Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

Submission of an employee’s name to the Bureau of Labor Relations as a qualified union member is not a condition sine qua non for voting in the election of union officers; eligibility may be determined through the applicable payroll period and the employee’s status, and an employee who casts a vote after an agreement to join the union may be considered an ipso facto member.

Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA) was the monthly-paid employees’ union at Imperial Textile Mills Inc., affiliated with ANGLO. Private respondents were its prime organizers, while petitioners belonged to a rival group within the same union. The governing statutory backdrop was Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, which limits participation in the election of union officers to union members. The dispute concerned the election of ITM-MEA officers conducted under Department of Labor supervision.

Private respondents were the prime organizers of the Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA), the union of monthly-paid employees at Imperial Textile Mills Inc. While they were preparing to file a petition for direct certification of the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the union’s Vice-President, Carlos Dalmacio, was promoted to the position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for union membership. That incident, among others, led to a strike spearheaded by the Lacanilao group, herein private respondents. Another group, led by herein petitioners, staged a strike inside the company premises. After four days, the strike was settled.

On May 10, 1986, an agreement was entered into by representatives of the management, the Lacanilao group, and the Tancinco group. The agreement provided that all monthly-paid employees would be united under one union, ITM-MEA, affiliated with ANGLO; that management recognized ANGLO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all monthly-paid employees; that an election of union officers would be held on May 26, 1986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that the last day for filing candidacy would be May 19, 1986, at 4:00 p.m.; and that a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of qualified voters would be held on May 19, 1986, at 5:00 p.m.

On May 19, 1986, a pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree on the list of voters. During the May 21, 1986 pre-election conference attended by MOLE officers, ANGLO, through its National Secretary, Cornelio A. Sy, made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees consisting of Manila office employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of Mrs. Salazar, and cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar. Before the election, petitioners, through a letter addressed to the Election Supervisor, MOLE San Fernando, Pampanga, protested the ruling, but no action was taken.

On May 26, 1986, the election of officers was conducted under MOLE supervision. The 56 employees in question participated, but their votes were segregated without being counted. Lacanilao’s group won; Lacanilao garnered 119 votes, with a margin of three votes over Tancinco, prompting petitioners to protest. Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry of Labor Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, claiming that determination of the qualification of the 56 votes was beyond ANGLO’s competence. Private respondents maintained the contrary, on the premise that definition of the union’s membership was solely within their jurisdiction.

On the basis of the position papers submitted by the parties, MOLE’s Med-Arbiter issued an order dated July 25, 1986, directing the opening and counting of the segregated votes. Private respondents appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations, justifying the disenfranchisement of the 56 votes. They categorized the challenged voters into four groups: the Manila employees, who were allegedly personal employees of Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo members, whose participation was allegedly anomalous because of their policy not to participate in any form of union activities; the non-time card employees, who were allegedly managerial employees; and the cooperative employees, who were allegedly non-ITM employees.

On December 10, 1986, the BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis, but it set aside the challenged Med-Arbiter order on the ground that 51 of the 56 challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of the election per the April 24, 1986 list submitted before the Bureau. The decision directed, among others, the proclamation of Lacanilao’s group as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA to absorb in the bargaining unit the challenged voters unless proven to be managerial employees. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners alleged that the public respondent Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Med-Arbiter to disregard the 56 segregated votes and in proclaiming private respondents as the duly elected officers of ITM-MEA, despite the Director’s own ruling that the grounds relied upon by ANGLO for the exclusion of voters were arbitrary, whimsical, and without legal basis.
• ANGLO’s Lack of Competence: Petitioners claimed that the determination of the qualification of the 56 votes was beyond the competence of ANGLO.
• Improper Basis on Appeal: Petitioners, as supported by the Solicitor General’s manifestation, maintained that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the issue on the basis of the records of membership of the union as of April 24, 1986, when that issue was not put forward in the appeal.

• Union Membership Defined by the Union: Private respondents maintained that the definition of the union’s membership was solely within their jurisdiction.
• Grounds for Disenfranchisement: Private respondents justified the disenfranchisement of the 56 votes by categorizing the challenged voters into four groups: Manila employees as personal employees of Mr. Lee; Iglesia ni Kristo members as anomalous voters because of their policy not to participate in union activities; non-time card employees as managerial employees; and cooperative employees as non-ITM employees.
• CBA and Cordial Relations: Private respondents argued that since a collective bargaining agreement had been concluded between the local union and ITM management, the determination of the legal question raised may not serve the purpose the union envisions and may destroy the cordial relations existing between the management and the union.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the public respondent Director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s July 25, 1986 Order and in ordering the disregard of the 56 segregated votes despite its own finding that ANGLO’s grounds for exclusion were arbitrary, whimsical, and without legal basis.
• Condition Sine Qua Non: Whether submission of employees’ names to the Bureau of Labor Relations as qualified union members is a condition sine qua non for them to vote in the election of union officers.
• Ipso Facto Membership: Whether the 51 challenged voters who cast their votes on May 26, 1986, after the May 10, 1986 agreement, must be considered ipso facto members of the union despite their names not appearing in the April 24, 1986 list.
• CBA and Cordial Relations: Whether the existence of a collective bargaining agreement and cordial relations between the union and management justified refusing to count the 56 segregated votes.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The BLR acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s July 25, 1986 Order despite its own finding that ANGLO’s exclusion of the 56 voters was arbitrary, whimsical, and without legal basis.
• Condition Sine Qua Non: No. Submission of employees’ names to the BLR as qualified union members is not a condition sine qua non for voting in the election of union officers.
• Ipso Facto Membership: Yes. The 51 challenged voters who cast their votes on May 26, 1986, after the May 10, 1986 agreement, manifested their intention to join the union and must be considered ipso facto members thereof.
• CBA and Cordial Relations: No. The existence of a CBA and cordial relations between the union and management should not be a justification to frustrate the decision of union members as to who should properly represent them in the bargaining unit.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The BLR itself categorically declared as arbitrary, whimsical, and without legal basis the grounds relied upon by ANGLO in disenfranchising the 56 voters. Notwithstanding that finding, it set aside the Med-Arbiter’s July 25, 1986 Order based on its own finding that 51 of the 56 challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of the election because their names did not appear in the records of the union submitted to the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau of Labor on April 24, 1986. That finding had no leg to stand on. The April 24, 1986 list consisted of only 158 union members; if that list were the basis for determining who the union members were, then, out of approximately 333 voters who cast their votes, some 175 others should also have been disqualified. The BLR thus acted inconsistently and with grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General also agreed that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the issue on the basis of the April 24, 1986 membership records when that issue was not put forward in the appeal.
• Condition Sine Qua Non: Under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only members of the union can participate in the election of union officers. However, submission of the employees’ names to the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable them to vote in the election of union officers; it finds no support in fact and in law. Eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and the employee’s status during the applicable payroll period: the payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in the case of regular employees, and the payroll period at or near the peak of operations in the case of employees in seasonal industries. In this case, none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as the voting list, and the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership.
• Ipso Facto Membership: The 51 employees’ act of joining the election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986, after the May 10, 1986 agreement, was a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union. They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof. Their names could not have been included in the list of employees submitted on April 24, 1986, to the Bureau of Labor because the agreement to join the union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. The election was supervised by the Department of Labor, and the 56 members were allowed to vote; private respondents never challenged their right to vote at that time.
• CBA and Cordial Relations: The existence of a CBA and cordial relationship developed between the union and the management should not be a justification to frustrate the decision of the union members as to who should properly represent them in the bargaining unit. Neither may the inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes serve to disturb the existing relationship with management. Respondents themselves pointed out that petitioners joined the negotiating panel in the recently concluded CBA; that fact would estop petitioners from later questioning the CBA with which they concurred. Furthermore, the inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes would not necessarily mean success in favor of petitioners.

• Eligibility to Vote in Union Officer Elections — Under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only union members may participate in the election of union officers. The Court clarified that submission of an employee’s name to the BLR as a qualified union member is not a condition sine qua non for voting. Eligibility may be determined through the applicable payroll period and the employee’s status during that period: the payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute for regular employees, and the payroll period at or near the peak of operations for seasonal employees. In this case, because no party insisted on the payroll list and the challenged employees were qualified for membership, their act of voting after the May 10, 1986 agreement made them ipso facto members.
• Ipso Facto Union Membership by Voting — An employee who participates in a union officer election after an agreement to join the union may be considered an ipso facto member, especially where the election is supervised by the Department of Labor and the opposing party did not challenge the right to vote at the time.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Labor Adjudication — A labor tribunal commits grave abuse of discretion when it sets aside a Med-Arbiter’s order based on a ground not raised on appeal and inconsistent with its own finding that the exclusion of voters was arbitrary, whimsical, and without legal basis.
• CBA and Cordial Relations Not a Bar — The existence of a CBA and cordial relations between the union and management does not justify refusing to count segregated votes or frustrating the union members’ choice of officers.

• "Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union's officers. It finds no support in fact and in law." — This states the core ratio: the BLR membership list cannot be used to disenfranchise voters in a union officer election.
• "The question however of eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee's status during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of operations in case of employees in seasonal industries." — This defines the alternative test for voter eligibility in union officer elections.
• "Their act of joining the election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May 10, 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union. They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof" — This explains why the challenged voters could not be excluded merely because their names were absent from the April 24, 1986 list.
• "Existence of a CBA and cordial relationship developed between the union and the management should not be a justification to frustrate the decision of the union members as to who should properly represent them in the bargaining unit." — This rejects the private respondents’ argument that the CBA and cordial relations barred the counting of the segregated votes.

• United States Lines vs. Associated Watchman and Security Union, G.R. No. L-12208 & L-12211, May 21, 1958 — Cited for the rule that eligibility to vote may be determined by the payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in the case of regular employees.
• Tarke Warehouse Company, 95 NLRC 1133 (1951) — Cited for the payroll period at or near the peak of operations as the basis for eligibility of seasonal employees.
• Colorado River Farnes, 99 NLRC 41 (1952) — Cited alongside Tarke Warehouse for the same seasonal-employee payroll rule.

• Article 242(c), Labor Code, as amended — Provides that only union members can participate in the election of union officers. The Court acknowledged the provision but held that the BLR membership list was not a condition sine qua non for voting; eligibility could be determined by payroll period and employee status, and the challenged voters became ipso facto members by voting after the May 10, 1986 agreement.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The petitioners invoked this rule in filing the special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the BLR Resolution and Decision. The Court granted the petition and set aside the challenged issuances.

Teehankee, C.J.; Narvasa, Cruz, and Paras, JJ., concur.