TANCINCO v. CALLEJA G.R. No. 78131

FACTS:

1.      Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-MEA.

2.      While said respondents were preparing to file a petition for direct certification of the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the union’s Vice-President, Carlos Dalmacio was promoted to the position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for union membership.

3.      Said incident, among others led to a strike spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents herein.

4.      Another group however, led by herein petitioners staged a strike inside the company premises.

5.      After four (4) days the strike was settled.

6.      An agreement was entered into by the representatives of the management, Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group the relevant terms of which are as follows:

“1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be United under one union, the ITM Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA), to be affiliated with ANGLO;

2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the monthly-paid employees;

3. That an election of union officers shall be held on 26 May l986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;

4. That the last day of filing of candidacy shall be on l9 May l986 at 4:00 p.m.;

5. That a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of qualified voters shall be held on 19 May 1986, at 5:00 p.m.;”

The election of officers was conducted under the supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question participated but whose votes were segregated without being counted.

Lacanilao’s group won. Lacanilao garnered 119 votes with a margin of three (3) votes over Tancinco prompting petitioners to make a protest.

Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the MOLE in San Fernando, Pampanga claiming that the determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the competence of ANGLO.

Private respondents maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of union’s membership is solely within their jurisdiction.

MOLE’s Med Arbiter issued an order directing the opening and counting of the segregated votes. The BLR however rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis but set aside the challenged order on the ground that 51 out of 56 challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of the election per the list submitted before the Bureau.

ISSUE: Whether the order of segregation (exclusion) of 56 votes of the petitioner’s union by the respondent is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:   Yes. Submission of the employee’s names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds no support in fact and in law. Per public respondent’s findings, the April 24, 1986 list consists of 158 union members only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters’ names do not appear. Adopting however a rough estimate of a total number of union members who cast their votes of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the union members are then public respondent should have also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters.

It is true that under article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only members of the union can participate in the election of union officers.

The question however of eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable payroll period.

In the case before us, considering that none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining the election by casting their votes on after the agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union.

They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof Said employees having exercised their right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA their decision is paramount. Their names could not have been included in the list of employee submitted on April 24, 1986 to the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join the union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was supervised by the Department of Labor where said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private respondents never challenged their right to vote then.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby made permanent. The questioned Resolution and the Decision are hereby set aside for being null and void and the Order of the Mediator Arbiter is hereby declared immediately executory.

DOCTRINE: Submission of the employee’s names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union’s officers.