G.R. No. 168475 - Diokno vs. Cacdac

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168475)

Factual Background

The First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES) scheduled union elections for 7 May 2003 and created a Committee on Election (COMELEC) on 1 April 2003 chaired by petitioner Dante M. Tong with petitioners Jaime C. Mendoza and Romeo M. Macapulay as members. Several private respondents filed certificates of candidacy. The COMELEC rejected the candidacy of Jimmy S. Ong on 12 April 2003 for alleged non-membership, and rejected the candidacies of Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall, and Jaime T. Valeriano on grounds that their departments were excluded from the bargaining unit and that they were confidential employees. On 24 April 2003, Ong, et al. filed a petition with the DOLE Med-Arbitration Unit contesting those rejections. On 2 May 2003 petitioners filed petitions with the COMELEC seeking to disqualify a group of private respondents (collectively, Daya, et al.) for alleged solicitation by non-union members and acts inimical to FLAMES. The COMELEC issued a Decision on 6 May 2003 disqualifying Daya, et al. under Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES CBL, and on 7 May 2003 proclaimed a slate of winners that included several petitioners.

Post-Election Administrative Petitions

On 8 May 2003 private respondents Daya, et al., together with Ong, et al., filed a petition with the DOLE-NCR Med-Arbitration Unit seeking nullification of the COMELEC’s disqualification order, nullification of the election proceedings and counting of votes, declaration of failure of election, and a new election under DOLE supervision (docketed NCR-OD-0304-002-LRD). On 14 May 2003 another group led by Gaudencio Jimenez, Jr. filed a related petition which was consolidated with the earlier submissions.

Med-Arbiter Decision

On 7 July 2003 Med-Arbiter Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr. rendered a Decision granting the petition of Daya, et al., nullifying the COMELEC’s disqualification order, declaring the 7 May 2003 election a failure, and ordering a new election to be conducted under DOLE supervision. The Med-Arbiter found that the COMELEC had accepted petitioners’ allegations without proof and had misapplied Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES CBL—which, the Med-Arbiter read, addressed dismissal and expulsion by the Executive Board and not disqualification by the COMELEC. The Med-Arbiter further found that Daya, et al. were denied due process because the COMELEC did not receive or act on their motions for reconsideration and refused to receive their written protest.

BLR Director’s Resolution

On 3 December 2003 Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac of the Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s Decision in toto. The BLR Director agreed that the COMELEC prematurely relied on the CBL provision relating to expulsion and that the COMELEC had effectively cut short any expulsion proceedings properly vested in the Executive Board. The BLR Director applied the exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, reasoning that the COMELEC’s refusal to hear or act on the protested disqualification made resort to internal union remedies illusory and would amount to a denial of justice. The BLR Director ordered the DOLE-NCR to immediately conduct a supervised election. A subsequent BLR Resolution dated 10 February 2003 refused to reverse the earlier Resolution for lack of merit.

Court of Appeals’ Disposition

The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83061, in a Decision dated 17 June 2004 and a Resolution dated 10 June 2005 denying reconsideration, dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition and affirmed the BLR Director and Med-Arbiter. The appellate court held that the COMELEC had arrogated unto itself a power to expel or dismiss members that was vested by the CBL in the Executive Board and that due process requirements were not observed. The Court of Appeals also applied the exception to the exhaustion doctrine because resort to internal remedies would have been futile or vain in light of the COMELEC’s acts and the press of imminent election proceedings; it further held that the thirty percent membership support required under Rule XIV was inapplicable because the petition did not involve the entire membership of FLAMES.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue presented by petitioners was whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the BLR’s jurisdiction to resolve the intra-union dispute and in upholding the rulings that nullified the COMELEC’s disqualification of Daya, et al., and annulled the 7 May 2003 FLAMES election.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that (a) the BLR lacked jurisdiction because Article 226 had been amended by Republic Act No. 6715 to transfer conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration functions to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board; (b) private respondents failed to exhaust internal remedies within the union; (c) the 7 May 2003 election was free, honest, and orderly; and (d) the COMELEC had the exclusive authority to determine candidate qualifications and validly disqualified certain private respondents for non-membership or exclusion from the bargaining unit.

Respondents’ Contentions

Private respondents Daya, et al. maintained that their complaint presented an intra-union dispute clearly within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations under Article 226. They contended that the COMELEC misapplied the FLAMES CBL by invoking a provision that governs expulsion, that no expulsion proceedings were conducted, and that the wrongful disqualification disenfranchised union members and justified DOLE intervention.

Supreme Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, the BLR Director, and the Med-Arbiter. The Court held that Article 226, Labor Code conferred original and exclusive authority upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to act on inter-union and intra-union conflicts and that the amendment effected by Republic Act No. 6715 merely changed the time frame for the Bureau to act; it did not divest the BLR of jurisdiction. The Court found that the controversy was an intra-union dispute concerning the application of the union constitution and by-laws to the qualifications and disqualification of candidates. The Court also upheld the application of the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies because the COMELEC’s refusal to receive protests and its failure to act on motions for reconsideration effectively denied due process and rendered internal remedies futile or vain.

Scope of Review and Standards Applied

The Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of review under Rule 45, emphasizing that this Court ordinarily entertains only questions of law and does not act as a trier of facts. The Court declined petitioners’ invitation to reweigh evidence or to make new factual findings because the Med-Arbiter’s factual findings were affirmed by the BLR Director and the Court of Appeals and were supported by the record.

Legal Basis for Annulment of the Election

The Court determined that the COMELEC misapplied Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168475)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were the elected or proclaimed FLAMES officers and COMELEC members who filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking nullification of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 17 June 2004 and Resolution dated 10 June 2005.
Respondents included the BLR Director, Med-Arbiter, and the rival FLAMES candidates who sought relief before the DOLE and BLR.
The case originated from union election disputes decided by Med-Arbiter Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr., affirmed by Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), and thereafter reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court reviewed only the legal errors alleged in the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the BLR and Med-Arbiter rulings on jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies, and annulment of the May 7, 2003 union election.

Key Factual Allegations

FLAMES was the supervisory union of Meralco and held union elections scheduled on 7 May 2003 under a COMELEC created by its Executive Board.
The COMELEC, chaired by Dante M. Tong, rejected the certificates of candidacy of private respondents including Jimmy S. Ong, Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall, and Jaime T. Valeriano on membership and bargaining-unit grounds.
Petitioners filed disqualification complaints on 2 May 2003 against private respondents Edgardo Daya, Pablo Lucas, Leandro Tabilog, and others for alleged use of non-members and acts inimical to FLAMES.
The COMELEC issued a Decision on 6 May 2003 disqualifying Daya, et al. from participation and declaring votes for them void, and the COMELEC proclaimed winners on 7 May 2003 including several petitioners.
Private respondents Daya, et al., joined by Ong, et al., filed petitions with the DOLE Med-Arbitration Unit to nullify the disqualification orders and to declare failure of election, which were consolidated with a separate petition by Jimenez, et al.
A subsequent election on 30 June 2004 produced different winners whose validity was contested in a separate Court of Appeals case.

Med-Arbiter Decision

Med-Arbiter Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr. reversed the COMELEC disqualification of Daya, et al. and declared the May 7, 2003 election a failure, ordering a new election under DOLE supervision.
The Med-Arbiter found the COMELEC had accepted petitioners' allegations without evidence and had erred in relying on Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES Constitution and By-Laws (CBL).
The Med-Arbiter interpreted Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) as addressing dismissal and expulsion of members and not candidate disqualification, thereby concluding the COMELEC usurped powers of the Executive Board.
The Med-Arbiter found denial of due process because the COMELEC refused to receive motions for reconsideration and written protests of Daya, et al.
The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petitions by Ong, et al. and Jimenez, et al. where appropriate and asserted BLR jurisdiction over intra-union disputes.

BLR Director Ruling

Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac affirmed the Med-Arbiter on 3 December 2003 and ordered immediate conduct of a new FLAMES election under DOLE-NCR supervision.
The BLR Director held the COMELEC's reliance on Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) was premature and that expulsion procedures vested in the Executive Board had not been followed.
The BLR Director applied the exception to the exhaustion requirement because resort to internal remedies would have been futile, illusory or vain given the COMELEC's actions and timing.
The BLR Director dismissed petition