CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS (CCLU) AND REDSON EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RE…

These special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition
deal with the alleged irregular holding of a certification election.

Petitioner Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) was one
of the four unions wanting to be certified as the collecting bargaining
representative of the employees in the Redson Textile
Manufacturing Corporation with place of business at Brixton
Hill Street, Baryo Capitolyo, Pasig,
Metro Manila.  Its co-petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association, is a CCLU local
in the said corporation.

The other unions aspiring to become the collective bargaining
representative were the National Union of Garments Textile and General Workers
of the Philippines
(GATCORD), the National Trade Union (NATU) and the Associated Labor Unions
(ALU).

On August 7, 1980,
a certification election was held in the premises of the corporation from
eight-twenty in the morning to five-thirty in the afternoon.  Out of the 831 votes cast, CCLU garnered 356
votes; ALU, 338 votes; NATU, 82 votes and GATCORD, 42 votes.  Eight votes were spoiled and five votes were
challenged or segregated.

As no union obtained a majority vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the
two largest number of votes, agreed in a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 that a run-off
election would be held on November 6,
1980 from six o’clock in the morning to six o’clock in the evening.  CCLU requested that the certification
election be conducted for two days but ALU objected to that request.

On November 6, 1980,
Margarita C. Enriquez, Reynaldo F. de Luna and one Francisco, three election
supervisors from the Ministry of Labor and Employment, arrived at around seven o’clock in the morning near the Redson
Textile compound but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the
company premises in spite of the heavy rain. 
So, after consulting through the phone with their chief, a certain
Attorney Padilla, the said election supervisors decided to hold the
certification election “outside the premises of the company in a small
store outside of the annex building” (Annex C, Rollo,
p. 27).  They used as ballot box “an
improvised carton box”.  The union
representatives did not object to the improvised polling place and ballot box.

Voting started at eleven
o’clock.  During the
election and just before it was closed at six-thirty in the evening, the ALU
representative, Sebastian P. Taneo, executed a
written protest or manifestation, alleging that the management of Redson Textile did not allow the run-off election to be
held within its premises; that the company prevented fifty percent of the
workers from voting by not allowing them to get out of the company premises and
inducing them to work overtime; that its security guards “manhandled”
the ALU vice-president and that their “active intervention” caused
“chaos and confusion” for around thirty minutes; that the company
refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot
box and that the election supervisors declared the election closed in spite of ALU’s objection.

Taneo prayed that the votes should not
be counted, that another day be scheduled for the continuation of the election
and that the company be ordered to allow its workers to vote (Rollo, pp. 29-35).

At around seven-thirty in the evening, the votes cast were
canvassed.  Of the 692 votes cast, ALU
got 366 votes as against CCLU’s 313 votes, or a
margin of 53 votes.  There were 1,010
voters.  Because ALU won, its
representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest or
manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that his protest or
manifestation was withdrawn “before the close of the
proceedings”.  On the other hand,
the CCLU representatives refused to sign the minutes of the election.

On the following day, November 7, CCLU through its
representative, Juan L. Fresnoza, filed with the
Bureau of Labor Relations a protest wherein he prayed that the November 6
certification election as well as the “continuation of the election”
on November 7 be annulled.

Fresnoza alleged that the previous
day’s certification election was irregular and disorderly because (a) no booths
were provided for by the company; (b) the election started much later than the
hour agreed upon by the parties, and (c) ALU distributed white T-shirts printed
with “ALU TAYO”, gave free tricycle rides to ALU voters and hired
around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who “forced”
voters to vote for ALU.

According to Fresnoza, when he and
Oscar Sanchez, the acting president of Redson
Employees and Laborers Association (RELA-CCLU), protested against those
activities before election supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez, the latter
allegedly retorted, “Wala akong
magagawa, magagalit na naman si
Mr. Taneo” (Rollo, pp.
36-37).

On November 10, 1980, Fresnoza and
Sanchez filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a joint affidavit attesting to
what transpired during the certification election as alleged in the aforesaid
protest and added therein that when they protested before the election
supervisors, the latter told them to “place their protest in writing so
that they (supervisors) could consolidate the protests in their election
report” (Rollo, pp. 38-39).

On February 19, 1981,
CCLU informed the Bureau of Labor Relations that the election was conducted
without regard to the provisions of section 6, Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.

Carmelo C. Noriel,
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, in his resolution of February 26, 1981, dismissed CCLU’s protest for lack of merit.  He observed that CCLU failed to submit the
pleadings and evidences required in the hearing on January 19, 1981 and that
CCLU failed to file a protest either “before or during the election
proceeding” and, therefore, pursuant to section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the
aforementioned rules, CCLU is deemed to have waived its right to protest.

Noriel in his resolution of March 26, 1981, denying CCLU’s motion for reconsideration, certified ALU as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in Redson
Textile Manufacturing Corporation.

On June 6, 1981
CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed the instant petition for certiorari and
prohibition to annul the certification election.  They complained that the certification
election was conducted in violation of the following provisions of Rule VI,
Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code:

“SEC. 6.  Duties of
representation officer.  – Before the
actual voting commences the representation officer shall inspect the polling
place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of
balloting.  The parties shall be given
opportunity to witness the inspection proceedings.  After the examination of the ballot box, the
representation officer shall lock it with three keys one of which he shall keep
and the rest forthwith given one each to the employer’s representative and the
representative of the labor organization. 
If more than one union is involved, the holder of the third shall be
determined by drawing of lots.  The key
shall remain in the possession of the representation officer and the parties
during the entire proceedings and thereafter until all the controversies
concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely
resolved.”

The Solicitor General in his comment contends that the
certification election should be upheld because CCLU, by not filing a protest
with the election supervisor before the close of the election proceeding,
waived its right to protest (Sec. 3, Rule VI, Book V of Implementing Rules and
Regulations).

We hold that the certification election is invalid because of
certain irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift (ten
p.m. to six a.m.) and some of
those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of
1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote (p. 88, Rollo); (2) the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded; (3)
the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently
“intimidated” by a union representative and (4) the participating
unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by
resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts.

The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees
“true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer”
(51 C.J.S. 969).  That purpose was not
achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were
not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not
render assistance in the holding of the election.

It should be noted that ALU’s written
protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its
protest.  That fact alone should have
alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU’s protest was not filed on time.

WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the
Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 are hereby set aside.  Another run-off certification election should
be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile
Manufacturing Corporation.  The
management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the
certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly
election.  The election supervisors or
representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the
Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., no part.