This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Trajano was reiterated in Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda (KML-Independent).[15] Legend International Resorts reiterated the rationale for allowing the continuation of either a CBA process or a certification election even during the pendency of proceedings for the cancellation of the union's certificate of registration. Citing the cases of Association of Court of Appeals Employees v. Ferrer- Calleja[16] and Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma,[17] it was pointed out at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election or a CBA process as in the instant case the union still had the personality to file a petition for certification - or to ask for a CBA negotiation as in the present case. | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Association of Court of Appeals Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja,[43] this Court was tasked to resolve the issue of whether "the certification proceedings should be suspended pending [the petitioner's] petition for the cancellation of union registration of the UCECA[44]."[45] The Court resolved the issue in the negative holding that "an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing a cancellation."[46] We reiterated this view in Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma[47] where we declared that "a certification election can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to cancel the union registration certificate. For the fact is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition for certification, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing its cancellation."[48] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The decision of the Court of Appeals relied on our earlier ruling in the case of Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) v. Ferrer-Calleja.[38] In this case, we held that the BLR has the jurisdiction to call for and supervise the conduct of certification elections in the public sector, viz:. . . In the same way that CSC validly conducts competitive examinations to grant requisite eligibilities to court employees, we see no constitutional objection to DOLE handling the certification process in the Court of Appeals, considering its expertise, machinery, and experience in this particular activity. Executive Order No. 180 requires organizations of government employees to register with both CSC and DOLE. This ambivalence notwithstanding, the CSC has no facilities, personnel, or experience in the conduct of certification elections. The BLR has to do the job. | |||||