HONESTO B. VILLAROSA, RODOLFO VALLEJO, MARIO NOCUM, ALFREDO DE LA CRUZ, CRISOSTOMO SALVADOR, LUCY HERMOSA, RICARDO SAHAGUN, OSCAR BINSOL, REY YABUT, LUIS TUBERA, NINIO ARRIOLA, …

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction filed by petitioners, Honesto Villarosa, et al., seeking
the annulment of (1) the Order of December 5, 1985 and the Resolution of
January 3, 1986 which decreed the holding of the election for officers of the
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Labor Union on December 6, 1985 and (2) the
results of said election wherein private respondents, Edilberto Galvez, et al.,
were proclaimed winners and praying that another election be held if the
proclamation of petitioners as duly elected officers would not be feasible.

The facts of this case as succintly summarized by the Solicitor
General are:

“On October 29, 1985, BLR Case No. A-7-160-85, an appealed
case involving three (3) consolidated intra-union conflict cases, for violation
of respondent union’s constitution and by-laws, was decided by public
respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, the dispositive portion
of his Resolution, among others, states:

‘WHEREFORE, and in the interest of fair play, the appealed Order is
hereby set aside and a new one entered in the following tenor –

x x x x x

6) Ordering a
general election of officers of IBM within ten (10) working days from receipt
of this Decision, the necessary expenses for which shall be applied to the
union funds in deposit.

The Labor Organization Division, this Bureau, shall conduct the
holding of the election and shall hold pre-election conference as may be
necessary to thresh out the mechanics of the election.

SO ORDERED.’

“In compliance with the aforementioned order, the Bureau of
Labor Relations headed by Mrs.
Margarita Enriquez conducted a pre­-election conference on November 11, 1985,
where the parties agreed to set the date of election on November 29, 1985, the
last day of the filing of certificates of candidacy on or before November 22,
1985, and for the management of San Miguel Corporation (SMC for short) to
submit a list of union members based on the
October 31, 1985 payroll on November 19, 1985.

“On November 19, 1985, the list of qualified voters as agreed
upon was submitted by the SMC, copy furnished the contending parties. The parties likewise approved the Rules and
Regulations prepared by BLR
COMELEC to govern the conduct of the local election. Another pre-election conference was set on November 22, 1985 for
the inclusion and exclusion of voters as well as the submission of the names of
the union members inadvertently omitted from the list submitted by the
management.

“On November 22,
1985, the date agreed upon by the
contending parties as the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy
as well as the inclusion and exclusion of employees participating in the local
election, the parties again agreed to re-set the election date to November 29,
1985.

“On November 25, 1985, petitioner Villarosa filed a motion
and/or petition to disqualify the ticket headed by private respondent Edilberto
Galvez from participating as candidates in the election of officers of the Ilaw
at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM) because being officers/members of a rival union,
their participation constituted an act of disloyalty, disqualifying them from
competing under the union’s constitution and by-laws.

“On November 26, 1985, petitioner filed a motion for deferment
of the scheduled election on November 29, 1985, until the charge of disloyalty
against Edilberto Galvez and others was resolved.

“In their opposition, private respondent Galvez and his group
sought the dismissal of the aforementioned twin motions to disqualify and to
defer the scheduled election for having been filed out of time as the last day
for the filing of the certificates of candidacy and inclusion and exclusion of
employees participating in the election was on November 22, 1985. As to the charge of disloyalty, they maintained
that public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations had no jurisdiction to rule on
the issue as it was the National Council of the union which had the power to
hear and decide intra-union problems of this nature. At any rate, it was stressed that no act of disloyalty was
committed when Galvez organized BLM, a rival union, considering that the Labor
Code allows workers to form or join any organization of their choice during the
freedom period.

“In the pre-election conference on November 26, 1985, the
parties, nevertheless, agreed to re-schedule the holding of the election to
December 6, 1985.

“On December 5, 1985, respondent Bureau of Labor Relations
issued an order resolving the twin motions, the dispositive portion of which
states:

‘A perusal of the present motion, as well as the argument presented
in support thereof, shows that the ground relied upon by movant to disqualify
Galvez, et al., is not among those enumerated in the union constitution and
by-laws, and therefore said motions have no basis to stand on.

‘At any rate, if indeed Edilberto Galvez, et al., committed acts of
disloyalty which had undermined the principles
and objectives of IBM, such question can be passed upon by the general
membership in the election without prejudice to ventilation and resolution of
the issue in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws.

‘IN VIEW THEREOF, and as above qualified, the present motions are
hereby denied for lack of merit. Let
the election of officers of Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM) set on December
6, 1985 proceed as scheduled.’

“On December 6, 1985, the election proceeded and was
supervised by the respondent Bureau of Labor Relations. The results were:

For National President:

Galvez, Edilberto B.          – 1,422

Villarosa, Honesto B.                    568

Villarante, Carlos                           331

“For membership in the Executive Board, private respondents
Severino O. Meron, Renato L. Regala, Venancio C. Teodoro, Jose B. Padilla,
Moises Dayao, Morato Flores, Manuel Salingana, Nehemias Marquez, Alfredo
Calameda, and Dionisio Oledan likewise won in the election.

“On December 10, 1985, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order dated December 5, 1985, denying the twin motions
to disqualify and to defer the scheduled election. On the same date, petitioners also filed an ‘IBM Election Protest
and Motion for Reconsideration’ (dated December 10, 1985) on the results of the
December 6, 1985 IBM election of officers. They reiterate their stand that the elected candidates belonging to the
Buklod at Lakas Ng Manggagawa (BLM) are not members of good standing of the IBM
since they had committed acts of disloyalty by organizing the BLM and competing
against IBM on the certification election held in 1980 and 1983.

“On December 16, 1985, private respondents Edilberto Galvez
and others filed an ‘Opposition/Motion to Dismiss’ to petitioners’ election
protest and motion for reconsideration.

“On January 3, 1986, public respondent dismissed the
petitioners’ election protest and motion for reconsideration of the Order of
December 5, 1985, the dispositive portion of the order of dismissal is as
follows:

‘WHEREFORE, the election protests and motion for reconsideration of
the Order of December 5, 1985, are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Let the necessary amount be released to the
outgoing set of officers by the National Capital Region from the union dues and
agency fees deposited therein to defray the operational expenses of the union
including the salaries or allowances of union officers entitled thereto from
the period the deposit commenced and until 31 December 1985. All expenditures and disbursements by virtue
of such a release shall be accounted for to this Office.’

“On January 10, 1986, petitioners filed an unsigned motion for
reconsideration of the aforementioned decision of public respondent/

“In a Resolution dated January 31, 1986, respondent Director
of the Bureau of Labor Relations denied the petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration and proclaimed private respondents headed by Edilberto Galvez
as the duly elected officers of IBM union. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads as follows:

‘WHEREFORE, the Order dated January 1986 is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, Edilberto Galvez and all who
won in the election conducted on 6 December 1985 are hereby proclaimed duly
elected officers of the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM).’

“Hence, this petition.”^[1]

We gave due course to this petition on April 12, 1988^[2]
but petitioners’ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was not granted.^[3]

The Labor Code then enforced in 1985 mandates that members of a
labor organization shall elect their officers by secret ballot at intervals of not more than three (3)
years.^[4]

The election being contested was held December 6, 1985. Three (3) years hence, another election
should have been held on December 6, 1988 as this Court did not restrain the
public respondent and respondent corporation from recognizing the assumption of
the private respondents as duly elected officers of the IBM labor union. Another three (3) years thereafter, another
election should have been held on December 6, 1991 in accordance with law.^[5]

After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We are
of the considered view that the expiration
of the tenure of the private
respondents by operation of law – 3 years after the disputed election on or
around December 6, 1988 – have rendered the issues raised by petitioners moot
and academic.

And even if, by chance, these same private respondents had been elected to the same offices on or around December 6, 1988, then the
terms would have expired on or around December 6, 1991.

This Court ruled recently that:

“xxx xxx xxx. It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on
annulling an election of officers whose terms had already expired. We would have thereby a judgment on a matter
which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if
existing, and which, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must consequently abide by our consistent
ruling that where certain events or circumstances have taken place during the
pendency of the case which would render the case moot and academic, the
petition should be dismissed.”^[6]

At this junction, it would be appropriate to remind petitioners
that even if the disqualification of private respondents could be justified,
the petitioners certainly cannot be declared winners in the disputed
election. The mere fact that petitioner
Villarosa obtained the second highest number of votes does not mean that he
will thereby be considered as the elected IBM Labor Union President if private
respondent is disqualified.^[7]

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), and
Regalado, J., concur.

Padilla, J., no part, in view of equity interest in private
co-respondent SMC.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 137-142.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 173.

^[3]
Ibid, pp. 110, 173.

^[4]
Article 242. Rights and conditions of
membership in a labor organization. – x
x x

(c) The members shall elect their officers by secret ballot at intervals of
not more than three (3) years. x x
x” [Labor Code PD 442, as amended (1986)]

^[5]
R.A. 6715, approved March 2, 1989 and effective March 21, 1989 deleted above
quoted Article 242(c). On the
representation aspect, the following was incorporated:

“SEC. 21. There shall be incorporated after Article
253 of the same Code a new article which shall read as follows:

‘ART. 253-A. Terms of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement. – Any Collective Bargaining
Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation
aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day
period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. All other
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3)
years after its execution. x x x.’
“

Thus, in the petition at bar, after the certification election on or
around December 6, 1991, the next certification election would be held on or
around December 6, 1996.

^[6]
Manalad vs. Trajano, 174 SCRA 328.

^[7]
Ibid, p. 329.