ALGIRE VS.

DE MESA (237 SCRA 647 [1994])

(CATALINO ALGIRE and OTHER OFFICERS OF UNIVERSAL ROBINA TEXTILE MONTHLY SALARIED
EMPLOYEES UNION (URTMSEU), petitioners, vs. REGALADO DE MESA, et al., and HON. SECRETARY OF
LABOR, respondents.)
G.R. No. 97622 October 19, 1994

NATURE (Petition for certiorari to nullify and set aside a decision of the Secretary of Labor)

FACTS:
 Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU), through respondent de
Mesa filed on September 4, 1990 a petition for the holding of an election of union officers with
the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

 DOLE’s med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz issued an Order dated October 19, 1990 directing that
such an election be held. In the pre-election conference, it was agreed that the Section 3, Rule V,
Implementing Rules and Regulations, election by secret ballot be conducted on November 16, 1990
between Catalino Algire, et al. (petitioner) and Regalado de Mesa, et al. (respondents) under the
supervision of DOLE through its duly appointed representation officer.

 In filling out the ballots, instructions were given to mark choices with either a check mark or an ‘X’
mark. There should also be no other markings on the ballot.

 De Mesa and Algire both got 133 votes each. Total votes cast were 272. 6 were declared as
spoiled ballots.-

 Algire filed a petition, alleging that one of the ballots which had two check marks was erroneously
declared to be a spoiled ballot. The checks supposedly made it clear as to the choice made by the
voter.

 The med-arbiter (De la Cruz) issued an order in Algire’s favor and certified the latter’s group to be
the unions validly elected officers.

 De Mesa appealed to the DOLE secretary which was granted. Another order for a new election of
officers was made by the Med-Arbiter and another pre-election conference was scheduled.

 Algire’s group filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit.

 Algire, et. al. contend that a representation officer (referring to a person duly authorized to conduct
and supervise certification elections in accordance with Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code) can validly rule only on on-the-spot questions arising from the
conduct of the elections, but the determination of the validity of the questioned ballot is not within his
competence.

ISSUE:

WON the act of the DOLE secretary in denying Algire’s motion was in excess of its authority since the
case is an intra-union activity.

SC RULING:

NO. The certification election was an agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of
majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and
distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election.

Reasoning:
-What is at question in this case was a consent election, not a certification election.

-If indeed petitioner’s group had any opposition to the representation officer’s ruling that the
questioned ballot was spoiled, it should have done so seasonably during the canvass of votes. Its failure or
inaction to assail such ballot’s validity shall be deemed a waiver of any defect or irregularity arising from
said election.

Disposition

Petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is hereby AFFIRMED.