Case Digest (G.R. No. 97622)
Facts:
Catalino Algire and Other Officers of Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU), Petitioners, v. Regalado de Mesa, et al., and Hon. Secretary of Labor, Respondents, G.R. No. 97622, October 19, 1994, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from a contested union election held on November 15, 1990 at the Universal Robina Textile plant in Calamba, Laguna, to determine which group would represent the employees in collective bargaining. The two contending slates were the Algire group (petitioners) and the Regalado de Mesa group (private respondents). The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through med-arbiter Rolando S. de la Cruz, supervised the election after a petition by the Mesa group on September 4, 1990 and an October 19, 1990 order directing an election.
The parties agreed in a pre-election conference that the voting would be by secret ballot under DOLE supervision. The official ballot contained the instruction to mark a check or cross inside the specified box and “Don’t write any other markings.” The count produced 133 votes for the Algire group, 133 for the Mesa group, and six spoiled ballots. Petitioners later protested that one spoiled ballot, which contained two checks placed in the box opposite “Lino Algire and his officers,” should have been counted for Algire because the dual checks reflected the voter's clear intent.
On December 20, 1990, med-arbiter de la Cruz ordered that the questioned ballot be declared valid and counted for Algire, and certified Algire’s slate as the elected officers. Mesa appealed to the Secretary of Labor (Case No. OS-A-1-37-91), and on January 31, 1991 the Secretary reversed the med-arbiter’s order and directed that another election be called, with the same choices and after the usual pre-election conference. Director Maximo B. Lim scheduled pre-election conferences in March–April 1991. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the Secretary’s order was denied on March 5, 1991.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with this Court to annul the Secretary’s reversal, contending (1) that the Secretary erred in applying Sections 1 and 8(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to what petitioners characterized as an intra-union activity and (2) that the assailed decision was not supp...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of Labor commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by applying Sections 1 and 8(6), Rule VI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code in ordering a new election?
- Are the Secretary’s January 31, 1991 decision and order calling for a new election supp...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)