I.

Nature, Definition and Purpose of a Labor Organization

G.R. No. 171153 September 12, 2007

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNIONPHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS

ORGANIZATION (SMCEUPTGWO), petitioner,
vs.
SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNIONPAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG
PILIPINO (SMPPEUPDMP), respondent1.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION
(SMCEU-PTGWO) prays that this Court reverse and set aside the (a) Decision2 dated 9 March 2005 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66200, affirming the Decision3 dated 19 February 2001 of the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which upheld the Certificate of Registration of
respondent SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNIONPAMBANSANG DIWA NG
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEUPDMP); and (b) the Resolution4 dated 16 January 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in the same case, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.

The following are the antecedent facts:

Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank and
file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), namely, the San Miguel Corporate Staff Unit
(SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP), in all offices
and plants of SMC, including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna. It had been the certified
bargaining agent for 20 years from 1987 to 1997.

Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). PDMP issued
Charter Certificate No. 112 to respondent on 15 June 1999.5 In compliance with registration requirements,
respondent submitted the requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal personality.6 Upon
submission of its charter certificate and other documents, respondent was issued Certificate of Creation of Local or
Chapter PDMP-01 by the BLR on 6 July 1999.7 Thereafter, respondent filed with the Med-Arbiter of the DOLE
Regional Officer in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR), three separate petitions for certification election to
represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP.8 All three petitions were dismissed, on the ground that the separate petitions
fragmented a single bargaining unit.9

On 17 August 1999, petitioner filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent's
registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. In its petition, petitioner accused
respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration requirements in obtaining its
certificate of registration. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a), (b) and (c)10 and 234(c)11 of
the Labor Code. Moreover, petitioner claimed that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a trade union
center, hence, it cannot directly create a local or chapter. The petition was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-9908-
007-IRD.12

On 14 July 2000, DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. Lim issued an Order dismissing the allegations of fraud
and misrepresentation, and irregularity in the submission of documents by respondent. Regional Director Lim further
ruled that respondent is allowed to directly create a local or chapter. However, he found that respondent did not
comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and
removal from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations.13 Respondent appealed to the BLR. In a Decision dated 19
February 2001, it declared:

As a chartered local union, appellant is not required to submit the number of employees and names of all its
members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Thus,
the revocation of its registration based on non-compliance with the 20% membership requirement does not
have any basis in the rules.

Further, although PDMP is considered as a trade union center, it is a holder of Registration Certificate No.
FED-11558-LC issued by the BLR on 14 February 1991, which bestowed upon it the status of a legitimate
labor organization with all the rights and privileges to act as representative of its members for purposes of
collective bargaining agreement. On this basis, PDMP can charter or create a local, in accordance with the
provisions of Department Order No. 9.
 WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the Regional Director dated
July 14, 2000, canceling the registration of appellant San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-
Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant shall hereby remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.14

While the BLR agreed with the findings of the DOLE Regional Director dismissing the allegations of fraud and
misrepresentation, and in upholding that PDMP can directly create a local or a chapter, it reversed the Regional
Director's ruling that the 20% membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal personality as a labor
organization. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the BLR. In a Resolution rendered on 19
June 2001 in BLR-A-C-64-05-9-00 (NCR-OD-9908-007-IRD), the BLR denied the Motion for Reconsideration and
affirmed its Decision dated 19 February 2001.15

Invoking the power of the appellate court to review decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, petitioner filed with the Court
of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
66200. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 9 March 2005, dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision of
the BLR, ruling as follows:

In Department Order No. 9, a registered federation or national union may directly create a local by
submitting to the BLR copies of the charter certificate, the local's constitution and by-laws, the principal office
address of the local, and the names of its officers and their addresses. Upon complying with the
documentary requirements, the local shall be issued a certificate and included in the roster of legitimate
labor organizations. The [herein respondent] is an affiliate of a registered federation PDMP, having been
issued a charter certificate. Under the rules we have reviewed, there is no need for SMPPEU to show a
membership of 20% of the employees of the bargaining unit in order to be recognized as a legitimate labor
union.

xxxx

In view of the foregoing, the assailed decision and resolution of the BLR are AFFIRMED, and the petition is
DISMISSED.16

Subsequently, in a Resolution dated 16 January 2006, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.

Hence, this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where petitioner raises the sole issue
of:

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN

RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES AND NAMES OF ALL ITS MEMBERS COMPRISING AT LEAST 20% OF THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE BARGAINING UNIT WHERE IT SEEKS TO OPERATE.

The present petition questions the legal personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization.

Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in
the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234(c) of the Labor Code which stipulates that any
applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate
of registration based on the following requirements:

a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of
the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

c. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports;
and

e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification
and the list of the members who participated in it.17

Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of respondent must be based not on the number of
employees of a single division, but in all three divisions of the company in all the offices and plants of SMC since
they are all part of one bargaining unit. Petitioner refers to Section 1, Article 1 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA),18 quoted hereunder:
 ARTICLE 1

SCOPE

Section 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit. The appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists
of all regular rank and file employees paid on the basis of fixed salary per month and employed by the
COMPANY in its Corporate Staff Units (CSU), San Miguel Brewing Products (SMBP) and San Miguel
Packaging Products (SMPP) and in different operations existing in the City of Manila and suburbs, including
Metal Closure and Lithography Plant located at Canlubang, Laguna subject to the provisions of Article XV of
this Agreement provided however, that if during the term of this Agreement, a plant within the territory
covered by this Agreement is transferred outside but within a radius of fifty (50) kilometers from the Rizal
Monument, Rizal Park, Metro Manila, the employees in the transferred plant shall remain in the bargaining
unit covered by this Agreement. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner thus maintains that respondent, in any case, failed to meet this 20% membership requirement since it
based its membership on the number of employees of a single division only, namely, the SMPP.

There is merit in petitioner's contentions.

A legitimate labor organization19 is defined as "any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor
and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof."20 The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure strict
compliance with the requirements on registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights
under the Labor Code,21 and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public interest. Registration
requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into
joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor
organization for illegitimate ends.22 Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot
be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative23 of all
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.24 The acquisition of
rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification election, first and
foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor
organization.25

A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a "local" or "chapter" of PDMP and
was issued Charter Certificate No. 112 on 15 June 1999. Hence, respondent was directly chartered by PDMP.

The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is provided in Book V of the Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9 which took effect on 21 June 1997, and again by
Department Order No. 40 dated 17 February 2003. The Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 9 should
govern the resolution of the petition at bar since respondent's petition for certification election was filed with the BLR
in 1999; and that of petitioner on 17 August 1999.26

The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. The first
involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The second,
finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of
chartering.27

A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local or chapter by submitting to the DOLE
Regional Office or to the BLR two copies of the following:

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of
the local/chapter;

(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter;
and

(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; Provided, That where the local/chapter's constitution and
by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of
the local/chapter and attested to by its President.28

The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by a federation or national union. A
duly constituted local or chapter created in accordance with the foregoing shall acquire legal personality from the
date of filing of the complete documents with the BLR.29 The issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or
the DOLE Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local or a chapter under
Department Order No. 9. Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary
requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule VI.30
Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, violated Article
234 of the Labor Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a chapter or local. This
Court disagrees.

Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an independent labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon its
registration with the BLR:

Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality
and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon
issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of
the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports;
and

(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or
ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it. (Italics supplied.)

It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association or
group of unions or workers.

However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently. This Court, in the landmark case
of Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,31 declared that when
an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration
are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated
to submit, among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of
the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and
Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or
chapter.32 The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered
federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order
to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.33

Subsequently, in Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano34 where the validity of Department Order No. 9 was directly put
in issue, this Court was unequivocal in finding that there is no inconsistency between the Labor Code and
Department Order No. 9.

As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration through fraud and misrepresentation,
this Court finds that the imputations are not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof to declare that
respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting. This Court had, indeed, on several occasions,
pronounced that registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a
labor organization irregularly recognized, which, at best, holds on to a mere scrap of paper. Under such
circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no rights.35

This Court emphasizes, however, that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud
and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful
scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of
the case are devoid of such evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with
greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the BLR,
which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
only great respect but even finality.36

Still, petitioner postulates that respondent was not validly and legitimately created, for PDMP cannot create a local
or chapter as it is not a legitimate labor organization, it being a trade union center.

Petitioner's argument creates a predicament as it hinges on the legitimacy of PDMP as a labor organization. Firstly,
this line of reasoning attempts to predicate that a trade union center is not a legitimate labor organization. In the
process, the legitimacy of PDMP is being impugned, albeit indirectly. Secondly, the same contention premises that a
trade union center cannot directly create a local or chapter through the process of chartering.

Anent the foregoing, as has been held in a long line of cases, the legal personality of a legitimate labor organization,
such as PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the
Labor Code, as amended, defines a legitimate labor organization37 as "any labor organization duly registered with
the DOLE, and includes any branch or local thereof."38 On the other hand, a trade union center is any group of
registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting
such members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies,
standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the
Implementing Rules.39

The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a
union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack.40 It may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules. The
aforementioned provision is enunciated in the following:

Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers' association shall be deemed registered and
vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality
cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with these Rules.

PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued Registration Certificate No. FED-11558-LC by the BLR on
14 February 1991. Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization subsists. Once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization, it continues to be recognized
as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.41 It bears
to emphasize that what is being directly challenged is the personality of respondent as a legitimate labor
organization and not that of PDMP. This being a collateral attack, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain
questions indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.

Corollarily, PDMP is granted all the rights and privileges appurtenant to a legitimate labor organization,42 and
continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is successfully impugned and thereafter
cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.

We now proceed to the contention that PDMP cannot directly create a local or a chapter, it being a trade union
center.

This Court reverses the finding of the appellate court and BLR on this ground, and rules that PDMP cannot directly
create a local or chapter.

After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law provisions, both statutory and regulatory,43 we find no legal
justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through
chartering. Apropos, we take this occasion to reiterate the first and fundamental duty of this Court, which is to apply
the law. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct
by reading into the law what is not written therein.44

Presidential Decree No. 442, better known as the Labor Code, was enacted in 1972. Being a legislation on social
justice,45 the provisions of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules have been subject to several amendments,
and they continue to evolve, considering that labor plays a major role as a socio-economic force. The Labor Code
was first amended by Republic Act No. 6715, and recently, by Republic Act No. 9481. Incidentally, the term trade
union center was never mentioned under Presidential Decree No. 442, even as it was amended by Republic Act No.
6715. The term trade union center was first adopted in the Implementing Rules, under Department Order No. 9.

Culling from its definition as provided by Department Order No. 9, a trade union center is any group of registered
national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting such
members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies,
standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the
Implementing Rules.46 The same rule provides that the application for registration of an industry or trade union
center shall be supported by the following:

(a) The list of its member organizations and their respective presidents and, in the case of an industry union,
the industry where the union seeks to operate;

(b) The resolution of membership of each member organization, approved by the Board of Directors of such
union;

(c) The name and principal address of the applicant, the names of its officers and their addresses, the
minutes of its organizational meeting/s, and the list of member organizations and their representatives who
attended such meeting/s; and

(d) A copy of its constitution and by-laws and minutes of its ratification by a majority of the presidents of the
member organizations, provided that where the ratification was done simultaneously with the organizational
meeting, it shall be sufficient that the fact of ratification be included in the minutes of the organizational
meeting.47
Evidently, while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten locals or chapters or
affiliates, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective bargaining agent;48 a trade union center, on
the other hand, is composed of a group of registered national unions or federations.49

The Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, provide that "a duly registered federation or
national union" may directly create a local or chapter. The provision reads:

Section 1. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter. A duly registered federation or national union may
directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the
following:

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of
the local/chapter;

(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter;
and

(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-
laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of
the local/chapter and attested to by its President.50

Department Order No. 9 mentions two labor organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a local or
chapter through chartering a duly registered federation or a national union. Department Order No. 9 defines a
"chartered local" as a labor organization in the private sector operating at the enterprise level that acquired legal
personality through a charter certificate, issued by a duly registered federation or national union and reported to the
Regional Office in accordance with Rule III, Section 2-E of these Rules.51

Republic Act No. 9481 or "An Act Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amending
for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines"
lapsed52 into law on 25 May 2007 and became effective on 14 June 2007.53 This law further amends the Labor Code
provisions on Labor Relations.

Pertinent amendments read as follows:

SECTION 1. Article 234 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code
of the Philippines, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. A federation, national union or industry or trade union
center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
registration based on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the
minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least
twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial
reports; and

(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or
ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

SECTION 2. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as Article 234-A to read as follows:

ART. 234-A. Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. A duly registered federation or national
union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating the establishment
of the local chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition
for certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate.

The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization only
upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate:
 (a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the chapter; and

(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's constitution and by-
laws are the same as that of the federation or the national union, this fact shall be indicated
accordingly.

The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the
chapter and attested by its president. (Emphasis ours.)

Article 234 now includes the term trade union center, but interestingly, the provision indicating the procedure for
chartering or creating a local or chapter, namely Article 234-A, still makes no mention of a "trade union center."

Also worth emphasizing is that even in the most recent amendment of the implementing rules,54 there was no
mention of a trade union center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter.

This Court deems it proper to apply the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Under this maxim of
statutory interpretation, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are
specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. If a statute
specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or
effects are excluded.55 Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters.56 Such is the case here. If its intent were otherwise, the law could have
so easily and conveniently included "trade union centers" in identifying the labor organizations allowed to charter a
chapter or local. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom, and a meaning that does
not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein.57 The rule is
restrictive in the sense that it proceeds from the premise that the legislating body would not have made specific
enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly
mentioned.58 Expressium facit cessare tacitum.59 What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. Casus omissus
pro omisso habendus est. A person, object or thing omitted must have been omitted intentionally.

Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor
organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union, then a
trade union center is without authority to charter directly.

The ruling of this Court in the instant case is not a departure from the policy of the law to foster the free and
voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement,60 and thus assure the rights of workers to self-
organization.61 The mandate of the Labor Code in ensuring strict compliance with the procedural requirements for
registration is not without reason. It has been observed that the formation of a local or chapter becomes a handy
tool for the circumvention of union registration requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards, it becomes a
convenient device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or union on unsuspecting co-
workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness, which is basic to free unionism.62 As a legitimate labor
organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code and involved in activities directly affecting public
interest, it is necessary that the law afford utmost protection to the parties affected.63 However, as this Court has
enunciated in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment, it is not
this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by law. Our only recourse, as previously discussed, is
to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as requisites for local or chapter formation.64

In sum, although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to directly create
a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created under the more lenient requirements for chartering, but
must have complied with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an independent union, including the
20% membership requirement.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 09 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
GR SP No. 66200 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Certificate of Registration of San Miguel Packaging
Products Employees UnionPambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino is ORDERED CANCELLED, and
SMPPEU-PDMP DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria_Martinez, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.

 II. Modes Creating a Labor Organization

a.Independent Registration (Art. 240 )

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 115077, April 18, 1997
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT, PETITIONER, VS.
HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF
LABOR, AND NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM)-KATIPUNAN,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

KAPUNAN, J.:

On July 9, 1993, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent

Union) filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor (National
Capital Region) in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive Development
Corporation (Pizza Hut) docketed as NCR Case No. NCR-OD-M-9307-020.[1]

Petitioner filed on August 20, 1993, a verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud,
falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent Union's registration making it void and
invalid. The motion specifically alleged that: a) respondent Union's registration was tainted
with false, forged, double or multiple signatures of those who allegedly took part in the
ratification of the respondent Union's constitution and by-laws and in the election of its
officers that there were two sets of supposed attendees to the alleged organizational meeting
that was alleged to have taken place on June 26, 1993; that the alleged chapter is claimed to
have been supported by 318 members when in fact the persons who actually signed their
names were much less; and b) while the application for registration of the charter was
supposed to have been approved in the organizational meeting held on June 27, 1993, the
charter certification issued by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one
(1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, thus, there were serious falsities in the dates of
the issuance of the charter certification and the organization meeting of the alleged chapter.

Citing other instances of misrepresentation and fraud, petitioner, on August 29, 1993, filed a
Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss,[2] claiming that:

1) Respondent Union alleged that the election of its officers was held on June 27, 1993;
however, it appears from the documents submitted by respondent union to the BIR-DOLE
that the Union's constitution and by-laws were adopted only on July 7, 1993, hence, there
was no bases for the supposed election of officers on June 27, 1993 because as of this date,
there existed no positions to which the officers could be validly elected;

2) Voting was not conducted by secret ballot in violation of Article 241, section (c) of the
Labor Code;

3) The Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition were not properly
acknowledged and notarized.[3]

On August 30, 1993, petitioner filed a Petition[4] seeking the cancellation of the Union's
registration on the grounds of fraud and falsification, docketed as BIR Case No. 8-21-
83.[5]Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with the Med-Arbiter requesting suspension of
proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the
Union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration.

However, in an Order dated September 29, 1993,[6] Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah

directed the holding of a certification election among petitioner's rank and file employees.
The Order explained:

x x x Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa ng Pizza Hut is a legitimate labor organization in

contemplation of law and shall remain as such until its very charter certificate is canceled or
otherwise revoked by competent authority. The alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false
statement in connection with the issuance of the charter certificate are collateral issues which
could be properly ventilated in the cancellation proceedings.[7]
On appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor, Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma in a Resolution dated December 29, 1993[8] denied the same.

A motion for reconsideration of the public respondent's resolution was denied in his
Order[9] dated January 27, 1994, hence, this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court where the principal issue raised is whether or not the public
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order to
conduct a certification election among petitioner's rank and file employees, considering that:
(1) respondent Union's legal personality was squarely put in issue; (2) allegations of fraud and
falsification, supported by documentary evidence were made; and (3) a petition to cancel
respondent Union's registration is pending with the regional office of the Department of
Labor and Employment.[10]

We grant the petition.

In the public respondent's assailed Resolution dated December 29, 1993, the suggestion is
made that once a labor organization has filed the necessary documents and papers and the
same have been certified under oath and attested to, said organization necessarily becomes
clothed with the character of a legitimate labor organization. The resolution declares:

Records show that at the time of the filing of the subject petition on 9 July 1993 by the
petitioner NLM-KATIPUNAN, for and in behalf of its local affiliate Sumasaklaw sa
Manggagawa ng Pizza Hut, the latter has been clothed with the status and/or character of a
legitimate labor organization. This is so, because on 8 July 1993, petitioner submitted to the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), this Department, the following documents: Charter
Certificate, Minutes of the Organizational Meeting, List of Officers, and their respective
addresses, financial statement, Constitution and By-Laws (CBL, and the minutes of the
ratification of the CBL). Said documents (except the charter certificate) are certified under
oath and attested to by the local union's Secretary/Treasurer and President, respectively.

As to the contention that the certification election proceedings should be suspended in view
of the pending case for the cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of registration, let it be
stressed that the pendency of a cancellation case is not a ground for the dismissal or
suspension of a representation proceedings considering that a registered labor organization
continues to be a legitimate one entitled to all the rights appurtenant thereto until a final
valid order is issued canceling such registration.[11]
In essence, therefore, the real controversy in this case centers on the question of whether or
not, after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization,
recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes a ministerial function.

We do not agree.

In the first place, the public respondent's views as expressed in his December 29, 1993
Resolution miss the entire point behind the nature and purpose of proceedings leading to
the recognition of unions as legitimate labor organizations. Article 234 of the Labor Code
provides:

Art. 234. Requirements of registration. - Any applicant labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
registration based on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization,
the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in
such meetings;

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual
financial reports; and

(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its
adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

A more than cursory reading of the aforecited provisions clearly indicates that the
requirements embodied therein are intended as preventive measures against the commission
of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the necessary papers and documents for
registration, it becomes mandatory for the Bureau of Labor Relations to check if the
requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. If its application for
registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularities, especially those appearing on
the face of the application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be
denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of recognition has
been issued, the propriety of the labor organization's registration could be assailed directly
through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of
the Labor Code, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for
certification election.

These measures are necessary - and may be undertaken simultaneously - if the spirit behind
the Labor Code's requirements for registration are to be given flesh and blood. Registration
requirements specifically afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who
may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to
control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends.[12] Such requirements
are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations,
associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should
be protected.[13]
Thus, in Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[14] we held:

The controversy in this case centers on the requirements before a local or chapter of a
federation may file a petition for certification election and be certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner's employees.

xxx

But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a
certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for
certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. xxx

xxx

xxx. The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona-fide
organization, one which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the
Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked
degree allay these apprehensions of management. Not only is the issuance of any false
statement and misrepresentation or ground for cancellation of registration (see Article 239
(a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury.

The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the
commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting
employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole
purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious ends.

xxx

xxx. It is not this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by law in order to
make them wiser or to allow greater protection to the workers and even their employer. Our
only recourse is, as earlier discussed, to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as
requisites for local or chapter formation.

xxx

The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local union's right to be
certified as the employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's establishment. We are merely
saying that the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to
exercise this right. Big federations and national unions of workers should take the lead in
requiring their locals and chapters to faithfully comply with the law and the rules instead of
merely snapping union after union into their folds in a furious bid with rival federations to
get the most number of members.

Furthermore, the Labor Code itself grants the Bureau of Labor Relations a period of thirty
(30) days within which to review all applications for registration. Article 235 provides:

"Art. 235. Action on application. - The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration
within thirty (30) days from filing.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the
treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its president."
The thirty-day period in the aforecited provision ensures that any action taken by the Bureau
of Labor Relations is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code, which, it
bears emphasis, specifically requires that the basis for the issuance of a certificate of
registration should be compliance with the requirements for recognition under Article 234.
Since, obviously, recognition of a labor union or labor organization is not merely a
ministerial function, the question now arises as to whether or not the public respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order in spite of the fact
that the question of the Union's legitimacy was squarely put in issue and that the allegations
of fraud and falsification were adequately supported by documentary evidence.

The Labor Code requires that in organized and unorganized[15] establishments, a petition for
certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. The acquisition of
rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for
certification election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization
has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.

In the case before us, the Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the petitioner's prayer that the
former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping declaration that the
union was in the possession of a charter certificate so that "for all intents and purposes,
Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate labor organization."[16] Glossing
over the transcendental issue of fraud and misrepresentation raised by herein petitioner,
Med-Arbiter Rasidali Abdullah held that:
The alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false statement in connection with the issuance of
the charter certificate are collateral issues which could be ventilated in the cancellation
proceedings.[17]
It cannot be denied that the grounds invoked by petitioner for the cancellation of
respondent Union's registration fall under paragraph (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor
Code. to wit:

(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or

ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, the list of members who took part in the ratification of the constitution and by-
laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of members who took part
in the ratification;
xxx
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal
addresses within thirty (30) days from election
xxx

The grounds ventilated in cancellation proceedings in accordance with Article 239 of the
Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to the right of respondent Union to ask for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter should have looked into the merits of the petition for
cancellation before issuing an order calling for certification election. Registration based on
false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor
organization irregularly recognized, which, at best, holds on to a mere scrap of paper. Under
such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization,
acquires no rights, particularly the right to ask for certification election in a bargaining unit.

As we laid emphasis in Progressive Development Corporation Labor,[18] "[t]he employer needs the
assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona fide organization, one which has not
submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau." Clearly, fraud, falsification
and misrepresentation in obtaining recognition as a legitimate labor organization are contrary
to the Med-Arbiter's conclusion not merely collateral issues. The invalidity of respondent
Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election.

Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate labor organization it begins to
possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law to such organizations. As such rights
and privileges ultimately affect areas which are constitutionally protected, the activities in
which labor organizations, associations and unions are engaged directly affect the public
interest and should be zealously protected. A strict enforcement of the Labor Code's
requirements for the acquisition of the status of a legitimate labor organization is in order.

Inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent Union had been seriously challenged, it
would have been more prudent for the Med-Arbiter and public respondent to have granted
petitioner's request for the suspension of proceedings in the certification election case, until
the issue of the legality of the Union's registration shall have been resolved. Failure of the
Med-Arbiter and public respondent to heed the request constituted a grave abuse of
discretion.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is GRANTED and

the Resolution and Order of the public respondent dated December 29, 1993 and January
24, 1994, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.

The case is REMANDED to the Med-Arbiter to resolve with reasonable dispatch

petitioner's petition for cancellation of respondent Union's registration
SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Hermosisima, Jr., J., on leave.
b. Chartering or local Chartered (Atr. 241)

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 116172, October 10, 1996
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.-CEBU B-MEG FEED PLANT, PETITIONER, VS. HON.
BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF DOLE AND ILAW AT
BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to review and set aside two Resolutions of
Mediator-Arbiter Achilles V. Manit, dated January 5, 1994 and April 6, 1994, and the
affirmation Order on appeal of the public respondent, Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment. The petition below was
entitled: "In Re: Petition for Direct Certification as the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining
Agent of All Monthly Paid Employees of SMFI-Cebu B-Meg Feeds Plant," docketed as OS-
MA-A-3-51-94 (RO700-9309-RU-036).

The essential facts are not disputed.

On September 24, 1993, a petition for certification election among the monthly-paid
employees of the San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feeds Plant was filed by private
respondent labor federation Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM, for brevity) before Med-
Arbiter Achilles V. Manit, alleging, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organization duly
registered with the Department of labor and Employment (DOLE) under the Registration
Certificate No. 5369-IP. SMFI-Cebu B-Meg Feeds Plant (SMFI, for brevity), herein
petitioner, is a business entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines
which employs roughly seventy-five (75) monthly paid employees, almost all of whom
support the present petition. It was submitted in said petition that there has been no
certification election conducted in SMFI to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent thereat for the past two years and that the proposed bargaining unit, which is SMFIs
monthly paid employees, is an unorganized one. It was also stated therein that petitioner
IBM (herein private respondent) has already complied with the mandatory requirements for
the creation of its local or affiliate in SMFIs establishment.

On October 25, 1993, herein petitioner SMFI filed a Motion to Dismiss the aforementioned
petition dated September 24, 1993 on the ground that a similar petition remains pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action before Med-Arbiter Achilles V. Manit.

SMFI was referring to an evidently earlier petition, docketed as CE CASE NO R0700-9304-

RU-016, filed on April 28, 1993 before the office of Med-Arbiter Manit. Indeed, both
petitions involved the same parties, cause of action and relief being prayed for, which is the
issuance of an order by the Med-Arbiter allowing the conduct of a certification election in
SMFIs establishment. The contention is that the judgment that may be rendered in the first
petition would be determinative of the outcome of the second petition, dated September 24,
1993.

On December 2, 1993, private respondent IBM filed its Opposition to SMFIs Motion to
Dismiss contending, among others, that the case referred to by SMFI had already been
resolved by Med-Arbiter Manit in his Resolution and Order date July 26, 1993[1] and
September 2, 1993,[2] respectively, wherein IBMs first petition for certification election was
denied mainly due to IBMs failure to comply with certain mandatory requirements of the
law. This denial was affirmed by the Med-Arbiter in another Order dated November 12,
1993[3] wherein the Resolutions dated July 26, 1993 and September 2, 1993 were made to
stand. Thus, IBM argues that there having been no similar petition pending before Med-
Arbiter Manit, another petition for certification election may be refiled as soon as the said
requirements are met. These requirements were finally satisfied before the second petition
for certification election was brought on September 24, 1993.

On January 5, 1994, Med-Arbiter Manit, this time, granted the second petition for
certification election of private respondent IBM in this wise:
"Let, therefore, a certification election be conducted among the monthly paid rank and file
employees of SMFI-CEBU B-MEG FEEDS PLANT at Lo-oc, Mandaue City. The choices
shall be: YES-for IBM AT SMFI-CEBU B-MEG; and NO-for No Union.

The parties are hereby notified of the pre-election conference which will take place on
January 17, 1994 at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon to set the date and time of the election and
to thresh out the mechanics thereof. On said date and time the respondent is directed to
submit the payroll of its monthly paid rank and file employees for the month of June 1993
which shall be the basis for the list of the eligible voters. The petitioner is directed to be
ready to submit a list of the monthly paid rank and file employees of SMFI-CEBU B-MEG
FEEDS PLANT when the respondent fails to submit the required payroll.

SO ORDERED."[4]
Petitioner SMFI appealed the foregoing Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment
alleging that the Med-Arbiter erred in directing the conduct of certification election
considering that the local or chapter of IBM at SMFI is still not a legitimate labor
organization with a right to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in petitioners
establishment based on two grounds: (1) the authenticity and due execution of the Charter
Certificate submitted by IBM in favor of its local at SMFI cannot yet be ascertained as it is
still now known who is the legitimate and authorized representative of the IBM Federation
who may validly issue said Charter Certificate; and (2) a group of workers or a local union
shall acquire legal personality only upon the issuance of a Certificate of Registration by the
Bureau of Labor Relations under Article 234 of the Labor Code, which IBM at SMFI did
not possess.

In a resolution dated April 6, 1994, public respondent Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma,

by authority of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, denied petitioners appeal, viz.:
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby denied for lack of merit and the Order of the Med-
Arbiter is hereby affirmed.

Let the records of this case be forwarded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate
conduct of certification election subject to the usual pre-election conference.

SO RESOLVED."[5]
Thereafter, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed which was also denied by the public
respondent in his Order dated May 24, 1994.[6]
Hence, the instant petition interposing the following justifications:
"1) THE HONORABLE UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA
GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ARBITRARILY RULED THAT
A LOCAL OR CHAPTER OF A LABOR FEDERATION, LIKE RESPONDENT IBM,
NEED NOT OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM THE BUREAU
OF LABOR RELATIONS TO ACQUIRE LEGAL PERSONALITY, WHEN ARTICLE
234 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SECTION 3 OF RULE II
OF BOOK V OF THE RULES IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE, AS
AMENDED, CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT A GROUP OF WORKERS OR A LOCAL
UNION SHALL ACQUIRE LEGAL PERSONALITY ONLY UPON THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS. AND,

2) THE HONORABLE UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE PREMATURELY AND
ARBITRARILY RULED THAT RESPONDENT IBM IS A LEGITIMATE LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHEN THE AUTHENTICITY AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE
CHARTER CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IBM CANNOT YET BE
ASCERTAINED BECAUSE IT IS STILL NOT KNOWN WHO ARE THE
LEGITIMATE OFFICERS OF THE IBM FEDERATION WHO MAY VALIDLY
ISSUE SAID CHARTER CERTIFICATE AS THE CASE FILED TO RESOLVE THE
ISSUE ON WHO ARE THE LEGITIMATE OFFICERS OF THE IBM
FEDERATION IS STILL PENDING RESOLUTION BEFORE THIS HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT."[7]

The petition has no merit.

Petitioner asserts that IBM at SMFI is not a legitimate labor organization notwithstanding
the fact that it is a local or chapter of the IBM Federation. This is so because under Article
234 of the Labor Code, any labor organization shall acquire legal personality upon the
issuance of the Certificate of Registration by the Bureau of Labor Relations.

We do not agree.

Article 212(h) of the Labor Code defines a legitimate labor organization as "any labor
organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any
branch or local thereof."

It is important to determine whether or not a particular labor organization is legitimate since

legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised
by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes
of collective bargaining. These rights are found under Article 242 of the Labor Code, to wit:
"ART. 242. Rights of legitimate organizations.--A legitimate labor organization shall have
the right:

(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining;

(b) To be certiified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit for purposes of collective bargaining;
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with his annual audited financial
statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly
recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration
of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining
negotiation;

(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization and
its members;

(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and

(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members,
including cooperative, housing welfare and other projects not contrary to law.

xxx xxx x x x."

The pertinent question, therefore, must be asked: When does a labor organization acquire
legitimacy?

Ordinarily, a labor organization attains the status of legitamacy only upon the issuance in its
name of a Certificate of Registration by the Bureau of Labor Relations pursuant to Articles
234 and 235 of the Labor Code, viz.:
"ART. 234. Requirements of registration.--Any applicant labor organization, association or
group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based
on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization,
the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in
such meetings;

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual
financial reports; and

(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its
adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

ART. 235. Action on application. -- The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration
within thirty (30) days from filing.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the
treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its president."
The foregoing procedure is not the only way by which a labor union may become legitimate,
however. When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation,
some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required.[8] Section
3, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code governs the procedure for
union affiliation, the relevant portions of which provide:
"Sec. 3. Union Affiliation: Direct Membership with National Union. -- An affiliate of a
labor federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently
registered union.

(a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a chapter certificate indicating the creation or
establishment of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within
thirty (30) days from issuance of such charter certificate.

(b) An independently registered union shall be considered an affiliate of a labor federation or

national union after submission to the Bureau of the contract or agreement of affiliation
within thirty (30) days after its execution.

xxx xxx xxx

(e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a
constitution and by-laws, set of officers and book of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or
national unions shall be observed."
Paragraph (a) refers to a local or chapter of a federation which did not undergo the
rudiments of registration while paragraph (b) refers to an independently registered union
which affiliated with a federation. Implicit in the foregoing differentiation is the fact that a
local or chapter need not be independently registered. By force of law (in this case, Article
212 [h]), such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with
the aforementioned provisions of Section 3[9] (a) and (e), without having to be issued a
Certificate of Registration in its favor by the BLR.

The cases of Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[10] Phoenix
Iron and Steel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[11] and Protection
Technology, Inc. v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,[12] all going back to
our landmark holding in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment,[13] unequivocably laid down the rule, thus:
"A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission
of the following to the BLR:

1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national
union, and

2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of
accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may
be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.

Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not
become a legitimate labor organization."
Corollarily, the satisfaction of all these requirements by the local or chapter shall vest upon it
the status of legitimacy with all its concomitant statutory privileges, one of which is the right
to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit.

In the case at bench, public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, in affirming the finding of
the Med-Arbiter that IBM at SMFI is a legitimate labor organization,[14] made the following
material pronouncements amply supported by the records:
"[t]he resolution of the issue raised by the respondent on whether or not petitioner is a
legitimate labor organization will depend on the documents submitted by the petitioner in
the second petition.

A close scrutiny of the records shows that at the time of the filing of the subject petition on
24 September 1993 by the petitioner Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, for and in behalf of its
local affiliate IBM at SMFI-CEBU B-MEG, the latter has been clothed with the status
and/or character of a legitimate labor organization. This is so, because on 19 July 1993,
petitioner submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), this Department, the following
documents: charter certificate, constitution and by-laws, names and addresses of the union
officers and a certification of the unions secretary on the non-availability of the unions
Books of Accounts. Said documents (except the charter certificate) are certified under oath
and attested to by the local unions secretary and President, respectively."[15]
Petitioner SMFI does not dispute the fact that IBM at SMFI has complied with the second
set of requirements, i.e., constitution, by-laws, et. al. What is controverted is the non-
compliance with the requirement as to the charter certificate which must be submitted to the
BLR within thirty (30) days from its issuance by the labor federation. While the presence of
a charter certificate is conceded, petitioner maintains that the validity and authenticity of the
same cannot yet be ascertained as it is still not known who is the legitimate and authorized
representative of the IBM Federation who may validly issue said charter certificate in favor
of its local, IBM at SMFI. According to petitioner, there are two (2) contending sets of
officers of the IBM Federation at the time the charter certificate was issued in favor of IBM
at SMFI, the faction of Mr. Severino O. Meron and that of Mr. Edilberto B. Galvez.

On this point, public respondent, in upholding the legitimate status of IBM at SMFI, backed
up by the Solicitor General, had this to say:
"The contention of the respondent that unless and until the issue on who is the legitimate
national president, of the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa is resolved, the petitioner cannot
claim that it has a valid charter certificate necessary for it to acquire legal personality is
untenable. We wish to stress that the resolution of the said issue will not in any way affect
the validity of the charter certificate issued by the IBM in favor of the local union. It must
be borne in mind that the said charter certificate was issued by the IBM in its capacity as a
labor organization, a juridical entity which has a separate and distinct legal personality from
its members. When as in this case, there is no showing that the Federation acting as a
separate entity is questioning the legality of the issuance of the said charter certificate, the
legality of the issuance of the same in favor of the local union is presumed. This,
notwithstanding the alleged controversy on the leadership of the federation."[16]
We agree with this position of the public respondent and the Solicitor General. In addition,
private respondents Comment to this petition indicates that in the election of officers held
to determine the representatives of IBM, the faction of Mr. Meron lost to the group of Mr.
Edilberto Galvez, and the latter was acknowledged as the duly elected IBM National
President.[17] Thus, the authority of Mr. Galvez to sign the charter certificate of IBM at
SMFI, as President of the IBM Federation,[18] can no longer be successfully questioned. A
punctilious examination of the records presents no evidence to the contrary and petitioner,
instead of squarely refuting this point, skirted the issue by insisting that the mere presence of
two contending factions in the IBM prevents the issuance of a valid and authentic charter
certificate in favor of IBM at SMFI. This averment of petitioner simply does not deserve
any merit.
 II

In any case, this Court notes that it is petitioner, the employer, which has offered the most
tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its monthly-paid rank-
and-file employees. This must not be so, for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is
the sole concern of the employees.[19] The only exception to this rule is where the employer
has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258[20] of the Labor Code
because it was requested to bargain collectively,[21] which exception finds no application in
the case before us. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions
of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano,[22] as that of a mere by-stander. It has no
legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-
Arbiters orders related thereto. An employer that involves itself in a certification election
lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a company union.[23] This Court should be
the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal affair
of labor.[24]

While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they
should not, however, be considered parties thereto with the concomitant right to oppose
it. Sound policy dictates that they should maintain a strictly hands-off policy.[25]

It bears stressing that no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification

elections,[26] for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.[27] The certification
election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely
determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealings with the
establishment where they are working.[28] It is the appropriate means whereby controversies
and disputes on representation may be laid to rest, by the unequivocal vote of the employees
themselves.[29] Indeed, it is the keystone of industrial democracy.[30]

III

Petitioner next asseverates that the Charter Certificate submitted by the private respondent
was defective in that it was not certified under oath and attested to by the organizations
secretary and President.

Petitioner is grasping at straws. Under our ruling in the Progressive Development

Corporation[31] case, what is required to be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer
and attested to by the locals president are the "constitution and by-laws, a statement on the
set of officers, and the books of accounts" of the organization. The charter certificate issued
by the mother union need not be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and
attested to by the locals president.

IV

Petitioner, in its Reply to public respondents Comment, nevertheless calls the attention of
this court to the fact that, contrary to the assertion of private respondent IBM that it is a
legitimate labor federation and therefore has the capacity and authority to create a local or
chapter at SMFI, the Chief of the Labor Organizations Division of the Bureau of Labor
Relations -- Manila had allegedly issued a certification last January 17, 1995 to the effect that
private respondent is not a legitimate labor federation.[32]

This is a factual issue which petitioner should have raised before the Med-Arbiter so as to
allow the private respondent ample opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. This
Court is definitely not the proper venue to consider this matter for it is not a trier of facts. It
is noteworthy that petitioner did not challenge the legal personality of the federation in the
proceedings before the Med-Arbiter. Nor was this issue raised in petitioners appeal to the
Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. This matter is being raised for the first
time in this petition. An issue which was neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during
the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time before this Court. It would be
offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process.[33]Certiorari is a remedy
narrow in its scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal
workshop.[34] Factual issues are not a proper subject for certiorari, as the power of the
Supreme Court to review labor cases is limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
discretion.[35] It is simply unthinkable for the public respondent Undersecretary of Labor to
have committed grave abuse of discretion in this regard when the issue as to the legal
personality of the private respondent IBM Federation was never interposed in the appeal
before said forum.

Finally, the certification election sought to be stopped by petitioner is, as of now, fait
accompli. The monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SMFI have already articulated their
choice as to who their collective bargaining agent should be. In the certification election
held on August 20, 1994,[36] the SMFI workers chose IBM at SMFI to be their sole and
exclusive bargaining agent. This democratic decision deserves utmost respect. Again, it
bears stressing that labor legislation seeks in the main to protect the interest of the members
of the working class. It should never be used to subvert their will.[37]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
 SECOND DIVISION
G. R. No. 172699, July 27, 2011
ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIRIACO LAGUNZAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT; AND HON. HANS LEO J. CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA NG ELECTROMAT-

WASTO, PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari [1] assailing the decision [2] and the
resolution [3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 3, 2006 and May 11, 2006,
respectively, rendered in CA G.R. SP No. 83847.

The Antecedents

The private respondent Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Manggagawa ng Electromat-Wasto

(union), a charter affiliate of the Workers Advocates for Struggle, Transformation and
Organization (WASTO), applied for registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
Supporting the application were the following documents: (1) copies of its ratified
constitution and by-laws (CBL); (2) minutes of the CBL's adoption and ratification; (3)
minutes of the organizational meetings; (4) names and addresses of the union officers; (5) list
of union members; (6) list of rank-and-file employees in the company; (7) certification of
non-existence of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in the company; (8) resolution of
affiliation with WASTO, a labor federation; (9) WASTO's resolution of acceptance; (10)
Charter Certificate; and (11) Verification under oath.

The BLR thereafter issued the union a Certification of Creation of Local Chapter (equivalent
to the certificate of registration of an independent union), pursuant to Department Order
No. (D.O.) 40-03. [4]

On October 1, 2003, the petitioner Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation

(company) filed a petition for cancellation of the union's registration certificate, for the union's
failure to comply with Article 234 of the Labor Code. It argued that D.O. 40-03 is an
unconstitutional diminution of the Labor Code's union registration requirements under
Article 234.

On November 27, 2003, Acting Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE)-National Capital Region dismissed the petition. [5]

In the appeal by the company, BLR Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac affirmed the
dismissal. [6] The company thereafter sought relief from the CA through a petition
for certiorari, contending that the BLR committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
union's registration despite its non-compliance with the requirements for registration under
Article 234 of the Labor Code. It assailed the validity of D.O. 40-03 which amended the
rules of Book V (Labor Relations) of the Labor Code. It posited that the BLR should have
strictly adhered to the union registration requirements under the Labor Code, instead of
relying on D.O. 40-03 which it considered as an invalid amendment of the law since it
reduced the requirements under Article 234 of the Labor Code. It maintained that the BLR
should not have granted the union's registration through the issuance of a Certification of
Creation of Local Chapter since the union submitted only the Charter Certificate issued to it
by WASTO.

The CA Decision

In its decision rendered on February 3, 2006, [7] the CA Tenth Division dismissed the
petition and affirmed the assailed BLR ruling. It brushed aside the company's objection to
D.O. 40-03, and its submission that D.O. 40-03 removed the safety measures against the
commission of fraud in the registration of unions. It noted that "there are sufficient
safeguards found in other provisions of the Labor Code to prevent the same." [8] In any
event, it pointed out that D.O. 40-03 was issued by the DOLE pursuant to its rule-making
power under the law. [9]

The company moved for reconsideration, arguing that the union's registration certificate was
invalid as there was no showing that WASTO, the labor federation to which the union is
affiliated, had at least ten (10) locals or chapters as required by D.O. 40-03. The CA denied
the motion, [10] holding that no such requirement is found under the rules. Hence, the
present petition.

The Case for the Petitioner

The company seeks a reversal of the CA rulings, through its submissions (the petition [11] and
the memorandum [12]), on the ground that the CA seriously erred and gravely abused its
discretion in affirming the registration of the union in accordance with D.O. 40-03.
Specifically, it assails as unconstitutional Section 2(E), Rule III of D.O. 40-03 which
provides:

The report of creation of a chartered local shall be accompanied by a charter certificate

issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the
chartered local.

The company points out that D.O. 40-03 delisted some of the requirements under Article
234 of the Labor Code for the registration of a local chapter. Article 234 states:

ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. [13] Any applicant labor organization,

association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled
to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of
the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes
of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial
reports; and
(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or
 ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

The company contends that the enumeration of the requirements for union registration
under the law is exclusive and should not be diminished, and that the same requirements
should apply to all labor unions whether they be independent labor organizations,
federations or local chapters. It adds that in making a different rule for local chapters, D.O.
40-03 expanded or amended Article 234 of the Labor Code, resulting in an invalid exercise
by the DOLE of its delegated rule-making power. It thus posits that the union's certificate
of registration which was issued "in violation of the letters of Article 234 of the Labor
Code" [14] is void and of no effect, and that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
when it affirmed the union's existence.

The Case for the Union

In a Resolution dated January 16, 2008, [15] the Court directed union board member Alex
Espejo, in lieu of union President Roberto Beltran whose present address could not be
verified, to furnish the Court a copy of the union comment/opposition to the company's
motion for reconsideration dated February 22, 2006 in CA G.R. SP No. 83847, which the
union adopted as its comment on the present petition. [16]

Through this comment/opposition, [17] the union submits that the company failed to show
that the CA committed reversible error in upholding the registration certificate issued to it
by the BLR. Citing Castillo v. National Labor Relations Commission, [18] it stressed that the
issuance of the certificate by the DOLE agencies was supported by substantial evidence,
which should be entitled to great respect and even finality.

The Court's Ruling

We resolve the core issue of whether D.O. 40-03 is a valid exercise of the rule-making
power of the DOLE.

We rule in the affirmative. Earlier in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department

of Labor and Employment,[19] the Court encountered a similar question on the validity of the old
Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code [20] which stated:

Union affiliation; direct membership with a national union. - The affiliate of a labor federation or
national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union.

a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicating
the creation or establishment of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the
Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30) days from issuance of such charter certificate.

xxxx

e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a
constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or
national unions shall be observed.

Interpreting these provisions of the old rules, the Court said that by force of law, [21] the local
or chapter of a labor federation or national union becomes a legitimate labor organization
upon compliance with Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor
Code, the only requirement being the submission of the charter certificate to the BLR.
Further, the Court noted that Section 3 omitted several requirements which are otherwise
required for union registration, as follows:
1) The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at least 20% of the employees in
the appropriate bargaining unit;
2) The submission of officers' addresses, principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of
organization meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
3) The submission of the minutes of the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws and the list of
the members who participated in it. [22]

Notwithstanding these omissions, the Court upheld the government's implementing policy
expressed in the old rules when it declared in Progressive Development -

Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or
local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local
union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining
powers respecting terms and conditions of labor. [23]

It was this same Section 3 of the old rules that D.O. 40-03 fine-tuned when the DOLE
amended the rules on Book V of the Labor Code, thereby modifying the government's
implementing policy on the registration of locals or chapters of labor federations or national
unions. The company now assails this particular amendment as an invalid exercise of the
DOLE's rule-making power.

We disagree. As in the case of D.O. 9 (which introduced the above-cited Section 3 of the
old rules) in Progressive Development, D.O. 40-03 represents an expression of the government's
implementing policy on trade unionism. It builds upon the old rules by further simplifying
the requirements for the establishment of locals or chapters. As in D.O. 9, we see nothing
contrary to the law or the Constitution in the adoption by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment of D.O. 40-03 as this department order is consistent with the intent of the
government to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union
to enhance the local's bargaining power. If changes were made at all, these were those made
to recognize the distinctions made in the law itself between federations and their local
chapters, and independent unions; local chapters seemingly have lesser requirements because
they and their members are deemed to be direct members of the federation to which they
are affiliated, which federations are the ones subject to the strict registration requirements of
the law.

In any case, the local union in the present case has more than satisfied the requirements the
petitioner complains about; specifically, the union has submitted: (1) copies of the ratified
CBL; (2) the minutes of the CBL's adoption and ratification; (3) the minutes of the
organizational meetings; (4) the names and addresses of the union officers; (5) the list of
union members; (6) the list of rank-and-file employees in the company; (7) a certification of
non-existence of a CBA in the company; (8) the resolution of affiliation with WASTO and
the latter's acceptance; and (9) their Charter Certificate. These submissions were properly
verified as required by the rules. In sum, the petitioner has no factual basis for questioning
the union's registration, as even the requirements for registration as an independent local
have been substantially complied with.
We, thus, find no compelling justification to nullify D.O. 40-03. Significantly, the Court
declared in another case: [24]

Pagpalain cannot also allege that Department Order No. 9 is violative of public policy. x x x
[T]he sole function of our courts is to apply or interpret the laws. It does not formulate
public policy, which is the province of the legislative and executive branches of government.
It cannot, thus, be said that the principles laid down by the Court in Progressive and Protection
Technology constitute public policy on the matter. They do, however, constitute the Court's
interpretation of public policy, as formulated by the executive department through its
promulgation of rules implementing the Labor Code. However, this public policy has itself
been changed by the executive department, through the amendments introduced in Book V
of the Omnibus Rules by Department Order No. 9. It is not for us to question this change
in policy, it being a well-established principle beyond question that it is not within the
province of the courts to pass judgments upon the policy of legislative or executive action.

This statement is as true then as it is now.

In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in the appeal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. The
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against the
petitioner Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,* Peralta,** and Perez, JJ., concur.

 FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 169717, March 16, 2011
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN
THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER),
ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT, PETITIONER,VS. CHARTER
CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The right to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor organization
provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper registration. The inclusion
of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of
rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. We
apply these principles to this case.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeal's
March 15, 2005 Decision[1] in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203, which annulled and set aside the
January 13, 2000 Decision[2] of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in OS-
A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) and the September 16, 2005 Resolution[3] denying
petitioner union's motion for reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents

On February 19, 1999, Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the
Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a petition for
certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and
Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the
DOLE, National Capital Region.

On April 14, 1999, respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss[4] on the
ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1) failure to
comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory
employees within petitioner union.[5]

Med-Arbiter's Ruling

On April 30, 1999, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued a Decision[6] dismissing the
petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a
legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certificate, "Sama-samang Pahayag ng
Pagsapi at Authorization," and "Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-
ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas" were not executed under oath and certified by the union
secretary and attested to by the union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor
Code[7] in relation to Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, series of 1997.
The union registration was, thus, fatally defective.

The Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner union consisted of 12
batchman, mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory functions. Under Article
245 of the Labor Code, said supervisory employees are prohibited from joining petitioner
union which seeks to represent the rank-and-file employees of respondent company.

As a result, not being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file a
petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Department of Labor and Employment's Ruling

On July 16, 1999, the DOLE initially issued a Decision[8] in favor of respondent company
dismissing petitioner union's appeal on the ground that the latter's petition for certification
election was filed out of time. Although the DOLE ruled, contrary to the findings of the
Med-Arbiter, that the charter certificate need not be verified and that there was no
independent evidence presented to establish respondent company's claim that some
members of petitioner union were holding supervisory positions, the DOLE sustained the
dismissal of the petition for certification after it took judicial notice that another
union, i.e., Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation,
previously filed a petition for certification election on January 16, 1998. The Decision
granting the said petition became final and executory on September 16, 1998 and was
remanded for immediate implementation. Under Section 7, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of
1997, a motion for intervention involving a certification election in an unorganized
establishment should be filed prior to the finality of the decision calling for a certification
election. Considering that petitioner union filed its petition only on February 14, 1999, the
same was filed out of time.

On motion for reconsideration, however, the DOLE reversed its earlier ruling. In its January
13, 2000 Decision, the DOLE found that a review of the records indicates that no
certification election was previously conducted in respondent company. On the contrary, the
prior certification election filed by Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and
Coating Corporation was, likewise, denied by the Med-Arbiter and, on appeal, was dismissed
by the DOLE for being filed out of time. Hence, there was no obstacle to the grant of
petitioner union's petition for certification election, viz:

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the decision of
this Office dated 16 July 1999 is MODIFIED to allow the certification election among the
regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation with the
following choices:

1. Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical-Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for

Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER); and

2. No Union.

Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate
conduct of a certification election, subject to the usual pre-election conference.

SO DECIDED.[9]

Court of Appeal's Ruling

On March 15, 2005, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, viz:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution
dated January 13, 2000 and February 17, 2000 are hereby [ANNULLED] and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.[10]

In nullifying the decision of the DOLE, the appellate court gave credence to the findings of
the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union failed to comply with the documentation requirements
under the Labor Code. It, likewise, upheld the Med-Arbiter's finding that petitioner union
consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. Moreover, the CA held that the
issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked collaterally in a petition for
certification election and the infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be
remedied through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a pre-election conference pursuant
to the ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
Union.[11] Thus, considering that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization, it has
no legal right to file a petition for certification election.

Issues

Whether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in granting the respondent [company's] petition
for certiorari (CA G.R. No. SP No. 58203) in spite of the fact that the issues subject of the
respondent company['s] petition was already settled with finality and barred from being re-
litigated.

II

Whether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employee[s] of petitioner [union's] membership is [a] ground for the cancellation
of petitioner [union's] legal personality and dismissal of [the] petition for certification
election.

III

Whether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged failure to certify under oath the
local charter certificate issued by its mother federation and list of the union membership
attending the organizational meeting [is a ground] for the cancellation of petitioner [union's]
legal personality as a labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification
election.[12]

Petitioner Union's Arguments

Petitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal personality to file the
subject petition for certification election is barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the
DOLE. In this decision, the DOLE ruled that petitioner union complied with all the
documentation requirements and that there was no independent evidence presented to prove
an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in petitioner union. After the
promulgation of this Decision, respondent company did not move for reconsideration, thus,
this issue must be deemed settled.

Petitioner union further argues that the lack of verification of its charter certificate and the
alleged illegal composition of its membership are not grounds for the dismissal of a petition
for certification election under Section 11, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, as
amended, nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a union's registration under Section 3,
Rule VIII of said issuance. It contends that what is required to be certified under oath by the
local union's secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local union's president are limited
to the union's constitution and by-laws, statement of the set of officers, and the books of
accounts.

Finally, the legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked but may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section 5, Rule V,
Book IV of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tagaytay
Highlands International Golf Club Incoprorated v. Tagaytay Highlands Empoyees Union-PTGWO.[13]

Respondent Company's Arguments

Respondent company asserts that it cannot be precluded from challenging the July 16, 1999
Decision of the DOLE. The said decision did not attain finality because the DOLE
subsequently reversed its earlier ruling and, from this decision, respondent company timely
filed its motion for reconsideration.

On the issue of lack of verification of the charter certificate, respondent company notes that
Article 235 of the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V,
as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, expressly requires that the charter certificate be
certified under oath.

It also contends that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because its
composition is a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation of Article
245 of the Labor Code. Respondent company maintains that the ruling in Toyota Motor
Philippines vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor Union[14]continues to be good case law. Thus, the
illegal composition of petitioner union nullifies its legal personality to file the subject petition
for certification election and its legal personality may be collaterally attacked in the
proceedings for a petition for certification election as was done here.

Our Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The issue as to the legal personality of

petitioner union is not barred by the
July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE.

A review of the records indicates that the issue as to petitioner union's legal personality has
been timely and consistently raised by respondent company before the Med-Arbiter, DOLE,
CA and now this Court. In its July 16, 1999 Decision, the DOLE found that petitioner
union complied with the documentation requirements of the Labor Code and that the
evidence was insufficient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership. Nonetheless, the petition for certification
election was dismissed on the ground that another union had previously filed a petition for
certification election seeking to represent the same bargaining unit in respondent
company.

Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner union on January 13, 2000, the DOLE
reversed its previous ruling. It upheld the right of petitioner union to file the subject petition
for certification election because its previous decision was based on a mistaken appreciation
of facts.[15] From this adverse decision, respondent company timely moved for
reconsideration by reiterating its previous arguments before the Med-Arbiter that petitioner
union has no legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election.

The July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE, therefore, never attained finality because the
parties timely moved for reconsideration. The issue then as to the legal personality of
petitioner union to file the certification election was properly raised before the DOLE, the
appellate court and now this Court.

The charter certificate need not be

certified under oath by the local union's
secretary or treasurer and attested to
by its president.

Preliminarily, we must note that Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481[16] which
took effect on June 14, 2007.[17] This law introduced substantial amendments to the Labor
Code. However, since the operative facts in this case occurred in 1999, we shall decide the
issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force (i.e., R.A. No. 6715,[18] amending
Book V of the Labor Code, and the rules and regulations[19] implementing R.A. No. 6715, as
amended by D.O. No. 9,[20]

series of 1997) pursuant to our ruling in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.[21]

In the main, the CA ruled that petitioner union failed to comply with the requisite
documents for registration under Article 235 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules.
It agreed with the Med-Arbiter that the Charter Certificate, Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi
at Authorization, and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at
Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas were not executed under oath. Thus, petitioner union cannot be
accorded the status of a legitimate labor organization.

We disagree.

The then prevailing Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended
by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, provides:

Section 1. Chartering and creation of a local chapter -- A duly registered federation or national
union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the
Bureau two (2) copies of the following:

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or
establishment of the local/chapter;

(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the
local/chapter; and
(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws provided that where the local/chapter's
constitution and by-laws [are] the same as [those] of the federation or national union, this
fact shall be indicated accordingly.

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or
the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.

As readily seen, the Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization and Listahan ng mga
Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas are not
among the documents that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor
Relations in order to register a labor organization. As to the charter certificate, the above-
quoted rule indicates that it should be executed under oath. Petitioner union concedes and
the records confirm that its charter certificate was not executed under oath. However, in San
Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San
Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-
FFW),[22] which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we ruled -

In San Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 356 (1996), the Court
ruled that it was not necessary for the charter certificate to be certified and attested by the
local/chapter officers. Id. While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the
previous Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997
amendments, we believe that the same doctrine obtains in this case. Considering that
the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union and not the
local/chapter, it does not make sense to have the local/chapter's officers x x x certify
or attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of.[23] (Emphasis
supplied)

In accordance with this ruling, petitioner union's charter certificate need not be executed
under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization
upon submission of (1) its charter certificate,[24] (2) the names of its officers, their addresses,
and its principal office,[25] and (3) its constitution and by-laws[26]-- the last two requirements
having been executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the records.

The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory

employees in petitioner union does not
nullify its legal personality as a legitimate
labor organization.

The CA found that petitioner union has for its membership both rank-and-file and
supervisory employees. However, petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit
consisting of rank-and-file employees. Under Article 245[27] of the Labor Code, supervisory
employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file
employees. Thus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a
legitimate labor organization pursuant to Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation Labor Union[28] (hereinafter Toyota).

Preliminarily, we note that petitioner union questions the factual findings of the Med-
Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that 12 of its members, consisting of batchman,
mill operator and leadman, are supervisory employees. However, petitioner union failed to
present any rebuttal evidence in the proceedings below after respondent company submitted
in evidence the job descriptions[29] of the aforesaid employees. The job descriptions indicate
that the aforesaid employees exercise recommendatory managerial actions which are not
merely routinary but require the use of independent judgment, hence, falling within the
definition of supervisory employees under Article 212(m)[30] of the Labor Code. For this
reason, we are constrained to agree with the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court,
that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees.

Nonetheless, the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory employees in petitioner union does
not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. The appellate court's reliance
on Toyota is misplaced in view of this Court's subsequent ruling in Republic v. Kawashima
Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.[31] (hereinafter Kawashima). In Kawashima, we explained at length
how and why the Toyota doctrine no longer holds sway under the altered state of the law and
rules applicable to this case, viz:

R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition [on
the co-mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees] would bring about on
the legitimacy of a labor organization.

It was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules) which supplied the deficiency by introducing the following amendment to Rule II
(Registration of Unions):

"Sec. 1. Who may join unions. - x x x Supervisory employees and security guards shall not
be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but
may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own; Provided, that those
supervisory employees who are included in an existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon
the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

and Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules, viz:

"Sec. 1. Where to file. - A petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional
Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The petition shall be
in writing and under oath.

Sec. 2. Who may file. - Any legitimate labor organization or the employer, when requested to
bargain collectively, may file the petition.

The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among others:

xxxx

(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless
circumstances otherwise require; and provided further, that the appropriate
bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory
employees and/or security guards. (Emphasis supplied)

By that provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly
registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification
election.
Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in Toyota, the Court,
citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, held:

"Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and
supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be
a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture
of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification
election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary,
therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to
inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the
labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.

xxxx

In the case at bar, as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least
twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior
to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor
organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for
certification election." (Emphasis supplied)

In Dunlop, in which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was
one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-file
employees, the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a
certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it
counted rank-and-file employees among its members.

It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved

in Toyota and Dunlop were filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively;
hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases.

But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by
Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the
requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules - that the petition for
certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not
been mingled with supervisory employees - was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended
Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit, thus:

Rule XI
Certification Elections

xxxx

Sec. 4. Forms and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall
contain, among others, the following: x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.

In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano, the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997
Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved therein was only Sec. 1,
Rule VI, to wit:
"Section. 1. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or national
union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the
Bureau two (2) copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or
national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter; (b) the names of
the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and
(c) the local/ chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's
constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall
be indicated accordingly.

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or
the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President."

which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list
of its members.

Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-
PGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor
organization and its right to file a petition for certification election. This time, given the
altered legal milieu, the Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its
pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for
the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it
may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling
between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its
legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such
mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239
of the Labor Code.

In San Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San
Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW, the Court
explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter
to provide a list of its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to
said local or chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual members.

More to the point is Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations, which involved a
petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the employer in 1999 against a rank-
and-file labor organization on the ground of mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated
its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands that the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not
among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239
of the Labor Code.

All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, as
interpreted by the Court in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air Philippines, had already set
the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer hold sway in the present altered state of the law
and the rules.[32] [Underline supplied]

The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those in Kawashima because
the present petition for certification election was filed in 1999 when D.O. No. 9, series of
1997, was still in effect. Hence, Kawashima applies with equal force here. As a result,
petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor organization even if some
of its members were supervisory employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for
certification election.

The legal personality of petitioner union

cannot be collaterally attacked by respondent
company in the certification election proceedings.

Petitioner union correctly argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in
the certification election proceedings. As we explained in Kawashima:

Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any

petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their
representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any
partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend
an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in
the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.

The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy
even more.[33]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The March 15, 2005 Decision and September
16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The January 13, 2000 Decision of the Department of
Labor and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) is REINSTATED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ., concur.
b.1 Acquisition of Legal Personality

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. NO. 157146, April 29, 2005
LAGUNA AUTOPARTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
(DOLE) AND LAGUNA AUTOPARTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OBRERO
PILIPINO-LAMCOR CHAPTER, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 67424 dated September 13, 2002, and the Resolution dated February 5, 2003 denying
the motion for reconsideration thereof. The assailed decision affirmed in toto the decision of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, granting the petition for certification election
filed by respondent Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation Obrero Pilipino-
LAMCOR Chapter.

On May 3, 1999, the respondent union filed a petition for certification election before the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV, Calamba, Laguna.
In its petition, the respondent union alleged that Obrero Pilipino was a legitimate labor
organization under Registration Certificate No. NCR-LF-11-04-92 issued by DOLE on
November 11, 1992 and that its chapter affiliate, LAMCOR Chapter, had been assigned
Control No. RO400-9807-CC-030 dated March 23, 1999. A copy of the respondent unions
Certificate of Creation was attached to the petition. The petition further alleged that the
bargaining unit sought to be represented was composed of all the rank-and-file employees in
the petitioner company, more or less, 160 employees. It averred that the said bargaining unit
is unorganized and that there has been no certification election conducted for the past 12
months prior to the filing of the petition.[2]

The petitioner company moved to dismiss the petition for certification election. It claimed
that the respondent union was not a legitimate labor organization for failure to show that it
had complied with the registration requirements, such as the submission of the following
requirements to the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR):

a. Proof of payment of registration fee;

b. List of officers and their addresses, and the address of the principal place of business
of the union;
 c. Minutes of the organizational meeting and the list of workers who participated in the
said meeting;

d. Names of the members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees
in the bargaining unit where the union seeks to operate;

e. Copies of financial reports or books of accounts; and

f. Copies of petitioners constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or ratification,

and list of members who participated in it.[3]

The petitioner company further asserted in the said motion that even if the respondent
union was issued a certificate of registration, it could not file a petition for certification
election since its legal personality was at question.[4]

On October 24, 2000, Med-Arbiter Anastasio L. Bactin dismissed the petition for
certification election for the respondent unions lack of legal personality. The Med-Arbiter
found that the respondent union had not yet attained the status of a legitimate labor
organization because it failed to indicate its principal office on the documents it submitted to
the Regional Office. He opined that this was a fatal defect tantamount to failure to submit
the complete requirements, which warranted the dismissal of the petition for certification
election.[5]

The respondent union appealed the case to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Patricia
A. Sto. Tomas, who ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The order dated 24 October 2000 of the Med-
Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let the entire records of this case be
remanded to the regional office of origin for the immediate conduct of a certification
election, subject to the usual pre-election conference, among the rank-and-file employees of
Laguna Auto Parts Manufacturing Corporation (LAMCOR), with the following choices:

1. Obrero Pilipino LAMCOR Chapter; and

2. No Union

Pursuant to Section 11.1, Rule XI of the New Implementing Rules, the employer is hereby
directed to submit to the regional office of origin the certified list of current employees in
the bargaining unit for the last three months prior to the issuance of this decision.SO
DECIDED.[6]
Finding no cogent reason to alter her decision, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
denied the motion for reconsideration thereof.[7]

Not convinced, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA on the following
grounds:
I. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION;

II. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS A LEGITIMATE LABOR UNION
DESPITE LACK OF REGISTRATION AS SUCH.[8]

On September 13, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent union, thus:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.[9]
The CA stressed that a local or chapter need not be registered to become a legitimate labor
organization. It pointed out that a local or chapter acquires legal personality as a labor
organization from the date of filing of the complete documents enumerated in Section
1[10] of Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V (as amended by Department Order
[D.O.] No. 9). The CA held that the findings of the Labor Secretary was amply supported by
the records; such findings would not be reversed since she is considered to have acquired
expertise as her jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. The CA, citing the case
of Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. vs. Trajano,[11] also upheld the validity of D.O. No. 9 since the
petitioner failed to show that it was contrary to law or the Constitution.

Finally, the CA noted that it was the employer which offered the most tenacious resistance
to the holding of a certification election among its regular rank-and-file employees. It opined
that this must not be so for the choice of a collective bargaining agent was the sole concern
of the employees, and the employer should be a mere bystander.[12]

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision, but the same was
likewise denied in a Resolution dated February 5, 2003.

Hence, this petition for review wherein the petitioner relies on the sole ground
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERRORS OF FACTS AND LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE
DECISION DATED JULY 5, 2001 OF THE HON. SECRETARY PATRICIA STO.
TOMAS IN THE CASE IN RE: PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION
AMONG THE RANK- AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF LAGUNA AUTO PARTS
MFTG. CORP. CASE NO. RO400-9905-RU-001 WHEN IT RENDERED ITS
DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2002.[13]
The issues are the following: (a) whether or not the respondent union is a legitimate labor
organization; (b) whether or not a chapters legal personality may be collaterally attacked in a
petition for certification election; and (c) whether or not the petitioner, as the employer, has
the legal standing to oppose the petition for certification election.

The petitioner submits that there is no law prohibiting it from questioning and impugning
the status of the respondent union even in a petition for certification election. It stresses
that the right to file a petition for certification election is a mere statutory right and, to enjoy
such right, the respondent union must comply with the requirements provided under the
law, particularly the requirement that the applicant must be a legitimate labor
organization. In this case, the Med-Arbiter found that the respondent union, which is a local
or chapter, had not yet attained the status of a legitimate labor organization for failure to
indicate its principal office on the list of officers it submitted to the Regional Office. The
petitioner insists that substantial compliance with the requirements is not sufficient; as such,
even if such address was indicated in the other documents submitted to the Regional Office,
the requirement would still not be considered fulfilled. The petitioner concludes that the
respondent union, therefore, does not have the right to file a petition for certification
election.

The petitioner further postulates that in order to be considered legitimate, a labor

organization must be issued a certificate of registration. It contends that D.O. No. 9, insofar
as it requires that the mere submission of documentary requirements as sufficient to give
legitimate personality to a labor organization, is ultra vires. The petitioner avers that the said
Department Order could not amend Article 234 of the Labor Code which clearly states that
the registration of a union is the operative act that imbues it with legitimate personality.

The petitioner then argues that since the mere submission of documents does not vest
legitimate status on a local or chapter, it follows that such status may be questioned
collaterally in a petition for certification election. It adds that the issue of whether or not the
respondent union has the legal personality must first be resolved before the petition for
certification election should be granted.

Finally, the petitioner maintains that in a number of cases,[14] the employer was allowed to
question the status of the union-applicant in a petition for certification election.[15]

For its part, the respondent union avers that the petitioners active participation in the
representation proceedings was an act of intervention of the employees right to self-
organization. It asserts that the CA was correct in finding that the petitioner did not observe
a strictly hands-off policy in the representation proceedings, in violation of established
jurisprudence. It argues that the petitioners alleged violation of the requirements of D.O.
No. 9, for failure to indicate its principal address, has already been resolved by the decision
of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.[16]
The petition is unmeritorious.

In a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
a petitioner can raise only questions of law the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to
consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts.[17] Findings of fact of administrative
agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even
finality.[18] This is particularly true where the CA affirms such findings of fact. In this case,
the CA affirmed the finding of the Secretary of Labor and Employment that the respondent
union is a legitimate labor organization.

Indeed, a local or chapter need not be independently registered to acquire legal personality.
Section 3, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9 clearly
states
SEC. 3. Acquisition of legal personality by local/chapter. A local/chapter constituted
in accordance with Section 1 of this Rule shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of
the complete documents enumerated therein. Upon compliance with all documentary
requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the local/chapter a
certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.[19]
As gleaned from the said provision, the task of determining whether the local or chapter has
submitted the complete documentary requirements is lodged with the Regional Office or
the BLR, as the case may be. The records of the case show that the respondent union
submitted the said documents to Regional Office No. IV and was subsequently issued the
following certificate:
CERTIFICATE OF CREATION OF LOCAL/ CHAPTER NO.

This certifies that as of July 16, 1998 the OBRERO PILIPINO-LAMCOR submitted to this
Office Charter Certificate No. 07-98 issued by OBRERO PILIPINO with complete
supporting documents. From said date, it has acquired legal personality as a labor
organization. It shall have the right to represent its members for all purposes not contrary to
law or applicable regulations and to its constitution and by-laws.

The legitimate personality of OBRERO PILIPINO-LAMCOR CHAPTER is without

prejudice to whatever grounds for revocation or cancellation as may be prescribed by
applicable laws and
regulations.
March 23, 1999

Date

By:
 (SGD.)

RAYMUNDO G. AGRAVANTE

Labor Relations Division Chief[20]

Hence, the Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division Chief, has determined
that the respondent union complied with the requirements under the law. It, therefore,
declared that the respondent union has acquired legal personality as a labor organization.
Absent any pronouncement to the contrary, such determination of the Labor Relations
Division Chief will stand, on the presumption that the duty of determining whether the
respondent union submitted the complete documentary requirements has been regularly
performed.

We rule, however, that such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but
only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it. This is
categorically prescribed by Section 5, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V, which
states as follows:
SEC. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers association shall be
deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate
of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned
only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.[21]
Hence, to raise the issue of the respondent unions legal personality is not proper in this
case. The pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief, that the respondent union
acquired a legal personality with the submission of the complete documentary requirement,
cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election.

The discussion of the Secretary of Labor and Employment on this point is also enlightening,
thus:
Section 5, Rule V of D.O. 9 is instructive on the matter. It provides that the legal
personality of a union cannot be the subject of collateral attack in a petition for certification
election, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of union
registration. This has been the rule since NUBE v. Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274 (1981).
What applies in this case is the principle that once a union acquires legitimate status as a
labor organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or
revoked in an independent action for cancellation.

Equally important is Section 11, Paragraph II, Rule IX of D.O. 9, which provides for the
dismissal of a petition for certification election based on the lack of legal personality of a
labor organization only in the following instances: (1) appellant is not listed by the Regional
Office or the BLR in its registry of legitimate labor organizations; or (2) appellants legal
personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality. Since appellant is listed in the registry
of legitimate labor organizations, and its legitimacy has not been revoked or cancelled with
finality, the granting of its petition for certification election is proper.[22]
Finally, on the issue of whether the petitioner has the legal standing to oppose the petition
for certification election, we rule in the negative. Our ruling in San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-
Meg Feed Plant v. Laguesma[23] is still sound, thus:
In any case, this Court notes that it is petitioner, the employer, which has offered the most
tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its monthly-paid rank-
and-file employees. This must not be so, for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the
sole concern of the employees. The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to
file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because
it was requested to bargain collectively, which exception finds no application in the case
before us. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described in Trade Unions of the
Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. Trajano, as that of a mere bystander. It has no legal
standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-
Arbiters orders related thereto. [24]
In conclusion, we find no reversible error in the CAs decision dismissing the petition
for certiorari for the nullification of the decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
It should be stressed that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to
correct errors of judgment or mistakes in the tribunals findings and conclusions.[25] The
petitioner failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment in granting the petition for certification election.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67424 and the Resolution dated
February 5, 2003 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.