cannot be attacked collaterally in a CE.
Holy Child Catholic School (HCCS) was a private educational institution. Pinag-Isang Tinig at
Lakas ng Anakpawis-Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-
TELUPIGLAS) filed a petition for certification election. The school averred that the members of
HCCS-TELUPIGLAS did not belong to the same class. It was not only a mixture of managerial,
supervisory, and rank-and-file employees, but also a combination of teaching and non-teaching
personnel. Thus, for failure to comply with Article 245 of the Labor Code, HCCS-TELUPIGLAS
was an illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition for certification
election, and an inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community or mutuality of interest. 

The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification election on the ground that there was a lack
of community or mutuality of interest [between teaching and non-teaching staff], considering that
teaching staff would find very little in common with the non-teaching staff where responsibilities
and function, working conditions, compensation rates, social life, skills, and intellectual pursuits
are concerned. DOLE Sec reversed.

Does HCCS, as the employer, have standing to contest the petition for certification election?
NO.

Employer does not have standing to contest certification election. The “Bystander Rule” is
already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been consistently held in a number of cases
that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself
has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, but even after such filing its
role in the certification process ceases, and it becomes merely a bystander. The employer
clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere. Except when it
is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for
certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the
purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their
collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive
concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot
interfere with, much less oppose, the process. The employer’s only right in the proceeding is to
be notified or informed thereof.

Does the commingling of supervisory or managerial and rank-and-file employees bar the
petition for certification election? NO.

Mingling of R&F and supervisory/ managerial employees in a labor organization does not affect
the organization’s legitimacy. The petitions for certification election involved in Toyota and
Dunlop were filed in 1992 and 1995, respectively; hence, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules
were applied in both cases. But in 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules were further
amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules).
Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules –  that the
petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has
not been mingled with supervisory employees – was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended
Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit. The amended rules did not
require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list of its members.
The Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its earlier pronouncement
that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees
in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the
Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and
privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for
cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.

Is there an absence of community or mutuality of interest between the teaching and non-
teaching personnel that bars the petition for certification election? NO.

The concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor organization are different from, but related to,
the concept of a bargaining unit. HCCS appears to have confused the concepts of membership
in a bargaining unit and membership in a union. A bargaining unit is a group of employees
sought to be represented by a petitioning union. Such employees need not be members of a
union seeking the conduct of a certification election. A union certified as an exclusive bargaining
agent represents not only its members but also other employees who are not union members.
The teaching and non-teaching personnel of HCCS must form separate bargaining units. Thus,
the order for the conduct of two separate certification elections, one involving teaching
personnel and the other involving non-teaching personnel. It should be stressed that in the
subject petition, HCCS-TELUPIGLAS union sought the conduct of a certification election among
all the rank-and-file personnel of petitioner school. Since the decision in the U.P. case prohibits
commingling teaching and non-teaching personnel in one bargaining unit, they have to be
separated into two separate bargaining units with two separate certification elections to
determine whether the employees in the respective bargaining units desired to be represented
by HCCS-TELUPIGLAS