FACTS:

This case involves a certification election conducted among the regular rank and file employees of DHL Philippines Corporation. The choices in the election were petitioner (a union) and "no union." Petitioner was declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent based on the results of the certification election. Respondent, Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD), filed a petition for the nullification of the certification election, alleging that the union officers of petitioner committed fraud and deceit by misrepresenting that it was an independent union when it was actually affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). BUKLOD claimed that this misrepresentation influenced the employees' selection of petitioner in the election. BUKLOD further alleged that a majority of the employees subsequently disaffiliated themselves from petitioner and formed an independent union. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Med-Arbiter nullified the certification election and ordered a new one with three choices: petitioner, respondent, and "no choice." However, DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, on appeal, held that the issue of representation had already been settled in favor of petitioner and no certification election would be entertained within one year from the certification order. The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the decision of the DOLE Undersecretary and ordered a new certification election to ascertain the true will of the employees. The CA held that the withdrawal of a majority of petitioner's members provided a compelling reason to conduct a new election. The CA also found that the certification order issued by the election officer was precipitate and not in accordance with the Department Order. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review seeking to annul the CA decision and resolution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the CA Decision and Resolution are valid despite the lack of comment from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

2. Whether the CA Decision is valid despite the absence of a specific directive in the dispositive portion

3. Whether the failure to strictly follow procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing a protest should be taken against the employees.

4. Whether the misrepresentation made by the petitioner's officers regarding its independent status as a labor union constitutes a valid ground for protest.

5. Whether or not the claim that 704 of the employees are affiliated with the respondent is sufficiently rebutted by evidence on record.

6. Whether or not a certification election is the appropriate means to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees once disaffiliation has been demonstrated.

RULING:

1. The CA Decision and Resolution are valid despite the lack of comment from the OSG. The failure of the adverse party to file a comment does not prevent the court from resolving the petition based on the records before it. The petitioner is not the proper party to invoke the failure of the OSG to receive a copy of the petition.

2. The CA Decision is valid even if the dispositive portion fails to specify what should be done by the parties after its promulgation. As long as the judgment is definitive and states the rights of the parties with finality, it is sufficient. In this case, the CA Decision necessarily reinstated the med-arbiter's earlier Decision to conduct a new certification election.

3. The failure to strictly follow procedural technicalities should not be taken against the employees. Mere technicalities should not 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.

4. The misrepresentation made by the petitioner's officers constitutes a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the campaign if a material fact has been misrepresented, an opportunity for reply has been lacking, and the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in the election. In this case, the misrepresentation came from a party who had special knowledge and was in an authoritative position to know the true facts, which impacted the employees' free choice.

5. The claim that 704 of the employees are affiliated with the respondent is not sufficiently rebutted by any evidence on record.

6. A certification election is the most expeditious way to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees once disaffiliation has been demonstrated.

PRINCIPLES:

• Failure of an adverse party to file a comment does not prevent the court from resolving a petition based on the records before it.

• The petitioner is responsible for defending its position and the correctness of the disposition or the validity of the proceedings.

• A judgment must be definitive and state the rights of the parties with finality.

• The setting aside of a previous resolution necessitates the implementation of the opposite course of action.

• The authority to certify the results of an election is limited to the election officer if there is no protest filed or if the protest has not been perfected within five days. The med-arbiter is authorized to proclaim and certify the winner in cases of perfected protests.

• Mere technicalities should not prevail over the welfare of the workers.

• A certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the campaign.

• Misrepresentation by a labor union's officers, especially regarding its independent status, constitutes a substantial misrepresentation of material facts.

• The employees may not be expected to verify the accuracy of any statement made by a labor union's officers, especially when it comes from the union's president.

• The purpose of a certification election is to ascertain the majority of the employees' choice of an appropriate bargaining unit – whether or not they want to be represented by a labor organization and, if so, which one.