Villaor vs. Trajano

Where an intra-union conflict exists, the Med-Arbiter has exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Labor Code and Policy Instruction No. 6; the constitutional right of workers to self-organization does not bar such jurisdiction, and a union COMELEC's resolution of an election protest without the mandatory hearing and in disregard of Med-Arbiter orders is invalid.

The Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association (PALEA) is the bargaining agent of the workers in Philippine Air Lines (PAL). Its Board of Directors is composed of the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and 17 directors elected for a term of three years by members in good standing on the last Thursday of February of the election year, and its Commission on Election (COMELEC) members sit for a term of three years. At the relevant time, the incumbent president and vice-president were Mario S. Santos and Carlos Bandalan, while the COMELEC was composed of Octavio Pineda as chairman and Rafael Samson and Edwardo Flora as members. The Labor Code, Article 226 and Policy Instruction No. 6, vest original and exclusive authority over inter-union and intra-union conflicts in the Bureau of Labor Relations and the regional offices, with intra-union cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter Section; the PALEA Constitution and By-Laws govern election protests and internal discipline.

The Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association (PALEA) is the bargaining agent of the workers in Philippine Air Lines (PAL). Its Board of Directors is composed of the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and 17 directors elected for a term of three years by members in good standing on the last Thursday of February of the election year, and its Commission on Election (COMELEC) members sit for a term of three years. At the relevant time, the incumbent president and vice-president were Mario S. Santos and Carlos Bandalan, respectively, while the COMELEC was composed of Octavio Pineda as chairman and Rafael Samson and Edwardo Flora as members. On February 17-23, 1984, in Metro Manila, and on February 20, 1984, in the Cebu/Mactan area, PALEA held its election for National Officers. Miguel J. Villaor won the presidency over Mario S. Santos, obtaining 1,954 votes to Santos's 1,809 votes, a difference of 145 votes, while Cecilio V. Bautista won the vice-presidency over Carlos V. Bandalan, garnering 1,264 votes to Bandalan's 1,220 votes, a difference of 44 votes. Villaor and Bautista were proclaimed on February 25, 1984.

Subsequently, the defeated candidates—Mario S. Santos for president, Carlos V. Bandalan for vice-president, and Antonio Josue for secretary—filed election protests with the PALEA COMELEC within the 30-day reglementary period provided under the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. Santos filed his protest on March 12, 1984; Bandalan on February 27, 1984; and Josue on March 14, 1984. The protests alleged that (a) a number of votes in precincts 1, 4, and 4-A were segregated and not counted, and (b) a substantial number of PALEA members in the Cebu/Mactan area were unable to vote on February 20, 1984 because the voting days had been reduced from two days (February 20-21, 1984) to one day (February 20, 1984). On March 6, 1984, Santos sent Villaor a letter formally turning over PALEA's CBA proposals in the ongoing PAL-PALEA CBA negotiations, stating that other PALEA properties, including the President's car and another vehicle, would be turned over at the appropriate time, and informing Villaor that they were filing a manifestation with the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations to withdraw PALEA's declaration of deadlock so that the officers-elect could continue the CBA negotiation. On April 17, 1984, petitioners filed their joint Comment/Answer to the election protests, joining two basic issues: whether the segregated ballots in precincts 1, 4, and 4-A resulted in disenfranchisement, and whether qualified PALEA voters in Cebu/Mactan were deprived of their right to vote by the change from two election days to one.

On the basis of the protests and the Comment/Answer, the PALEA COMELEC members, in a letter dated April 25, 1984, informed the parties that the ballot boxes in the questioned precincts would be opened and their voters list retrieved on April 25, 1984 at 10:00 in the morning. On April 24, 1984, petitioners Miguel J. Villaor and Cecilio V. Bautista, together with Ernesto P. Galang, filed a complaint/petition with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment against the PALEA COMELEC members, seeking their disqualification on the ground of alleged partiality for the protestants. The Regional Office summoned the parties to appear before Med-Arbiter Renato D. Parungao on April 25, 1984 at 9:30 a.m. On April 25, 1984, petitioners Villaor and Bautista and COMELEC member Edwardo C. Flora appeared before the Med-Arbiter, who issued an Order enjoining the respondents from opening the ballot boxes subject of the controversy. On the same day, at 10:30 a.m., respondents Octavio Pineda and Rafael Samson proceeded to open the ballot boxes. Petitioners alleged that the restraining order was personally served on Flora, who immediately called the PALEA office and, after Pineda was on the phone, informed him of the restraining order in the presence of Med-Arbiter Parungao; notwithstanding that information, Pineda and Samson went ahead and opened the ballot boxes as planned. This allegation was never denied by the respondents.

On April 27, 1984, the respondents, sitting en banc, resolved the election protests. They set aside the proclamation dated February 25, 1984 of Miguel J. Villaor as President, Cecilio V. Bautista as Vice-President, and Ernesto P. Galang as Secretary; directed the counting of the segregated votes of qualified PALEA members in precincts 1, 4, and 4-A on May 4, 1984 at 1300 H at the PALEA COMELEC Office; directed a special election on May 4, 1984 from 0500 H to 1700 H in Cebu/Mactan to allow PALEA members who were unable to vote on February 20, 1984 to cast their votes for President, Vice-President, and Secretary; and directed the proclamation of the winning candidates immediately after the election, counting, and canvassing. On May 3, 1984, petitioners filed a motion with the Med-Arbiter to cite the COMELEC members for contempt, suspend them from office, and annul their April 27, 1984 Resolution for being issued without jurisdiction. Notices were issued for hearings at 1:30 p.m. on May 3 and 4, 1984; no parties appeared on May 3, and only petitioners' counsel appeared on May 4. In conformity with the April 27, 1984 Resolution, the PALEA COMELEC counted the segregated ballots on May 4, 1984 and held the special election in Cebu/Mactan; as a result, Mario S. Santos, Carlos V. Bandalan, and Ernesto Galang were proclaimed on May 5, 1984 as the duly elected President, Vice-President, and Secretary, respectively. On May 8, 1984, Villaor moved to annul the May 4, 1984 election and the proclamation of the winners, contending that these were premature because no action had yet been taken on the motion to declare the April 27, 1984 Resolution void.

On May 31, 1984, the respondents filed their omnibus answer to the petition and subsequent motions, and on the same date Mario S. Santos and Carlos V. Bandalan filed a Notice to Admit Intervention in the case filed by Villaor and others against the PALEA COMELEC members. The intervention was allowed after petitioners withdrew their opposition, and the intervenors manifested that they were adopting the position paper filed by the respondents as their own. On June 5, 1984, petitioners filed a motion for injunction alleging that Santos and his cohorts had inveigled the Board of Directors to adopt a resolution including Santos in the union panel, causing PAL to refuse to continue negotiating with the union. On June 8, 1984, the intervenors filed their answer alleging that they were duly proclaimed officers of the union and the ones recognized by the Board of Directors; on the same date, the Med-Arbiter issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents and intervenors to cease and desist from acting as PALEA President, Vice-President, and Secretary. On June 27, 1984, the Med-Arbiter issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining both the respondents and intervenors from further committing the acts complained of until the intra-union conflict and its incidents were finally resolved, and declared that Miguel J. Villaor remains as President of PALEA unless ordered otherwise. On August 1, 1984, after hearing, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order declaring Pineda, Samson, and Flora disqualified from their office as chairman and members of the PALEA COMELEC; declaring the April 27, 1984 Resolution null and void for violating Section 6, Article XIX of the PALEA Constitution and By-Laws; declaring the May 4, 1984 special election and the results proclaiming Santos and Bandalan as President and Vice-President null and void; and continuing the writ of preliminary injunction until the intra-union conflict was finally resolved. The Med-Arbiter found that the COMELEC members had disregarded his orders and acted with partiality. The record also showed that the PALEA COMELEC issued a February 15, 1984 bulletin announcing that the elections in Cebu/Mactan would be held only on February 20, 1984, and that the Board of Directors refused to approve the Special Board of Inquiry created by Villaor on May 17, 1984, a claim that was never denied.

• Med-Arbiter Jurisdiction: Petitioners averred that under Article 226 of the Labor Code and Policy Instruction No. 6, the Med-Arbiter has exclusive original jurisdiction over intra-union cases; the freedom of unions from government interference presupposes that there is no intra-union conflict, and an intra-union conflict existed in this case.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Petitioners claimed they had exhausted the administrative remedies provided in the PALEA Charter; under Section 4, Article VII, the Board of Inquiry created by the President has the sole power to investigate, and the Board of Directors has the sole power to render decisions and impose penalties, but the Board cannot remove or discipline any union officer until the Board of Inquiry submits its report and recommendation after due investigation. They alleged that on May 17, 1984, President Villaor created a Special Board of Inquiry and appointed Rey Taggueg as chairman and Ildefonso Medina and Rodolfo de Guzman as members, but the Board refused to approve it for fear that its members might be the first to be investigated; this claim was never denied.
• Concession Bar to Protest: Petitioners argued that under Section 6, Article XIX of the PALEA Constitution, once a candidate concedes the election, he is precluded from filing a protest; Mario S. Santos, prior to filing his election protest, had unequivocally conceded the position of president to Villaor in his letter dated March 6, 1984.
• Mandatory Hearing: Petitioners maintained that the PALEA COMELEC was required to set the election protest for appropriate hearing on the issues raised before it could finally resolve the case, but it resolved the protest without conducting any formal hearing.
• Disregard of Med-Arbiter Orders and Invalid Special Election: Petitioners alleged that Pineda and Samson intentionally disregarded the Med-Arbiter's summons and restraining order by opening the ballot boxes, and that the May 4, 1984 special election was without factual and legal justification; Villaor moved to annul the May 4, 1984 election and proclamation as premature because the motion to annul the April 27, 1984 Resolution had not been resolved.

• Right to Self-Organization / Non-Interference: Public respondent BLR Director stressed that the Philippine Constitution assures the right of workers to self-organization, which implies the freedom of unions from interference by employers and the government, including the right of unions to elect their officers in full freedom and the guarantee that the government refrains from interference that would restrict this right; Article 247 of the Labor Code makes it unlawful for any person to unduly interfere with employees and workers in the exercise of the right to self-organization. He opined that the right of self-organization is impaired when the government dissolves a union COMELEC and proceeds to resolve an election protest pending before it.
• Exhaustion of Internal Remedies: Public respondent opined that the COMELEC should have been allowed to discharge its functions without prejudice to the petitioners' right to apply for relief from the Board of Directors; under the union constitution, the Board has the power to remove or discipline, by three-fourths' votes, any union officer, including the president or the COMELEC members, and only after that remedy failed could petitioners bring their case to the Med-Arbiter.
• Intervention / Recognition as Officers: Private respondents Mario S. Santos and Carlos V. Bandalan alleged that they were duly proclaimed officers of the union and the ones recognized by the Board of Directors; they intervened in the case and manifested that they were adopting the position paper filed by the respondents as their own.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Jurisdiction: Whether the November 14, 1984 decision of public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director was promulgated with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Jurisdiction: Yes. The BLR Director's decision was set aside and the Med-Arbiter's Orders of June 27 and August 1, 1984 were revived. The Med-Arbiter properly exercised jurisdiction over the intra-union conflict, and the PALEA COMELEC's resolution and special election were invalid for lack of the mandatory hearing and disregard of Med-Arbiter orders.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Jurisdiction: The BLR Director's November 14, 1984 decision was set aside and the Med-Arbiter's Orders of June 27 and August 1, 1984 were revived. The Med-Arbiter rightly exercised jurisdiction over the case, and the PALEA COMELEC's actions were invalid.
• Med-Arbiter jurisdiction: Article 226 of the Labor Code and Policy Instruction No. 6 vest original and exclusive authority over all inter-union and intra-union conflicts in the Bureau of Labor Relations and the regional offices, with intra-union cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter Section. The freedom of unions from government interference presupposes that there is no inter-union or intra-union conflict; because an intra-union conflict existed, the Med-Arbiter could act.
• Exhaustion of internal remedies: The BLR Director opined that petitioners should first exhaust remedies before the Board of Directors. Under Section 4, Article VII of the PALEA Constitution, the Board of Inquiry created by the President has the sole power to investigate, and the Board of Directors has the sole power to render decisions and impose penalties; the Board cannot remove or discipline any union officer until the Board of Inquiry submits its report and recommendation after due investigation. Petitioners created a Special Board of Inquiry on May 17, 1984, but the Board refused to approve it for fear that its members might be investigated; this claim was never denied. Thus, internal remedies were exhausted.
• Concession: Under Section 6, Article XIX of the PALEA Constitution, a losing candidate may file a protest within 30 days after proclamation, but once a candidate concedes the election, he is precluded from filing a protest. Mario S. Santos, before filing his election protest, sent Villaor a letter dated March 6, 1984 that unequivocally conceded the position of president to Villaor.
• Mandatory hearing: Section 6, Article XIX also requires the PALEA COMELEC, sitting en banc, to hear and decide the protest. It is mandatory to set the election protest for appropriate hearing before final resolution. The COMELEC, without conducting any formal hearing on the issues, merely informed the parties that the ballot boxes would be opened and then resolved the protest on April 27, 1984.
• Disregard of Med-Arbiter orders: Pineda and Samson intentionally disregarded the Med-Arbiter's summons and restraining order. Flora informed Pineda by telephone, in the presence of the Med-Arbiter, that a restraining order had been served, yet Pineda and Samson opened the ballot boxes as planned. The COMELEC members also disregarded the Med-Arbiter's notices for hearing on May 3 and 4, 1984. These allegations were never denied.
• Special election: The May 4, 1984 special election in Cebu/Mactan had no factual and legal justification. No law allows piecemeal elections, and the election was resorted to in order to accommodate the defeated candidates and overcome the winning margins of 145 and 44 votes. Holding the special election while its legality was pending before the Med-Arbiter further showed the partiality of the PALEA COMELEC. The claim that Cebu/Mactan voters were deprived of notice was not supported because the PALEA COMELEC issued a February 15, 1984 bulletin announcing that elections in that area would be only on February 20, 1984.
• Conclusion: The BLR Director's reversal was therefore set aside, and the Med-Arbiter's Orders were revived.

• Med-Arbiter's exclusive original jurisdiction over intra-union disputes — Article 226 of the Labor Code and Policy Instruction No. 6 vest original and exclusive authority over inter-union and intra-union conflicts in the Bureau of Labor Relations and the regional offices, with intra-union cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter Section. The Court applied this because the dispute was an intra-union conflict; the constitutional right of workers to self-organization and freedom from government interference presupposes no such conflict and does not bar Med-Arbiter jurisdiction.
• Exhaustion of internal union remedies — A union member must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to the Med-Arbiter, but exhaustion is satisfied when the union body refuses to act. The Court found exhaustion because the Board of Directors refused to approve the Special Board of Inquiry created by the President, preventing the Board of Inquiry from investigating and reporting as required by the PALEA Constitution.
• Concession as bar to election protest — Under Section 6, Article XIX of the PALEA Constitution, a losing candidate who concedes the election is precluded from filing a protest. Santos's March 6, 1984 letter to Villaor was treated as an unequivocal concession of the presidency before Santos filed his protest.
• Mandatory hearing in union election protests — The PALEA COMELEC, sitting en banc, must hear and decide an election protest; it is mandatory to set the protest for appropriate hearing before final resolution. The COMELEC's resolution without formal hearing was invalid.
• Invalidity of piecemeal special elections — No law allows piecemeal elections. A special election held while the legality of the election protest is pending before the Med-Arbiter lacks factual and legal justification and shows partiality.
• Right to self-organization in intra-union conflicts — The constitutional right of workers to self-organization and freedom from employer and government interference is not absolute where an intra-union conflict exists; it does not prevent the Med-Arbiter from exercising jurisdiction over intra-union disputes.

• "From the aforequoted provisions, it is safe to conclude that the freedom of the unions from interference from the government presupposes that there is no inter-union or intra-union conflict. In the instant case, there is no question that there is an intra-union conflict." — States the ratio for upholding Med-Arbiter jurisdiction despite the right to self-organization.
• "From the aforequoted provision, as opined by the Solicitor General, 'once a candidate concedes the election, he is precluded from filing a protest.' Private respondent Mario S. Santos, prior to filing his election protest, in his letter of March 6, 1984 to herein petitioner Miguel J. Villaor, had already unequivocably conceded the position of president to the latter." — Applies the concession rule to bar Santos's protest.
• "Likewise, from the aforequoted provision, it is mandatory for the PALEA COMELEC to set the election protest for appropriate hearing on the issues raised before it could finally resolve the case." — States the mandatory hearing requirement violated by the PALEA COMELEC.
• "The holding of the May 4, 1984 special election, when its legality is still pending determination by the Med-Arbiter, therefore, further shows the partiality of the respondent PALEA COMELEC members." — Supports invalidation of the special election and finding of partiality.

• Article 226, Labor Code — The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Code relations divisions of the regional offices have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts and all disputes arising from or affecting labor-management relations, except those arising from the implementation of collective bargaining agreements. Applied to uphold Med-Arbiter jurisdiction over the intra-union dispute.
• Policy Instruction No. 6 — Distributes jurisdiction over labor cases and places intra-union cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter Section of the Regional Office. Applied with Article 226 to affirm the Med-Arbiter's jurisdiction.
• Article 247, Labor Code — Makes it unlawful for any person to unduly interfere with employees and workers in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Cited by the BLR Director; the Court held that the right does not preclude Med-Arbiter jurisdiction where an intra-union conflict exists.
• Section 6, Article XIX, PALEA Constitution and By-Laws — A losing candidate may submit a written protest to the Commission on Election within 30 days after proclamation, and the Commission sitting en banc shall hear and decide the protest. Applied to bar Santos's protest after his concession and to require a formal hearing before resolution.
• Section 4, Article VII, PALEA Constitution and By-Laws — The Board of Inquiry created by the President has the sole power to investigate acts committed by any officer, member of the Board, or member of the Association, and the Board of Directors has the sole power to render decisions and impose penalties. Applied to find that internal remedies were exhausted because the Board refused to approve the Special Board of Inquiry.
• Right of workers to self-organization, Philippine Constitution — Cited by the BLR Director as assuring workers the right to self-organization and freedom of unions from employer and government interference. The Court held that this right presupposes the absence of an intra-union conflict and does not bar Med-Arbiter jurisdiction over the present intra-union dispute.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.