Hijo Resources Corp vs Mijares
HIJO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
EPIFANIO P. MEJARES
G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondents Epifanio P. Mejares, Remegio C.
Baluran, Jr., Dante Saycon, and Cecilio Cucharo
(respondents) were among the complainants,
represented by their labor union named
"Nagkahiusang Mamumuo ng Bit, Djevon, at Raquilla
Farms sa Hijo Resources Corporation"
(NAMABDJERA-HRC), who filed with the NLRC an
illegal dismissal case against petitioner Hijo
Resources Corporation (HRC). Complainants
(respondents) alleged that petitioner HRC, formerly
known as Hijo Plantation Incorporated (HPI), is the
owner of agricultural lands. In 2000, HPI was
renamed as HRC. In December 2003, HRC's
application for the conversion of its agricultural lands
into agri-industrial use was approved. In 2001,
complainants were absorbed by HRC, but they were
working under the contractor-growers: Buenaventura
Tano (Bit Farm); Djerame Pausa (Djevon Farm); and
Ramon Q. Laurente (Raquilla Farm).
On 1 July 2007, complainants formed their union
NAMABDJERA-HRC, which was later registered with
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On 24 August 2007, NAMABDJERA-HRC filed a
petition for certification election before the DOLE.
When HRC learned that complainants formed a
union, the three contractor-growers filed with the
DOLE a notice of cessation of business operations. In
September 2007, complainants were terminated
from their employment on the ground of cessation of
business operations by the contractor-growers of
HRC.
On 19 September 2007, complainants, represented
by NAMABDJERA-HRC, filed a case for unfair labor
practices, illegal dismissal, and illegal deductions
with prayer for moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees before the NLRC. On 19 November
2007, DOLE Med-Arbiter Lito A. Jasa issued an Order,
dismissing NAMABDJERA-HRC's petition for
certification election on the ground that there was no
employer-employee relationship between
complainants and HRC. Complainants did not appeal
the Order of Med-Arbiter but pursued the illegal
dismissal case they filed.
On 4 January 2008, HRC filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for illegal dismissal. The motion to
dismiss was anchored on the following arguments:
(1) Lack of jurisdiction under the principle of res
judicata; and (2) The Order of the Med-Arbiter
finding that complainants were not employees of
HRC, which complainants did not appeal, had
become final and executory.
On 5 February 2008, Labor Arbiter Sagmit denied the
motion to dismiss and held that res judicata does not
apply. ((The Labor Arbiter ruled that the decision of
the Med-Arbiter in a certification election case, by
the nature of that proceedings does not foreclose
further dispute between the parties as to the
existence or non-existence of employer-employee
relationship between them. Thus, the finding of Med-
Arbiter that no employment relationship exists
between HRC and complainants does not bar the
Labor Arbiter from making his own independent
finding on the same issue. The non-litigious nature
of the proceedings before the Med-Arbiter does not
prevent the Labor Arbiter from hearing and deciding
the case.))
HRC filed with the NLRC a petition for certiorari with
a prayer for temporary restraining order, seeking to
nullify the Orders of Labor Arbiter. The NLRC granted
the petition.
((The NLRC held that the Med-Arbiter Order
dismissing the certification election case on the
ground of lack of employer-employee relationship
between HRC and complainants (members of
NAMABDJERA-HRC) constitutes res judicata under
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, and thus,
warrants the dismissal of the case. The NLRC ruled
that the Med-Arbiter exercises quasi-judicial power
and the Med-Arbiter's decisions and orders have,
upon their finality, the force and effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata.))
The CA reversed the NLRCs Resolution. ((Under
Article 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over illegal
dismissal cases. Although the proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter are also described as non-litigious, the
Court of Appeals noted that the Labor Arbiter is
given wide latitude in ascertaining the existence of
employment relationship. Hence, the Court of
Appeals concluded that the decision in a certification
election case does not foreclose further dispute as to
the existence or non-existence of an employer-
employee relationship between HRC and the
complainants.))
ISSUE: Whether the Labor Arbiter, in the illegal
dismissal case, is 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.
HELD: No. As found by the Court of Appeals, the
facts in this case are very similar to those in the
Sandoval case, which also involved the issue of
whether the ruling in a certification election case on
the existence or non-existence of an employer-
employee relationship operates as res judicata in the
illegal dismissal case filed before the NLRC. In
Sandoval, the DOLE Undersecretary reversed the
finding of the Med-Arbiter in a certification election
case and ruled that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the members of the petitioner
union and Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. (SSI), since the
former were employees of the subcontractors.
Subsequently, several illegal dismissal cases were
filed by some members of the petitioner union
against SSI. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
ruled that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the parties, citing the resolution
of the DOLE Undersecretary in the certification
election case. The Court of Appeals reversed the
NLRC ruling and held that the members of the
petitioner union were employees of SSI. On appeal,
this Court affirmed the appellate court's decision and
ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred in
relying on the pronouncement of the DOLE
Undersecretary that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the parties. The
Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf11 case that
the decision in a certification election case, by the
very nature of that proceeding, does not foreclose all
further disputes between the parties as to the
existence or non-existence of an employer-employee
relationship between them. This case is different
from the Chris Garments case cited by the NLRC
where the Court held that the matter of employer-
employee relationship has been resolved with finality
by the DOLE Secretary, whose factual findings were
not appealed by the losing party. As mentioned
earlier, the Med-Arbiter's order in this case
dismissing the petition for certification election on
the basis of non-existence of employer-employee
relationship was issued after the members of the
respondent union were dismissed from their
employment. The purpose of a petition for
certification election is to determine which
organization will represent the employees in their
collective bargaining with the employer.12The
respondent union, without its member-employees,
was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the
Med-Arbiter's decision in the certification election
case. Thus, the members of the respondent union
were left with no option but to pursue their illegal
dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter. To
dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the
Labor Arbiter on the basis of the pronouncement of
the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that
there was no employer-employee relationship
between the parties, which the respondent union
could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary
because of the dismissal of its members, would be
tantamount to denying due process to the
complainants in the illegal dismissal case. This, we
cannot allow.