Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. The Lepanto Capataz Union

A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the DOLE Secretary, and capatazes are not rank-and-file employees but extensions of management who may form their own union separate and distinct from rank-and-file labor organizations.

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company operated mining claims in Mankayan, Benguet, where capatazes supervised rank-and-file miners. The Lepanto Capataz Union sought to represent these capatazes separately from the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, the Lepanto Employees Union.

• Union Petition: On May 27, 1998, the Lepanto Capataz Union filed a petition for consent election with the DOLE-CAR to represent 139 capatazes.
• Employer Opposition: Lepanto opposed, arguing the capatazes were already members of the Lepanto Employees Union (LEU), the exclusive rank-and-file bargaining agent, and that the petition was actually for certification election.
• Med-Arbiter Ruling: Med-Arbiter Lontoc ruled on May 2, 2000, that capatazes perform functions distinct from rank-and-file employees—supervising, instructing, evaluating, and recommending discipline—and ordered a certification election.
• DOLE Undersecretary Affirmation: On July 12, 2000, DOLE Undersecretary Baldoz affirmed the ruling, noting that because Lepanto withdrew consent, the petition properly converted to one for certification election.
• Certification Election and Protest: On November 28, 2000, the Union won 109 of 111 votes. Lepanto filed an opposition/protest challenging voter eligibility but refused to submit a position paper, contending there was no legal issue to address.
• Secretary of Labor Decision: Med-Arbiter Gacad-Ulep certified the Union, and DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas affirmed on September 17, 2002, finding Lepanto failed to support its challenge with evidence, such as job descriptions of the contested voters.
• Court of Appeals Dismissal: Lepanto directly filed a petition for certiorari in the CA without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the DOLE Secretary. The CA dismissed the petition on December 18, 2002, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2003.

• Unavailability of Motion for Reconsideration: Lepanto argued that a motion for reconsideration was not an available remedy because the DOLE Secretary's decision is classified as final and executory under Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Lepanto maintained that the DOLE Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion by ruling in favor of the Union despite finding a premature canvass of votes, and that capatazes should be considered rank-and-file employees.

• Exhaustion of Remedies: Respondent implicitly supported the CA's ruling that a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory prerequisite to certiorari to afford the agency an opportunity to correct itself.
• Separate Bargaining Unit: Respondent maintained that capatazes perform supervisory functions distinct from rank-and-file employees and thus may constitute a separate bargaining unit.

• Procedural Prerequisite: Whether a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the DOLE Secretary.
• Bargaining Unit Classification: Whether capatazes are rank-and-file employees or may form their own union independently of the rank-and-file employees.

• Procedural Prerequisite: The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to a petition for certiorari. The requirement accords with the principle of exhausting administrative remedies, affording the agency the opportunity to rectify errors. The characterization of the DOLE Secretary's decision as "final and executory" under labor rules does not negate the necessity of a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for seeking judicial review via certiorari. Failure to file the motion rendered the Secretary's decision beyond challenge.
• Bargaining Unit Classification: Capatazes are not rank-and-file employees. They perform supervisory functions—supervising and instructing miners, evaluating performance, and recommending systems and discipline—making them extensions of management. As extensions of management, they may influence rank-and-file workers to engage in activities detrimental to the employer's interests. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and finality and are not subject to review under Rule 45.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies / Motion for Reconsideration as Prerequisite to Certiorari — A motion for reconsideration must be filed before resorting to a special civil action of certiorari to afford the respondent agency the opportunity to rectify its errors. Failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and beyond judicial challenge.
• Capatazes as Supervisory Employees / Extensions of Management — Capatazes or foremen are not rank-and-file employees because they are extensions of management. They perform supervisory functions such as instructing workers, evaluating performance, and recommending discipline, and may influence rank-and-file workers to engage in activities detrimental to the employer. Thus, they may form their own union separate and distinct from rank-and-file labor organizations.
• Finality of Factual Findings of Quasi-Judicial Agencies — Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect and finality. They cannot be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law.

• "Capatazes are not rank-and-file employees because they perform supervisory functions for the management; hence, they may form their own union that is separate and distinct from the labor organization of rank-and-file employees."
• "In any event, we affirm that capatazes or foremen are not rank-and-file employees because they are an extension of the management, and as such they may influence the rank-and-file workers under them to engage in slowdowns or similar activities detrimental to the policies, interests or business objectives of the employers."

• National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 123426, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 405 — Followed. Reiterated that certiorari is the appropriate remedy from the DOLE Secretary/NLRC, but expressly reaffirmed that a motion for reconsideration is a precondition for any further remedy.
• St. Martin’s Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494 — Followed. Pronounced that the special civil action of certiorari is the appropriate remedy from the NLRC, and that a motion for reconsideration is a precondition for any subsequent remedy.
• Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 471 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that capatazes or foremen are extensions of management and not rank-and-file employees.
• Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 143013-14, December 18, 2000, 348 SCRA 565 — Followed. Cited for the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies supported by substantial evidence are entitled to great respect and are not reviewable under Rule 45.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that certiorari lies only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to emphasize that a motion for reconsideration is an adequate remedy that must be exhausted before filing certiorari.
• Section 15, Rule XI, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Department Order No. 9, series of 1997) — States that the decision of the Secretary on appeal shall be final and executory. Interpreted by Lepanto as precluding the filing of a motion for reconsideration; interpreted by the Court as not negating the prerequisite of a motion for reconsideration before seeking judicial review via certiorari.
• Article 257, Labor Code — Governs the conduct of certification elections in unorganized establishments. Cited by the DOLE Undersecretary in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order for a certification election.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.