G.R. No. 97622 - Algire vs. De Mesa

The case involves the election of union officers for the Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU).
Petitioners, represented by Catalino Algire and other union officers, contested the outcome of the union election.
Respondents include Regalado de Mesa, acting on behalf of a faction within the union, and the Honorable Secretary of Labor.

On September 4, 1990, a petition for a union officers’ election was filed by the URTMSEU through Regalado de Mesa with the Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
DOLE’s med-arbiter, Rolando S. de la Cruz, issued an Order on October 19, 1990 directing the holding of the election.
A pre-election conference was held resulting in an agreement to conduct a secret ballot election on November 15, 1990 between the two contending groups.
The official ballot provided explicit instructions:

To mark a check (/) or cross (x) in the box opposite the name of the candidate group desired for collective bargaining representation.
To refrain from making any additional markings.

On November 19, 1990, Catalino Algire filed a protest regarding one ballot—the “questioned ballot”—in which a voter marked two checks within the box provided for Algire’s group.
During the investigation, the envelope containing the spoiled ballots was opened, confirming the existence of the ballot with two checks.
On December 20, 1990, med-arbiter de la Cruz issued an Order declaring the questioned ballot valid, thereby awarding the disputed vote to Algire’s group and certifying them as the union’s elected officers.

Respondents (through Regalado de Mesa and his group) appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor.
On January 31, 1991, the Secretary of Labor reversed the med-arbiter’s certification order.
The new order directed the holding of another election for union officers under the same conditions previously agreed upon.

DOLE’s Industrial Relations Division scheduled several pre-election conferences (initially set for March 22, 1991, then reset to April dates).
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the reversal, which was denied on the basis of lack of merit.
Petitioners raised two issues in their certiorari petition:

An allegation that the Secretary of Labor improperly applied Sections 1 and 8(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, asserting that the matter was an intra-union activity outside its jurisdiction.
A claim that the decision ordering a new election was not supported by law and evidence.

An ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order was filed, and on April 5, 1991, the Court issued a temporary restraining order against holding a new election.

Whether the DOLE’s representation officer (med-arbiter) had the legal authority to render a decision on the validity of a ballot that contained two checks.
Whether the determination of the validity of a ballot falls within the powers granted to the officer during a consent election versus a certification election.

Whether the instructions on the official ballot were clear and whether the presence of a double-check constituted a valid vote.
Whether the decision to declare a ballot spoiled based solely on the voting instructions was legally justified.

Whether petitioners’ failure to raise objections during the canvassing of votes amounted to a waiver of any irregularities or defects in the election process.
Whether any later questioning of the election outcome was procedurally proper.

Whether the Secretary of Labor’s application of Sections 1 and 8(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to this intra-union election was correct.
Whether the reversal and the subsequent order for a new election were supported by existing legal and evidential bases.