[Labor] | [VI.D.8.

d DISMISSED EMPLOYEES]
[Mac] 1
YOKOHAMA TIRE PHIL., INC. VS. YOKOHAMA
EMPLOYEES UNION
[GR NO. 159553] | [December 10, 2007] | [Quisumbing, J.]

CASE SUMMARY
There was a certification election held for the rank and file employees of Yokohama
Tire Phil. Yokohama challenged the votes of 78 of its employees who were previously
dismissed. SC ruled that the votes of the dismissed employees should be appreciated
pursuant to the IRR of the Labor Code and DO 40-03 (see holding)

DOCTRINE

FACT
Yokohama Employees Union filed a petition for certification election among R&F
employees of Yokohama. This was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter, but the SOLE
ordered an election with 2 choices: (1) Yokohama Employees Union, and (2) No
union.
There were a total of 401 votes cast.
o 78 of which were challenged by Yokohama on the ground that these were
cast by dismissed employees.
o 73 was challenged by the Union; 65 because they were cast by newly-
regularized R&F employees, 5 because they were supervisor-trainees.
This was formalized by Yokohama through a protest filed before the Med-Arbiter
raising the issue of the eligibility of these employees to vote; the Union, on the
other hand, submitted a handwritten manifestation during the election.
The Med-Arbiter resolved the protests ruling that:
o Votes 65 employees who contested their dismissal before the NLRC shall
be suspended until final disposition of their complaint for illegal dismissal
o Votes of 68 newly-regularized employees shall be appreciated.
DOLE Acting Secretary: modified; said that the votes of the dismissed
employees who contested their dismissal before the NLR shall be appreciated.
CA: Affirmed DOLE Acting Secretary.
o 78 employees who contested their dismissal were entitled to vote under
Article 212 (f) of the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule XII of the rules
implementing Book V of the Labor Code.
Hence, Yokohama appealed.

ISSUE
1. WON the votes of the newly regularized employees should be appreciated
MOOT
1. WON the manifestation on the day of the certification election was sufficient
compliance with the rule on formalization of protests MOOT
2. WON the votes of Yokohamas employees who were previously
dismissed should be appreciated? YES

RATIO
 1. WON the votes of Yokohamas employees who were previously
dismissed should be appreciated? YES because the court chever
chever
a. Yokohama contends that employees who have quit or have been
dismissed for just cause prior to the date of the certification election are
excluded from participating in the certification election. The Union, on the
other hand, counters that Section 2, Rule XII f the rules implementing
Book V of the Labor Code allows a dismissed employee to vote in the
certification election if the case contesting the dismissal is still pending.
i. Rule XII, Sec. 2 was in force during the certification election.
ii. In 2003, the DOLE issued DO 40-03 which provided that An
employee who has been dismissed from work but has
contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of
appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the
order for the conduct of a certification election shall be
considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was
declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct
of the certification election (Rule IX, Sec. 5)
b. Here, the votes of employees with illegal dismissal cases were challenged
by petitioner although their cases were still pending at the time of the
certification election in 2001. The illegal dismissal cases were filed in
2001, while the appeal to the LA and NLRC were decided in 2003. In both
the old rule in the IRR of the Labor Code and the DO, the challenged votes
of the dismissed employees should be appreciated.
2. The other issues were rendered moot. The 68 votes of the newly regularized
rank-and-file employees, even if counted in favor of "No Union," will not
materially alter the result. There would still be 208 votes in favor of respondent
and 189 votes in favor of "No Union. The certification election is already a fait
accompli, and clearly petitioner's rank-and-file employees had chosen
respondent as their bargaining representative.

DECISION
Petition denied