The Hercules Industries, Inc. vs.

SOLE
G.R. no. 96255 Sept. 18, 1992
Grino-Aquino, J.

Facts:

- Hercules Industries, Inc. (company) is a corporation which employs more or less 180 employees.
o Private respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for CE, alleging
that the existing CBA is already bound to expire and that it enjoys more than 20% of the
rank-and-file employees.
o MA: issued an order for the conduct of a CE with the choices: 1. NFL; 2. Hercules
Employees Labor Union (HELU); 3. No union.
- Pre-election conference: company charged that the list of voters included 98 scabs (contract
replacement workers?); 16 capatazes (boss, foreman, overseer); 8 security guards; and 9
managerial employees.
o MA: deleted in the list of voters the managerial employees, security guards and the strike
employees who have executed a deed of quitclaim and voluntarily accepted separation
pay.
o NFL: appealed the order to the BLR, alleging that the MA still allowed for the voting of
the 98 contract replacement workers, among others.
o Pending resolution of NFLs appeal, however, the CE took place.
- BLR: granted the appeal of NFL; rendered the CE as null and void, and ordered a new CE minus
the 98 scab replacement.
o CE took place, and NFL won as the SEBA of companys rank-and-file. MA afterwards
certified the result.
o Company: filed an MR/appeal with DOLE.
o DOLE: denied the petition.
Hence, this petition.

Held:

- The employer is not a party to a CE which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. In the
choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder.
o The only instance when the employer may be involved in that process is when it is
obliged to file a petition for CE on its workers request to bargain collectively pursuant to
Art. 258 of the LC. After the order for a CE issues. The employers involvement ceases,
and it becomes a neutral bystander.
o Case at hand: while employees never requested the company to bargain collectively, still,
they did not object to the result of the CE.
- Petitioners challenge against the validity of the CE is devoid of any merit.
o Petitioner: no notice of CE had been issued, no copies were given to it, nor posted in
conspicuous places, the payroll was not used as basis for voters list, and that only 15 of
the 98voters signed their names showing that they actually voted.
o These allegations are all belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference which
showed that company was duly notified of the conference and attended the same. The
minutes of the CE show that the list of voters was copied from the payroll. The same
minutes also certified that the CE just concluded was conducted in the most just, honest
 and (free) manner without untoward happening. And that we certify that the result
above is true and correct. This refutes companys allegation that only 15 of the 98
workers signed the master list to show that they actually voted again.
o Besides, there is no showing that the company protested the conduct of the CE. Book V,
Rule VI sec. 3 of the Omnibus Rules states:
Sec. 3. The Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising
from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest
with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings.
Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be contained in the
minutes of the proceedings.
- On the basis of the election minutes, which are the only relevant and competent evidence on
the conduct of the election, the MA did not err in declaring the NFL as the duly elected
bargaining agent of the companys rank and file workers.

Petition Dismissed.