CATALINO ALGIRE AND OTHER OFFICERS OF UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), PETITIONERS, VS. REGALADO DE MESA, ET AL., AND HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR…

This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify and set
aside the decision dated January 31, 1991 of the Secretary of Labor which
reversed on appeal the Order dated December 20, 1990 issued by Med-arbiter
Rolando S. de la Cruz declaring petitioners
as the duly-elected officers of the Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried
Employees Union (URTMSEU) as well as the Order dated March 5, 1991 denying
petitioner Catalino Algire’s motion for reconsideration.

The case arose out of the election of the rightful officers to
represent the union in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the
management of Universal Robina Textile at its plant in Km. 50, Bo. San
Cristobal, Calamba, Laguna.

Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union,
(URTMSEU), through private respondent Regalado de Mesa, filed on September 4,
1990 a petition for the holding of an election of union officers with the
Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Acting thereon, DOLE’s med-arbiter Rolando
S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that such an
election be held.

In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the election
by secret ballot be conducted on November 15, 1990 between petitioners (Catalino
Algire, et al.) and private respondents (Regalado de Mesa, et al.) under the
supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed representation officer.

The official ballot contained the following pertinent
instructions:

“Nais
kong pakatawan sa grupo ni:

LINO ALGIRE                                                  REGALADO

and                                                           DE
MESA

his officers                                                and
his officers

1. Mark check (/) or cross (x) inside the box specified above who
among the two contending parties you desire to be represented for the purpose
of collective bargaining.

2. This a secret ballot. Don’t write any other markings.”^[1]

The results of the election were as follows:

Lino Algire group                  –           133

Regalado de Mesa
group     –           133

Spoiled                                 –           6

Total votes cast                   –           272

On November 19, 1990, Catalino Algire filed a Petition and/or
Motion (RO 400-9009-AU-002), which DOLE’s Med-Arbitration unit treated as a
protest, to the effect that one of the ballots wherein one voter placed two
checks inside the box opposite the phrase “Lino Algire and his
officers,” hereinafter referred to as the “questioned ballot,”
should not have been declared spoiled, as the same was a valid vote in their
favor. The group argued that the two
checks made even clearer the intention of the voter to exercise his political
franchise in favor of Algire’s group.

During the scheduled hearing thereof, both parties agreed to open
the envelope containing the spoiled ballots and it was found out that, indeed,
one ballot contained two (2) checks in the box opposite petitioner Algire’s
name and his officers.

On December 20, 1990, med-arbiter de la Cruz issued an Order
declaring the questioned ballot valid, thereby counting the same in Algire’s
favor and accordingly certified petitioner’s group as the union’s elected
officers.^[2]

Regalado de Mesa, et al. appealed from the decision of the
med-arbiter to the Secretary of Labor in Case No. OS-A-1-37-91 (RO
400-9009-AU-002). On January 31, 1991,
the latter’s office granted the appeal and reversed the aforesaid Order. In its stead, it entered a new one ordering
“the calling of another election of officers of the Universal Robina
Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU), with the same choices as in
the election of 15 November, 1990, after the usual pre-election conference.”^[3]

Director Maximo B. Lim of the Industrial Relations Division,
Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE set the hearing for another pre-election
conference on March 22, 1991, reset to April 2, 1991, and finally reset to
April 5, 1991.

Catalino Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Order. It was denied for lack of merit
and the decision sought to be reconsidered was sustained.

Algire, et al. filed this petition on the following issues:

“(1)   the Secretary of Labor erred in applying Sections
1 and 8 (6), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the
Labor Code to the herein case, considering that the case is an intra­-union
activity, which act constitutes a grave abuse in the exercise of authority
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

(2)     the assailed decision
and order are not supported by law and evidence.”

with an ex-parte motion for issuance of a
temporary restraining order, alleging that the assailed decision of the office
of the Secretary of Labor as public respondent is by nature immediately
executory and the holding of an election at any time after April 5, 1991, would
render the petition moot and academic unless restrained by this Court.

On April 5, 1991, we issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining the holding of another election of union officers pursuant to the
January 31, 1991 decision.^[4]

There is no merit in the petition.

The contention of the petitioner is that a representation officer
(referring to a person duly authorized to conduct and supervise certification
elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from
the conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity of the
questioned ballot is not within his competence. Therefore, any ruling made by the representation officer
concerning the validity of the ballot is deemed an absolute nullity because —
such is the allegation — it was done without or in excess of his functions
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

To resolve the issue of union representation at the Universal
Robina Textile plant, what was agreed to be held at the company’s premises and
which became the root of this controversy, was a consent election, not a
certification election.

It is unmistakable that the election held on November 15, 1990
was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an agreed one, the purpose being
merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in
the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the
import and effort of a certification election.^[5]

The ruling of DOLE’s representative in that election that the
questioned ballot is spoiled is not based on any legal provision or rule
justifying or requiring such action by such officer but simply in pursuance of
the intent of the parties, expressed in the written instructions contained in
the ballot, which is to prohibit unauthorized markings thereon other than a
check or a cross, obviously intended to identify the votes in order to preserve
the sanctity of the ballot, which is in fact the objective of the contending
parties.

If indeed petitioner’s group had any opposition to the
representation officer’s ruling that the questioned ballot was spoiled, it
should have done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or inaction to assail such
ballot’s validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity
arising from said election. Moreover,
petitioners even question at this stage the clear instruction to mark a check
or cross opposite the name of the candidate’s group, arguing that such
instruction was not clear, as two checks “may be interpreted that a voter
may vote for Lino Algire but not with (sic) his officers or vice-versa,”^[6]
notwithstanding the fact that a pre-election conference had already been held
where no such question was raised.

In any event, the choice by the majority of employees of the
union officers that should best represent them in the forthcoming collective
bargaining negotiations should be achieved through the democratic process of an
election, the proper forum where the true will of the majority may not be
circumvented but clearly defined. The
workers must be allowed to freely express their choice once and for all in a determination where everything is open to
their sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation is
minimized, if not eliminated, without any unnecessary delay and/or maneuvering.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged
decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, (Acting Chairman), Melo, and
Vitug, JJ, concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 25.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 26-31.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 32-33.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 41.

^[5]
Warren Manufacturing Worker’s Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R.
No. 76185, March 30, 1988, 159 SCRA 387.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 10 of Memorandum on p. 107.