Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. vs. Abbott Laboratories Employees Union

The Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate power to review decisions of Regional Directors in petitions to cancel union certificates of registration; such decisions of the BLR are final and executory, and the proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. (ABBOTT) is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture and distribution of drugs. The Abbott Laboratories Employees Union (ALEU) sought registration as a legitimate labor organization representing rank-and-file employees in ABBOTT's manufacturing unit. Following the approval of ALEU's registration, ABBOTT filed a petition for cancellation alleging non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically the 20% minimum membership requirement for the entire employer unit. The case involves the procedural labyrinth of appeals in union registration cancellation proceedings and the determination of the proper appellate forum.

• On February 22, 1996, the Abbott Laboratories Employees Union (ALEU) filed an application for union registration with the Department of Labor and Employment, alleging it was a labor organization composed of 30 rank-and-file employees in the manufacturing unit of ABBOTT and that no certified bargaining agent existed in said unit.
• On February 28, 1996, the Bureau of Labor Relations approved ALEU's application and issued Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-2-1638-96, rendering ALEU a legitimate labor organization.
• On April 2, 1996, ABBOTT filed a petition for cancellation of ALEU's certificate of registration with the Regional Office of the Bureau of Labor Relations, docketed as Case No. OD-M-9604-006. ABBOTT alleged that ALEU's application was not signed by at least 20% of the total 286 rank-and-file employees of the entire employer unit and that it failed to submit copies of its books of account.
• On June 21, 1996, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations issued a decision cancelling ALEU's registration certificate, adopting the findings of the Med-Arbiter that ALEU failed to show that rank-and-file employees in the manufacturing unit were bound by a common interest to justify a separate bargaining unit, and that the 30 signatures constituted only 10% of the entire rank-and-file employees, failing the requirements of Article 234 of the Labor Code.
• On August 19, 1996, ALEU appealed the cancellation to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, which motu proprio referred the appeal to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, docketed as Case No. BLR-A-10-25-96.
• On March 31, 1997, the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Regional Director's decision, ruling that Article 234 does not require proof of "desirability of more than one bargaining unit," that appropriateness of bargaining unit is determined during certification election, and reinstating ALEU's registration.
• On July 9, 1997, the BLR denied ABBOTT's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
• On September 19, 1997, the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment, Cresenciano B. Trajano, informed ABBOTT's counsel that the Office of the Secretary cannot act on the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, stating that under Section 4, Rule III, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code (as amended by Department Order No. 09, s. 1997), the BLR's decision is final and executory.
• ABBOTT received the BLR decision on April 14, 1997, and the order denying reconsideration on July 16, 1997, but filed the petition for certiorari only on November 28, 1997.

• ABBOTT contended that the Secretary of Labor and Employment has the authority to review decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
• ABBOTT argued that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of its appeal from the BLR decision.
• ABBOTT raised the issue of the validity of ALEU's certificate of registration, questioning whether the manufacturing unit could constitute a separate bargaining unit and whether ALEU satisfied the 20% membership requirement.

• The Office of the Solicitor General (representing the Secretary of Labor and BLR) maintained that under Sections 1, 3, and 4 of Rule VIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (as amended by Department Order No. 09, s. 1997), the Secretary has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from BLR decisions when the BLR is acting in its appellate capacity over Regional Director decisions in cancellation cases.
• The OSG argued that the BLR's decision upholding the validity of the union's certificate is final and inappealable because the petition for cancellation was filed with a Regional Office, placing the case under the "first situation" where Regional Office decisions are appealed to the BLR (whose decision is final), not to the Secretary.
• The OSG noted that ABBOTT's remedy should have been a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, but this was time-barred as it was filed after the 60-day period.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Regional Directors in cancellation of union registration cases; whether the petition for certiorari is time-barred.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Regional Director's decision cancelling ALEU's certificate of registration.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations when the latter is acting in its appellate capacity reviewing decisions of Regional Directors in cancellation proceedings. Under Section 4 of Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules (as amended by Department Order No. 09), the decision of the Bureau in such cases is final and executory. The Court sustained the Secretary's refusal to act on the appeal, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court further held that even if treated as a petition for certiorari against the BLR decision, the petition is dismissible for being time-barred, as it was filed on November 28, 1997, more than four months after ABBOTT received the BLR decision on April 14, 1997, and the order denying reconsideration on July 16, 1997, exceeding the 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.
• Substantive: The Court declined to rule on the validity of ALEU's certificate of registration, noting that the petition assailed only the Secretary's letter refusing jurisdiction, not the BLR decision dated March 31, 1997 reinstating the registration. The Court held it was not at liberty to review the BLR decision as it was not being assailed in the present petition.

• Hierarchy of Appeals in Cancellation Cases — Establishes a bifurcated appellate system: (1) When a petition for cancellation is filed with a Regional Office, the Regional Director's decision may be appealed to the BLR, whose decision is final and executory; (2) When a petition is filed directly with the BLR, the BLR Director's decision may be appealed to the Secretary of Labor, whose decision is final and executory. In both instances, the aggrieved party's remedy against the final decision is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Finality of BLR Decisions in Appellate Capacity — Decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate power to review decisions of Regional Directors in cancellation cases are final and inappealable to the Secretary of Labor.
• 60-Day Rule for Certiorari — A special civil action for certiorari must be instituted within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, non-compliance with which renders the decision final and executory.

• "Clearly, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of ABBOTT. The appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is limited only to a review of cancellation proceedings decided by the Bureau of Labor Relations in the exercise of its exclusive and original jurisdiction."
• "Thus, under Sections 7 to 9 of the Omnibus Rules and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Implementing Rules (as amended by Department Order No. 09), the finality of the BLR decision is dependent on whether or not the petition for cancellation was filed with the BLR directly."
• "Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court."

• Bordeos, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 262 SCRA 424 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that the remedy against final decisions of administrative bodies is certiorari under Rule 65.
• St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, et al., 295 SCRA 494 (1998) — Cited in relation to the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65.

• Article 234 of the Labor Code — Cited regarding the requirements for union registration (20% minimum membership), which ALEU allegedly failed to satisfy.
• Article 239 of the Labor Code — Referenced regarding grounds for cancellation of union registration.
• Rule VIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (as amended by Department Order No. 09, s. 1997) — Central to the resolution of the jurisdictional issue; Sections 1 (Venue), 3 (Grounds for Cancellation), and 4 (Appeals) establish that BLR decisions on appeals from Regional Directors are final and executory, while BLR decisions in original cases are appealable to the Secretary.
• Rule 65, Section 4 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court — Establishes the 60-day period for filing certiorari petitions, which ABBOTT failed to observe.