G.R. No. L44493 & L44494 December 3, 1980 DIATAGON LABOR FEDERATION LOCAL 110 OF THE ULG !

, "e#$#$o%er, &'. HON. BLA( F. O!LE, (ecre#)r* o+ L)bor, CAR,ELO C. NORIEL, D$rec#or o+ L)bor Re-)#$o%', ,INDANAO A((OCIATION OF TRADE UNION( .,ATU/ LIANGA BA0 LOGGING CO., INC. )%1 GEORGIA !ACIFIC INTERNATIONAL COR!ORATION, re'"o%1e%#'. F)c#'2 Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. is a domestic corporation. It has offices in Diatagon Lianga, Surigao del Sur and Filipinas Life Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Ma ati, Metro Manila. It is engaged in logging and manufacturing ply!ood "eorgia #acific International Corporation is a Dela!are corporation licensed to do $usiness in the #hilippines. It has an office at Lianga. It employs around %&& !or ers 'he Diatagon La$or Federation Local ((& of )L"*# +)nited Lum$er and "eneral *or ers of the #hilippines, had a CBA !ith the Lianga Bay logging Co., Inc. !hich !as due to e-pire on March .(, (/01 o Before the e-piration of that CBA, a rival union, the Mindanao Association of 'rade )nions, filed !ith the BL2 a petition for the holding of a C3 at Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., 'he union assumed that Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. had appro-imately /&& employees o Before that petition could $e acted upon, the Diatagon La$or Federation !as a$le to negotiate on March (0,(/01 !ith "eorgia #acific International Corporation a CBA for a term of three years e-piring on March .(, (/04 +p. .11, 2ollo,. the CBA included 5.6 employees !or ing at "eorgia #acific. 'hose 5.6 employees !ere formerly employees of Lianga Bay. After 7uly, (/0%, they !ere transferred to "eorgia #acific International Corporation and $ecame employees of the latter. 'he 5.6 33s continued to use in (/01 the pay envelopes and Identification cards of their former employer, Lianga Bay. 'hat confusing circumstance spa!ned the controversy in this case $ecause the Mindanao Association of 'rade )nions and the Director of La$or 2elations used that circumstance to support their conclusion that the 5.6 employees should still $e regarded as employees of Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. and not of "eorgia #acific or that the t!o companies should $e

regarded as only one $argaining unit. Mindanao Association of 'rade )nions claims that the said CBA !as negotiated $et!een "eorgia #acific and the Diatagon La$or Federation in order to frustrate the petition for certification election at Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. !hich, as a$ove stated, !as filed $y the MA') on Fe$ruary .,(/01. MA') !anted the aforementioned 5.6 employees of "eorgia #acific International Corporation to ta e part in the election $ecause they !ere using the pay envelopes and Identification cards of Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. $ut they !ere not allo!ed to vote $ecause they !ere not included in the payrolls of Lianga Logging Co., Inc. M3D8A2B9 against MA') Director of La$or 2el9 in favor of MA') o 'he Director held that the aforementioned 5.6 employees should $e allo!ed to vote in the certification election at Lianga Bay $ecause they used the company:s pay envelopes and Identification cards. 'he Director ignored the fact that those 5.6 employees !ere included in the payrolls of "eorgia #acific International Corporation and !ere already covered $y the e-isting CBA. 'he Director ordered the holding of a ne! certification election at Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. !herein the 5.6 employees !ould $e allo!ed to vote o ;e held that there e-isted no distinction $et!een the employees of the t!o companies and. conse<uently, they should $elong to only one $argaining unit =n Septem$er (6, (/06, this Court issued a restraining order to en>oin the holding of a ne! certification election. o But $efore Chat restraining order !as issued, a certification election !as held among the employees of the t!o companies. o 'here !ere /%% eligi$le voters. 'he Mindanao Association of 'rade )nions o$tained %16 votes. 'he Diatagon La$or Federation o$tained 6. votes. =nly 111 voters too part in the election. o 'he protest of the Diatagon La$or Federation against that election !as not acted upon $y the Director of La$or 2elations in vie! of the pendency of this case

ISS)39 *=? the Director of La$or 2elations gravely a$used his discretion in treating the employees of the t!o companies as one $argaining unit. @ 2A'I=9 'he prior ruling is ar$itrary and untena$le $ecause the t!o companies are indu$ita$ly distinct entities !ith separate >uridical personalities. 'he fact that their $usinesses are related and that the 5.6 employees of

"eorgia #acific International Corporation !ere originally employees of Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. is not a >ustification for disregarding their separate personalities ;ence, the 5.6 employees, !ho are no! attached to "eorgia #acific International Corporation, should not $e allo!ed to vote in the certification election at the Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. 'hey should vote at a separate certification election to determine the collective $argaining representative of the employees of "eorgia #acific International Corporation. ;o!ever, at this late hour, or after the lapse of more than five years, the result of the (/01 certification election should not $e implemented. A ne! certification election should $e held at Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. $ut the 5.6 employees should not $e allo!ed to vote in that election.