2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

VOL. 157, JANUARY 20, 1988 203

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

*
No. L-78131. January 20,1988.

EDUARDO TANCINCO, OSCAR E. BARTOLO, DANIEL

DE LEON, EDDIE POE, VIRGILIO SAN PEDRO, MA.
LUISA QUIBIN, FE MUDLONG and HENRY
MADRIAGA, petitioners, vs. DIRECTOR PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, EDWIN LACANILAO, BOYET DALMACIO,
JOSEFINO ESGUERRA, TESSIE GATCHALIAN, LITO
CUDIA and DING PAGAYON, respondents.

Labor Law; Election; Submission of the employee’s names

with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition
sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of
union’s officers; Question of eligibility to vote may be determined
through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s
status.—The finding does not have a leg to stand on. Submission
of the employee’s names with the BLR as qualified members of
the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members
to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds no support in fact
and in law. For public respondent’s findings, the April 24, 1986
list consists of 180 union members only wherein 51 of the 56
challenged voters’ names do not appear. Adopting however a
rough estimate of a total number of union members who cast their
votes of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged
votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the union members
are then public respondent should have also disqualified some 175
of the 333 voters. It is true that under Article 242(c) of the Labor
Code, as amended, only members of the union can participate in
the election of union officers. The question however of eligibility to
vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll
period and employee’s status during the applicable payroll period.
The payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in case
of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari to review the

resolution and decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

GANCAYCO, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the

Resolution of February 12, 1987 and the Decision** of
December 10, 1986 of the Bureau of Labor Relations in
BLR Case No. A-9-221-86, setting aside the order of July
25, 1986 which decreed the inclusion and counting of the 56
segregated votes for the determination of the results of the
election of officers of Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. Monthly
Employees Association (ITM-MEA).
Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-
MEA. While said respondents were preparing to file a
petition for direct certification of the Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the
union’s Vice-President, Carlos Dalmacio was promoted to
the position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying
him for union membership. Said incident, among others led
to a strike spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents
herein. Another group however, led by herein petitioners
staged a strike inside the company premises. After four (4)
days the strike was settled. On May 10, 1986 an agreement
was entered into by the representatives of the
management, Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group the
relevant terms of which are as follows:

“ ‘1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be united

under one union, the ITM Monthly Employees
Association (ITM-MEA), to be affiliated with
ANGLO;
2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
monthly-paid employees;
3. That an election of union officers shall be held on 26
May 1986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
4. That the last day of filing of candidacy shall be on
19 May 1986 at 4:00 p.m.;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

5. That a final pre-election conference to finalize the

list of qualified1 voters shall be held on 19 May 1986,
at 5:00 p.m.;’ ”’

________________

** Penned by Director Pura Ferrer-Callejo.

1 Page 16, Rollo, Decision BLR Case No. A-9-221-56.

205

VOL. 157, JANUARY 20, 1988 205

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

On May 19, 1986, a pre-election conference was held, but

the parties failed to agree on the list of voters. During the
May 21, 1986 pre-election conference attended by MOLE
officers, ANGLO through its National Secretary, a certain
Mr. Cornelio A. Sy made a unilateral ruling excluding some
56 employees consisting of the Manila office employees,
members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees,
drivers of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of
Mrs. Salazar. Prior 2to the holding of the election of union
officers petitioners, through a letter addressed to the
Election Supervisor, MOLE San Fernando Pampanga,
protested said ruling but no action was taken. On May 26,
1986, the election of officers was conducted under the
supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question
participated but whose votes were segregated without
being counted. Lacanilao’s group won. Lacanilao garnered
119 votes with a margin of three (3) votes over Tancinco
prompting petitioners to make a protest. Thereafter,
petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry
3
of Labor
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga claiming that
the determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is
beyond the competence of ANGLO. Private respondents
maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of
union’s membership is solely within their jurisdiction.
On the basis of the position4
papers submitted by the
parties MOLE’s Med-Arbiter issued an order dated July
25, 1986 directing 5
the opening and counting of the
segregated votes. From the said order private respondents
appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) justifying
the disenfranchisement of the 56 votes. Private
respondents categorized the challenged voters into four
groups namely, the Manila Employees, that they are
personal employees of Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo, that
allowing them to vote will be anomalous since it is their
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

policy not to participate in any form of union activities; the

non-time card employees, that they are managerial
employees; and 6 the employees of the cooperative as non-
ITM employees. On December

_______________

2 Eduardo Tancinco, Oscar Bartolo, Fe Mudlong, Malou Quibin, Virgilio

San Pedro, Daniel de Leon, Eduardo Poe and Henry Madriaga.
3 BPLO-MA-019-86.
4 Med-Arbiter Antonio R. Cortez.
5 Pages 24-27, Rollo, Annex C, Petition.
6 Page 18, Rollo.

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

7
10, 1986, BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of
the 56 employees
8
as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in
legal basis but set aside the***
challenged order of July 25,
1986 on the ground that 51 of 56 challenged voters were
not yet union members at the time of the election
9
per April
24, 1986 list submitted before the Bureau. The decision
directed among others the proclamation of Lacanilao’s
group as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA to
absorb in the bargaining unit the challenged
10
voters unless
proven to be managerial employees. Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Dissatisfied with the turn of events narrated above
petitioners elevated the case to this Court by way of the
instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Petitioners allege that public respondent director of
Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in
ordering the MedArbiter to disregard the 56 segregated
votes and proclaim private respondents as the duly elected
officers of ITM-MEA whereas said respondent ruled that
the grounds relied upon by ANGLO for the exclusion of
voters are arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis.
The petition is impressed with merit. The record of the
case shows that public respondent categorically declared as 11
arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis the grounds
relied upon by ANGLO in disenfranchising the 56 voters in
question. However, despite said finding public respondent
ruled to set aside the Resolution of July 25, 1986 of the
Med- Arbiter based on
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

________________

7 Pages 15-23, Rollo, BLR Case No. A-9-221-86, penned by Pura Ferrer-
Calleja.
8 Page 19, Rollo.
*** The Bureau ruled that the other five (5) are union members and
hence qualified to vote. However, since the segregated votes are
unidentified and the names of the voters not indicated on the envelopes,
said five (5) was not considered and counted for a final tally of the election
results.
9 Citing Article 242(c) of the Labor Code as amended, which provides
that only union members can participate in the election of union officers.
10 Page 23, Rollo.
11 Supra.

207

VOL. 157, JANUARY 20, 1988 207

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

12
its own findings that 51 of the 56 disenfranchised voters
were not yet union members at the time of the election of
union officers on May 26, 1986 on the ground that their
names do not appear in the records of the Union submitted
to the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau of Labor
on April 24, 1986.
The finding does not have a leg to stand on. Submission
of the employees names with the BLR as qualified
members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to
enable said members to vote in the election of union’s
officers. It finds no support in fact and in law. Per public
respondent’s findings,13the April 24, 1986 list consists of 158
union members only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged
voters’ names do not appear. Adopting however a rough
estimate of a total number14
of union members who cast
their votes of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56
challenged votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the
union members are then public respondent should have
also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters. It is true that
under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only
members of the union can participate in the election of
union officers. The question however of eligibility to vote
may be determined through the use of the applicable
payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable
payroll period. The payroll of the month next15
preceding the
labor dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll
period at or near the peak of 16
operations in case of
employees in seasonal industries.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

In the case before Us, considering that none of the

parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as
voting list and considering further that the 51 remaining
employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for
membership, their act of joining the election by casting
their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May 10, 1986
agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention to join
the union. They must therefore be considered ipso facto

________________

12 Page 20, Rollo, page 6, Decision BLR-A-9-221-86.

13 Page 19, Rollo, page 5, Decision.
14 Based on the results wherein Lacanilao garnered 119 votes whereas
Tancinco a total of 116 votes.
15 United States Lines v. Associated Watchman and Security Union,
G.R. No. L-12208 & L-12211, May 21, 1958.
16 Tarke Warehouse Company, 95 NLRC 1133 (1951); Colorado River
Fames, 99 NLRC 41 (1952).

208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tancinco vs. Ferrer-Calleja

members thereof. Said employees having exercised their

right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA their decision is
paramount. Their names could not have been included in
the list of employee submitted on April 24, 1986 to the
Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join the union was
entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was
supervised by the Department of Labor where said 56
members were allowed to vote. Private respondents never
challenged their right to vote then.
The Solicitor General in his manifestation agreed with
petitioners that public respondent committed a grave abuse
of discretion in deciding the issue on the basis of the
records of membership of the union as of April 24, 1986
when this issue was not put forward in the appeal.
It is however the position of private respondents that
since a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) has been
concluded between the local union and ITM management
the determination of the legal question raised herein may
not serve the purpose which the union envisions and may
destroy the cordial relations existing between the
management and the union.
We do not agree. Existence of a CBA and cordial
relationship developed between the union and the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

management should not be a justification to frustrate the

decision of the union members as to who should properly
represent them in the bargaining unit. Neither may the
inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes serve to
disturb the existing relationship with management as
feared by herein private respondents. Respondents
themselves pointed out that petitioners joined the
negotiating panel in the recently concluded CBA. This fact
alone is conclusive against herein petitioners and hence
will estop them later if ever, from questioning the CBA
which petitioners concurred with. Furthermore, the
inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes would not
necessarily mean success in favor of herein petitioners as
feared by private respondents herein. Otherwise, could this
be the very reason behind their fears why they made it a
point to nullify said votes?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for
certiorari is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order
issued by this Court on May 13, 1987 is hereby made
permanent. The questioned Resolution of February 12,
1987 and the Decision of December 10, 1986 are hereby set
aside for being null and void
209

VOL. 157, JANUARY 21, 1988 209

Limpan Investment Corporation vs. Sundiam

and the Order of July 25, 1986 of the Mediator Arbiter is

hereby declared immediately executory.
Cost against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Cruz and Paras, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted. Resolution and decision set aside.

Notes.—The certification election is void in the absence

of employer-employee relationship between the 17 shoe
shiners-voters and petitioner. (Besa vs. Trajano, 146 SCRA
501.)
Supervisors or managerial employees can no longer form
a union distinct and separate from the duly recognized
rank and file union. (Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs.
Sanchez, 144 SCRA 628.)

——o0o——

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOULME 157

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016185a800ba0a950c9a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8