Bautista Vs CA

Bautista vs CA
GR No. 123375; February 28, 2005

FACTS:
(presented in chronological order of petitions and motions filed before several fora)
Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa
M e t r o p o l i t a n Waterworks and Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) is a union in the said
public sector (MWSS) created and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180.
 On May 7, 1993, a petition for election of officers was filed by

B o n i f a c i o d e Guzman, former auditor of KKMK-MWSS before the Bureau of Labor
Relations(BLR);
 The BLR granted the petition and the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau shall
supervise the conduct of said elections;
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by the incumbent officers of
K K M K - MWSS, led by its president, Genaro Bautista, but was denied by BLR;
 An appeal was filed with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment where
the order of the BLR was assailed as having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion and without jurisdiction, and so dismissed the petition for lackof jurisdiction;
 The then incumbent officers filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, Quezon C i t y ,
with the issuance of temporary restraining order, but the petition
w a s dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance, and for want of
genuine justiciable issue. The resolution became final;
 However, on November 25, 1993, a Petition for Prohibition with
Prayer of Temporary Restraining/Injunction was filed by Bautista, et
a l . , b e f o r e R T C Quezon City (Branch 87) to enjoin the respondents (present officers,
BLR, etc.) from proceeding with the election of officers scheduled on December 2,
1993.The petition was granted;
 On December 2, 1993, the election proceeded in defiance to the order of the
court. Hence, an order was issued by the court to refrain from giving effect of the election
and recognizing the persons supposedly elected, and hereby ordering the latter to
refrain from assuming office and acting as officers of the KKMK- MWSS. The
court subsequently issued a writ of preliminary injunction;
 The case was re-raffled to Branch 220 of RTC Quezon. The respondents filed
aReiteration of Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Lift Writ Preliminary Injunction on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the injunction does not anymore served its purpose. The instant
case was dismissed;
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by Bautista, et al alleging that the RTC has jurisdiction
considering that the case before it is an action for prohibition, as a result of
which, the said writ was reinstated;
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by private respondents but was denied. Hence,
they filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary
injunction and/or restraining order, before the Court of Appeals
 Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration dated 27 October 1995, but was denied
by the court a quo in its Resolution dated 08 January 1996,
 On 13 February 1996, a petition for review on certiorari was filed before this Court by
Genaro Bautista[26] seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals cited earlier.
 Meanwhile, on 28 May 1996, a petition for mandamus was filed by Genaro Bautista, as
President, and by the other officers[27] and members of the board[28] of KKMK-MWSS
against Angel L. Lazaro III, Administrator, MWSS, and the Board of Trustees of MWSS,
before the RTC, Quezon City, raffled again to Branch 220, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. Q-
96-27586.[29] In this petition, it was prayed, among other things, that Angel Lazaro III
and the Board of Trustees of MWSS give due recognition to Genaro Bautista, et al., as
officers of KKMK-MWSS, and that the union dues be released to the latter.
 On 27 June 1996, an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order was
filed before this Court by the private respondents praying that Regional Trial Court Judge
Prudencio Altre Castillo be enjoined from hearing the mandamus case.
 Associate Justice Teodoro R. Padilla, as Chairman of the First Division, issued a
Temporary Restraining Order on 08 July 1996, wherein a motion to lift it a Supplemental
Motion thereto were later filed by Genaro Bautista
 Genaro Bautista filed an urgent motion to declare the administrator, Angel L. Lazaro III,
and manager, Erlich V. Barraquias, of the Legal Department of the MWSS in indirect
contempt of court, alleging that the two both failed to follow the opinions rendered by the
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) to the effect that the petitioner and
his set of officers are still the rightful parties with whom MWSS management has to deal
with in all union matters as they continue to be the incumbent officers.
 The Court issues a Resolution dated 18 June 1997 requiring the said administrator and
manager to comment on the motion.
 A joint comment was thereafter filed by Lazaro and Barraquias dated 28 July 1997,
wherein they contended that the first two opinions rendered by the OGCC were overtaken
by the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, now the subjects of this petition
for review on certiorari, wherein it declared that the regular courts have no jurisdiction to
prohibit the holding of the election of the officers and members of the board of KKMK-
MWSS, as it is lodged with the BLR.
ISSUES:
Does the BLR have jurisdiction to call for and conduct the election of officers of an employees
association in the public sector?
HELD:
The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over a certification election, or any inter-union
or intra-union conflicts, is found in Article 226 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which
reads:
ART. 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
Relations Division in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original and
exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all
inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or
affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or nonagricultural,
except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining
agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
extension by agreement of the parties.
Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section 16 thereof, is completely lucid as to the
settlement of disputes involving government employees, viz:
SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees.
Since Article 226 of the Labor Code has declared that the BLR shall have original and exclusive
authority to act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, then there should be no more doubt
as to its jurisdiction.

Bautista Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bautista Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bautista Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bautista vs CA

GR No. 123375; February 28, 2005

 On May 7, 1993, a petition for election of officers was filed by

You might also like