G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990
EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO C. CASTRO, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and DELICANO PAJARES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Emmanuel Timbungco was the president of Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation. During the 60-day “freedom period” before the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement, a general membership meeting was convened on July 15, 1984. The body unanimously approved the union’s disaffiliation from its mother federation, amended its constitution and by-laws, and elected a new set of officers, with Timbungco re-elected as president. The minutes recorded that the members dispensed with forming a committee on elections and a formal tally sheet, opting instead for nominations and a listing of choices. Timbungco subsequently submitted the necessary documents to the Bureau of Labor Relations, which issued a new registration certificate. He then successfully negotiated a new three-year CBA with the company.
Nearly two years later, on April 23, 1986, private respondent Delicano Pajares filed a petition for the election of union officers, alleging the 1984 election was invalid. The Med-Arbiter and subsequently the Bureau of Labor Relations sustained the petition, declaring the 1984 election invalid due to the absence of a COMELEC and formal vote records, and ordered a new election.

ISSUE

Whether the election of union officers held on July 15, 1984 is valid, and whether the petition to nullify it was filed on time.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Court ruled that the 1984 election was valid. The legal logic is twofold. First, the technical informalities cited—the lack of a COMELEC and formal tally sheet—did not deprive any member of a substantial right, perpetrate fraud, or obstruct the ascertainment of the members’ will. The election reflected the unanimous choice of the attending membership. Second, and decisively, the protest was filed almost two years late, constituting laches. Implementing rules required election protests to be filed with the Med-Arbiter within five days. The prolonged inaction constituted tacit acceptance of the election’s regularity, especially given the significant intervening events: the union’s official disaffiliation and re-registration, the year-long negotiation of a new CBA, and the membership’s acceptance of benefits under that agreement. The Court held the respondents forfeited their right to challenge the election. The 1984 officers were reinstated to serve the remainder of their terms.