[Labor] | [VI.D.8.
d DISMISSED EMPLOYEES]
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:
[Mac] 1
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
2. WON the manifestation on the day of the certification election
was sufficient compliance with the rule on formalization of
protests  MOOT
3. WON the votes of Yokohama’s employees who were
previously dismissed should be appreciated?  YES
RATIO
1. WON the votes of Yokohama’s 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