SSS Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 108765. August 27, 1999.]
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA)

(PSLINK-TUCP) , petitioner, vs . PERLITA BATHAN-VELASCO, Officer in
Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, ALERT AND CONCERNED
EMPLOYEES FOR BETTER SSS (ACCESS), SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM , respondents.
Vicente T. Ocampo Law Offices for petitioner.

Democrito R. Mendoza and Gilberto P. Lorenzo for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Forter G. Puguon for private respondent.
Ernesto R. Arellano for private respondent ACCESS.
SYNOPSIS
In a certi cation election conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) among
the rank and le employees of the respondent Social Security System (SSS), private
respondent ACCESS garnered the highest number of votes followed by petitioner SSSEA.
SSSEA claiming that ACCESS is a company-initiated, dominated or supported union, and
that there was no certi cation election held in the regional o ces, led an election protest
and/or motion to annul the certi cation election with the BLR which was denied. Instead of
appealing the denial of the BLR to the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article 259 of the
Labor Code, petitioner resorted to this recourse raising a review of the factual ndings of
public respondent BLR. cIADTC
A party must exhaust all administrative remedies before resorting to the courts and
the premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action
necessitating the dismissal of the petition.
Factual issues are not proper subject of an original petition for certiorari as the
power of review of the Supreme Court is limited to questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or o cials and does not extend to an
evaluation of the su ciency of evidence upon which the proper labor o cer or o ce
based his or its determination.
SYLLABUS
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES;

PARTY MUST EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE RESORTING TO THE
COURTS. — The rule is well-entrenched that a party must exhaust all administrative
remedies before resorting to the courts. The premature resort to the court is fatal to one's
cause of action. This rule would give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide
the matter by itself correctly, and prevent the unnecessary and premature clogging of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
court's docket.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL OF ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS TO SECRETARY OF LABOR NECESSARY BEFORE RESORT TO THE COURTS. —
In this case, petitioner failed to take an appeal from the order of the Director, Bureau of
Labor Relations to the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code.
Absent a showing that petitioner had availed itself of and exhausted the appropriate
administrative remedies, a premature resort to the courts would result in the dismissal of
the petition.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; FACTUAL ISSUES,
NOT SUBJECT THEREOF. — Moreover, the issues raised by petitioner call for a review of
the factual ndings of public respondent. Petitioner argues that the certi cation election
should not have proceeded because of the pendency of a formal charge of a company-
initiated, dominated, or supported union with the Bureau of Labor Relations. Petitioner
further contends that no certi cation election was held in the regional o ces of
respondent SSS on October 11, 1991, resulting in incomplete certi cation election, thereby
rendering null and void the proclamation of ACCESS as the winner of the election.
Unfortunately for petitioner, factual issues are not proper subjects of an original petition
for certiorari before the Supreme Court, as its power to review is limited to questions of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or o cials.
Judicial review does not extend to an evaluation of the su ciency of the evidence upon
which the proper labor officer or office based his or its determination. AcEIHC
DECISION
PARDO , J : p
The case before the Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court, with prayer for temporary restraining order, led by Social Security
System Employees Association (SSSEA), seeking to annul and set aside the Order of the
Bureau of Labor Relations 1 dismissing the election protests or motions to annul the
certification elections among the rank and file of SSS employees. dctai
On September 28, 1989, respondent Alert and Concerned Employees for Better
Social Security System (ACCESS) led with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for
certi cation election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the
rank and file employees of respondent Social Security System (SSS).
On August 24, 1990, the Bureau of Labor Relations ordered a certification election to
be conducted among the rank and le employees of the Social Security System in its main
office and regional branches.
Petitioner Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA) (PSLINK-TUCP)
was one of the contending parties in the certi cation election, with respondent Alert and
Concerned Employees for Better SSS (ACCESS) as the other party. prcd
On October 11, 1991, the certi cation elections were held, with ACCESS garnering
1,378 votes, SSSEA obtaining 1,116 votes, and "No Union" collecting 40 votes. 2
On October 16, 1991, SSSEA led with the Bureau of Labor Relations, an election
protest and/or motion to annul the certi cation Election. Director Calleja of the Bureau of
Labor Relations, in an Order dated March 20, 1992, denied the protest and/or motion.
On September 29, 1992, SSSEA led an Election Protest and/or Motion to Nullify
Certification Elections in the SSS Regional Office After October 11, 1991.
On November 18, 1992, respondent Velasco denied the Election Protest and/or
Motion to Nullify Certi cation Elections in the Regional O ces After October 11, 1991,
declared ACCESS the winner in the certi cation election, and certi ed ACCESS as the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and le employees of SSS for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with the latter. 3
On January 25, 1993, respondent Velasco denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. cdasia
Hence, this petition.

The rule is well-entrenched that a party must exhaust all administrative remedies
before resorting to the courts. 4 The premature invocation of the intervention of the court
is fatal to one's cause of action. 5 This rule would not only give the administrative agency
an opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly, but would also prevent the
unnecessary and premature resort to courts. 6
In this case, petitioner failed to take an appeal from the order of the Director, Bureau
of Labor Relations to the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code. 7
Absent a showing that petitioner had availed itself of and exhausted the appropriate
administrative remedies, a premature resort to the courts would result in the dismissal of
the petition. LexLib
Moreover, the issues raised by petitioner call for a review of the factual ndings of
public respondent. Petitioner argues that the certi cation election should not have
proceeded because of the pendency of a formal charge of a company-initiated, dominated,
or supported union with the Bureau of Labor Relations. 8 Petitioner further contends that
no certi cation election was held in the regional o ces of respondent SSS on October 11,
1991, resulting in incomplete certi cation election, thereby rendering null and void the
proclamation of ACCESS as the winner of the election.
Unfortunately for petitioner, factual issues are not proper subjects of an original
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, as its power to review is limited to
questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals
or o cials. 9 Judicial review does not extend to an evaluation of the su ciency of the
evidence upon which the proper labor officer or office based his or its determination. 1 0
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. No pronouncement as to costs. Cdpr
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. In BLR Case No. 9-12-89.
2. As per report submitted by the Labor Organization Division, dated September 24, 1992.
3. Annex "L-1", Petition, Rollo, pp. 97-103.
4. Lopez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, February 19, 1999; University of the
Philippines vs. Catungal, Jr., 272 SCRA 221 (1997); Carale vs. Abarintos, 269 SCRA 133
(1997).
5. Dy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121587, March 9, 1999; Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266
SCRA 167 (1997).
6. Jariol vs. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 255 [citing Cruz vs. Del Rosario, 9 SCRA
755 (1963); Manuel vs. Jimenez, 17 SCRA 55 (1966)].
7. Article 259: Any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as
determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the
ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have been violated.
8. NLRC Case No. 00-07-02466-87.

9. Premiere Development Bank vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 293 SCRA 49
(1998).
10. Toyota Autoparts, Philippines, Inc. vs. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No.
13104, March 2, 1999, citing Flores vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 253 SCRA
494 (1996).

SSS Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSS Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108765. August 27, 1999.]

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA)

Vicente T. Ocampo Law Offices for petitioner.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES;

Hence, this petition.

8. NLRC Case No. 00-07-02466-87.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like