Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto.

Tomas and Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO

G.R. No. 167426 | January 12, 2009
Petitioner: Chris Garments Corporation
Respondent: Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas & Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No. 832
Ponente: J. Quisumbing
FACTS:
st

1 PCE: Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No. 832 (Union) filed a Petition for Certification
Election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to represent the rank and file employees of Chris Garments Corporation
(Company) not covered by its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa
sa Chris Garments CorporationSolidarity of Union in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCGCSUPER), the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.

Med-Arbiter dismissed. There was no ER-EE relationship between the parties since the union itself admitted that
its members are agency employees. And assuming they are EE, the petition for certification election will still fail
due to the contract bar rule (no petition for certification election shall be filed prior to the 60-day freedom period)
under Article 232 of the Labor Code.
o Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) affirmed.
nd

2 PCE: Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by a prior judgment.
o SOLE affirmed.
rd

3 PCE: Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the grounds that no ER-EE relationship exists between the
parties and that the case was barred by a prior judgment.
o BUT on appeal, SOLE granted and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election among the
regular rank-and-file employees of Chris Garments Corporation with the ff. choices: (a) Chris Garments
Workers Union PTGWO Local Chapter No. 832, (b) SMCGC-SUPER, and (c) No Union.

A certification election was then conducted where SMCGC-SUPER emerged as the winning union.
ISSUE 1: WON a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) is necessary before filing a petition for certiorari from the decision
of the SOLE. NO.
RATIO:

The general rule is that a MR is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. However, this
case falls under one of the exceptions, that is, when a MR would be useless under the circumstances. The
company availed of the proper remedy since Department Order No. 40-03 explicitly prohibits the filing of a MR
with the SOLE.
ISSUE 2: WON the case is barred by res judicata. NO. [main]
RATIO:

Elements of Res Judicata:

1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final
2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits
4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action

In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the presence of the first 3 elements of res judicata. The Resolution
of SOLE on the 1st PCE became final and executory.
th

BUT the 4 element is not present.

o The SOLE dismissed the 1st PCE as it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. At that time, the union
has no cause of action since they are not yet legally allowed to challenge openly and formally the status of
SMCGC-SUPER as the exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.
o Such dismissal however, has no bearing in the instant case since the 3rd PCE was filed well within the 60day freedom period. In other words, a cause of action already exists for the union as they are now legally
allowed to challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER as exclusive bargaining representative.
ISSUE 3: WON there is an ER-EE relationship between the company and the union members. YES.
RATIO:

The company failed to appeal this factual finding with the SOLE. Thus, the matter of ER-EE relationship has
been resolved with finality by the SOLE.