SSSEA vs. Bathan-Velasco

Social Security System Employees Association vs. Bathan-Velasco

Petitioner: Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA)(PSLINK-TUCP)

Respondent: Perlita Bathan-Velasco, Officer in Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Alert and Concerned Employees for Better SSS (ACCESS), Social Security System

313 SCRA 250

Date: 08/27/1999

FACTS:

·      ACCESS filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of SSS.

·      The Bureau of Labor Relations ordered the certification election among the rank and file employees of the SSS in its main office.

·      On October 11, 1991, ACCESS garnered 1,378 votes while SSSEA obtained 1,116 votes in the certification election.

·      SSSEA filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations an election protest and/or motion to annul the certification election. The protest and motion was denied.

·      Bathan-Velasco, Officer in Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, also denied the Election Protest and/or Motion to Nullify Certification Elections in the Regional Offices After October 11, 1991. She also declared ACCESS as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of SSS.

·      Bathan-Velasco denied SSSEA’s motion for reconsideration.

·   SSSEA filed special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court. SSSEA argues that no certification election was held in the regional offices of respondent SSS. They also argue that the certification election should not have proceeded because of the pendency of a formal charge of a company-initiated union with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

ISSUE:

(1)  Whether or not SSSEA failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before resorting to the courts? YES!

HELD/RATIO:

·      SSSEA failed to take an appeal from the order of Bathan-Velasco to the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code.

·      When a party fails to exhaust all administrative remedies, a premature resort to the courts would result in the dismissal of the petition.

·      Moreover, the issues raised by SSSEA in its special civil action for certiorari involve a review of the factual findings of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

·      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 officials. Judicial review does not extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor officer or office based his or its determination.

Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete

Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete

527 SCRA 509

·       Agustin R. Perdices won over incumbent Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo for the mayoralty post. He was to assume office on June 30, 2001.

·      Before Perdices’ assumption, Remollo made fifteen (15) promotional appointments, and seventy-four (74) original appointments for various positions in the city government.

·       July 2, 2001: Remollo dishonored the appointments made by Remollo.

·       Leah M. Nazareno, et al, filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City a Petition for Mandamus, Injunction and Damages against the City of Dumaguete, represented by Mayor Remollo.

·       Aug. 1, 2001: Director Abucejo of the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSCFO) invalidated and revoked the questioned appointments as they were issued in violation of the guidelines set forth by the CSC.

·       Aug. 3, 2001: RTC issued a writ of prelim injunction against the City Government pending the final adjudication of the case. The court reversed Director Abucejo’s on the ground that the questioned appointments may only be invalidated by the Regional Office upon recommendation by the CSCFO.

·       City of Dumaguete claimed that Director Abucejo’s decision already became final after petitioner’s failed to move for reconsideration of the same. They moved for the dismissal of the injunction case. RTC denied the motion to dismiss but agreed with the finality of the decision. It permanently lifted the preliminary injunction.

·       Nazareno et al, appealed to the CA. The appeal was denied and dismissed by the court.

ISSUE:

(1)    Whether or not the petition for injunction filed by Nazareno et al. is premature? YES!

HELD/RATIO:

·      Nazareno et al. prematurely filed the injunction because there was still no invalidation of their appointments. The filing was only prompted by Mayor Perdices’ announcement that he was dishonoring the appointments made by former mayor Remollo. The invalidation only took place on August 1, 2001.

·      After the invalidation, they could still file an appeal with the CSC Regional Office. Thus, they had ample administrative remedies under the law to protect their rights but they chose to go straight to the regular courts.

·      Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for injunction.

·      The Court refused to rule on the validity of the appointments since it was the subject of a separate petition for review before the Court of Appeals.

·      Thus, it held that there was no need for the separate case of injunction since Nazareno et al. are given by law and related rules adequate remedies to protect their rights and interests.