ROGELIO P. CELI, MANUEL ABRAHAM, REDENTOR DE GOMA, ELEUTERIO NATERA, EMELITA SANCHEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. DIRECTOR CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, CRESTITUTO GONZALES, LEONARDO PALOMA…

Celi versus Trajano

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, brought by Rogelio Celi and his fellow candidates against the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Cresenciano Trajano, and against the rival faction of the Equitable Bank Employees Union led by Crestituto Gonzales. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the Director's decision of March 5, 1985, which set aside the Med-Arbiter's order and called a new election of union officers. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a labor case that events have overtaken: when the term of office of the disputed officers has already expired and a new election has likely been held, the Court will not render an advisory opinion, and the petition is dismissed as moot and academic.

Procedural History

The dispute began within the union itself. The Union Committee on Elections, created under the union constitution and by-laws, set the elections for September 12, 1983 in the provincial branches and September 16, 1983 in the metropolitan offices and branches. When the Committee refused to heed the petitioners' timely protests over the challenged voters, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Med-Arbiter Section of the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The Med-Arbiter, Willie Rodriguez, decided the complaint together with the rival faction's counter-protest. On December 27, 1983, he declared Rogelio Celi the duly elected President, dismissed the counter-protest of Crestituto Gonzales for lack of merit, and left undisturbed the results for the other candidates as reported by the Committee.

Because that order was only partly favorable to them, the petitioners moved for reconsideration, seeking a recount of the votes cast at the Head Office. The Gonzales group appealed the same order. Both were consolidated before the Bureau of Labor Relations. On March 5, 1985, Director Trajano set aside the Med-Arbiter's order and entered a new one calling an election of officers within twenty days, to be supervised by the National Capital Region Labor Office. The petitioners' motions for reconsideration were denied on April 16, 1985. Hence this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Under the union's constitution and by-laws, the election of officers of the Equitable Bank Employees Union is held every three years. To prepare for the elections, the Executive Board created a Committee on Elections, which promulgated rules of conduct. Its Bulletin Number 1 strictly prescribed that only union members as of August 5, 1983 were qualified to vote. The Committee set the elections for September 12, 1983 for the provincial branches and September 16, 1983 for the metropolitan offices and branches, and prepared and disseminated the list of qualified voters as of August 5, 1983. Rogelio Celi led one ticket and Crestituto Gonzales led the other.

At the lone voting precinct at the Head Office, Celi protested the inclusion in the list of thirty-five union members assigned at the Head Office, plus six members assigned at the Paseo de Roxas Branch, who had become members only after the August 5, 1983 cut-off. Another protest was registered before the actual canvassing. Despite these timely protests, the Committee proceeded with the canvassing of all the ballots cast in Metro Manila, including the challenged thirty-five votes from the Head Office, and the counting was allegedly done without mixing the ballots of each box with those of the other boxes. The Committee then deferred the proclamation of any candidate until the complaint of Celi and his party had been finally resolved by the Ministry of Labor and Employment.

With the exception of Enrique Pucut and Dahlia Yabut, who won by a bigger number of votes, the rest of the petitioners lost by a small margin. The petitioners believed that all of them stood good chances of reversing the results if their protest for the exclusion of the thirty-five ballots out of the forty-one questioned ballots had been given due course. The Med-Arbiter ruled in their favor in part, declaring Celi the elected President. On appeal, however, Director Trajano set that order aside and called a new election. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the respondents reported that an election had already been held on July 31, 1985 under the supervision of the Ministry, in which Gonzales obtained one hundred eighty-five votes for the presidency against Celi's one hundred ten in the Greater Manila Area and some branches in Luzon.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Director committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the Med-Arbiter's order of December 27, 1983 and calling a new election in his decision of March 5, 1985.
• Whether or not the petition and the motions for a temporary restraining order had become moot and academic because a new election of union officers had already been held.

Applicable Provisions

The Union Constitution and By-Laws, Section 1, on the Committee on Elections, provides:

There shall be a COMELEC (Committee on Elections) which shall be created by the General Membership and/or the Executive Board and Representatives at a Special meeting to be held one (1) month before any regular election. He shall take charge of the electoral procedures to ensure that the election is free, clean, honest and orderly. The Commission shall formulate election rules to safeguard the sanctity of the ballot and ensure observance of democratic processes. It shall have the sole power and authority to proclaim the winners in an election. It shall have the exclusive authority to decide election protests and its decision shall be final and unappealable.

This provision bears on the case because it is the source of the Committee's authority over the conduct of the election and over election protests, the very authority the petitioners claim was exercised in violation of the union's own rules.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits of the charge of grave abuse of discretion. It noted that the election of officers of the union is held every three years, and that the last election was held in September 1983. By the time the Court examined the records, the term of office of the incumbent officers in the disputed elections had already expired, and in all probability another election must have already taken place.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition had become moot and academic. The private respondents had alleged that the great majority of the members had already spoken in the election of July 31, 1985, supervised by the Ministry of Labor and Employment, and the Solicitor General took the same position. With the disputed term gone and a new election held, there was nothing left for the Court to annul or restrain. The Court therefore dismissed the petition, and the question of whether the Director abused his discretion was left unresolved.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari will be dismissed as moot and academic when the relief it seeks can no longer be granted. Where the term of office of the officers whose election is disputed has already expired, and a new election has in all probability already taken place, the Court will not proceed to rule on the merits, because its judgment could no longer have any practical effect.

For the Bar candidate, the case is a reminder that the Committee on Elections under the union constitution and by-laws has the sole power to proclaim the winners and the exclusive authority to decide election protests, and that its decision is final and unappealable. But that finality does not insulate the Committee from review by the Ministry of Labor and Employment when the protest is brought before it, and it does not prevent the courts from declining to act once the controversy has been overtaken by events.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the same having become moot and academic, with the result that the Director's decision calling a new election was left undisturbed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petition becomes moot and academic when the term of office of the disputed officers has expired and a new election has already been held, leaving the Court with nothing to annul. Examiners like to use this case to test the moot and academic principle in labor cases, and to test the finality of the Committee on Elections' decisions under a union's constitution and by-laws.