G.R. No. 162943 - EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS., FFW AND JUANITO S. FACUNDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VS. BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., DIETER J. LONISHEN (PRESIDENT), ASUNCION AMISTOSO (HRD MANAGER), AVELINA REMIGIO AND ANASTACIA VILLAREAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED . [35] On June 28, 2000, the NLRC resolved to dismiss [36] petitioners' motion for a restraining order and/or injunction stating that the subject matter involved an intra-union dispute, over which the said Commission has no jurisdiction. [37] Aggrieved by the Labor Arbiter's decision to dismiss the second ULP complaint, petitioners appealed the said decision, but the NLRC denied the appeal. [38] EUBP's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. [39] Thus, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition to the CA. On December 15, 2003, the CA sustained both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's rulings. The appellate court explained, A cursory reading of the three pleadings, to wit: the Complaint (Vol. I, Rollo, p[p]. 166-167); the Amended Complaint (Vol. I, Rollo[,] pp. 168-172) and the Second Amended Complaint dated March 8, 2000 (Vol. II, Rollo, pp. 219-225) will readily show that the instant case was brought about by the action of the Group of REM[I]GIO to disaffiliate from FFW and to organized (sic) REUBP under the tutelage of REM[I]GIO and VILLAREAL. At first glance of the case at bar, it involves purely an (sic) inter-union and intra-union conflicts or disputes between EUBP-FFW and REUBP which issue should have been resolved by the Bureau of Labor Relations under Article 226 of the Labor Code. However, since no less than petitioners who admitted that respondents committed gross violations of the CBA, then the BLR is divested of jurisdiction over the case and the issue should have been referred to the Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitrator and not to the Labor Arbiter as what petitioners did in the case at bar. x x x x x x x Furthermore, the CBA entered between BAYER and EUBP-FFW [has] a life span of only five years and after the said period, the employees have all the right to change their bargaining unit who will represent them. If there exist[s] two opposing unions in the same company, the remedy is not to declare that such act is considered unfair labor practice but rather they should conduct a certification election provided [that] it should be conducted within 60 days of the so[-]called freedom period before the expiration of the CBA. WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated September 27, 2001 as well as the Order dated June 21, 2002, denying the motion for reconsideration, by the National Labor Relations Commission, First Division, in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-12-11813-99-L , are hereby AFFIRMED in toto . Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED . [40] Undaunted, petitioners filed this Rule 45 petition before this Court. Initially, the said petition was denied for having been filed out of time and for failure to comply with the requirements provided in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure , as amended. [41] Upon petitioners' motion, however, we decided to reinstate their appeal. T