G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992
PHILIPPINE FRUITS AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and TRADE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS), respondents.

FACTS

On October 13, 1988, Med-Arbiter Danilo T. Basa granted a petition for certification election filed by respondent Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) among the regular and seasonal workers of petitioner Philippine Fruits and Vegetable Industries, Inc. (PFVII). A certification election was scheduled for December 16, 1988. The notice of election was posted on December 12, 1988, four days before the election, instead of the required five days. During the election, petitioner PFVII filed a Manifestation objecting to the proceedings, citing the insufficient posting period. The initial tally of votes, excluding challenged votes, showed 40 “Yes” votes, 38 “No” votes, 7 spoiled votes, and 38 challenged votes from regular employees, for a total of 123 votes cast. The 38 challenged regular votes were later opened, adding 20 “Yes” and 14 “No” votes, bringing the total to 60 “Yes” and 52 “No” votes. Since the “Yes” votes did not constitute a majority of the 123 votes cast, it became necessary to open 168 other challenged votes from workers whose employment status was disputed. These 168 workers had been declared illegally dismissed by a Labor Arbiter in a separate decision dated November 26, 1988. Upon opening, these votes showed 165 “Yes,” 0 “No,” and 3 spoiled votes. On February 23, 1989, petitioner PFVII formally filed a Protest, challenging the election on grounds of insufficient posting and the inclusion of ineligible voters. Med-Arbiter Basa dismissed the Protest in an Order dated March 7, 1989, which was affirmed on appeal by the Secretary of Labor in a Resolution dated December 12, 1989. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on February 8, 1990.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Secretary of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the certification of TUPAS as the sole bargaining agent based on the ruling that the protest against the canvassing of votes cast by 168 dismissed workers was filed beyond the reglementary period.
2. Whether the Secretary of Labor committed an abuse of discretion in disregarding the issue of whether non-regular seasonal workers who had been separated from employment prior to the filing of the petition for certification election should be allowed to vote.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that petitioner’s formal protest was filed beyond the reglementary period. Under Sections 3 and 4, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, a protest must be filed with the representation officer before the close of election proceedings and formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five days after the close of the election proceedings. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the “close of election proceedings” refers to the period from the closing of the polls to the counting and tabulation of votes, not the final determination of challenged votes. Petitioner filed its manifestation on election day, December 16, 1988, but only formalized the protest on February 20, 1989, more than two months later, which was beyond the five-day period. The Court also found the one-day deficiency in the posting of the election notice (posted four days instead of five days before the election) to be insignificant, as 291 of 322 qualified voters were informed and participated substantially in the election. Applying the liberal approach in favor of labor rights, this minor procedural lapse did not warrant nullifying the election.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the Secretary of Labor did not disregard the issue concerning the voting rights of the separated employees. It is well-settled that employees who have been improperly laid off but retain a present, unabandoned right to or expectation of re-employment are eligible to vote in certification elections. Since the dismissal of the 168 workers was under question (having been declared illegal by a Labor Arbiter), they qualified to vote. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the “Bystander Rule,” stating that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer has no right to interfere, except in specific instances not applicable here.