[109] DHL Philippines Corporation United Rank and File Association – 3.
3. However, after the said elections, the union members learned of the
Federation of Free Workers v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phils. Corp.
434 SCRA 670 | July 22, 2004 | Panganiban
Topic: Protest Period
SUMMARY
A certification election was held among the rank-and-file employees of DHL
Philippines Corporation, where DHL Philippines Corporation United Rank and File
Association garnered the majority vote. However, after the said election, 704 out of
894 union members withdrew their membership from the said union, alleging that the
union misrepresented itself as independent when it is in fact affiliated with the
Federation of Free Workers. The said union members then formed Buklod ng
Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD). BUKLOD, which has yet to
be granted a certificate of registration, filed a petition for nullification of certification
election beyond the 5-day protest period allowed by law. Pending the said petition,
the election officer issued a Certification Order in favor of DHL United.
The Court held that the election officer shouldn’t have issued the Certification Order
since the petition for nullification filed by BUKLOD is considered an election protest.
The rules on protest period cannot be strictly applied since BUKLOD, which
was only formed by the employees after they discovered DHL United’s fraud,
could not have reasonably filed its protest within 5 days from the close of the
election proceedings. Further, there is a valid ground for protest since the union
officers’ misrepresentation on the independence of the union prevented the
employees from making an intelligent and independent choice concerning the labor
organization that shall act on their behalf. Since there is a glaring shift in the
allegiances and loyalties of the employees, a new certification election was ordered to
ascertain who shall be the appropriate bargaining representative.
DOCTRINE
The late filing of an election protest/petition for nullification of election proceeding can
be excused under peculiar circumstances, such as when a valid ground for protest
came to the knowledge of the party-in-interest only after the lapse of the protest
period and the party concerned did not sleep on their rights but promptly acted to
protect their prerogatives.
Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to suppress the welfare of labor.
FACTS
1. DHL Philippines Corporation United Rank and File Association,
representing the regular rank and file employees in the main offices and regional
branches of DHL Philippines Corporation, filed a petition for certification
election.
2. November 25, 1997: The PCE was granted and a certification election
was held, where DHL United garnered 546 votes as opposed to the 348 votes for
“no union”.
union’s alleged fraud and deceit in the election proceedings. It
misrepresented itself as an independent union when it was in fact an affiliate of
the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). 
4. This alleged misrepresentation prompted a large number of the union
members (704 out of 894) to withdraw their membership from the union and
form an independent one, which they called Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL
Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD). BUKLOD then filed for a petition for union
registration. 
5. December 19, 1997: BUKLOD filed a petition for nullification of the
certification election on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation by the union
officers. 
6. December 23, 1997: Four days after BUKLOD filed a petition to annul the
election proceedings, they were issued a Certificate of Registration.
7. Notwithstanding the petition to annul the proceedings, the election officer,
on January 19, 1998, issued the Certification Order certifying DHL United as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the tank and file employees of
DHL Philippines.
8. Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, deciding on the BUKLOD’s petition for
nullification, nullified the Nov. 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the
holding of another one with the following contending choice: “DHL United”,
“BUKLOD”, or “no union”.
9. DHL United filed an appeal to the Secretary of Labor. The DOLE
Undersecretary, on behalf of the SOLE, reversed the Med-Arbiter and ruled that
the issue of representation had already been settled during the certification
election, where DHL United garnered the majority votes. Besides, no PCE would
be entertained within one year from the time the election officer had issued the
Certification Order.
10. The CA reversed the DOLE ruling, holding that the withdrawal of a
great majority of union members from DHL United (and the subsequent
creation of BUKLOD) provided a compelling reason to conduct a
certification election to determine which union reflected their choice. 
o The mere issuance of Certification Order did not resolve the issue
of representation given that after the election was held, members of the
union retracted their membership and filed a petition for nullification.
o The charges of fraud and deceit, lodged immediately after the
election by DHL United’s former members against their officers, should have
been treated as protests or issues of eligibility under the Rules
 Hence, this petition by DHL United, where they argue that:
o The CA decision was not valid:
 It was issued without giving the OSG (representing the
DOLE) the opportunity to file its comment on BUKLOD’s petition
 The dispositive portion or fallo of the decision failed to
specify what should be done by the parties after its promulgation.
 The Nov. 25, 1997 certification election is valid:
 BUKLOD lacked legal personality to contest the election
proceedings considering that it was not yet existing when the election
was held and was not yet even registered at the time the petition for
nullification was filed
  The protest was not raised before and during the
conduct of the certification election and was filed beyond the 5-day
protest period allowed by law
ISSUES, HELD, RATIO
1) W/N there was a violation of procedural due process - NO 
 DHL United argues that due process was violated when OSG was not given
the opportunity to file its comment. However, under Section 8 of Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, a Petition (certiorari in this case) may be resolved
notwithstanding the adverse party’s failure to file a comment. Its failure to do
so despite due notice is its own lookout and the court may decide on the
case on the basis of the records before it.
 DHL United insists that OSG failed to receive a copy of the BUKLOD Petition
filed before, thus its failure to file a comment thereon. Be that as it may, it is
the OSG, not the DHL United, who is the proper party to invoke such failure.
 As to the issue on the dispositive portion, all that the law requires is that
judgment must be definitive. That is, the rights of the parties just be stated
with finality by the decision itself, which thus specifically deny or grant the
remedy sought by the action.  could not have reasonably filed an election protest within 5
o In this case, since the CA stated in the dispositive portion of its
decision that it is reversing the undersecretary’s resolution, then it
is implied that it is reinstating the med-arbiter’s earlier decision to
conduct a new certification election. This is precisely because the
ultimate question presented before the appellate court was whether
a new certification election should be conducted.
2) W/N the November 25, 1997 certification election was valid – NO
 Under Section 13 of the Implementing Rules, the election officer’s authority
to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which there has
been no protest filed, or if there is a protest, it has not been perfected or
formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings.
 However, in this case, there is an election protest in the form of the petition
for nullification. Thus, under Section 14, when a protest has been
perfected, only the med arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner.
Considering the presence of an election protest, the election officer is
therefore in no position to certify DHL united as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent. An election officer’s functions is to conduct and supervise
certification elections; it is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and
decide representation cases.  opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioners officers in the
On Protest Period (relevant)
 Petitioner: argues that the CA gravely erred in rendering its assailed
Decision, considering that no protest or challenge had been formalized
within five days, or raised during the election proceedings and entered in the
minutes thereof. 
o Petitioner adds that respondent did not file any protest, either,
against the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the formers
officers during the election.
 SC: Disagreed with the petitioner. When the med-arbiter admitted and gave
due course to respondents Petition for nullification of the election
proceedings, the election officer should have deferred issuing the
Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing Rules
cannot strictly be applied to the present case.
 While the petition for nullification was indeed filed beyond the 5-day period,
there are peculiar circumstances in the present case which warrants a
non-strict application of Section 13 of the Implementing Rules.
o Employees had long desired to be represented by an independent
union. Believing that DHL United is one, they voted in favor of it,
only to learn later on that the said union is affiliated. Having been
misled, a majority of them eventually disaffiliated themselves and
formed an independent union. Having been formed just after
they discovered the union officer’s misrepresentation, they
days from the close of the proceedings. 
 Notably, after it had applied for registration with the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR), respondent filed its Petition to nullify the
certification election. Petitioner insistently opposed the Petition, as
respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration at
the time.
o Because such certificate was issued in favor of the latter four days
after the filing of the Petition, on December 23, 1997, the
misgivings of the former were brushed aside by the med-
arbiter. Indeed, the fact that respondent was not yet a duly
registered labor organization when the Petition was filed is of
no moment, absent any fatal defect in its application for
registration.
 The circumstances in the present case show that the
employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to
follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the
period for filing their protest should not be taken against
them. 
o Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare
of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an
opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor
organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this
present case, the employees were prevented from making an
intelligent and independent choice.
  Hence, even though the petition was filed beyond the 5-day
period, it cannot be said that the employees slept on their
rights.
o On the contrary, they filed a petition for nullification soon after
they had discovered the fraud and had applied for registration
of their newly-formed union. Their failure to follow strictly the
procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest
should not be taken against them.
On BUKLOD’s legal personality to file the petition
 The fact that BUKLOD was not yet a duly registered labor organization when
the Petition for nullification was filed (certificate of registration was issued
four days after filing of petition) is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in
its application of registration.  
On False Statement by Union Officers
 The making of a false statements or misrepresentations that interfere
with the free choice of any employee is a valid ground for protest. A
certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the
campaign, where:
o A material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign
o An opportunity for reply has been lacking
o The misrepresentation had an impact on the free choice of
employees participating in the election 🡪 it has an impact if it
comes from a party who has special knowledge or is in an
authoritative position to know the true facts, and the employees are
unable to evaluate the truth or falsity of the assertion.  which union should be the exclusive bargaining representative of
 In this case, the employees wanted an independent union to
represent them in collective bargaining, free from outside
interference. When the union officers of DHL United
represented the union as independent, even though in truth, it
is an affiliate of FFW, it constituted a substantial
misrepresentation of material facts. The employees would
have not voted in favor of DHL United had it known it was
affiliated. 
hardly be expected to verify the accuracy of any statement made to
them by its officers. No less than the president stated that it was an
independent union. At the time, the employees had no reason to
doubt him. 
 Furthermore, as found by the Med-Arbiter, DHL United failed to
refute the claims stated in the affidavits of the 704 disaffiliated
union members. The union’s defense was just an incredible and
vehement denial, thus giving rise to the presumption that it has
admitted to such allegations. With such admission, it is
inescapable that indeed there was fraud or machination
committed by the union that seriously affected the validity and
legitimacy of the certification election.
Therefore, although DHL United won in the election, it is clear that it
does not represent the majority of the bargaining employees, owing
the subsequent formation of and the affiliation of its former
members with BUKLOD. Thus, a new certification election should
be held to resolve the uncertainty as to which union has the
employees’ support to represent them for collective bargaining
purposes.
o The bargaining agent must be truly representative of the
employees. The purpose of a certification election is to therefore
ascertain the majority of the employees’ choice of an appropriate
bargaining unit – to be or not to be represented by a labor
organization and, in the affirmative case, by which.
o Thus, when disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a
certification election is the most expeditious way of determining
the employees. 
RULING: Petition denied.

 Further, the misrepresentation came from the union officers, the

DHL United’s recognized representative, who were clearly in a
position to hold themselves out as persons who had special
knowledge and were in an authoritative position to know the true
facts.

o DHL United cannot pass the blame to the employees for not
checking the accuracy of the union’s claims. The employees could