140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Timbungco vs. Castro

*
G.R. No. 76111. March 14, 1990.

EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO C.

CASTRO, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor
Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and DELICANO
PAJARES, respondents.

Labor Law; Certification Election; Protest against elections should be

formalized before the med-arbiter within five (5) days from the close of the
election proceedings and must be decided by the latter within twenty (20)
working days.—The petition has merit. The writ of certiorari prayed for will
issue. In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing by the
membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or
formalities in relation to the election of July 15, 1984 had resulted in the
deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the
perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more importantly,
precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice
of officers. In the second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points
out, the private respondents’ objections to the elections of July 15, 1984
have come too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have
forfeited their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules implementing the
Labor Code, protests against elections should be formalized before the med-
arbiter within five (5) days from the close of the election proceedings and
must be decided by the latter within twenty (20) working days. In this case,
the protest against the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after
the lapse of almost two (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no
informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the election.
Indeed, there was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the
results thereof, for during that period of almost two (2) years, certain
significant events took place without demur or objection of any sort on the
part of private respondents and the rest of the members of the Kapisanan.

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

141

VOL. 183, MARCH 14, 1990 141

Timbungco vs. Castro

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari to review the resolutions of

the Bureau of Labor Relations.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Benjamin C. Sebastian for petitioner.
B.B. Julve & Associates Law Offices for private respondent.

NARVASA, J.:

The petitioner in the special civil action of certiorari at bar prays for
nullification of the Resolutions
1
of the Bureau of2 Labor Relations
dated September 9, 1986 and September 30, 1986 —sustaining
3
that
of Med-Arbiter Danilo Reynante dated July 3, 1986, which granted
the petition for election of officers of the labor organization known
as Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American
Tobacco Corporation.
The petitioner, Emmanuel Timbungco, was the president of the
above named union (hereafter, simply Kapisanan ), composed of
employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation.
The union had a three-year collective bargaining agreement with
said Corporation (hereafter, simply AAATC). The stipulated
expiration date was August 24, 1984.
On July 15, 1984—or within the so-called “freedom period” of
sixty (60) days—a general meeting of all the members of the
Kapisanan was convoked by Timbungco. At that meeting the body
unanimously approved, among others, the disaffiliation of the
Kapisanan from the mother union, Federacion FOITAF, and the
amendment of its constitution and by-laws. A new set of officers
was also elected which included Timbungco, who was re-elected
president without opposition. These events are set forth in the
minutes drawn up by the Kapisanan’s Secretary, which also recorded
that the body had agreed to dispense with the formation of a
COMELEC (committee on elections) and the preparation of a tally
sheet showing the number of votes received by each candidate, the
members simply having entered individual nominations to the
different positions and listed their choices therefor.

________________

1 Rollo, p. 57: Annex L-1, petition.

2 Id., p. 64: Annex N-1, petition.
3 Id. , p. 45: Annex J-1, petition.

142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Timbungco vs. Castro

On July 23, 1984 Timbungco submitted to the Bureau of Labor

Relations the following documents:

1) a certified copy of the Kapisanan’s amended constitution

and by-laws;
2) an affidavit jointly executed by him and the union secretary
declaring that the Kapisanan was the sole collective
bargaining agent in AAATC;
 3) a copy of the minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1984; and
4) a copy of the Kapasiyahan (Resolution) of the rank and file
members to disaffiliate from the Federacion FOITAF.

A new registration certificate was thereafter issued in due course to

the Kapisanan, indicating its independence of Federacion FOITAF.
Then in the first week of September, 1985, Timbungco, as re-
elected President of Kapisanan, commenced negotiations for a new
collective bargaining agreement with the representatives of AAATC.
The negotiations lasted for about a year and ultimately resulted in
the execution by Kapisanan and AAATC of another three-year
collective bargaining agreement. A copy of the agreement was filed
with the Bureau of Labor Relations as required by Policy Instruction
No. 17.
About seven months later, on April 8, 1986 to be exact,
Leodegario L. Zapanta, 1st National President of the Association of
Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO, for short), sent a letter to
the Bureau of Labor Relations advising that Bureau that the 4majority
of the members of the Kapisanan had affiliated with ADLO. And on
April 10, 1986, ADLO’s Executive National Vice-President Tayo,
wrote AAATC to the same effect and requested—in view of the
consequent loss by the Kapisanan of its status as recognized
representative of the bargaining unit—that AAATC stop deduction
of union dues and thenceforth 5ignore and otherwise refuse to deal
with Timbungco and his group. Another letter, also asking AAATC
to stop deducting union dues, or hold such dues in trust pending
resolution of the representation issue, was sent6 on April 12, 1986 by
Delicano Pajares, a member of the Kapisanan.

________________

4 Id., p. 29: Annex C, petition.

5 Id. , p. 26: Annex A, petition.
6 Id. , p. 30: Annex D, petition.

143
 VOL. 183, MARCH 14, 1990 143
Timbungco vs. Castro

AAATC replied to Tayo’s letter. It stated that it could not accede to

the request to stop deduction of union dues since it had been dealing
over many years with the 7
Kapisanan as its workers’ authorized
bargaining representative.
On April 23, 1986 Delicano Pajares filed with the Bureau of
Labor Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan,
which was docketed as Case No. NCR LRD-M-4-234-86. He
alleged that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had
signed the petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984
was invalid, and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and
elect their union officers. He also adverted to the existing collective
bargaining agreement between Kapisanan and AAATC.
After appropriate proceedings, Med-Arbiter L. Reynante issued
an Order dated July 3, 1986 declaring invalid the election of union
officers which took place on July 15, 1984 and ordering another
election of union officers to be conducted in the premises8 of AAATC
under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. This Order
was, on appeal, affirmed in toto in a Resolution rendered by Bureau
of Labor Relations9 Director Cresenciano Trajano under date of
September 9, 1986. Timbungco’s motion for reconsideration was
denied on September
10
9, 1986, by OIC Director of Labor Relations,
Ricardo Castro.
These are the orders which, in this special civil action of
certiorari, Timbungco would have this Court invalidate.
The case turns upon the issue of the validity of the election of
officers of July 15, 1984 it appearing that, as private respondents
argue, there is no record of the number of members who attended the
meeting, the number of those who actually voted, and the number of
votes obtained by each candidate, and that a COMELEC (committee
on elections) had not been formed to supervise the election. Private
respondents also argue that the “contract bar rule”—which
proscribes any certification election during the life of a collective
bargaining agreement or any other action which may disturb the
administration of said agreement,

________________

7 Id. , p. 31: Annex E, petition.

8 SEE footnote 3 at page 1, supra.
9 SEE footnote 1 at page 1, supra.
10 SEE footnote 2 at page 1, supra.

144

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Timbungco vs. Castro

except during the “freedom period” (i.e.,11

the period of 60 days prior
to the expiration of the agreement) —has no application to the
election of officers sought in the 12
petition in accordance with the
union’s constitution and by-laws.
The petition has merit. The writ of certiorari prayed for will
issue. In the first place, it does not at all appear that the dispensing
by the membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical
requirements or formalities in relation to the election of July 15,
1984 had resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or
prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other
serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the expression and
ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers. In the
second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points out, the
private respondents’ objections to the elections of July 15, 1984
have come too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to
have forfeited their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules
implementing the Labor Code, protests against elections should be
formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of
the election proceedings and 13
must be decided by the latter within
twenty (20) working days. In this case, the protest against the
election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of
almost two (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no
informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the
election. Indeed, there was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the
elections and the results thereof, for during that period of almost two
(2) years, certain significant events took place without demur or
objection of any sort on the part of private respondents and the rest
of the members of the Kapisanan: Timbungco officially made
known to the Bureau of Labor Relations the Kapisanan’s
disaffiliation from the Federacion FOITAF and obtained a new
certificate of registration for the union after complying with the
requisites prescribed therefor; he and the other officers of the
Kapisanan negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded
in bringing about the execution of a new collective bargaining
agreement which was afterwards

________________

11 SEE Art. 232, Labor Code.

12 Rollo, pp. 85-92.
13 Section 4, Rule VI, Book V.

145

VOL. 183, MARCH 14, 1990 145

Salazar vs. Achacoso

filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations in accordance with

pertinent regulations; and Timbungco and the entire membership of
the Kapisanan accepted benefits granted and assumed the
obligations set out in said collective bargaining agreement.
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations
dated September 9, 1986 and September 30, 1986—sustaining that
of Med-Arbiter Danilo Reynante dated July 3, 1986, are
NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The officers of the Kapisanan
elected on July 15, 1986 shall continue to hold their respective
positions in the union for the balance of the terms pertaining to them
 as of July 3, 1986, counted from the time of finality of this decision,
and the collective bargaining agreement executed between the
parties in 1986 shall also continue in force and effect for the balance
of the three-year period still remaining as of July 3, 1986, counted
from the time of finality of this decision, unless sooner amended or
revised by voluntary covenant of the parties or by other mode
authorized by law. The temporary restraining order issued by this
Court on November 17, 1986 is DISSOLVED.
SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Resolutions nullified and set aside.

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.