“Any question pertaining to the validity of petitioning union’s certificate of registration or agreements shall be heard and resolved by the Regional Director in an independent petition for cancellation of its registration and not by the Med-Arbiter in the petition for certification election, unless the petitioning union is not found in the Department’s roster of legitimate labor orgainzations or an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement is unregistered with the Department of Labor.” (2 POQUIZ 218 [2006], citing Rule VIII, D.O. 40-03)

Perhaps it is possible to reconcile the Toyota and Tagaytay Highlands rulings on the role of the company in certification elections. The ruling in Progressive Development is definitely out the window with the Omnibus Rules as confirmed in Tagaytay Highlands.

In Tagaytay Highlands, the union was a chartered local/affiliate and (more importantly) a legitimate labor organization. As such, it was entitled to all the rights bestowed on it by law, including the right to be certified as the sole bargaining representative for all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit (Art. 234, Labor Code). In Toyota, the union was not a legitimate labor organization at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter even ruled later on that the registration of the labor union should not be given due course because he himself found that the registrant-union had members who were rank-and-file and supervisory employees. Thus, the union in Toyota never attained legal personality to file the petition for certification election and it never attained the right to be certified as the sole bargaining representative for all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.

This makes sense. If the Omnibus Rules say that the registration of the labor union can only be challenged directly in a cancellation suit specifically filed for the purpose, where does it go when the petitioning union has not even been registered yet files a petition for certification election?

Taking into consideration the decision in Laguna Autoparts, which you cited earlier, it seems that this doctrine will apply only when there is no certificate of registration at the time the union files a petition for certification election.

Thus, do you think it is possible to restate the by-stander doctrine thus: In a petition for certification election by a legitimate labor organization, the company has no other function but to act as a by-stander interested in the peaceful and orderly conduct of the certification election. It may not challenge the holding of the certification election on the ground that the union has acquired legal personality through fraud or otherwise as the union’s legal personality may not be collaterally attacked. However, the company may use the absence of the union’s legal personality as evidenced by the absence of a certificate of registration as a prejudicial question in order to postpone or cancel the holding of the certification election; but when the union has already been issued a certificate of registration by the Department of Labor and Employment, the employer may no longer challenge the holding of the certification election on the ground that the union has no legal personality to assert such right.