CASE TITLE: Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. CAGR NO.

: 178989DATE: March 18,

2010PETITIONER:EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUBRESPONDENT:COURT OF
APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU)DOCTRINE:
The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw
theirmembership through their affidavits of retraction will not cause
the cancellation ofregistration on the ground of violation of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code
requiring themandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-and-file employees
in the employees' union
FACTS:At least 20% of Eagle Ridge's rank-and-file employees had a meeting where
theyorganized themselves into an independent labor union, named "Eagle Ridge
Employees Union"(EREU or Union), elected a set of officers, and ratified their constitution
and by-laws. Thereafter,they formally applied for registration before the DOLE which was
later on issued to them.
Subsequently, petitioner filed for cancellation of the Union’s registration. Petitioner alleged that
EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members, when the minutes of
itsDecember 6, 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members.
Moreover,petitioner contended that five employees who attended the organizational
meeting hadmanifested, through their individual affidavits, the desire to withdraw from the
union. Thus, theunion membership reduced to 20 or 21, either of which is below the
mandatory minimum 20%membership requirement under Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code.
Reckoned from 112 rank-and-fileemployees of Eagle Ridge, the required number would be
22 or 23 employees. The DOLE RDruled in favor of the petitioner which was affirmed by
the BLR. On MR, the BLR set aside theprevious rulings and ruled in favor of the Union.
Petitioner went to the CA but to no avail, thusthis petition.ISSUE: Was there a bona fide
compliance with the registration requirements?HELD:Yes.
First,the Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of theorganizational
meeting on December 6, 2005, the election of its officers, and the adoption ofthe Union's
constitution and by-laws. Second, The members of the Union totaled 30employees when it
applied on December 19, 2005 for registration. The Union therebycomplied with the mandatory
minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234 (c).
Third, The Union has sufficiently explained the discrepancy between the number of those
whoattended the organizational meeting showing 26 employees and the list of union
membersshowing 30. The difference is due to the additional four members admitted two
days after theorganizational meeting as attested to by their duly accomplished Union
Membership forms.
Fourth, The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw
theirmembership through their affidavits of retraction will not cause the
cancellation ofregistration on the ground of violation of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code requiring
themandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-and-file employees in the
employees' union.
When the EREU filed its application for registration on December 19, 2005, there were
clearly 30union members. Thus, when the certificate of registration was granted, there is
no dispute thatthe Union complied with the mandatory 20% membership requirement