[ LABOR 2 | ATTY.
NOLASCO ] 1
7. DHL Philippines Corp. v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines
Corp.,
G.R. No. 152094, July 22, 2004
Ponente
Digest by: Bacina
TOPIC: Duty/ies of med-arbiter/election officer
PARTIES:
Employer: DHL CORP
Union A: Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corp.,
Representing: DHL workers?
DOCTRINE:
 The election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is
limited to situations in which there has been no
protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or
formalized within five days from the close of the
election proceedings.
 When a protest has been perfected, only the med-arbiter can
proclaim and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is based
on the election officer’s function, which is merely to conduct and supervise
certification elections.
 It is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and decide
representation cases. Consequently, the decision whether to
certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to
incidents occurring during the campaign is within the med-
arbiter’s discretion.
 Relating to this case: When the MED-ARBITER admitted and gave
due course to respondent BUKLOD’s petitioner for
nullification of the election proceedings, the ELECTION OFFICER should
have deferred issuing the certification of the results thereof.
RECIT-READY: No need  short digest
FACTS:
Nov 25, 1997 - a certification election was conducted. The choices were
petitioner and no union.
Dec. 19, 1997 - respondent BUKLOD filed a petition for the nullification
of the certification election charging the officers of petitioner w/ committing
fraud & deceit in the election proceedings by misrepresenting to the voter-
EEs that it was independent union when it fact it was affiliated with the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW). And because of that misrepresentative,
the members of petitioners withdrew their membership from it and formed
themselves into an independent union which is respondent BUKLOD and
was issued a Certificate of Registration by DOLE only on Dec. 23 1997 or 4
days after filing the petition for nullification or protest.
May 18, 1998 - The Med-Arbiter nullified the Nov. 25 certification
election and ordered the holding of another one. This time, with
petitioner, respondent and no choice as the choices.
Jan. 19, 1998 - despite such filing of the petition by BUKLOD, the election
officer certified petitioner as the sole & exclusive bargaining agent.
Upon appeal to DOLE Undersec, it held that the issue of representation had
already been settled and no petitions for certification election can be
entertained within 1 yr from the time the election officer had issued the
certification order.
CA: The withdrawal of 704 out of 894 members of petitioner due to the
discovery of misrepresentation is a compelling reason to conduct a new
certification election.
ISSUE/S:
WON the issue of representation was PUT TO REST BY THE MERE
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATION ORDER by the ELECTION officer. -
NO
HELD:
The election officer’s issuance of a certification order on Jan 19 was
precipitate because, prior thereto, respondent had filed with the med-
arbiter a Petition for nullification of the election.
Duty/ies of med-arbiter/election officer
• The election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is limited to
situations in which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has
not been perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election
proceedings.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 2

 When a protest has been perfected, only the med-arbiter can proclaim
and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is based on the election officer’s
function, which is merely to conduct and supervise certification elections.
 It is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and decide representation
cases. Consequently, the decision whether to certify the results of an
election or to set them aside due to incidents occurring during the
campaign is within the med- arbiter’s discretion.

In this case, petitioner was arguing that CA was wrong because no protest was
formalized within 5 days or raised during the election proceedings and entered in
the minutes of it. BUT SC disagreed. SC held that WHEN THE MED-ARBITER
ADMITTED AND GAVE DUE COURSE to respondent BUKLOD’s petition for
nullification of the election proceedings, the election officer SHOULD HAVE
DEFERRED issuing the certification of the results thereof.

It was clear that respondent members were lured by petitioner’s officers into
believing that petitioner was independent union. Having been misled, a majority of
them eventually disaffiliated themselves from it and formed an independent union,
respondent herein, which thereafter protested the conduct of the election. Having
been formed just after such exercise by the defrauded employees who were former
members of petitioner, respondent could not have reasonably filed its protest
within five days from the close of the election proceedings. In this case, the EEs
didn’t sleep didn’t sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the
procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be
taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the
welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to
determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on their behalf.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019