PRESIDENT, VS. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA AND

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is hereby set aside and a new one issued dismissing the petition for certification election for lack of merit. In his earlier Order dated September 7, 1993, Laguesma affirmed Med-Arbiter Sinamar E. Limos order of March 18, 1993 which disposed as follows: [2] IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the above-entitled petition is hereby granted. Consequently, the motion to dismiss filed by Corfarm Grains, Inc. is denied. Let a certification election be conducted among the rank-and-file employees of Corfarm Grains, Inc., within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, with the following choices: 1. Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union; 2. No Union A pre-election conference is hereby set on March 29, 1993 at 2:00 o clock in the afternoon at the DOLE, Dagupan District Office, Mayombo District, Dagupan City to thresh out the mechanics of the Certification Election. Employer Corfarm Grains, Inc. is hereby directed to present its employment records for the period covering January to June 1992 evidencing payment of salaries of its employees. Let the parties be notified accordingly. Aggrieved by Respondent Laguesmas subsequent Order dated January 27, 1994 [3] denying its motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this recourse before this Court. Second Case In G.R. No. 114911, hereafter referred to as the Second Case, petitioner assails the Resolution promulgated on February 16, 1994 in NLRC CA No. L-001109 [4] by the National Labor Relations Commission (Respondent NLRC), [5] the dispositive portion of which reads: [6] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 14 September 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE. Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the Arbitration Branch of origin for immediate appropriate proceedings. The labor arbiters decision that was reversed by Respondent NLRC disposed as follows: [7] WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Declaring individual complainants dismissal illegal; 2. Declaring respondent guilty of unfair labor practice; 3. Ordering respondent to pay the 92 [8] complainants the following: a) 13th month pay limited to three years in the amount of P4,788.00 each; b) service incentive leave pay in the amount of P855.00 each for three years; c) underpaid wages covering the period June 1989 to June 1992 which amount to P47,040.00 each; d) backwages reckoned from June 1992, the date of dismissal[,] to September 1993, the date of promulgation of the decision or a period of 14 months, in the amount of P22,344.00 each; e) refund of P12.00/day deduction limited to three years which amounts to P12,096 each; and f) to pay the complainants P 1,000.00 each as damages. 4. To reinstate the complainants to their former position[s] immediately. All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. In a Resolution promulgated on March 28, 1994, Respondent NLRC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. [9] The Facts In his Consolidated Memorandum, the solicitor general recited t