Topic Appeal; Period

Case No. G.R. No. 92391. July 3, 1992

Case Name PHILIPPINE FRUITS & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES, INC. vs.
HON. TORRES (SoLE), and TRADE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS)

Ponente PARAS, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

 13 OCT 1988: Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed a petition for Certification Election (CE) among the
regular and seasonal workers of the Philippine Fruits and Vegetables, Inc
o Med-Arbiter Basa granted the petition.
 A series of pre-election conferences ensued, and all issues pertaining to the conduct of the CE were threshed out EXCEPT that
which pertains to the voting qualifications of the 194 workers enumerated in the list of qualified voters submitted by TUPAS.
 The parties submitted their position papers to the Med-Arbiter. Nonetheless, in an order dated 9 DEC 1988, Med-Arbiter Basa
allowed 184 of the 194 questioned workers to vote, subject to challenge, in the CE to be held on 16 DEC 1988. The notice of CE
was posted only on 12 DEC 1988.
 During the CE, 168 of the questioned voters actually voted on election day.
 In the scheduled CE (16 DEC 1988), petitioner filed a manifestation of protest. It objected to the proceeding, alleging that:
o The posting of the list of eligible voters authorized to participate in the CE was short of the 5 days provided by law
considering that it was posted only on 12 DEC 1988, and the CE was held 16 DEC 1988 w/c is only four days prior to the
scheduled CE.
 By agreement of petitioner and TUPAS, the workers whose names were inadvertently omitted in the list of qualified voters were
allowed to vote, subject to challenge. 38 of them voted on election day.
 Initial tally of the election results excluding the challenged votes showed:
o Total Votes: 291
o Yes: 40
o No: 38
o Spoiled: 7
o Challenged (Regular): 38
o Total Votes cast: 123
 Management and TUPAS agreed to have the 36 challenged votes of the regular rank-and-file employees opened and a canvass
thereof showed:
o Yes: 20
o No: 14
o Spoiled: 4
o Total: 38
 Thus, adding the challenged votes, the results are as follows:
o Yes: 60
o No: 52
o Spoiled: 11
o Total: 123
 Based on the results, the YES votes failed to obtain the majority vote in the CE, thus there was a need to open the 168
questioned voters to determine the true will of the employees.
o Petitioner argued that the votes should not be opened, because the voters were not regular employees nor seasonal
workers for having allegedly rendered work for less than 180 days.
o TUPAS, on the other hand, argued that the employment status of said employees has been resolved when LA promulgated
a decision which declared that said employees were illegally dismissed.
 Med-Arbiter Basa ordered the opening of said 168 challenged votes upon his observation that said employees were illegally
dismissed in accordance with the foregoing Decision of Labor Arbiter Martinez. As canvassed, the results showed:
o Yes: 165
o No: 0
o Spoiled: 3
o Total: 168
 This forced petitioner to file a formal protest
 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 23 FEB 1989 – Petitioner formally filed a Protest claiming that:
o the required 5 day posting of notice was not allegedly complied with and that
o the list of qualified voters so posted failed to include 55 regular workers agreed upon by the parties as qualified to vote.
o The Protest further alleged that ineligible voters were allowed to vote.
 Med-Arbiter Basa dismissed said Protest
 Order was affirmed on appeal by then Secretary of Labor, Franklin Drillon.
o Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit in public respondent’s Order…”
 Hence this petition.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the YES. Formal protest of petitioner PFVII was filed beyond the reglementary period.
protest was
belatedly filed GENERAL RULE:
Book V Rule VI Sec. 3 and 4 of the LC IRR states that:
Section 3. Representation officer may rule on any-on-the-spot questions.— The Representation officer
may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the election. The interested party
may however, file a protest with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings.
Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protest shall be contained in the minutes of the
proceedings.

Section 4. Protest to be decided in twenty (20) working days.—Where the protest is formalized before
the med-arbiter within five (5) days after the close of the election proceedings, the med-arbiter shall
decide the same within twenty (20) working days from the date of formalization. If not formalized
within the prescribed period, the protest shall be deemed dropped. The decision may be appealed to
the Bureau in the same manner and on the same grounds as provided under Rule V. (italics supplied)

Thus, as a matter of procedure, the requirements needed for a protest to prosper are:
(1) That the protest must be filed with the representation officer and made of record in the minutes of the
proceedings before the close of election proceedings, and
(2) That the protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days after the close of the
election proceedings.

APPLICATION:
petitioner, after filing a manifestation of protest on 16 DEC 1988, election day, only formalized the same on 20
DEC 1989, or more than two months after the close of election proceedings
- petitioner’s argument: election proceedings include not only casting of votes but ALSO includes
canvassing and appreciation of votes cast. Thus, since the canvassing and appreciation of all the votes
cast were terminated only on 16 FEB 1989, it was only then that the election proceedings are deemed
closed. Therefore, when the formal protest was filed on 20 FEB 1989, the 5-day period required by law
still subsisted and its protest was therefore formalized within the reglementary period.

- SC: the phrase “close of election proceedings” as used in the IRR refers to that period from the closing
of the polls to the counting and tabulation of the votes as it could not have been the intention of the
IRR to include the period for the final determination of the challenged votes and the canvass thereof, as
in the case at bar which may take a very long period.

o if a protest can be formalized within 5 days after a final determination and canvass of the
challenged votes have been made, it would result in an undue delay in the affirmation of the
employees’ expressed choice of a bargaining representative.

W/N the five- NO.

day period as
required a substantial number, or 291 of 322 qualified voters, of the employees concerned were informed of the
under Book V elections through the notices, and the employees had in fact voted accordingly on election day.
 Rule VI Sec 1
of the IRR was Viewed thus in the light of the substantial participation in the elections by voter- employees, and further in the
violated in this light of the all-too settled rule that in interpreting the Constitution’s protection to labor and social justice
case, since the provisions and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, SC adopts the
CE was liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights, We find the lack of one day in the posting of notices
conducted on insignificant, and hence, NOT a compelling reason at all in nullifying the elections.
16 DEC 1988
when notice
was only
made on 12
DEC 1988

W/N the NO. The SoLE didn’t disregard the issue as to the voting rights of the alleged separated employees. He actually
Secretary of affirmed the findings of the Med-Arbiter as seen on the ruling of the SoLE.
Labor
committed (SC) As a RULE: employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a present, unabandoned right to or
GAD when it expectation of re-employment, are eligible to vote in CE. Thus, and to repeat, if the dismissal is under question,
completely as in the case now at bar whereby a case of illegal dismissal and/or unfair labor practice was filed, the
disregarded employees concerned could still qualify to vote in the elections.
the issue of
whether the
non-regular The court also reiterates that: CE is the sole concern of the workers and the employer is regarded as nothing
workers more than a bystander with no right to interfere at all in the election. The only exception here is where the
employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it is
requested to bargain collectively. Thus, upon the score alone of the “Bystander Rule”, the instant petition would
have been dismissed outright.

RULING

WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.