G.R. NO. 168475 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [P]etition to Nullify the Order of Disqualification; Nullify Election proceedings and counting of Votes; and Declare a Failure of Elections is hereby granted. The disqualification of [private respondent] Ed[gardo] Daya, et al. , is hereby considered as null and void. Perforce, the election of union officers of FLAMES on May 7, 2003 is declared a failure and a new election is ordered conducted under the supervision of the Department of Labor and Employment. The [P]etition to conduct an accounting of union funds and to stop the release of funds to [petitioner] Diokno , et al., is ordered dismissed for lack of merit. And the Petition to Declare [private respondents] Jimmy Ong, Alfredo [E]scall, Nardito Alvarez, and Jaime Valeriano as members of FLAMES is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit. The [P]etition to Nullify the election filed by [private respondents] Gaudencio Jimenez, et al. , is likewise ordered dismissed. [20] Aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the Director of the BLR. The Ruling of the BLR Director On 3 December 2003, the Director of the BLR issued a Resolution, [21] affirming in toto the assailed Decision of the Med-Arbiter. Public respondent Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac ruled, inter alia, that the COMELEC's reliance on Article IV, Section 4(a) (6) of the CBL, as a ground for disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al ., was premature. He echoed the interpretation of the Med-Arbiter that the COMELEC erroneously resorted to the aforecited provision which refers to the expulsion of a member from the union on valid grounds and with due process, along with the requisite 2/3 vote of the Executive Board. Hence, the COMELEC cut short the expulsion proceedings in disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al . [22] The BLR Director further held that the case involves a question of disqualification on account of the alleged commission by private respondents Daya, et al. , of illegal campaign acts, which acts were not specifically mentioned in the guidelines for the conduct of election as issued by the COMELEC. Likewise, on the alleged refusal of private respondents Daya, et al. , to submit to the jurisdiction of the COMELEC by failing to file a petition to nullify its order of disqualification, the BLR Director deemed the same as an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus: By themselves, such acts could not be taken as repugnant of COMELEC's authority. Sensing that they were prejudiced by the disqualification order, it was only incumbent upon [private respondents Daya, et al. ] to seek remedy before a body, which they thought has a more objective perspective over the situation. In short, they opted to bypass the administrative remedies within the union. Such a move could not be taken against [private respondents Daya, et al. ] considering that non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is justified in instances where it would practically amount to a denial of ju