Batangas I Electric Cooperative v. Young GR No 62386

Topic: Workers-Members of a Cooperative

FACTS:

1. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

2. On June 1, 1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (hereinafter referred to as UNION) filed with the Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor and Employment), at San Pablo City, a petition for certification election.

3. The UNION alleged, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Inc. BATELEC has 150 employees, more or less; that the UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file employees of BATELEC for purposes of collective bargaining; that there is no other union existing in BATELEC except the UNION; that there is no certified collective bargaining agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no certification election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition.

4. On August 20, 1981, Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap issued a resolution (pp. 21-23, Rollo) which gave due course to the petition and ordered the holding of a certification election. On August 31, 1981, BATELEC filed a motion for reconsideration (pp. 24-30, Rollo) of the Med-Arbiter's resolution contending, inter alia, that there was a legal impediment to the holding of a certification election considering that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, the officers and members of the union being the owners thereof. This motion was treated as an appeal from the Med-Arbiter's resolution of August 20, 1981

5. On November 27, 1981, a resolution (pp. 38-40, Rollo) was issued by Romeo A. Young, Officer in Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, granting the appeal and revoking the Med-Arbiter's order mandating the holding of a certification election. 

ISSUE:

1. whether or not employees of an electric cooperative who are at the same time members of the cooperative, may be allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining.

RULING:

1. No. A cursory analysis of Section 35, Presidential Decree 269, as amended, readily shows that employees of an electric cooperative who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.

In the first instance, a cooperative is established primarily for the mutual aid and protection of the members thereof. It was never intended to operate like an ordinary company or corporation. A cooperative is a non-profit organization, so that if ever there are gains, income or benefits derived therefrom, the same are equally divided among its members. For all legal intents and purposes, therefore, members of a cooperative are part-owners thereof.

In the instant case, petitioner strongly contended that they are not co-owners of the cooperative because the only benefits that they derive therefrom are in the form of electrical services and that they never exercise the attributes of ownership recognized under Article 428 of the New Civil Code. We do not concur. The fact that these employees/members enjoy free electrical services which are not available to non-members is a clear indication that these employees are co-owners of the cooperative. Petitioner must be reminded that benefits from cooperative accruing to co-owners may not come only in the form of monetary benefits but also in the form of services.

DISPOSITIVE: BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC won.

The petition is DISMISSED and the challenged decision dated November 27, 1981 of respondent Romeo A. Young, OIC of the Bureau of Labor Relations is AFFIRMED.

DOCTRINE:

“employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join unions for purposes of collective bargaining agreement, for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.”