Case Summary (G.R. No. 181531)
Procedural Background
NUWHRAIN-MPHC sought review of:
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (Nov. 8, 2007) affirming SOLE’s Resolution (Jan. 22, 2007)
- SOLE’s Resolution (March 22, 2007 denying reconsideration)
These decisions upheld Med-Arbiter Calabocal’s Orders (Jan. 22, 2007; Mar. 22, 2007) concerning a June 16, 2006 certification election at Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel.
Election Results and Segregated Votes
- Voters’ list: 353 rank-and-file employees
- Votes cast: 346 (151 NUWHRAIN-MPHC; 169 HIMPHLU; 1 no union; 3 spoiled; 22 segregated)
Segregated ballots belonged to:
• 11 dismissed employees (pending legality of dismissal)
• 6 supervisory appointees (promotions effective pre-election)
• 5 probationary employees (CBA-based exclusion)
One probationary employee, Jose Gatbonton, nonetheless had his vote counted.
Med-Arbiter’s Resolution
By Order dated August 22, 2006, Med-Arbiter Calabocal directed opening and counting of 17 of 22 segregated ballots (those cast by 11 dismissed and 6 supervisory employees), excluding the 5 probationaries.
Secretary’s Resolution
Acting Secretary Padilla affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s Order (Jan. 22, 2007):
- Probationary employees hired after the issuance of the August 9, 2005 Med-Arbiter Order could not vote.
- Dismissed employees’ ballots were valid pending appeal.
- Supervisory employees remained rank-and-file as of the August 9, 2005 Order.
- Gatbonton’s uncontested vote estopped challenge to other probationary ballots.
Even if all 17 opened ballots favored NUWHRAIN-MPHC, HIMPHLU’s 169 votes still represented a majority of valid votes cast (321).
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The CA (Nov. 8, 2007) affirmed:
- Airtime Specialist, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja inapplicable because the six probationaries were not employed at the filing of the certification petition.
- Gatbonton’s vote, being unchallenged, could not justify including other probationaries.
- “Majority” meant majority of valid votes cast, not simple majority of all ballots.
Petitioner’s Contentions
NUWHRAIN-MPHC argued that:
- Excluding probationary employees other than Gatbonton violated equal protection and contradicted Airtime Specialist.
- The eligibility cut-off should be the final and executory SOLE Order date (March 10, 2006), not the Med-Arbiter’s August 9, 2005 Order.
- Even if probationary votes were included, HIMPHLU’s 169 votes would fall one vote short of the 50% + 1 threshold out of 338 valid votes.
- Estoppel favored including all probationary ballots.
Issues for Resolution
- Are probationary employees eligible to vote in a certification election?
- Did HIMPHLU secure the required majority of valid votes cast?
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Probationary Employees’ Right to Vote
- Labor Code Art. 255 and DO 40-03 Rule II Sec. 2 grant all rank-and-file employees—including probationaries—the right to vote from their first day of service.
- DO 40-03 Rule XI Sec. 5 must be harmonized with this principle; its voter's cutoff date is when the SOLE Order becomes final and executory, not the Med-Arbiter’s initial Order.
- Appeals to the SOLE stay the Med-Arbiter’s Order; employees hired during the appeal must not be disenfranchised.
- All probationary employees whose names appeared on the bargaining-unit list submitted after the final SOLE resolution are entitled to vote.
- Supervisory employees whose promotions took effect before the election are properly excluded.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 181531)
Procedural History
- NUWHRAIN-MPHC filed a petition to reverse the Court of Appeals Decision of November 8, 2007 and the Secretary of Labor and Employment’s Resolution of January 25, 2008 in OS-A-9-52-05.
- A certification election was held on June 16, 2006 among 353 rank-and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel.
- Initial results: NUWHRAIN-MPHC 151; HIMPHLU 169; No Union 1; Spoiled 3; Segregated 22.
- Contending unions referred segregation issues to Med-Arbiter Ma. Simonette Calabocal, who ordered opening of 17 segregated ballots.
- Acting SOLE Luzviminda Padilla affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s Order on January 22, 2007 and denied reconsideration on March 22, 2007.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed SOLE’s rulings on November 8, 2007 and denied reconsideration on January 25, 2008.
- Petition elevated to the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- 22 votes were segregated:
• 11 cast by dismissed employees (dismissals pending appeal).
• 6 cast by employees who had become supervisors after issuance of the Med-Arbiter’s Order.
• 5 cast by probationary employees supposedly ineligible under the CBA. - One probationary employee, Jose Gatbonton, had his vote opened and counted.
- Med-Arbiter ordered the opening of 17 segregated ballots (11 dismissed + 6 supervisory).
- NUWHRAIN-MPHC contested exclusion of the five other probationary votes, asserting equal treatment.
- HIMPHLU was provisionally certified as the majority winner.
Contentions of Petitioner
- Exclusion of six probationary votes, despite counting Gatbonton’s, violates equal protection and the ruling in Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja.
- The cut