Case Digest (G.R. No. 125331)
Facts:
Emilio E. Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 168475, July 04, 2007, the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are members and officers of First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES); respondents include Hon. Hans Leo J. Cacdac in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), the DOLE Med‑Arbiter Tranquilino C. Reyes, and several FLAMES members who contested the May 7, 2003 union elections.In April 2003 FLAMES’ Executive Board constituted a COMELEC to run union elections scheduled for May 7, 2003. The COMELEC (chaired by petitioner Dante M. Tong) rejected several certificates of candidacy—most notably those of private respondents Jimmy S. Ong, Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall and Jaime T. Valeriano—on membership and bargaining‑unit grounds, and on May 6, 2003 it disqualified another set of candidates (private respondents Daya, et al.) for allegedly allowing non‑members to assist their campaign in violation of Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) of FLAMES’ Constitution and By‑Laws (CBL). The COMELEC proceeded with the May 7 election and proclaimed petitioners and allies as winners.
Aggrieved members (Ong, et al.; Daya, et al.; and Jimenez, et al.) separately filed petitions with the DOLE Med‑Arbitration Unit seeking nullification of the COMELEC’s disqualifications and, in Daya, et al.’s case, annulment of the May 7 election and supervision by DOLE. On July 7, 2003 Med‑Arbiter Tranquilino C. Reyes nullified the COMELEC’s disqualification of Daya, et al., declared the May 7, 2003 election a failure and ordered a new DOLE‑supervised election; other petitions were dismissed as premature or for lack of merit.
The BLR Director, Hon. Hans Leo J. Cacdac, affirmed the Med‑Arbiter’s decision on December 3, 2003 and denied reconsideration on February 10, 2004. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 83061, thereafter dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition and denied reconsideration (Decision dated June 17, 2004; Resolution dated June 10, 2005). Petitioners moved to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending primarily that (a) BLR lacked jurisdiction; (b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the BLR have original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain private respondents’ petitions challenging the COMELEC disqualifications and the conduct of the May 7, 2003 FLAMES election?
- Were private respondents required to exhaust intra‑union remedies before invoking BLR jurisdiction, or did exceptions to exhaustion apply?
- Did the COMELEC properly disqualify private respondents Daya, et al., and was annulment o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)