G.R. No. L-25354 - People vs. Fontanilla

On November 25, 1997, a certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees of DHL Philippines Corporation in its main office and regional branches.
The contending choices in the election were between the petitioner (DHL Philippines Corporation United Rank and File Association – an entity presented as independent) and another union.

Petitioners’ union officers, including its president, made false statements asserting that their union was independent and unaffiliated with any national federation, specifically the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
It was alleged that such misrepresentations aimed at misleading the employees into voting for the petitioner, thereby affecting the election’s outcome.

On January 19, 1998, based on the election results (546 votes for petitioner and 348 for the alternative union), the election officer certified the petitioner as the sole bargaining agent.
On December 19, 1997, respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed a Petition for nullification of the certification election before the Industrial Relations Division of DOLE, asserting that the misrepresentations during the campaign materially influenced the employees’ choices.

After learning of the misrepresentation, a majority of the employees (704 out of 894) disaffiliated themselves from petitioner and subsequently organized themselves into an independent union—BUKLOD.
BUKLOD was later issued a Certificate of Registration on December 23, 1997, affirming its status as an independent union.

Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the November 25, 1997 certification election on May 18, 1998, ordering that another election be held with three choices: petitioner, respondent, and another choice.
DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, upon appeal, reversed the nullification by arguing that the issue was already settled by the election officer’s Certification Order.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed that the withdrawal of a great majority of the employees necessitated a new certification election to clearly ascertain which union truly represented their will.

Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was filed by petitioner, challenging the December 17, 1999 CA Decision and the January 30, 2002 Resolution that maintained the ordering of a new election.
Petitioner argued on several procedural grounds including the timeliness of filing and the alleged lack of legal personality when petitioner a quo (respondent in the CA case) instituted the nullification process.

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by annulling and setting aside the Decision of Undersecretary Dimapilis-Baldoz, which had reversed the earlier nullification decision of the Med-Arbiter.
Whether the omission of the required comment by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the Petition and the subsequent denial of the Motion for Reconsideration amounted to a denial of due process.

Whether petitioner’s a quo status should invalidate the nullification proceedings on the ground that it had not been legally existing or registered at the time of the election or the subsequent filing of its petition.
Whether the failure to adhere to the period prescribed under Section 13 and Section 3, Rule V of Department Order No. 9 (Certification-Year Rule) invalidates the proceedings.

Whether the resignation, withdrawal, or retraction of a majority of the former members of petitioner should be legally treated as a disaffiliation, thereby warranting a certification election anew.
Whether a previous election that was structured as a yes/no referendum (rather than a certification election with specific choices) further complicates the determination of the true bargaining representative.

Whether the misrepresentations and false statements made during the election campaign had a material impact on the free choice of the employees.
Whether procedural technicalities should be allowed to override the fundamental right of labor to organize and choose their bona fide representative.