*

No. L-76273. July 31, 1987.

FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner,  vs.  HON. CRESENCIANO
TRAJANO and RICARDO C. CASTRO, FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITYDR. NICANOR REYES
MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC. ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (AFW), respondents.

Labor, Labor Unions; Certification Election; Under Art 244 of the Labor Code, as amended by B.P. 70, rank and file
employees of non-profit medical institutions are now permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for
purposes of collective bargaining; Certification election should be considered when respondent union had complied with
the legal requisites for calling a certification election.—Under the aforequoted provision (Art. 244, as amended),

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

726

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, Inc. vs.

there is no doubt that rank and file employees of non-profit medical institutions (as herein petitioner) are now
permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective bargaining. Since private
respondent had complied with the requisites provided by law for calling a certification election (p. 15, Rollo), it was
incumbent upon respondent Director to conduct such certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of
petitioner's employees (Samahang Manggagawa Ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152).
Same; Same; Same; Res Judicata; Requirements for pendency of another action between the same parties for the
same cause can be availed of as a ground to dismiss a case.—As held in Quimpo v. Dela Victoria, 46 SCRA 139, in order
that the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause may be availed of as a ground to dismiss
a case, there must be, between the action under consideration and the other action: (1) identity of parties, or at least such
as representing the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment which
may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata  in the action
under consideration.
Same; Same; Same; Same; No res judicata in case at bar where in the petition for certiorari the union questioned
before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of Art. 244 of the Labor Code before its amendment, while in the petition
for certification election the union invokes the same article as already amended.—In the instant case, any judgment
which may be rendered in the petition for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-49771) will not
constitute  res judicata  in the petition for certification election under consideration, for while in the former, private
respondent questioned the constitutionality of Article 244 of the Labor Code before its amendment, in the latter, private
respondent invokes the same article as already amended.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
727

VOL. 152, JULY 31, 1987 727

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the respondent Director which
affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter in the petition for certification election (NCR-LRD-N-2-050-86) filed
by private respondent, thus ordering the holding of a certification election among the rank and file employees
of the herein petitioner.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner, Far Eastern University-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Memorial Foundation, Inc., has a work force of
about 350 rank and file employees, majority of whom are members of private respondent Alliance of Filipino
Workers.
On February 13, 1986, private respondent filed a Petition for Consent and/or Certification Election with
The Ministry of Labor and Employment. The petitioner opposed the petition on the ground that a similar
petition involving the same issues and the same parties is pending resolution before the Supreme Court,
docketed as G.R. No. L-49771.
In its position paper, private respondent admitted: that as early as May 10, 1976, private respondent filed a
similar petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment but the petition was
denied by the MED Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor on appeal, on the ground that the petitioner was a non-
stock, non-profit medical institution, therefore, its employees may not form, join, or organize a union
pursuant to Article 244 of the Labor Code; that private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-49771) assailing the constitutionality of Article 244 of the Labor
Code; that pending resolution of the aforesaid petition, or on May 1, 1980, Batas Pambansa Bilang 70 was
enacted amending Article 244 of the Labor Code, thus granting even employees of non-stock, nonprofit
institutions the right to form, join and organize labor unions of their choice; and that in the exercise of such
right, private respondent filed another petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (NCR-LRDN-2-050-86).
On April 17, 1986, the Med Arbiter issued an Order grant-
728

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ing the petition, declaring that a certification election be conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the rank and file employees of the petitioner (p. 4, Rollo).
Respondent Director affirmed said Order on appeal. In dismissing the appeal, however, respondent
Director said that:
"x x x respondent's (petitioner herein, reliance on the petition with the Supreme Court involving as it does the provisions
of Article 244 of the Labor Code vis-a-vis the character of the hospital, which has been alleged as a non-profit medical
foundation, has been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the amendatory BP #70, which allows employees of non-
profit medical institutions to unionize.
Whatever doubt there may be on the right of the workers in a medical institution has been laid to rest by BP#70.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the Order of the
Med-Arbiter dated 17 April 1986 affirmed x x x." (p. 19, Rollo)

Hence, this petition, raising the issue of whether or not respondent Director gravely abused his discretion in
granting the petition for certification election, despite the pendency of a similar petition before the Supreme
Court (G.R. No. 49771) which involves the same parties for the same cause.
The Petition is devoid of merit.
At the time private respondent filed its petition for certification election on February 13, 1986, Article 244
of the Labor Code was already amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, to wit:

"Art. 244. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization.—All persons employed in commercial, industrial and
charitable,  medical,  or educational  institutions whether operating for profit or not,  shall have the right to self-
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant intermittent and itinerant workers,
self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for the
purpose of enhancing and defending their interests and for their mutual aid and protection." (underscoring supplied).

Under the aforequoted provision, there is no doubt that rank and file employees of non-profit medical
institutions (as herein
729

VOL. 152, JULY 31, 1987 729

petitioner) are now permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective
bargaining. Since private respondent had complied with the requisites provided by law for calling a
certification election (p. 15, Rollo), it was incumbent upon respondent Director to conduct such certification
election to ascertain the bargaining representative of petitioner's employees (Samahang Manggagawa Ng
Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152).
As held in Quimpo v. Dela Victoria, 46 SCRA 139, in order that the pendency of another action between
the same parties for the same cause may be availed of as a ground to dismiss a case, there must be, between
the action under consideration and the other action: (1) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the
same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment which
may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata  in
the action under consideration.
In the instant case, any judgment which may be rendered in the petition for certiorari pending before the
Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-49771) will not constitute res judicata  in the petition for certification election
under consideration, for while in the former, private respondent questioned the constitutionality of Article
244 of the Labor Code before its amendment, in the latter, private respondent invokes the same article as
already amended.
Petitioner, however, has pointed out that respondent Director should not have arrogated upon himself the
power to declare the aforesaid petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-49771) moot and academic, as the same
is sub-judice and only the Supreme Court can decide the matter. The Director cannot be f aulted f or he had to
make a decision.
WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED, and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

     Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

730

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petition dismissed and decision affirmed.

Notes.—A certification election is the sole-concern of the workers. The only exception is where the
employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code because it
was requested to bargain collectively. Thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. It
becomes merely a bystander. (Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Trajano,  120 SCRA
64.)
Withdrawal of laborers from a union before filing of petition for certification election is presumed
voluntary and affects the 30% requirement for holding elections. (La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory vs.
Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, 123 SCRA 679.)
——o0o——