Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) v. Noriel

Failure of Election, Run-off Election, Re-run Election

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Algire v. De MesaPrevious case

Primary source ↗

Case DigestWeek 5 - The Right to Self-Organization

Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) v. Noriel

G.R. No. L-56902 · September 21, 1982 · Second Division

Failure of Election, Run-off Election, Re-run Election

Petitioner: Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) and Redson Employees and Laborers AssociationRespondent: Hon. Carmelo C. Noriel, Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations; Margarita C. Enriquez, Election Supervisor; and Associated Labor Unions (ALU)

Gist

No union having won a majority in the first certification election at Redson Textile, CCLU and ALU agreed to a run-off. On the day, the company's guards refused to let the DOLE election supervisors in, so the balloting was held in a small store outside the compound using a carton box for ballots; only 692 of 1,010 workers voted, night-shift and some afternoon-shift employees never got out to vote, and unions handed out T-shirts and free tricycle rides. ALU won by 53 votes, promptly withdrew its own written protest, and was certified. The Supreme Court set the certification aside and ordered another run-off inside the company premises.

Core Doctrine

"The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer" — and that purpose is defeated where "many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election." An election attended by disfranchisement, loss of ballot secrecy, election supervisors "remiss in their duties" and overzealous vote-buying tactics is invalid, and the technicality that the losing union's protest was filed a day late will not save it where the winning union had raised the very same grounds during the election.

Note: The workbook gives this case no date; the published decision is dated September 21, 1982. The caption reads "Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU)," but the opening of the decision calls the petitioner "Confederation of Labor Unions (CCLU)," dropping "Citizens"; reproduced as printed. There is also a date discrepancy in the disposition: the body states that Noriel denied reconsideration "in his resolution of March 26, 1981," while the dispositive portion sets aside "the resolutions... dated February 26 and March 19, 1981." Both are reproduced as published. On numbering: Article 256 of the Labor Code, which governs run-off elections, is now Article 268 under DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, s. 2015. Note finally that this decision is the authority National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor cites for the proposition that a certification election will be invalidated "upon a showing of disfranchisement, lack of secrecy in the voting and bribery."

Facts

Four unions — CCLU, ALU, NATU and GATCORD — sought certification among the employees of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, Pasig.
On August 7, 1980 a certification election was held inside the company premises. Of 831 votes: CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82, GATCORD 42. No majority.
At a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 the two highest agreed to a run-off on November 6, 1980, six in the morning to six in the evening. "CCLU requested that the election be conducted for two days but ALU objected." The refusal of a second day is what leaves the night shift out.
On November 6, 1980 the election supervisors arrived about seven in the morning "but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain." They held the balloting "outside the premises of the company in a small store," using "an improvised carton box" as ballot box. Voting started at eleven — five hours late — and closed at six-thirty.
During the election and just before it closed, ALU's own representative Sebastian P. Taneo filed a written protest: management "did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises"; it "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting by not allowing them to get out … and inducing them to work overtime"; its guards "manhandled" ALU's vice-president, causing "chaos and confusion"; and it "refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot box."
The canvass gave ALU 366 and CCLU 313 of 692 votes — a margin of 53. There were 1,010 voters, so about 318 did not vote.
"Because ALU won, its representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest" on the minutes. CCLU's representatives refused to sign them.
On November 7, 1980 — the next day — CCLU protested to the BLR: "no booths were provided," the election "started much later than the hour agreed upon," and ALU "distributed white T-shirts printed with 'ALU TAYO,' gave free tricycle rides… and hired around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who 'forced' voters to vote for ALU." When CCLU protested to supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez during the voting, "the latter allegedly retorted, 'Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo.'"
On February 26, 1981, Carmelo C. Noriel dismissed the protest, CCLU having failed to protest "before or during the election proceeding" and so being "deemed to have waived its right." Reconsideration was denied and ALU certified. Decided September 21, 1982.

Issue

Is the run-off certification election valid, where the night shift and part of the afternoon shift could not vote, the polling was held outside company premises without booths and with an improvised carton box, the supervisors were remiss and apparently intimidated, and the unions campaigned at the polls with T-shirts, free rides and hired crowds?

Secondary issue. Whether CCLU waived its right to protest by not filing one "before or during the election proceeding," given that ALU had filed a timely written protest on the same grounds and then withdrew it after winning.

Ancillary issue. The employer's responsibility, its guards having barred the supervisors and kept workers inside on overtime.

Ruling

The election is invalid. "We hold that the certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift … and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote; (2) the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded; (3) the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently 'intimidated' by a union representative; and (4) the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts."

Secondary issue. The technicality must yield. "ALU's written protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time."

Ancillary issue. The purpose of the election "was not achieved … because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."

"WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 are hereby set aside. Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court set out the duties Section 6, Rule VI imposes: inspection of "the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting," with the parties given opportunity to witness it, and the box locked with three keys held by the officer and the parties "until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved."
Against those requirements it listed four irregularities and held the election invalid.
It then measured the result against the object of the exercise: "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer.' That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."
On the waiver defense — the ground on which both Noriel and the Solicitor General stood — the Court pointed to the protest that had been made in time. This is the move the case is assigned for: the objection was before the election officer, whoever put it there.
The record made the point vivid. Taneo's protest, executed "during the election and just before it was closed," alleged the very matters CCLU would raise — exclusion from the premises, workers prevented from voting and induced to work overtime, guards manhandling a union officer, no polling place or ballot box furnished — and he withdrew it, on the minutes, only "[b]ecause ALU won."
The remedy addresses each defect in turn: another run-off inside the premises, management ordered to allow all its employees to participate and to assist, and the supervisors enjoined to fulfill their duties.

Doctrine

Purpose test. "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer,'" and that purpose fails where many could not vote and "the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance." Grounds invalidating an election — "irregularities such as" — disfranchisement of workers on shifts unable to reach the polls, failure to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, supervisors remiss in their duties or "intimidated" by a party, and unions overzealous in wooing voters with free rides and T-shirts. Section 6, Rule VI requires pre-voting inspection "to insure secrecy of balloting" and a ballot box locked with three keys "until all the controversies … shall have been definitely resolved." Waiver is not a technicality to be applied blindly: it must yield where another party filed a timely protest on the same grounds, even one later withdrawn. Remedy: where a run-off has failed, another run-off, inside the employer's premises, with the employer ordered to allow participation and assist.

Limits. The list of irregularities is expressly open — "irregularities such as" — so it illustrates a standard, not elements. The unions' own failure to object to the improvised polling place and carton ballot box did not save the election: Section 6 protects the employees' secret ballot, and the contending unions had no authority to waive it. The employer's conduct was material even though an employer is ordinarily a bystander — the point being obstruction rather than partisanship, a distinction National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor would later draw explicitly. The waiver holding is narrow and fact-bound: CCLU was rescued because ALU had raised the identical grounds during the proceedings, so the election officer had them before him in time; where nobody objects seasonably the waiver stands — see Algire v. De Mesa. The remedy is a re-run, not certification of the runner-up: the vice is that the unit has not been heard, and the only cure is to hear it. Renumbering: Article 256 (run-off elections) is now Article 268. Date caveat: the body gives the reconsideration as March 26, 1981, the fallo as March 19, 1981; both reproduced as published.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Four unions contested certification at Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation in Pasig. The first election on 7 August 1980 gave CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82 and GATCORD 42 of 831 votes — no majority — so CCLU and ALU agreed to a run-off on 6 November 1980, CCLU's request for a two-day election having been refused by ALU. On the day, the company's security guard would not let the MLE election supervisors into the compound "in spite of the heavy rain," so they held the balloting "outside the premises of the company in a small store," using "an improvised carton box" for ballots. Only 692 of 1,010 workers voted; the night shift and part of the afternoon shift never got out. ALU won by 53, whereupon its representative withdrew the written protest he had filed during the election. CCLU protested the next day and was told it had waived the right. The Supreme Court set the certification aside. The election was invalid for four irregularities — disfranchisement, loss of secrecy, supervisors "remiss in their duties" and "intimidated," and unions "overzealous in wooing the employees" with T-shirts and free tricycle rides. The purpose of the election was not achieved, and ALU's own timely protest on the same grounds should have alerted the Bureau to disregard CCLU's lateness.

Facts

Petitioner Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) was one of four unions seeking certification as bargaining representative of the employees of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, Brixton Hill Street, Capitolyo, Pasig. Its co-petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association (RELA-CCLU), is a CCLU local in the corporation. The others were GATCORD, NATU and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU).
On August 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the premises of the corporation from 8:20 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Of 831 votes cast: CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82, GATCORD 42, with 8 spoiled and 5 challenged or segregated.
No union having obtained a majority, CCLU and ALU — the two highest — "agreed in a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 that a run-off election would be held on November 6, 1980 from six o'clock in the morning to six o'clock in the evening." CCLU requested that the election be conducted for two days but ALU objected. The refusal of a second day is what leaves the night shift out.
On November 6, 1980, election supervisors Margarita C. Enriquez, Reynaldo F. de Luna and "one Francisco" arrived near the Redson compound at around seven in the morning "but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain."
After consulting their chief by telephone, the supervisors "decided to hold the certification election 'outside the premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex building,'" and "used as ballot box 'an improvised carton box.'" The union representatives did not object to the improvised polling place and ballot box — and the election was invalidated all the same.
Voting started at eleven o'clock — five hours after the agreed opening — and closed at six-thirty in the evening.
During the election and just before it closed, ALU's representative Sebastian P. Taneo executed a written protest, alleging that the management "did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises"; that the company "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting by not allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing them to work overtime"; that its security guards "manhandled" ALU's vice-president and their "active intervention" caused "chaos and confusion" for around thirty minutes; that the company "refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot box"; and that the supervisors closed the election over ALU's objection. He prayed that the votes not be counted and another day be scheduled.
At around seven-thirty in the evening the votes were canvassed. Of 692 votes cast, ALU 366 and CCLU 313 — a margin of 53. There were 1,010 voters, so about 318 did not vote.
"Because ALU won, its representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn 'before the close of the proceedings.'" CCLU's representatives refused to sign the minutes.
On November 7, 1980 — the following day — CCLU, through Juan L. Fresnoza, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a protest praying that the election be annulled, alleging that it was "irregular and disorderly" because "no booths were provided for by the company"; the election "started much later than the hour agreed upon"; and ALU "distributed white T-shirts printed with 'ALU TAYO,' gave free tricycle rides to ALU voters and hired around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who 'forced' voters to vote for ALU."
Fresnoza further alleged that when he and Oscar Sanchez, acting president of RELA-CCLU, protested those activities to supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez, "the latter allegedly retorted, 'Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo.'"
On November 10, 1980, Fresnoza and Sanchez filed a joint affidavit adding that when they protested, the supervisors told them to "place their protest in writing so that they (supervisors) could consolidate the protests in their election report."
On February 19, 1981, CCLU informed the Bureau that the election was conducted without regard to Section 6, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
On February 26, 1981, Carmelo C. Noriel, Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit, observing that CCLU "failed to submit the pleadings and evidences required in the hearing on January 19, 1981" and "failed to file a protest either 'before or during the election proceeding'" so that under Section 3, Rule VI it "is deemed to have waived its right to protest."
On March 26, 1981 (the dispositive portion gives March 19, 1981), Noriel denied reconsideration and certified ALU as exclusive bargaining representative. On June 6, 1981, CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, decided September 21, 1982.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners CCLU and RELA-CCLU. They sought annulment of the run-off, complaining that it was "irregular and disorderly": no booths were provided; it began hours late; ALU campaigned at the polls with T-shirts, free tricycle rides and hired crowds that "forced" voters; and the election supervisor brushed their objections aside with "Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo." They invoked Section 6, Rule VI, Book V, under which the representation officer must inspect the polling place, ballot boxes and booths "to insure secrecy of balloting" and lock the box with three keys.

B. Respondents Noriel, Enriquez and ALU. The Bureau held that CCLU had "failed to file a protest either 'before or during the election proceeding'" and so had waived its right under Section 3, Rule VI, and that it had failed to submit the pleadings and evidence required at the hearing of 19 January 1981. The Solicitor General likewise "contends that the certification election should be upheld because CCLU, by not filing a protest with the election supervisor before the close of the election proceeding, waived its right to protest." ALU, having won, had withdrawn the protest it filed during the balloting.

C. Common Ground. It was undisputed that the supervisors were refused entry to the company premises; that the election was consequently held in a small store outside the annex building with a carton box for ballots; that voting began at eleven rather than at six; that 692 of 1,010 eligible workers voted; that ALU won by 53; that ALU filed a written protest during the election and withdrew it after winning; and that CCLU protested the following day.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered). Is the run-off certification election valid, where the workers on the night shift and some of the afternoon shift could not vote, the polling was conducted outside company premises without booths and with an improvised carton box, the election supervisors were remiss and apparently intimidated, and the contending unions campaigned at the polls with T-shirts, free rides and hired crowds?

B. Secondary Issues. Whether CCLU waived its right to protest by not filing one "before or during the election proceeding" under Section 3, Rule VI, Book V, given that ALU had filed a timely written protest on the same grounds and then withdrew it after winning.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues. The employer's responsibility, its guards having barred the election supervisors and, on ALU's protest, kept workers inside the premises on overtime.

Ruling

Main Issue: The election is invalid. "We hold that the certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift... and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote; (2) the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded; (3) the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently 'intimidated' by a union representative and (4) the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts." Secondary Issue: the technicality must yield. "ALU's written protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time." Ancillary Issue: the purpose of the election "was not achieved... because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

"WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 are hereby set aside. Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court set out the duties Section 6, Rule VI imposes on a representation officer — inspection of "the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting," with the parties given opportunity to witness it, and the box locked with three keys held by the officer and the parties "until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved."
Against those requirements it listed four irregularities, holding the election invalid: the night-shift and some afternoon-shift workers could not vote, "out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote"; "the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded"; "the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently 'intimidated' by a union representative"; and "the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts."
It then measured the result against the object of the exercise: "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer.' That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."
On the waiver defense — the ground on which both Noriel and the Solicitor General stood — the Court pointed to the protest that had been made in time: "It should be noted that ALU's written protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time."
The record made the point vivid. Taneo's protest, executed "during the election and just before it was closed," alleged the very matters CCLU would raise — exclusion from the premises, workers prevented from voting and induced to work overtime, guards manhandling a union officer, no polling place or ballot box furnished — and he withdrew it, on the minutes, only "[b]ecause ALU won."
The remedy the Court fashioned addresses each defect in turn: "[a]nother run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same."

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles. "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer,'" and that purpose fails "because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election." A certification election is invalid where attended by irregularities such as disfranchisement of workers on shifts unable to reach the polls, failure to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, election supervisors remiss in their duties or "intimidated" by a party, and unions overzealous in wooing voters by giving free rides and T-shirts. Under Section 6, Rule VI, Book V, the representation officer must inspect the polling place, ballot boxes and booths before voting "to insure secrecy of balloting," and the ballot box must be locked with three keys held by the officer and the parties "until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved." The waiver rule in Section 3, Rule VI must not be applied as a "technicality" where another party filed a timely protest on the same grounds, even if that protest was later withdrawn. Where a run-off has failed, the remedy is another run-off, conducted inside the employer's premises with the employer ordered to allow all employees to participate and to assist.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications. The list of irregularities is expressly open — "irregularities such as" — so it illustrates a standard rather than supplying elements. Note that the unions' own failure to object to the improvised polling place and carton ballot box did not save the election: the requirements of Section 6 protect the employees' secret ballot, and the contending unions had no authority to waive them. Note too that the employer's conduct was material even though an employer is ordinarily a bystander — the point being obstruction rather than partisanship, a distinction National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor would later draw explicitly. On waiver, the holding is narrow and depends on its facts: CCLU was rescued because ALU had raised the identical grounds during the proceedings, so the election officer had them before him in time. Where nobody objects seasonably, the waiver stands — see Algire v. De Mesa. Finally, the remedy is a re-run of the run-off, not certification of the runner-up: the vice is that the unit has not been heard, and the only cure is to hear it.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory). Classified DIRECT. The syllabus assigns this case at item 28 under item 7.h — "failure of election, run-off election, re-run election" — and the decision is a study of that whole sequence: a first election producing no majority among four unions, an agreed run-off between the top two, the failure of that run-off, and an order for another one. It is also the source of the invalidating grounds that recur throughout the week's certification cases, and is cited for exactly that in National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor at items 19 and 26. Read it with National Union of Workers in Hotels-Manila Pavilion v. SOLE at item 21 for the modern statement of when a run-off is required and between whom; with Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer-Calleja for the voting rights of workers the employer has kept from the polls; and with Algire v. De Mesa at item 27, whose waiver holding this case bounds from the other side.

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision, penned by Justice Aquino, was concurred in by Justices Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and De Castro. Justices Guerrero and Escolin took no part.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 6, Rule VI, Book V, Implementing Rules

Duties of representation officer

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule VI

SEC. 6. Duties of representation officer. — Before the actual voting commences the representation officer shall inspect the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting. The parties shall be given opportunity to witness the inspection proceedings. After the examination of the ballot box, the representation officer shall lock it with three keys one of which he shall keep and the rest forthwith given one each to the employer's representative and the representative of the labor organization. If more than one union is involved, the holder of the third shall be determined by drawing of lots. The key shall remain in the possession of the representation officer and the parties during the entire proceedings and thereafter until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved.

Why it is cited here

Read the section against what actually happened and the case decides itself.

The officer must "inspect the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting." There was no polling place — the supervisors, refused entry by the company's security guard "in spite of the heavy rain," held the election "outside the premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex building." There were no booths: CCLU's protest complained that "no booths were provided for by the company." And there was no ballot box in the sense the section contemplates — they "used as ballot box 'an improvised carton box.'"

The three-key requirement is the section's most striking feature and repays attention as a piece of institutional design. One key to the representation officer, one to the employer's representative, one to a union representative chosen by lot where more than one union is involved; and all three "shall remain in the possession of the representation officer and the parties during the entire proceedings and thereafter until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved." No single party can open the box alone, and custody survives the count for as long as any dispute lasts. A carton box has no locks and no keys.

Two further points are worth noting. First, the section imposes these duties on the representation officer, and the Court's finding that "the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently 'intimidated' by a union representative" is a finding of exactly that failure. Second, the union representatives "did not object to the improvised polling place and ballot box" — and the election was invalidated anyway, because the requirements protect the employees' secret ballot, not merely the unions' procedural convenience, and the unions had no power to waive them away.

Jurisprudence

The purpose of a certification election

True representation in collective bargaining

51 C.J.S. 969, as adopted in this decision

The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer." That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election.

Why it is cited here

This is the standard the whole decision is measured against, and the second sentence shows how it is applied — by asking not whether rules were broken but whether the purpose was served.

"True representation" carries two ideas at once. The representation must be genuine — the union certified must actually be the one the workforce wants — and it must be representative — it must speak for the unit rather than for whichever fraction of it managed to reach the ballot. Here 318 of 1,010 eligible workers never voted, "the workers on the night shift (ten p.m. to six a.m.) and some of those in the afternoon shift" among them.

The Court's second clause is unusual and worth dwelling on: the employer "through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election." An employer is ordinarily a bystander in a certification election — Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer-Calleja and San Miguel Foods both insist on a "strict, hands-off stance." But bystanding is not the same as obstruction. The company's guards turned the election supervisors away at the gate, furnished no polling place, no booths and no ballot box, and — on ALU's own protest — "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting by not allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing them to work overtime."

The reconciliation is the one National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor would later state directly: what an employer may not do is interfere "for the purpose of influencing [the] outcome," while "an employer has an abiding interest in seeing to it that the election is clean, peaceful, orderly and credible." Neutrality means not taking sides; it does not mean locking the gate on the process. An election an employer has made impossible is not an election it can then insist be respected.

Jurisprudence

Grounds invalidating a certification election

The four irregularities the Court found

Stated in this decision

We hold that the certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities such as that (1) the workers on the night shift (ten p.m. to six a.m.) and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote; (2) the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded; (3) the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently "intimidated" by a union representative and (4) the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts.

Why it is cited here

This list is the reason the case is cited across the Week 5 certification-election group — it is the Supreme Court's own enumeration of what makes an election void, and National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor later summarises it as "disfranchisement, lack of secrecy in the voting and bribery."

Take the four in turn.

(1) Disfranchisement. The figures are the point: 1,010 eligible, 692 voted, "about 318 failed to vote," including the entire night shift (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and part of the afternoon shift. A run-off scheduled from six in the morning to six in the evening, at a store outside a compound the workers could not leave, was never going to reach a workforce running three shifts. CCLU had asked that the election be conducted over two days; ALU objected.

(2) Loss of secrecy. No booths, a carton box for ballots, a small store for a polling place — the physical conditions <Prov id="rule-vi-sec-6">Section 6</Prov> exists to prevent.

(3) Supervisors remiss and "intimidated." This is the most serious of the four, because the supervisors are the safeguard for the other three. CCLU's account is that when it protested the campaigning to supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez, she replied, "Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo" — I can do nothing, Mr. Taneo will be angry again. An election officer who defers to a union representative has ceased to supervise.

(4) Overzealous wooing. "[G]iving free tricycle rides and T-shirts" printed "ALU TAYO," together with "around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who 'forced' voters to vote for ALU."

Two features of the list deserve emphasis. It is expressly not exhaustive — "irregularities such as" — so these are illustrations of a standard, not elements of a test. And the fourth ground is chargeable to the unions themselves, not to the employer: an election can be invalidated by the misconduct of the party that won it.

Jurisprudence

Waiver of protest, and when a technicality yields

Why CCLU's late protest did not defeat it

Section 3, Rule VI, Book V, Implementing Rules; applied in this decision

It should be noted that ALU's written protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time.

Section 3, Rule VI, Book V — under which the Bureau held CCLU to have waived its right — is quoted in full in National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor: an interested party may protest "before the close of the proceedings," and "[p]rotests not so raised are deemed waived."

Why it is cited here

The procedural posture is the most instructive thing about this case, and it turns on a manoeuvre worth understanding.

ALU's representative Sebastian P. Taneo filed a written protest during the election and just before it closed, alleging that the company barred the run-off from its premises, "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting," that its guards "manhandled" ALU's vice-president and caused "chaos and confusion" for around thirty minutes, that the company furnished no polling place or ballot box, and that the supervisors closed the election over ALU's objection. He asked that the votes not be counted and another day be scheduled.

Then the votes were canvassed and ALU won by 53. "Because ALU won, its representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that his protest... was withdrawn 'before the close of the proceedings.'" CCLU's representatives refused to sign the minutes, and filed their own protest the following day.

The Bureau then dismissed CCLU's protest on the ground that it "failed to file a protest either 'before or during the election proceeding'" and so "is deemed to have waived its right to protest" under Section 3, Rule VI.

The Court's answer is that a protest had been filed in time — by ALU, on the same grounds — and that its tactical withdrawal after a favourable count could not erase it: "[t]hat fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time."

The principle: the waiver rule exists to ensure that irregularities are raised while they can be addressed, not to reward a party that raises them, wins anyway, and then unsays them. Where the grounds were before the election officer during the proceedings, the purpose of the rule is served whoever put them there. Compare Algire v. De Mesa, where nobody objected at the canvass and the waiver held; and National Federation of Labor v. Secretary of Labor, where the complainants could not have objected because they were never at the polls.

Jurisprudence

The run-off election

When a run-off is held, and how this one went wrong

Article 256, Labor Code; the practice applied in this decision

As no union obtained a majority vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the two largest number of votes, agreed in a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 that a run-off election would be held on November 6, 1980 from six o'clock in the morning to six o'clock in the evening. CCLU requested that the certification election be conducted for two days but ALU objected to that request.

Article 256 of the Labor Code, which governs run-off elections, is now Article 268 under DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, series of 2015. For the modern statement of when a run-off is required, see National Union of Workers in Hotels-Manila Pavilion v. SOLE.

Why it is cited here

This case is the Week 5 syllabus's assigned authority on failure of election, run-off and re-run elections, and its whole shape is a sequence of failures.

The first election — 7 August 1980, from 8:20 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. inside the company's own premises — produced no majority among four contending unions: CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82, GATCORD 42, out of 831 votes cast, with 8 spoiled and 5 segregated. Because no choice reached a majority of the valid votes, the two leaders went to a run-off — the same mechanism applied in National Union of Workers in Hotels-Manila Pavilion v. SOLE.

The run-off was fixed by agreement at the pre-election conference of 2 September 1980 for 6 November 1980, six in the morning to six in the evening. Note the detail that turns out to matter: "CCLU requested that the certification election be conducted for two days but ALU objected to that request." A single day, in a plant running a night shift from ten p.m. to six a.m., was never going to enfranchise everyone — and 318 workers duly did not vote.

The result was ALU 366, CCLU 313 of 692 cast — a margin of 53 in an electorate of 1,010, with 318 unheard. The disfranchised outnumbered the margin by six to one, which is why the outcome could not be allowed to stand whatever the merits of the individual irregularities.

The remedy is another run-off, and the Court's order is unusually specific about how it is to be held: "[a]nother run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties." Each clause answers one of the four irregularities — the venue answers the store outside the gate, the direction to management answers the guards and the overtime, and the injunction to the supervisors answers their deference to Mr. Taneo.

Cited laws & provisions

Section 6, Rule VI, Book V, Implementing Rules

Implementing Rules

Duties of representation officer

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule VI

Why it is cited here

Read the section against what actually happened and the case decides itself.

Full entry below ↓

The purpose of a certification election

Jurisprudence

True representation in collective bargaining

51 C.J.S. 969, as adopted in this decision

Why it is cited here

This is the standard the whole decision is measured against, and the second sentence shows how it is applied — by asking not whether rules were broken but whether the purpose was served.

Full entry below ↓

Grounds invalidating a certification election

Jurisprudence

The four irregularities the Court found

Stated in this decision

Why it is cited here

Take the four in turn.

(2) Loss of secrecy. No booths, a carton box for ballots, a small store for a polling place — the physical conditions <Prov id="rule-vi-sec-6">Section 6</Prov> exists to prevent.

Full entry below ↓

Waiver of protest, and when a technicality yields

Jurisprudence

Why CCLU's late protest did not defeat it

Section 3, Rule VI, Book V, Implementing Rules; applied in this decision

Why it is cited here

The procedural posture is the most instructive thing about this case, and it turns on a manoeuvre worth understanding.

Full entry below ↓

The run-off election

Jurisprudence

When a run-off is held, and how this one went wrong

Article 256, Labor Code; the practice applied in this decision

Why it is cited here

This case is the Week 5 syllabus's assigned authority on failure of election, run-off and re-run elections, and its whole shape is a sequence of failures.

Full entry below ↓

Facts

Four unions — CCLU, ALU, NATU and GATCORD — sought certification among the employees of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, Pasig.
On August 7, 1980 a certification election was held inside the company premises. Of 831 votes: CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82, GATCORD 42. No majority.
At a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 the two highest agreed to a run-off on November 6, 1980, six in the morning to six in the evening. "CCLU requested that the election be conducted for two days but ALU objected." The refusal of a second day is what leaves the night shift out.
On November 6, 1980 the election supervisors arrived about seven in the morning "but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain." They held the balloting "outside the premises of the company in a small store," using "an improvised carton box" as ballot box. Voting started at eleven — five hours late — and closed at six-thirty.
During the election and just before it closed, ALU's own representative Sebastian P. Taneo filed a written protest: management "did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises"; it "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting by not allowing them to get out … and inducing them to work overtime"; its guards "manhandled" ALU's vice-president, causing "chaos and confusion"; and it "refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot box."
The canvass gave ALU 366 and CCLU 313 of 692 votes — a margin of 53. There were 1,010 voters, so about 318 did not vote.
"Because ALU won, its representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest" on the minutes. CCLU's representatives refused to sign them.
On November 7, 1980 — the next day — CCLU protested to the BLR: "no booths were provided," the election "started much later than the hour agreed upon," and ALU "distributed white T-shirts printed with 'ALU TAYO,' gave free tricycle rides… and hired around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who 'forced' voters to vote for ALU." When CCLU protested to supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez during the voting, "the latter allegedly retorted, 'Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo.'"
On February 26, 1981, Carmelo C. Noriel dismissed the protest, CCLU having failed to protest "before or during the election proceeding" and so being "deemed to have waived its right." Reconsideration was denied and ALU certified. Decided September 21, 1982.

Issue

Ancillary issue. The employer's responsibility, its guards having barred the supervisors and kept workers inside on overtime.

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 are hereby set aside. Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court set out the duties Section 6, Rule VI imposes: inspection of "the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting," with the parties given opportunity to witness it, and the box locked with three keys held by the officer and the parties "until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved."
Against those requirements it listed four irregularities and held the election invalid.
It then measured the result against the object of the exercise: "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer.' That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."
On the waiver defense — the ground on which both Noriel and the Solicitor General stood — the Court pointed to the protest that had been made in time. This is the move the case is assigned for: the objection was before the election officer, whoever put it there.
The record made the point vivid. Taneo's protest, executed "during the election and just before it was closed," alleged the very matters CCLU would raise — exclusion from the premises, workers prevented from voting and induced to work overtime, guards manhandling a union officer, no polling place or ballot box furnished — and he withdrew it, on the minutes, only "[b]ecause ALU won."
The remedy addresses each defect in turn: another run-off inside the premises, management ordered to allow all its employees to participate and to assist, and the supervisors enjoined to fulfill their duties.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

Petitioner Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) was one of four unions seeking certification as bargaining representative of the employees of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation, Brixton Hill Street, Capitolyo, Pasig. Its co-petitioner, the Redson Employees and Laborers Association (RELA-CCLU), is a CCLU local in the corporation. The others were GATCORD, NATU and the Associated Labor Unions (ALU).
On August 7, 1980, a certification election was held in the premises of the corporation from 8:20 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Of 831 votes cast: CCLU 356, ALU 338, NATU 82, GATCORD 42, with 8 spoiled and 5 challenged or segregated.
No union having obtained a majority, CCLU and ALU — the two highest — "agreed in a pre-election conference on September 2, 1980 that a run-off election would be held on November 6, 1980 from six o'clock in the morning to six o'clock in the evening." CCLU requested that the election be conducted for two days but ALU objected. The refusal of a second day is what leaves the night shift out.
On November 6, 1980, election supervisors Margarita C. Enriquez, Reynaldo F. de Luna and "one Francisco" arrived near the Redson compound at around seven in the morning "but they were not allowed by the security guard to enter the company premises in spite of the heavy rain."
After consulting their chief by telephone, the supervisors "decided to hold the certification election 'outside the premises of the company in a small store outside of the annex building,'" and "used as ballot box 'an improvised carton box.'" The union representatives did not object to the improvised polling place and ballot box — and the election was invalidated all the same.
Voting started at eleven o'clock — five hours after the agreed opening — and closed at six-thirty in the evening.
During the election and just before it closed, ALU's representative Sebastian P. Taneo executed a written protest, alleging that the management "did not allow the run-off election to be held within its premises"; that the company "prevented fifty percent of the workers from voting by not allowing them to get out of the company premises and inducing them to work overtime"; that its security guards "manhandled" ALU's vice-president and their "active intervention" caused "chaos and confusion" for around thirty minutes; that the company "refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and the ballot box"; and that the supervisors closed the election over ALU's objection. He prayed that the votes not be counted and another day be scheduled.
At around seven-thirty in the evening the votes were canvassed. Of 692 votes cast, ALU 366 and CCLU 313 — a margin of 53. There were 1,010 voters, so about 318 did not vote.
"Because ALU won, its representative, Taneo, withdrew his protest or manifestation by writing on the minutes of the proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn 'before the close of the proceedings.'" CCLU's representatives refused to sign the minutes.
On November 7, 1980 — the following day — CCLU, through Juan L. Fresnoza, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a protest praying that the election be annulled, alleging that it was "irregular and disorderly" because "no booths were provided for by the company"; the election "started much later than the hour agreed upon"; and ALU "distributed white T-shirts printed with 'ALU TAYO,' gave free tricycle rides to ALU voters and hired around fifteen husky men and around twenty-five women who 'forced' voters to vote for ALU."
Fresnoza further alleged that when he and Oscar Sanchez, acting president of RELA-CCLU, protested those activities to supervisor Margarita C. Enriquez, "the latter allegedly retorted, 'Wala akong magagawa, magagalit na naman si Mr. Taneo.'"
On November 10, 1980, Fresnoza and Sanchez filed a joint affidavit adding that when they protested, the supervisors told them to "place their protest in writing so that they (supervisors) could consolidate the protests in their election report."
On February 19, 1981, CCLU informed the Bureau that the election was conducted without regard to Section 6, Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
On February 26, 1981, Carmelo C. Noriel, Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit, observing that CCLU "failed to submit the pleadings and evidences required in the hearing on January 19, 1981" and "failed to file a protest either 'before or during the election proceeding'" so that under Section 3, Rule VI it "is deemed to have waived its right to protest."
On March 26, 1981 (the dispositive portion gives March 19, 1981), Noriel denied reconsideration and certified ALU as exclusive bargaining representative. On June 6, 1981, CCLU and RELA-CCLU filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, decided September 21, 1982.

Arguments of the Parties

Issue

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues. The employer's responsibility, its guards having barred the election supervisors and, on ALU's protest, kept workers inside the premises on overtime.

Ruling

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

"WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 26 and March 19, 1981 are hereby set aside. Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court set out the duties Section 6, Rule VI imposes on a representation officer — inspection of "the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting," with the parties given opportunity to witness it, and the box locked with three keys held by the officer and the parties "until all the controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been definitely resolved."
Against those requirements it listed four irregularities, holding the election invalid: the night-shift and some afternoon-shift workers could not vote, "out of 1,010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote"; "the secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded"; "the election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently 'intimidated' by a union representative"; and "the participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and T-shirts."
It then measured the result against the object of the exercise: "The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees 'true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer.' That purpose was not achieved in the run-off election because many employees or union members were not able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render assistance in the holding of the election."
On the waiver defense — the ground on which both Noriel and the Solicitor General stood — the Court pointed to the protest that had been made in time: "It should be noted that ALU's written protest (later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time."
The record made the point vivid. Taneo's protest, executed "during the election and just before it was closed," alleged the very matters CCLU would raise — exclusion from the premises, workers prevented from voting and induced to work overtime, guards manhandling a union officer, no polling place or ballot box furnished — and he withdrew it, on the minutes, only "[b]ecause ALU won."
The remedy the Court fashioned addresses each defect in turn: "[a]nother run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The management is ordered to allow all its employees to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly election. The election supervisors or representation officers are also enjoined to fulfill their duties under the Labor Code and the rules and regulations implementing the same."

Doctrine

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision, penned by Justice Aquino, was concurred in by Justices Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and De Castro. Justices Guerrero and Escolin took no part.