5.19 Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 159553. December 10, 2007.]

YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION, respondent.
petitioner,
vs.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J :
p
In this appeal, petitioner Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (hereafter

Yokohama, for brevity) assails the Decision 1(1) dated April 9, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74273 and its Resolution 2(2) dated August 15, 2003,
denying the motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On October 7, 1999, respondent Yokohama Employees Union (Union) filed a
petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Yokohama.
Upon appeal from the Med-Arbiter's order dismissing the petition, the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) ordered an election with (1)
"Yokohama Employees' Union" and (2) "No Union" as choices. 3(3) The election held
on November 23, 2001 yielded the following result:
YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION
NO UNION
SPOILED
131
117
2
250
VOTES CHALLENGED BY [YOKOHAMA]

VOTES CHALLENGED BY [UNION]
78
73
Copyright 1994-2014
CD Technologies Asia, Inc.
Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

- 151
-401 4(4)
TOTAL CHALLENGED VOTES

TOTAL VOTES CAST
Yokohama challenged 78 votes cast by dismissed employees. On the other

hand, the Union challenged 68 votes cast by newly regularized rank-and-file
employees and another five (5) votes by alleged supervisor-trainees. Yokohama
formalized its protest and raised as an issue the eligibility to vote of the 78 dismissed
employees, 5(5) while the Union submitted only a handwritten manifestation during
the election.
On January 21, 2002, the Med-Arbiter resolved the parties' protests, decreeing
as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
xxx
2.
xxx
xxx
The appreciation of the votes of the sixty-five (65) dismissed

employees who contested their dismissal before the National
Labor Relations Commission shall be suspended until the
final disposition of their complaint for illegal dismissal. . . .
TcDIaA
3.
The
votes
of
the
sixty-eight
(68)
"newly-regularized" rank-and-file employees
appreciated in the final tabulation.
xxx
xxx
so-called
shall be
xxx
SO ORDERED. 6(6) (Emphasis supplied.)
On May 22, 2002, the DOLE Acting Secretary disposed of the appeals as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the partial appeal of [Yokohama] is DENIED and the
appeal of [the union] is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Thus, the Order of the
Med-Arbiter dated 21 January 2002 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
xxx
2.
Copyright 1994-2014
xxx
xxx
The votes of dismissed employees who contested their dismissal
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall be

appreciated in the final tabulation of the certification election
results.
3.
The votes of the sixty-eight (68)
rank-and-file employees shall be excluded.
xxx
xxx
newly
regularized
xxx
SO RESOLVED. 7(7) (Emphasis supplied.)
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the DOLE Acting
Secretary. 8(8) The appellate court held that the 78 employees who contested their
dismissal were entitled to vote under Article 212 (f) 9(9) of the Labor Code and
Section 2, Rule XII 10(10) of the rules implementing Book V of the Labor Code.
However, it disallowed the votes of the 68 newly regularized employees since they
were not included in the voters' list submitted during the July 12, 2001 pre-election
conference. The appellate court also noted that Yokohama's insistence on their
inclusion lends suspicion that it wanted to create a company union, and ruled that
Yokohama had no right to intervene in the certification election. Finally, it ruled that
the union's handwritten manifestation during the election was substantial compliance
with the rule on protest.
Yokohama appealed.
On September 15, 2003, we issued a temporary restraining order against the
implementation of the May 22, 2002 Decision of the DOLE Acting Secretary and the
October 15, 2002 Resolution of the DOLE Secretary, denying Yokohama's motion for
reconsideration. 11(11)
In a manifestation with motion to annul the DOLE Secretary's entry of
judgment filed with this Court on October 16, 2003, Yokohama attached a Resolution
12(12) dated April 25, 2003 of the Med-Arbiter. The resolution denied Yokohama's
motion to suspend proceedings and cited the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
resolution also certified that the Union obtained a majority of 208 votes in the
certification election while "No Union" obtained 121 votes. Yokohama also attached
an entry of judgment 13(13) issued by the DOLE stating that the April 25, 2003
Resolution of the Med-Arbiter was affirmed by the DOLE Secretary's Office on July
29, 2003 and became final on September 29, 2003.
CcaASE
Copyright 1994-2014
In a subsequent manifestation/motion with erratum filed on October 21, 2003,

Yokohama deleted an allegation in its October 16, 2003 manifestation which was
included "through inadvertence and clerical mishap." Said allegation reads:
xxx
xxx
xxx
. . . Notably, the Resolution dated 29 July 2003 which affirmed the

Resolution dated 25 April 2003 is still not final and executory considering
the timely filing of a motion for its reconsideration on 15 August 2003
which until now has yet to be resolved. 14(14)
In this appeal, petitioner raises the following issues:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
DISALLOWING THE APPRECIATION OF THE VOTES OF SIXTY-EIGHT
REGULAR RANK-AND-FILE.
II.
UPHOLDING THE [DOLE SECRETARY'S] DECLARATION THAT [THE
UNION'S] MANIFESTATION ON THE DAY OF THE CERTIFICATION
ELECTION WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE ON
FORMALIZATION OF PROTESTS.
III.
ALLOWING THE APPRECIATION OF VOTES OF ALL OF ITS
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED FOR SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT AND ABANDONMENT OF WORK WHICH ARE CAUSES
UNRELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION. 15(15)
We shall first resolve the last assigned issue: Was it proper to appreciate the
votes of the dismissed employees?
Petitioner argues that "the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the votes of the
dismissed employees should be appreciated." Petitioner posits that "employees who
have quit or have been dismissed for just cause prior to the date of the certification
election are excluded from participating in the certification election." Petitioner had
Copyright 1994-2014
questioned the eligibility to vote of the 78 dismissed employees.

Respondent counters that Section 2, Rule XII 16(16) of the rules implementing
Book V of the Labor Code allows a dismissed employee to vote in the certification
election if the case contesting the dismissal is still pending.
Section 2, Rule XII, the rule in force during the November 23, 2001
certification election clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously allows dismissed
employees to vote during the certification election if the case they filed contesting
their dismissal is still pending at the time of the election. 17(17)
Here, the votes of employees with illegal dismissal cases were challenged by
petitioner although their cases were still pending at the time of the certification
election on November 23, 2001. These cases were filed on June 27, 2001 18(18) and
the appeal of the Labor Arbiter's February 28, 2003 Decision was resolved by the
NLRC only on August 29, 2003. 19(19)
Even the new rule 20(20) has explicitly stated that without a final judgment
declaring the legality of dismissal, dismissed employees are eligible or qualified
voters. Thus,
RULE IX
CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Section 5. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion. . . . An
employee who has been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of
the dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of
the order for the conduct of a certification election shall be considered a
qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment
at the time of the conduct of the certification election.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Thus, we find no reversible error on the part of the DOLE Acting Secretary and
the Court of Appeals in ordering the appreciation of the votes of the dismissed
employees.
Finally, we need not resolve the other issues for being moot. The 68 votes of
the newly regularized rank-and-file employees, even if counted in favor of "No
Union," will not materially alter the result. There would still be 208 votes in favor of
respondent and 189 21(21) votes in favor of "No Union."
Copyright 1994-2014
We also note that the certification election is already a fait accompli, and
clearly petitioner's rank-and-file employees had chosen respondent as their bargaining
representative.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
Decision dated April 9, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74273 and
the Resolution dated August 15, 2003 are AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining
order issued on September 15, 2003 is hereby DISSOLVED. No pronouncement as to
costs.
cITaCS
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Rollo, pp. 45-53. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with

Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Rosmari D. Carandang concurring.
Id. at 55-57. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate
Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Rosmari D. Carandang concurring.
Id. at 333.
Id. at 452.
Id. at 106.
Id. at 221.
Id. at 226-227.
Id. at 53.
ART. 212. Definitions . . .
xxx
xxx
xxx
(f)
"Employee" includes any person in the employ of an employer. The
term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this Code
so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a
result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any
unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent
and regular employment.
xxx
xxx
xxx (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 2. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings. All employees
who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the
petitioner at the time of the certification or consent election shall be qualified to vote.
A dismissed employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall
be allowed to vote in the election. (Emphasis supplied.)
In case of disagreement over the voters' list or over the eligibility of voters, all
contested voters shall be allowed to vote. However, their votes shall be segregated
Copyright 1994-2014

5.19 Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.19 Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.19 Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 159553. December 10, 2007.]

In this appeal, petitioner Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (hereafter

VOTES CHALLENGED BY [YOKOHAMA]

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

TOTAL CHALLENGED VOTES

Yokohama challenged 78 votes cast by dismissed employees. On the other

The appreciation of the votes of the sixty-five (65) dismissed

SO ORDERED. 6(6) (Emphasis supplied.)

The votes of dismissed employees who contested their dismissal

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall be

SO RESOLVED. 7(7) (Emphasis supplied.)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

In a subsequent manifestation/motion with erratum filed on October 21, 2003,

. . . Notably, the Resolution dated 29 July 2003 which affirmed the

In this appeal, petitioner raises the following issues:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

questioned the eligibility to vote of the 78 dismissed employees.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

Rollo, pp. 45-53. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2013

You might also like