SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION – PTGWO, RICARDO ANGELES, ROBERTO AZANES, ROLANDO BINCE, DANILO CRUZ, REYNALDO DECENA, RODOLFO DESTURA, IRENEO GALLABO, TOMAS GALVEZ, RAYM…

The instant petition seeks to set aside the decision/orders of public respondent calling for an
election of the officers of petitioner
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union on October 5, 1987; to nullify
the election if held and restrain the enforcement of its results; and to hold public
respondents in contempt of this Court.

The controversy originated
with a petition filed on December
2, 1984 by San Miguel Corporation
Employees Union with the Department of Labor and Employment for the election of
its officers.  The last election
conducted in the union was in December 1981 when Raymundo
Hipolito, Jr. was elected president of the union for
a term of three (3) years.

After the required pre-election conferences, the election was
scheduled on December 11, 1984.  However, a restraining order dated December 10, 1984, issued by the
National Capital Region, Metro Manila, (NCR for
brevity) suspended the election. 
Nevertheless the group of Ricardo Bandal, one
of the contending parties proceeded with the election and won.  This was questioned by Raymundo
Hipolito as the election was conducted in violation
of the restraining order.  The NCR
sustained Hipolito and the Bandal
group appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR for brevity).  On July
22, 1985, the BLR dismissed the appeal and ordered the holding of
another election.  This order became
final and so the parties were again summoned for pre-election conferences. 
Subsequently, another date for the election was set, this time on November 25, 1985. 
Thereafter, however, protracted legal debates delayed the implementation
of the BLR order for the holding of election. 
Hipolito raised the issue that the unit should
be described as “SMCEU – PTGWO” instead of SMCEU only.  After his belated motion for the
reconsideration of the July 22, 1985 order of the BLR which was denied, he came
to this Court by way of a petition for certiorari with prayer for
the issuance of a restraining order to enjoin
the holding of the election which was re-scheduled anew to December 10, 1985.  In the petition he also prayed that the
acronym PTGWO be added to SMCEU.

This court restrained the
holding of the scheduled election and
allowed the inclusion of PTGWO
as suffix to SMCEU.

From this Court, the case was remanded to the NCR on July 7, 1985.  There
being no further legal impediment to the holding of the elections, the NCR
again called the parties for the continuance of the pre-election conference.

Apparently, having a change of mind due perhaps to considerations
of union politics, Hipolito submitted to the Med­-Arbiter
two (2) motions dated July 25, 1986
and August 19, 1986,
praying for the dismissal of the petition which the petitioners filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment on December
2, 1984.  He
insisted that in view of the on-going collective bargaining
negotiations between the union and San Miguel Corporation, it would be in the
interest of everybody that said negotiations be concluded first before holding
the election.

The NCR accommodated Hipolito
repeatedly.  But after the signing of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, another pre-election conference was called on July 2, 1987.  Finally, on August 11, 1987, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the election of
officers of the San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO is hereby set on 15 September 1987 under the supervision of National Capital Region
(NCR).  Let a copy of this Order given
the widest dissemination to the members of the union and all union members
interested to run for office are given until August 31, 1987 to submit their respective certificates of
candidacy.

“SO ORDERED.” (P. 127, Rollo)

Petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
aforesaid Order on August 27, 1987.  Subsequently, however, they filed their
Manifestation requesting that they would participate in the election provided
that the date of said election which is on September 15, 1987 be moved to another date to be fixed by the parties, or failing
which, by the assigned Representation Officer. 
In the same manifestation, they signified that if their request is granted,
their motion for reconsideration can be
considered moot and academic.

On September 4, 1987,
the Med-Arbiter issued his now assailed Order reading as follows:

“Acting on the Manifestation with Motion to re-schedule
election of officers of SMCEU-PTGWO filed by SMCEU-PTGWO officers led by Raymundo Hipolito, Jr. on
September 4, 1987 to be well taken and is in consonance with the attainment of
Industrial peace in the company, the Order of this Office dated August 11, 1987
in so far as fixing of the date of the
election of union officers on September 15, 1987 is hereby ordered set
aside.  The new date of the election may
be agreed upon by the parties during
the pre-election conference but,
should the parties fail to agree on
the date of the election, the Representation Officer is hereby directed to fix
the date of the said election.

“Further, pursuant to the above-mentioned Manifestation, filed
on September 4, 1987, the
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated August 26, 1987 is hereby ordered denied for being moot
and academic.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 24, Rollo)

So pre-election conferences were again held.  On September
22, 1987, the Representation Officer pursuant to the aforesaid
Order of September 4, 1987
fixed the date of the election for October
5, 1987.

In a last effort to again delay the election, petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration.  The same was
denied.

Hence, this petition for certiorari filed with this Court
on October 17, 1987.  Sometime in November 1987, petitioners filed
a Supplemental Petition alleging that the election had been held under the supervision of the Department of
Labor (after almost three (3) years from the filing of the petition for the
conduct of the election and after almost six (6) years from the last election
of officers of petitioner union.)

All the individual petitioners herein filed their certificates of
candidacy and actually participated in the election of October 5, 1987. 
Petitioner Raymundo Hipolito,
Jr. lost the presidency to intervenor Daniel Borbon II.

Before filing the instant petition for certiorari,
petitioners had filed likewise an election protest in the original case which
was dismissed for lack of merit on November
6, 1987.  This
order was appealed (petition for certiorari) by petitioners to this Court
under G.R. No. 82183.

On May 4, 1988
this Court (First Division) denied the said petition for lack of merit.  The said Resolution reads:

“After deliberating
on the petition and its annexes we find that the respondent Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations did not commit a grave abuse of discretion nor any
reversible error in affirming the order of the Med-Arbiter dismissing
petitioner’s protest against the election of respondent Daniel Borbon as president of the San Miguel Corporation Employees
Union-PTGWO, in the local election
on October 5, 1987, as it appears that
the petitioner himself, as the president
of the SMCEU-PTGWO, filed the petition for election of union officers on
December 2, 1984 because the last
union election was held in December 1981 and the 3–year term of office of the incumbent union officers as provided in Article
242(c) of the Labor Code, was about to expire; that petitioner
was estopped from withdrawing his said petition
because the order directing the conduct of the election had already been
implemented and petitioner himself participated as a candidate for president in the
election; that 261 union members led
by Borbon
filed a petition to hold the election and demand an accounting
of union funds; that petitioner’s
petition to disqualify Daniel Borbon from running for
office in
the union had already been
resolved in BLR Case No. 10-354-87 (NCR OD-M-5-421-87) where Borbon was
declared a rank and file employee, hence, qualified to join, form or assist in the formation of a labor organization; and, finally, petitioner who lost in the election,
failed to present evidence of fraud in the conduct of the election. 
Respondent Calleja’s resolution dated February
18, 1988 (Annex A)
dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the Med-Arbiter’s
order of November 6, 1987 (Annex B) is correct.” (pp. 75–76, Rollo of G.R. No. 82183)

The petitioners the said petition (who are the same petitioners in this case) moved to reconsider the
dismissal.  The same was denied in
the Resolution of the First
Division dated June 15, 1988 which reads:

“The motion for reconsideration mentions for the first time the pendency before the Second Division of this Court of G.R. No. 80141 which, in the
petitioner’s own words, involves ‘the same subject matter, issues and
parties.’  In both cases, the petitioner
prays this Court ‘to cancel and nullify the local election held on October
5, 1987’ and to set
aside the proclamation of Daniel Borbon as the duly
elected president of the SMCEU-PTGWO. 
Petitioner now asks that Our resolution of May 4,
1988 dismissing this
case be set aside and/or its implementation be deferred until G.R. No. 80141
shall have been resolved by the Second Division.

“Since the petitioners in G.R. No. 80141, (are the same
petitioners here)
We have here a clear case of trifling with proceedings in this Court.  Petitioner had probably hoped to obtain from
the First Division of the Court the reliefs which up to this time they have failed to
obtain from the Second Division where their earlier petition (G.R. No. 80141)
has been pending.  Only when We adversely disposed of their second petition did they
reveal the pendency of the first.  Since they themselves set in motion the
processes of this Court by filing this case, they are estopped
to ask for the suspension of these proceedings on account of the pendency of their earlier petition.” (pp. 96-97, Rollo of G.R. No.
82183)

On June 27, 1988,
intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition in view of the dismissal
of G.R. No. 82183.

Indeed, this case is a clear instance of trifling with judicial
and quasi-judicial proceedings.  Petitioners filed
a petition for election alleging that there was
basis for calling such election.  Then,
they turned around and claimed their petition was not proper; that the
election that was held, in which they lost, be nullified.

Petitioners had filed an election protest with the
Med-Arbiter.  Without waiting for its
resolution, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari (G.R.
No. 80141) and in their petition they did not mention the pendency
of the election protest.

After the said election protest was dismissed for lack of merit,
the petitioners elevated the same to this Court by way of another petition for certiorari
(G.R. No. 82183).  Although both petitions seek the nullification of
the election held on October 5, 1987, petitioners did not pray for their
consolidation.  This mockery of judicial
proceedings should not be countenanced.

In its resolution dated November
6, 1987, public respondent already declared and certified the
candidates in said election garnering the highest number of votes as the duly
elected officers, committee members and board of directors of SMCEU-PTGWO.  This is the very act of public respondent
that petitioners seek to be restrained. 
Since the act has already been consummated, injunction or restraining
order does not lie.  Moreover, it does
not appear that petitioners are entitled to the main relief sought, so there is no
legal justification for a restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Petitioners contend that public respondents acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when they set the local
election on October 5, 1987.  In support of their allegation, they state
that there was no petition for the holding of election of union officers
meeting the requirements of Book V, Rule VIII, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code and that they were deprived of due process of law.

The above contentions are
without merit.  Assuming that the
requirements as delineated in said Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code apply to election of union officers,
petitioners are in estoppel to invoke the same.  They filed the petition praying for the
conduct of an election to select the union officers.  By filing the petition, they necessarily
affirmed that the petition was sufficient in form and substance.  They therefore cannot now claim that the
petition did not meet legal requirements.

Anent their claim that they were denied due process, records show
that they were given their day in court. 
Their motion for Reconsideration/Appeal dated September 28, 1978 was duly considered by public
respondent.  The mere fact that their
motion was denied does not mean that they were denied due process of law.

In their Supplemental Petition, petitioners pray that respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja and
Med-Arbiter Fernando be held in contempt of court for proceeding to take action
on the petition for election.

The records show that on December
9, 1987, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
“respondents from proclaiming the alleged winners in the union local
election held last October 5, 1987
particularly that of Daniel Borbon as new president of the union.” (Resolution dated December 9, 1987, p.
203, Rollo) But the winners in said election were
already proclaimed and sworn into office on November 11, 1987 by virtue of the order dated November
6, 1987 of the Med
Arbiter in the election protest filed by petitioners.  Thus, the act intended to be restrained was
already “fait accompli.” Accordingly, said public respondents have
not violated any order of this Court which would make them
guilty of contempt.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant
petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., no part.