G.R. NO. 159553 - YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: x x x x 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. . . . The votes of the sixty-eight (68) so-called newly-regularized rank-and-file employees shall be appreciated in the final tabulation. x x x x SO ORDERED . [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: x x x x 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. The votes of the sixty-eight (68) newly regularized rank-and-file employees shall be excluded. x x x x SO RESOLVED . [7] (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the DOLE Acting Secretary. [8] The appellate court held that the 78 employees who contested their dismissal were entitled to vote under Article 212 (f) [9] of the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule XII [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 Yokohamas 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 unions 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 Yokohamas motion for reconsideration. [11] In a manifestation with motion to annul the DOLE Secretarys entry of judgment filed with this Court on October 16, 2003, Yokohama attached a Resolution [12] dated April 25, 2003 of the Med-Arbiter. The resolution denied Yokohamas 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] issued by the DOLE stating that the April 25, 2003 Resolution of the Med-Arbiter was affirmed by the DOLE Secretarys Office on July 29, 2003 and became final on September 29, 2003. In a subsequent manifestation/motion with erratum filed on October