Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) vs. Noriel

A run-off certification election is invalid where it fails to give the employees true representation in their collective bargaining with the employer — as where a substantial number of workers are unable to vote, the secrecy of the ballot is not safeguarded, the election supervisors are remiss in their duties, and the contending unions resort to improper campaign tactics — and the protestant's failure to file a protest before or during the election proceeding will not bar relief where the same irregularities were already brought to the attention of the election authorities through another union's written protest.

The Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) is a labor federation, and its co-petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association, is its local union in the Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, a company with place of business at Brixton Hill Street, Capitolyo, Pasig, Metro Manila. Together with the National Union of Garments Textile and General Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD), the National Trade Union (NATU), and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU), CCLU sought certification as the collective bargaining representative of the corporation's employees. Certification elections are governed by Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, which prescribes the duties of the representation officer in insuring the secrecy of balloting and requires that protests be filed before or during the election proceeding.

Four labor organizations sought certification as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees of the Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, whose place of business was at Brixton Hill Street, Capitolyo, Pasig, Metro Manila. They were the Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU), the National Union of Garments Textile and General Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD), the National Trade Union (NATU), and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU). CCLU's co-petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association, was its local union in the corporation.

On August 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the corporation's premises from eight-twenty in the morning to five-thirty in the afternoon. Of the 831 votes cast, CCLU garnered 356 votes, ALU 338, NATU 82, and GATCORD 42; eight votes were spoiled and five were challenged or segregated. Because no union obtained a majority, 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 the request.

On November 6, 1980, three election supervisors from the Ministry of Labor and Employment — Margarita C. Enriquez, Reynaldo F. de Luna, and one Francisco — arrived at about seven o'clock in the morning near the Redson Textile compound but were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain. After consulting through the phone with their chief, a certain Attorney Padilla, the election supervisors decided to hold the certification election outside the premises of the company in a small store outside the annex building, using 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. 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, a margin of 53 votes, out of 1,010 voters. Because ALU won, Taneo withdrew his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that it was withdrawn before the close of the proceedings, while the CCLU representatives refused to sign the minutes of the election.

The following day, November 7, CCLU, through its representative Juan L. Fresnoza, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a protest praying 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 the 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." On November 10, 1980, Fresnoza and Sanchez filed a joint affidavit attesting to what transpired during the certification election as alleged in the protest, adding that when they protested before the election supervisors, the latter told them to place their protest in writing so that the supervisors could consolidate the protests in their election report. 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.

Officer-in-Charge Carmelo C. Noriel, in his resolution of February 26, 1981, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit, observing that CCLU failed to submit the pleadings and evidence required in the hearing on January 19, 1981 and that CCLU failed to file a protest either before or during the election proceeding and was therefore deemed, under Section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules, to have waived its right to protest. In his resolution of March 26, 1981 denying CCLU's motion for reconsideration, Noriel certified ALU as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. The Court's own review of the record established that 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 that out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote.

• Violation of the Rules on Certification Elections: CCLU complained that the certification election was conducted in violation of Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, and on February 19, 1981 informed the Bureau of Labor Relations that the election had been conducted without regard to Section 6 thereof, which prescribes the representation officer's duties of inspecting the polling place, ballot boxes and polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting and of locking the ballot box with three keys.
• Irregularities in the Conduct of the Election: CCLU alleged in its protest that the election was irregular and disorderly because no booths were provided by the company, the election started much later than the hour agreed upon by the parties, and 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.
• Failure of the Election Supervisors to Act: CCLU maintained that when Fresnoza and Sanchez protested against those activities before election supervisor Enriquez, the latter retorted, "Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo," and that the supervisors told them to place their protest in writing so that the protests could be consolidated in the election report.
• Annulment of the Election: CCLU prayed that the November 6 certification election as well as the continuation of the election on November 7 be annulled, and invoked the fact that the company prevented workers from voting and refused to furnish election paraphernalia.

• Waiver of the Right to Protest: The Solicitor General contended 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 under Section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.

• Validity of the Run-off Certification Election: Whether the run-off certification election held on November 6, 1980 was valid notwithstanding the irregularities attending its conduct.
• Waiver of the Right to Protest: Whether CCLU waived its right to protest by failing to file a protest with the election supervisor before or during the election proceeding.
• Conduct of a New Certification Election: Whether another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of the corporation, with the management ordered to allow all its employees to participate and to assist in the holding of an orderly election.

• Validity of the Run-off Certification Election: No. The certification election is invalid because of irregularities that defeated its purpose of giving the employees true representation in their collective bargaining with the employer.
• Waiver of the Right to Protest: No. The technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time should have been disregarded, ALU's own written protest — later withdrawn — having been based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU.
• Conduct of a New Certification Election: Yes. Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, with the management ordered to allow all its employees to participate and to assist in holding an orderly election, and the election supervisors or representation officers enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and its implementing rules.

• Validity of the Run-off Certification Election: The certification election was declared invalid on the basis of four irregularities established from the record: (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; (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. These circumstances were measured against the statutory objective of a certification election, which is to give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer." 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. The conduct of the balloting outside the company compound, in a small store outside the annex building, with an improvised carton box as ballot box, and the supervisors' failure to comply with their duties under Section 6, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules, reinforced the conclusion that the election could not be sustained.

• Waiver of the Right to Protest: The Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed CCLU's protest on the ground that no protest had been filed before or during the election proceeding, so that the right to protest was deemed waived under Section 3, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules. That technical ground could not stand. ALU's written protest, executed by its representative Sebastian P. Taneo during the election and before the close of the proceedings, was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest — the denial of access to the company premises, the prevention of workers from voting, the refusal to furnish election paraphernalia, and the closure of the polls despite objection. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time. The irregularities were thus already before the election authorities, and the timely-protest requirement could not be used to insulate an election whose fundamental defects had been brought to official attention.

• Conduct of a New Certification Election: Because the run-off election failed to reflect the true choice of the employees, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 were set aside and another run-off certification election was ordered conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. To ensure that the new election would serve its purpose, the management was ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election, and the election supervisors or representation officers were enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same.

• Purpose of a Certification Election — A certification election exists to give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer." The test of a valid certification election is therefore functional: it must permit the employees to express their genuine choice of bargaining representative. In this case, the purpose was not achieved 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.
• Grounds Invalidating a Certification Election — A certification election may be annulled upon a showing of irregularities that substantially impair the employees' freedom of choice. The Court enumerated four such irregularities: (1) the disenfranchisement of workers, as where the night shift (ten p.m. to six a.m.) and some of the afternoon shift were unable to vote, leaving only 692 of 1,010 voters able to cast their ballots; (2) the failure to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot; (3) election supervisors who are remiss in their duties and apparently intimidated by a union representative; and (4) overzealous unions resorting to improper campaign tactics such as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts.
• Relaxation of the Timely-Protest Rule — The requirement that a protest be filed before or during the election proceeding, on pain of waiver, will not be applied mechanically where the same irregularities have already been brought to the attention of the election authorities. Where one union's written protest, later withdrawn, rests on the same grounds invoked by the protestant, the election officer should disregard the technicality that the other protest was not filed on time and resolve the merits of the controversy.

• "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." — This is the ratio decidendi of the decision: it enumerates the four irregularities that rendered the run-off certification election invalid and supplies the operative test for annulling certification elections.
• "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." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the purpose of a certification election and explains why the defects in the run-off election were fatal rather than merely procedural.
• "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." — This passage disposes of the waiver argument and establishes the rule that the timely-protest requirement yields where the same irregularities were already before the election authorities.

• Section 6, Rule VI, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code — Prescribes the duties of the representation officer, who before the actual voting commences must inspect the polling place, the ballot boxes and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting, and must lock the ballot box with three keys distributed among the officer, the employer's representative and the labor organizations, retaining the keys until all controversies concerning the conduct of the election are definitely resolved. CCLU invoked this provision in its February 19, 1981 communication to the Bureau of Labor Relations, and the Court's finding that the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded formed one of the grounds for invalidating the election.
• Section 3, Rule VI, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code — Requires that a protest be filed before or during the election proceeding, failing which the right to protest is deemed waived. The Solicitor General invoked this provision to defend the election, and the Officer-in-Charge relied on it in dismissing CCLU's protest; the Court declined to apply it strictly because ALU's own written protest, later withdrawn, had raised the same grounds.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur. Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., took no part.