8/13/2019 [Digest]DiatogonvOple
1/2
G.R. No. L44493 & L44494 December 3, 1980DIATAGON LABOR
FEDERATION LOCAL 110 OF THE ULG!,"e#$#$o%er, '. HON. BLA( F. O!LE,
(ecre#)r* o+ L)bor, CARELO C.NORIEL, D$rec#or o+ L)bor Re-)#$o%',
INDANAO A((OCIATIONOF TRADE UNION( ATU/ LIANGA BA LOGGING CO.,
INC.)% GEORGIA !ACIFIC INTERNATIONAL COR!ORATION,re'"o%e%#'.
F)c#'2
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. is a domestic corporation. It has
offices in
Diatagon Lianga, Surigao del Sur and Filipinas Life Bldg.,
AyalaAvenue, Maati, Metro Manila. It is engaged in logging
andmanufacturing ply!ood
"eorgia #acific International Corporation is a Dela!are
corporation
licensed to do $usiness in the #hilippines. It has an office at
Lianga. Itemploys around %&& !orers
'he Diatagon La$or Federation Local ((& of )L"*# +)nited
Lum$er
and "eneral *orers of the #hilippines had a CBA !ith the Lianga
Bay
logging Co., Inc. !hich !as due to e-pire on March (, (/01o
Before the e-piration of that CBA, a rival union, the Mindanao
Association of 'rade )nions, filed !ith the BL2 a petition for
theholding of a C3 at Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., 'he
unionassumed that Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. had appro-imately
/&&employees
o Before that petition could $e acted upon, the Diatagon
La$or
Federation !as a$le to negotiate on March (0,(/01 !ith
"eorgia#acific International Corporation a CBA for a term of three
yearse-piring on March (, (/04 +p. 11, 2ollo.
the CBA included 56 employees !oring at "eorgia
#acific. 'hose 56 employees !ere formerly employeesof Lianga
Bay.
After 7uly, (/0%, they !ere transferred to "eorgia#acific
International Corporation and $ecame employeesof the latter.
'he 56 33s continued to use in (/01 the pay envelopes and
Identification cards of their former employer, Lianga Bay.
'hat
confusing circumstance spa!ned the controversy in this case
$ecause theMindanao Association of 'rade )nions and the Director of
La$or2elations used that circumstance to support their conclusion
that the 56employees should still $e regarded as employees of
Lianga Bay Logging
Co., Inc. and not of "eorgia #acific or that the t!o companies
should $e
regarded as only one $argaining unit.
Mindanao Association of 'rade )nions claims that the said CBA
!as
negotiated $et!een "eorgia #acific and the Diatagon La$or
Federationin order to frustrate the petition for certification
election at Lianga BayLogging Co., Inc. !hich, as a$ove stated, !as
filed $y the MA') onFe$ruary ,(/01.
MA') !anted the aforementioned 56 employees of "eorgia
#acific
International Corporation to tae part in the election $ecause
they !ereusing the pay envelopes and Identification cards of Lianga
Bay LoggingCo., Inc. $ut they !ere not allo!ed to vote $ecause they
!ere not
included in the payrolls of Lianga Logging Co., Inc.
M3D8A2B9 against MA')
Director of La$or 2el9 in favor of MA')
o 'he Director held that the aforementioned 56 employees should
$e
allo!ed to vote in the certification election at Lianga Bay
$ecausethey used the company:s pay envelopes and Identification
cards. 'heDirector ignored the fact that those 56 employees !ere
included inthe payrolls of "eorgia #acific International
Corporation and !ere
already covered $y the e-isting CBA. 'he Director ordered
theholding of a ne! certification election at Lianga Bay Logging
Co.,
Inc. !herein the 56 employees !ould $e allo!ed to voteo ;e held
that there e-isted no distinction $et!een the employees of
the t!o companies and. conseoin
the holding of a ne! certification election.
o But $efore Chat restraining order !as issued, a certification
election
!as held among the employees of the t!o companies.
o 'here !ere /%% eligi$le voters. 'he Mindanao Association of
'rade
)nions o$tained %16 votes. 'he Diatagon La$or Federationo$tained
6 votes. =nly 111 voters too part in the election.
o 'he protest of the Diatagon La$or Federation against that
election
!as not acted upon $y the Director of La$or 2elations in vie!
ofthe pendency of this case
ISS)39 *=? the Director of La$or 2elations gravely a$used his
discretionin treating the employees of the t!o companies as one
$argaining unit. @2A'I=9
'he prior ruling is ar$itrary and untena$le $ecause the t!o
companies
are indu$ita$ly distinct entities !ith separate >uridical
personalities. 'he fact that their $usinesses are related and that
the 56 employees of
8/13/2019 [Digest]DiatogonvOple
2/2
"eorgia #acific International Corporation !ere originally
employees ofLianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. is not a >ustification
for disregarding theirseparate personalities
;ence, the 56 employees, !ho are no! attached to "eorgia
#acific
International Corporation, should not $e allo!ed to vote in
thecertification election at the Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc.
'hey should vote at a separate certification election to
determine the
collective $argaining representative of the employees of "eorgia
#acificInternational Corporation.
;o!ever, at this late hour, or after the lapse of more than five
years, the
result of the (/01 certification election should not $e
implemented. Ane! certification election should $e held at Lianga
Bay Logging Co., Inc.
$ut the 56 employees should not $e allo!ed to vote in that
election.
