339 Phil. 309
KAPUNAN, J.:
DANILO PICADIZO ChairmanThe aforecited resolution was signed by all the members of the board except for Gamaliel Dinio, Edgar Vinson and Dominador Domingo.
ROMAN DE GUZMAN Member
GERARDO MALAVEGA Member [1]
January 8, 19921. President
ELECTION GUIDELINES
1. The Union elections will be held on January 31, 1992, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In the head office, the elections will be conducted at the Employees Canteen, 6th Floor; in the branches, the same will be held in an acceptable place to be agreed upon between the branch manager and the Union representatives. The elections will be held simultaneously in the head office and in all branches nation-wide.
2. Representatives from the Department of Labor and Employment will be invited to assist in the conduct of the elections up to the counting of the ballots cast. Proclamation of the winners will be made by the Chairman, Committee on Elections as soon as the canvass is terminated.
3. The election canvass will be conducted at the Employees Canteen, 6th Floor in the head office and in the branches nation-wide as soon as the ballot boxes are closed at 5 p.m., January 31, 1992. Results in the branches will be forwarded to theUnion Comelec, c/o Union Office, in the proper form(s) to be distributed for the purpose. Canvassing will be made at the Head Office.
4. The positions open to be contested are:
5. All Union members as of December 31, 1991, as indicated in the management print-out will be eligible to run for any position above. Likewise, all these Union members will be the registered voters for purposes of the elections.Thereafter, the two contesting parties PFR and PPU announced the names of their respective candidates, filed the corresponding certificates of candidacy and the election campaign commenced.
6. Deadline for the submission of Certificate(s) of Candidacy, either as individual candidates or as candidates of a party will be January 17, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. to the Union Office or to any member of the Union Comelec. Candidates from the branches can send their Certificate(s) of Candidacy by mail or by wire. The deadline will be reckoned from the date stamped for delivery. A Candidacy, whether individual or by party, must be confirmed by the signature of the Candidate.
7. All other procedures generally accepted in the practice of elections will be followed to ensure democratic processes.
PROMULGATED this 8th day of January, 1992, Makati, Metro Manila.[5]
Considering the urgency and seriousness of the issues raised by petitioners in the above-entitled case, and considering further the Injunction with Prayer of Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order in their petition copy of which is hereto attached; and considering furthermore, the time element involved in this case, so as not to render petitioners' petition moot and academic and in order to protect the rights of the parties/litigants, you respondents, (sic) The Committee on Election herein Represented by Danilo Picadizo, or any of your authorized representatives acting for and in your behalf are hereby directed to cease and desist from holding general election of PCIB Employees Union Officers on January 31, 1992, until further ordered by this Office.Only the elections in Metro Manila, however, was suspended. In the provincial branches, the union elections proceeded as scheduled.
SO ORDERED.[7]
President ELMER NANADIEGOOn 3 March 1992, PFR filed another petition, docketed as Case No. NCR-0D-M-9203-018, for the Issuance of Writ of Injunction with Motion to Cite the Members of Comelec-PCIBEU in Contempt and Nullification of the Illegally Conducted Union Election against the national officers of the PCIBank Employees Union, the members of the Comelec-PCIBEU and the PCIBank. It argued in the main that the elections held were invalid. The provincial elections pushed through despite the temporary restraining order and the Manila elections were held even though the temporary restraining order has not been lifted by the Med-Arbiter.[11] PFR, thus, prayed for the following:
Exec. Vice Pres. LORENZO CALLEJO
VP-Internal FILIFRANCO SISON
VP-External NESTOR NERBES
VP-Educ. & Research RAMONA BANSUAN
Secretary NERISSA ESPIRITU SANTO
Asst. Sec. DOLORES PELAYO
Treasurer ELIZABETH HOLLERO
Asst. Treasurer JUANITA SIMPAO
Auditor JOSEPHINE ONG
Asst. Auditor BENJAMIN QUIAMBAO
PRO-1 LUIS BATO
PRO-2 SUSAN CASTRO
Directors REMUEL CAPISTRANO
GERARDO ORIANO
DESIDERIO MAGTIBAY
TEODORO FISICO
CRIS ABISTADO
CARL HARN[10]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that, after due hearing, an Order be promulgated:a) nullifying the results of the election and proclamation of the alleged winning candidates;
Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises are, likewise, prayed for.[12]On 5 March 1992, PCIBEU-Comelec filed a Motion to Dismiss the aforestated petition on grounds that the same has become moot and academic due to the lapse of the 20-day period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order.[13]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the elections of PCIBEU Officers conducted on January 31, 1992 in PCIBank provincial branches and on February 28, 1992 in Metro Manila PCIBank branches by respondent COMELEC null and void; and that the proclamation of the winners in said elections issued by the same COMELEC on February 29, 1992 is likewise null and void.The Med-Arbiter made the following rulings:
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that a new election nationwide of national officers of PCIBEU be conducted immediately under the strict supervision and control of this Office. The Representation Officer is hereby directed to implement this Order without further delay.
Further, pending the final resolution of these cases, all individuals who have been proclaimed winners by respondent COMELEC pursuant to its proclamation dated February 29, 1992 are hereby ordered to cease and desist from acting as union officers; and that respondent PCIBank is likewise ordered to cease and desist from dealing with any union officers/individual or persons claiming to be PCIBEU officers, pending proclamation of winners in the new election of PCIBEU officers to be conducted pursuant to this Order.
Furthermore, all incidental motions filed by respondent COMELEC in connection with these two (2) petitions are hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[14]
1. That the subject matter of the consolidated petitions pertains to an intra-union conflict and therefore jurisdiction properly belongs to the Med-Arbiters;On 7 May 1992, PCIBEU-Comelec filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal and on 11 August 1992, the Undersecretary of the DOLE Bienvenido E. Laguesma rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
2. That the temporary restraining order was granted to avert irreparable injury to petitioner due to the PCIBEU-Comelec's failure to issue the necessary election guidelines;
3. That labor cases constitute an exception to the rule that a temporary restraining order has an effectivity period of only 20 days; and
4. That the PCIBEU-Comelec acted in bad faith and partiality when it conducted the union elections despite the issuance of the temporary restraining order.[15]
WHEREFORE, the appeals are hereby granted and the Order appealed from is hereby set aside and vacated. In lieu thereof, a new Order is issued dismissing these consolidated cases for lack of merit.Undersecretary Laguesma declared that the temporary restraining order issued by the Med-Arbiter had no force and effect. Petitioner failed to hurdle the test of "grave or irreparable damage." In the same decision, he upheld the validity of the union elections conducted by the PCIBEU-Comelec.
SO ORDERED.[16]
xxx An unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which the determination of the question properly assigned is dependent, may be considered by the appellate court.Similarly in Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,[21] we held:
xxx [T]he Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.The case at bar falls squarely under the aforequoted exceptions. In the performance of his duties, the public respondent should not be shackled by stringent rules, if to do so would result in manifest injustice. Thus, he cannot, and correctly did not, turn a blind eye to the arbitrary and haphazard manner by which the Med-Arbiter issued the subject temporary restraining order, even though this issue was not explicitly raised by private respondents.
Sec 5. Injunctions. -- No temporary injunctions or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued by any court or other entity. On the other hand, the Office of the President, the Secretary of Labor, the Commission, the Labor Arbiter or med-arbiter may enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending before any of said offices or officials which if not restrained forthwith may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic stability.In the instant controversy, the first petition for injunction and temporary restraining order filed by petitioners on 29 January 1992 was manifestly insufficient to show grave or irreparable injury and it puzzles us to no end how the Med-Arbiter could have issued the temporary restraining order on such flimsy basis. For instance, petitioners alleged that the PCIBEU-Comelec was illegally constituted, yet, they unhesitatingly participated in the pre-election process. They announced their candidates and actively campaigned for them. In the petition for injunction itself, petitioners even stated that they filed their certificates of candidacy in compliance with the directives of the PCIBEU-Comelec.[23] How can petitioners obey the orders of the PCIBEU-Comelec and at the same time reject its authority? This should have put the Med-Arbiter on guard.
While it is true that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to issue a writ of preliminary injunction, or a temporary restraining order against any act arising from any case pending before him, the exercise thereof shall always be subject to the test of reasonableness. The Med-Arbiter should ascertain that the act complained of, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case. Damage is considered "irreparable" if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law (Allendorf vs. Abalanson, 38 Phil. 585), or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation (SSC vs. Bayona, et al., L-13555, May 30, 1962). Measured against such test, the act complained of in the present case such as the conduct of the election as originally set on 31 January 1992 may not be said to cause "grave or irreparable" damage to the petitioner-appellee considering that any complaint or question on the conduct of the election maybe the subject of protest, an administrative remedy available and convenient to the parties in the case. On the contrary, considering that the petition for issuance of a writ of injunction was filed barely two days before the date set for the conduct of the election, when the election materials were already readied and the other mechanics for election had already been threshed out, to say the least, the damage that would result would substantially be more, should the election be postponed to another indefinite time.[24]It is well to remember that "injunctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor relations policy,"[25] and as a general reminder:
There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction; it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. The right must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction.[26]Petitioners' contention that the PCIBEU-Comelec was estopped from questioning the validity of the temporary restraining order is, likewise, unmeritorious. The petition for injunction was filed barely two (2) days before the scheduled elections and the corresponding temporary restraining order was issued one (1) day before election day. The PCIBEU-Comelec hardly had time to file a formal protest. To infer from these circumstances its' acceptance of the validity of the restraining order would be quite unfair.