JERRY E.
ACEDERA, ANTONIO PARILLA, AND
OTHERS LISTED IN ANNEX A,[1] petitioners-
appellants, vs. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER
TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. (ICTSI), NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.
DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
For consideration is the petition for review on certiorari
assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter denying herein
petitioners-appellants Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion
for Intervention.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioners-appellants Jerry Acedera, et al. are
employees of herein private respondent International
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are
officers/members of Associated Port Checkers & Workers
Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local
Chapter (APCWU-ICTSI), a labor organization duly
registered as a local affiliate of the Associated Port
Checkers & Workers Union (APCWU).
When ICTSI started its operations in 1988, it
determined the rate of pay of its employees by using 304
days, the number of days of work of the employees in a
year, as divisor.[2]
On September 28, 1990, ICTSI entered into its first
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with APCWU with
a term of five years effective until September 28, 1995.
[3]
The CBA was renegotiated and thereafter renewed
through a second CBA that took effect on September 29,
1995, effective for another five years.[4] Both CBAs
contained an identically-worded provision on hours and
days of work reading:
Article IX
Regular Hours of Work and Days of Labor
Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be five
(5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be
scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior
notice unless any of this day is declared a special holiday.
[5]
(Underscoring omitted)
In accordance with the above-quoted provision of the
CBA, the employees work week was reduced to five days
or a total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued
using the 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the
employees.[6]
On November 10, 1990, the Regional Tripartite Wage
and Productivity Board (RTWPB) in the National Capital
Region decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all
workers and employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower
in the National Capital Region.[7] The then president of
APCWU, together with some union members, thus
requested the ICTSIs Human Resource
Department/Personnel Manager to compute the actual
monthly increase in the employees wages by multiplying
the RTWPB mandated increase by 365 days and dividing
the product by 12 months.[8]
Heeding the proposal and following the
implementation of the new wage order, ICTSI stopped
using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in
determining the daily wage of its employees and other
consequential compensation, even if the employees work
week consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the
CBA.[9]
In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program
and laid off its on-call employees. [10] This prompted the
APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike which included as
cause of action not only the retrenchment of the employees
but also ICTSIs use of 365 days as divisor in the
computation of wages.[11] The dispute respecting the
retrenchment was resolved by a compromise
settlement[12] while that respecting the computation of
wages was referred to the Labor Arbiter.[13]
On February 26, 1997, APCWU, on behalf of its
members and other employees similarly situated, filed with
the Labor Arbiter a complaint against ICTSI which was
dismissed for APCWUs failure to file its position paper.
[14]
Upon the demand of herein petitioners-appellants,
APCWU filed a motion to revive the case which was
granted. APCWU thereupon filed its position paper on
August 22, 1997.[15]
On December 8, 1997, petitioners-appellants filed with
the Labor Arbiter a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to
Intervene.[16] In the petition at bar, they justified their move
to intervene in this wise:
[S]hould the union succeed in prosecuting the case and in
getting a favorable reward it is actually they that would
benefit from the decision. On the other hand, should the
union fail to prove its case, or to prosecute the case
diligently, the individual workers or members of the union
would suffer great and immeasurable loss. [t]hey wanted to
insure by their intervention that the case would thereafter
be prosecuted with all due diligence and would not again
be dismissed for lack of interest to prosecute on the part of
the union.[17]
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring that
the correct divisor in computing the daily wage and other
labor standard benefits of the employees of respondent
ICTSI who are members of complainant Union as well as
the other employees similarly situated is two hundred fifty
(250) days such that said respondent is hereby ordered to
pay the employees concerned the differentials representing
the underpayment of said salaries and other benefits
reckoned three (3) years back from February 26, 1997, the
date of filing of this complaint or computed from February
27 1994 until paid, but for purposes of appeal, the salary
differentials are temporarily computed for one year in the
amount of Four Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Pesos
(P468,040.00).[18]
In the same decision, the Labor Arbiter denied
petitioners-appellants Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion
for Intervention upon a finding that they are already well
represented by APCWU.[19]
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter and dismissed APCWUs complaint for lack of
merit.[20] The denial of petitioners-appellants intervention
was, however, affirmed.[21]
Unsatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, APCWU
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals while
petitioners-appellants filed theirs with this Court which
referred the petition[22] to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed APCWUs petition on
the following grounds: failure to allege when its motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC decision was filed, failure to
attach the necessary appendices to the petition, and failure
to file its motion for extension to file its petition within the
reglementary period.[23]
As for petitioners-appellants petition for certiorari, it
was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in this wise:
It is clear from the records that herein petitioners, claiming
to be employees of respondent ICTSI, are already well
represented by its employees union, APCWU, in the
petition before this Court (CA-G.R. SP. No. 53266)
although the same has been dismissed. The present
petition is, therefore a superfluity that deserves to be
dismissed. Furthermore, only Acedera signed the
Certificate of non-forum shopping. On this score alone,
this petition should likewise be dismissed. We find that the
same has no merit considering that herein petitioners have
not presented any meritorious argument that would justify
the reversal of the Decision of the NLRC.
Article IX of the CBA provides:
REGULAR HOURS OF WORK AND DAYS OF LABOR
Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be five
(5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be
scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior
notice unless any of this day is declared a special holiday.
This provision categorically states the required number of
working days an employee is expected to work for a week.
It does not, however, indicate the manner in which an
employees salary is to be computed. In fact, nothing in the
CBA makes any referral to any divisor which should be the
basis for determining the salary. The NLRC, therefore,
correctly ruled that xxx the absence of any express or
specific provision in the CBA that 250 days should be used
as divisor altogether makes the position of the Union
untenable.
xxx
Considering that herein petitioners themselves requested
that 365 days be used as the divisor in computing their
wage increase and later did not raise or object to the same
during the negotiations of the new CBA, they are clearly
estopped to now complain of such computation only
because they no longer benefit from it. Indeed, the 365
divisor for the past seven (7) years has already become
practice and law between the company and its employees.
[24]
(Emphasis supplied)
xxx
Hence, the present petition of petitioners-appellants
who fault the Court of Appeals as follows:
I Code which provides that a union may act as the
. . . IN REJECTING THE CBA OF THE PARTIES AS THE
SOURCE OF THE DIVISOR TO DETERMINE THE
WORKERS DAILY RATE TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE
APPLICABLE LANDMARK DECISIONS OF THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT ON THE MATTER.
II
. . . [IN] DISREGARD[ING] APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT WHEN IT RULED THAT THE
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS ARE ALREADY IN
ESTOPPEL.
III
. . . IN RULING THAT THE PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS
HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN AND
PURSUE THIS CASE AND THAT THEIR INTERVENTION
IS A SUPERFLUITY.
IV
. . . IN HOLDING, ALTHOUGH MERELY AS AN OBITER
DICTUM, THAT ONLY PETITIONER JERRY ACEDERA
SIGNED THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING.[25]
The third assigned error respecting petitioners-
appellants right to intervene shall first be passed upon, it
being determinative of their right to raise the other
assigned errors.
Petitioners-appellants anchor their right to intervene
on Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1
of which reads:
Section 1. Who may intervene.- A person who has legal
interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated
to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to
intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or
not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenors right may be fully protected
in a separate proceeding.
They stress that they have complied with the
requisites for intervention because (1) they are the ones
who stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation and
effect of any judgment that may be rendered in this case,
(2) no undue delay or prejudice would result from their
intervention since their Complaint-in-Intervention with
Motion for Intervention was filed while the Labor Arbiter
was still hearing the case and before any decision thereon
was rendered, and (3) it was not possible for them to file a
separate case as they would be guilty of forum shopping
because the only forum available for them was the Labor
Arbiter.[26]
Petitioners-appellants, however, failed to consider, in
addition to the rule on intervention, the rule on
representation, thusly:
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative
may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or
these Rules. . . [27](Emphasis supplied)
A labor union is one such party authorized to
represent its members under Article 242(a) of the Labor
representative of its members for the purpose of collective
bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent
its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of
the CBA. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity
for and in behalf of its Union members and other
employees similarly situated, the title of the case filed by it
at the Labor Arbiters Office so expressly states.
While a party acting in a representative capacity, such
as a union, may be permitted to intervene in a case,
ordinarily, a person whose interests are already
represented will not be permitted to do the same [28] except
when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the
representative will not act in good faith for the protection of
all interests represented by him.[29]
Petitioners-appellants cite the dismissal of the case
filed by ICTSI, first by the Labor Arbiter, and later by the
Court of Appeals.[30] The dismissal of the case does not,
however, by itself show the existence of fraud or collusion
or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. There must
be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or collusion or
lack of good faith independently of the dismissal. This,
petitioners-appellants failed to proffer.
Petitioners-appellants likewise express their fear that
APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently because
of its sweetheart relationship with ICTSI. [31] There is nothing
on record, however, to support this alleged relationship
which allegation surfaces as a mere afterthought because
it was never raised early on. It was raised only in
petitioners-appellants reply to ICTSIs comment in the
petition at bar, the last pleading submitted to this Court,
which was filed on June 20, 2001 or more than 42 months
after petitioners-appellants filed their Complaint-in-
Intervention with Motion to Intervene with the Labor Arbiter.
To reiterate, for a member of a class to be permitted to
intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or
lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be
proven. It must be based on facts borne on record. Mere
assertions, as what petitioners-appellants proffer, do not
suffice.
The foregoing discussion leaves it unnecessary to
discuss the other assigned errors.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-43495-99 January 20, 1990
TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES' UNION-CGW,
JOSE petitioners,
vs.
TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC., ESTELITA J.
QUE, ARTURO DILAG, MARCELINO LONTOK JR.,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU),
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to set
aside the decisions of the public respondents Secretary of
Labor and National Labor Relations Commission which
reversed the Arbitrators rulings in favor of petitioners
herein.
The following factual background of this case appears from
the record:
On January 2, 1968, the rank and file workers of the
Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated, referred to herein
as respondent company, organized a local union called the
Tropical Hut Employees Union, known for short as the
THEU, elected their officers, adopted their constitution and
by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU). On January 3, 1968,
the NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation.
Following such affiliation with NATU, Registration
Certificate No. 5544-IP was issued by the Department of
Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut Employees Union —
NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor
federation, was not registered with the Department of
Labor.
After several negotiations were conducted between THEU-
NATU, represented by its local president and the national
officers of the NATU, particularly Ignacio Lacsina,
President, Pacifico Rosal, Executive Vice-President and
Marcelino Lontok, Jr., Vice President, and respondent
Tropical Hut Food Market, Incorporated, thru its President
and General Manager, Cesar Azcona, Sr., a Collective
Bargaining Agreement was concluded between the parties
on April 1, 1968, the term of which expired on March 31,
1971. Said agreement' contained these clear and
unequivocal terms:
This Agreement made and entered into this
__________ day of ___________, 1968, by and
between:
The Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., a corporation
duly organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with
principal office at Quezon City, represented in this
Act by its President, Cesar B. Azcona (hereinafter
referred to as the Company)
—and—
The Tropical Hut Employees Union — NATU, a
legitimate labor organization duly organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines, and affiliated with the
National Association of Trade Unions, with offices
at San Luis Terraces, Ermita, Manila, and
represented in this Act by its undersigned officers
(hereinafter referred to as the UNION)
Witnesseth:
xxx xxx xxx
Article I
Coverage and Effectivity
Sec. 1. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as
the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent
for all its workers and employees in all matters
concerning wages, hours of work, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
xxx xxx xxx
Article III
Union Membership and Union Check-off
Sec. 1 —. . . Employees who are already members
of the UNION at the time of the signing of this
Agreement or who become so thereafter shall be
required to maintain their membership therein as a
condition of continued employment.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3—Any employee who is expelled from the
UNION for joining another federation or forming
another union, or who fails or refuses to maintain
his membership therein as required, . . . shall,
upon written request of the UNION be discharged
by the COMPANY. (Rollo, pp. 667-670)
And attached to the Agreement as Appendix "A" is a check-
off Authorization Form, the terms of which are as follows:
We, the undersigned, hereby designate the
NATIONAL Association of Trade Unions, of which
the TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION is an
affiliate as sole collective bargaining agent in all
matters relating to salary rates, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment in the
Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. and we hereby
authorize the said company to deduct the amount
of Four (P 4.00) Pesos each every month as our
monthly dues and to deliver the amount to the
Treasurer of the Union or his duly authorized
representatives. (Rollo, pp. 680-684)
On May 21, 1971, respondent company and THEU-NATU
entered into a new Collective Bargaining Agreement which
ended on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the
previous union-shop security clause and the attached
check-off authorization form.
Sometime in July, 1973, Arturo Dilag, incumbent President
of THEU-NATU, was appointed by the respondent
company as Assistant Unit Manager. On July 24, 1973, he
wrote the general membership of his union that for reason
of his present position, he was resigning as President of
the THEU-NATU effective that date. As a consequence
thereof, his Vice-President, Jose Encinas, assumed and
discharged the duties of the presidency of the THEU-
NATU.
On December 19,1973, NATU received a letter dated
December 15, 1973, jointly signed by the incumbent
officers of the local union informing the NATU that THEU
was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. On December
20, 1973, the Secretary of the THEU, Nemesio Barro,
made an announcement in an open letter to the general
membership of the THEU, concerning the latter's
disaffiliation from the NATU and its affiliation with the
Confederation of General Workers (CGW). The letter was
passed around among the members of the THEU-NATU, to
which around one hundred and thirty-seven (137)
signatures appeared as having given their consent to and
acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the THEU
from the NATU.
On January 1, 1974, the general membership of the so-
called THEU-CGW held its annual election of officers, with
Jose Encinas elected as President. On January 3, 1974,
Encinas, in his capacity as THEU-CGW President,
informed the respondent company of the result of the
elections. On January 9, 1974, Pacifico Rosal, President of
the Confederation of General Workers (CGW), wrote a
letter in behalf of complainant THEU-CGW to the
respondent company demanding the remittance of the
union dues collected by the Tropical Hut Food Mart,
Incorporated to the THEU-CGW, but this was refused by
the respondent company.
On January 11, 1974, the NATU thru its Vice-President
Marcelino Lontok, Jr., wrote Vidal Mantos, requiring the
latter to assume immediately the position of President of
the THEU-NATU in place of Jose Encinas, but the position
was declined by Mantos. On the same day, Lontok, Jr.,
informed Encinas in a letter, concerning the request made
by the NATU federation to the respondent company to
dismiss him (Encinas) in view of his violation of Section 3
of Article III of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Encinas was also advised in the letter that NATU was
returning the letter of disaffiliation on the ground that:
1. Under the restructuring program NOT of the
Bureau of Labor but of the Philippine National
Trade Union Center in conjunction with the NATU
and other established national labor centers, retail
clerks and employees such as our members in the
Tropical Hut pertain to Industry II which by
consensus, has been assigned already to the
jurisdiction of the NATU;
2. The right to disaffiliate belongs to the union
membership who — on the basis of verified reports
received by — have not even been consulted by
you regarding the matter;
3. Assuming that the disaffiliation decision was
properly reached; your letter nevertheless is
unacceptable in view of Article V, Section 1, of the
NATU Constitution which provides that "withdrawal
from the organization shall he valid provided three
(3) months notice of intention to withdraw is served
upon the National Executive Council." (p.
281, Rollo)
In view of NATU's request, the respondent company, on the
same day, which was January 11, 1974, suspended
Encinas pending the application for clearance with the
Department of Labor to dismiss him. On January 12, 1974,
members of the THEU-CGW passed a resolution protesting
the suspension of Encinas and reiterated their ratification
and approval of their union's disaffiliation from NATU and
their affiliation with the Confederation of General Workers
(CGW). It was Encinas' suspension that caused the filing of
NLRC Case No. LR-2511 on January 11, 1974 against
private respondents herein, charging them of unfair labor
practice.
On January 15,1974, upon the request of NATU,
respondent company applied for clearance with the
Secretary of Labor to dismiss the other officers and
members of THEU-CGW. The company also suspended
them effective that day. NLRC Case No. LR-2521 was filed
by THEU-CGW and individual complainants against private
respondents for unfair labor practices.
On January 19, 1974, Lontok, acting as temporary
chairman, presided over the election of officers of the
remaining THEU-NATU in an emergency meeting pending
the holding of a special election to be called at a later date.
In the alleged election, Arturo Dilag was elected acting
THEU-NATU President together with the other union
officers. On February 14, 1974, these temporary officers
were considered as having been elected as regular officers
for the year 1974.
On January 30, 1974, petitioner THEU-CGW wrote a letter
to Juan Ponce Enrile, Secretary of National Defense,
complaining of the unfair labor practices committed by
respondent company against its members and requesting
assistance on the matter. The aforementioned letter
contained the signatures of one hundred forty-three (143)
members.
On February 24,1974, the secretary of THEU-NATU,
notified the entire rank and file employees of the company
that they will be given forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of
the notice within which to answer and affirm their
membership with THEU-NATU. When the petitioner
employees failed to reply, Arturo Dilag advised them thru
letters dated February 26, March 2 and 5, 1974, that the
THEU-NATU shall enforce the union security clause set
forth in the CBA, and that he had requested respondent
company to dismiss them.
Respondent company, thereafter, wrote the petitioner
employees demanding the latter's comment on Dilag's
charges before action was taken thereon. However, no
comment or reply was received from petitioners. In view of
this, Estelita Que, President/General Manager of
respondent company, upon Dilag's request, suspended
twenty four (24) workers on March 5, 1974, another thirty
seven (37) on March 8, 1974 and two (2) more on March
11, 1974, pending approval by the Secretary of Labor of the
application for their dismissal.
As a consequence thereof, NLRC Case Nos. LR-2971, LR-
3015 and an unnumbered case were filed by petitioners
against Tropical Hut Food Market, Incorporated, Estelita
Que, Hernando Sarmiento and Arturo Dilag.
It is significant to note that the joint letter petition signed by
sixty-seven (67) employees was filed with the Secretary of
Labor, the NLRC Chairman and Director of Labor Relations
to cancel the words NATU after the name of Tropical Hut
Employee Union under Registration Certificate No. 5544 IP.
Another letter signed by one hundred forty-six (146)
members of THEU-CGW was sent to the President of the
Philippines informing him of the unfair labor practices
committed by private respondents against THEU-CGW
members.
After hearing the parties in NLRC Cases Nos. 2511 and
2521 jointly filed with the Labor Arbiter, Arbitrator Daniel
Lucas issued an order dated March 21, 1974, holding that
the issues raised by the parties became moot and
academic with the issuance of NLRC Order dated February
25, 1974 in NLRC Case No. LR-2670, which directed the
holding of a certification election among the rank and file
workers of the respondent company between the THEU-
NATU and THEU-CGW. He also ordered: a) the
reinstatement of all complainants; b) for the respondent
company to cease and desist from committing further acts
of dismissals without previous order from the NLRC and for
the complainant Tropical Hut Employees UNION-CGW to
file representation cases on a case to case basis during the
freedom period provided for by the existing CBA between
the parties (pp. 91-93, Rollo).
With regard to NLRC Case Nos. LR-2971, LR-3015, and
the unnumbered case, Arbitrator Cleto T. Villatuya rendered
a decision dated October 14, 1974, the dispositive portion
of which states:
Premises considered, a DECISION is hereby
rendered ordering respondent company to
reinstate immediately the sixty three (63)
complainants to their former positions with back
wages from the time they were illegally suspended
up to their actual reinstatement without loss of
seniority and other employment rights and
privileges, and ordering the respondents to desist
from further committing acts of unfair labor
practice. The respondent company's application for
clearance filed with the Secretary of Labor to
terminate the subject complainants' services
effective March 20 and 23, 1974, should be denied.
SO ORDERED. (pp. 147-148, Rollo)
From the orders rendered above by Abitrator Daniel Lucas
in NLRC Cases No. LR-2511 and LR-2521 and by
Arbitrator Cleto Villatuya in NLRC Cases Nos. LR-2971,
LR-3015, and the unnumbered case, all parties thereto,
namely, petitioners herein, respondent company, NATU
and Dilag appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission.
In a decision rendered on August 1, 1975, the National
Labor Relations Commission found the private
respondents' appeals meritorious, and stated, inter alia:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
the Order of Arbitrator Lucas in NLRC CASE NOS.
LR-2511, 2521 and the decision of Arbitrator
Villatuya in NLRC CASE NOS. LR-2971, 3015 and
the unnumbered Case are hereby REVERSED.
Accordingly, the individual complainants are
deemed to have lost their status as employees of
the respondent company. However, considering
that the individual complainants are not presumed
to be familiar with nor to have anticipated the legal
mesh they would find themselves in, after their
"disaffiliation" from National Association of Trade
Unions and the THEU-NATU, much less the legal
consequences of the said action which we
presume they have taken in all good faith;
considering, further, that the thrust of the new
orientation in labor relations is not towards the
punishment of acts violative of contractual relations
but rather towards fair adjustments of the resulting
complications; and considering, finally, the
consequent economic hardships that would be
visited on the individual complainants, if the law
were to be strictly enforced against them, this
Commission is constrained to be magnanimous in
this instant, notwithstanding its obligation to give
full force and effect to the majesty of the law, and
hereby orders the respondent company, under pain
of being cited for contempt for failure to do so, to
give the individual complainants a second chance
by reemploying them upon their voluntary
reaffirmation of membership and loyalty to the
Tropical Hut Employees Union-NATU and the
National Association of Trade Unions in the event it
hires additional personnel.
SO ORDERED. (pp. 312-313, Rollo)
The petitioner employees appealed the decision of the
respondent National Labor Relations Commission to the
Secretary of Labor. On February 23, 1976, the Secretary of
Labor rendered a decision affirming the findings of the
Commission, which provided inter alia:
We find, after a careful review of the record, no
sufficient justification to alter the decision appealed
from except that portion of the dispositive part
which states:
. . . this Commission . . . hereby orders
respondent company under pain of being
cited for contempt for failure to do so, to
give the individual complainants a second
chance by reemploying them upon their
voluntary reaffirmation of membership and
loyalty to the Tropical Hut Employees
UNION-NATU and the National Association
of Trade Union in the event it hires
additional personnel.
Compliance by respondent of the above
undertaking is not immediately feasible considering
that the same is based on an uncertain event, i.e.,
reemployment of individual complainants "in the
event that management hires additional
personnel," after they shall have reaffirmed their
loyalty to THEU-NATU, which is unlikely.
In lieu of the foregoing, and to give complainants
positive relief pursuant to Section 9, Implementing
Instruction No. 1. dated November 9, 1972,
respondent is hereby ordered to grant to all the
individual complainants financial assistance
equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of
service.
WHEREFORE, with the modification as above
indicated, the Decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby affirmed.
SO ORDERED.(pp. 317-318, Rollo)
From the various pleadings filed and arguments adduced
by petitioners and respondents, the following issues appear
to be those presented for resolution in this petition to wit: 1)
whether or not the petitioners failed to exhaust
administrative remedies when they immediately elevated
the case to this Court without an appeal having been made
to the Office of the President; 2) whether or not the
disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation
was valid; and 3) whether or not the dismissal of petitioner
employees resulting from their unions disaffiliation for the
mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor
practice on the part of respondent company and federation.
We find the petition highly meritorious.
The applicable law then is the Labor Code, PD 442, as
amended by PD 643 on January 21, 1975, which states:
Art. 222. Appeal — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Decisions of the Secretary of Labor may be
appealed to the President of the Philippines
subject to such conditions or limitations as the
President may direct. (Emphasis ours)
The remedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the
Office of the President is not a mandatory requirement
before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief
provided by law to parties seeking expeditious disposition
of their labor disputes. Failure to avail of such relief shall
not in any way served as an impediment to judicial
intervention. And where the issue is lack of power or
arbitrary or improvident exercise thereof, decisions of the
Secretary of Labor may be questioned in
a certiorari proceeding without prior appeal to the President
(Arrastre Security Association —TUPAS v. Ople, No. L-
45344, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 580). Since the
instant petition raises the same issue of grave abuse of
discretion of the Secretary of Labor amounting to lack of or
in excess of jurisdiction in deciding the controversy, this
Court can properly take cognizance of and resolve the
issues raised herein.
This brings Us to the question of the legality of the
dismissal meted to petitioner employees. In the celebrated
case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty
Cotton Mills, L-33187, September 4, 1975, 66 SCRA 512,
We held that the validity of the dismissals pursuant to the
union security clause in the collective bargaining
agreement hinges on the validity of the disaffiliation of the
local union from the federation.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother
federation is well-settled. A local union, being a separate
and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all
its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when
circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association
(Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, No.
L-45824, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 42).
All employees enjoy the right to self organization and to
form and join labor organizations of their own choosing for
the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in
concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. This is
a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from
the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and
social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor
laws or rules or regulations, We have always adopted the
liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.
Relevant on this point is the basic principle We have
repeatedly in affirmed in many rulings:
. . . The locals are separate and distinct units
primarily designed to secure and maintain an
equality of bargaining power between the employer
and their employee-members in the economic
struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of
labor and capital; and the association of the locals
into the national union (PAFLU) was in furtherance
of the same end. These associations are
consensual entities capable of entering into such
legal relations with their member. The essential
purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a
common enterprise to increase by collective action
the common bargaining power in respect of the
terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals
remained the basic units of association, free to
serve their own and the common interest of all,
subject to the restraints imposed by the
Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and
free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual
welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement
which brought it into existence. (Adamson &
Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, No. L-35120, January 31,
1984, 127 SCRA 268; Elisco-Elirol Labor Union
(NAFLU) v. Noriel, No. L-41955, December 29,
1977, 80 SCRA 681; Liberty Cotton Mills Workers
Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., supra).
The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local
union THEU in the registration with the Department of
Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate
at the time of the registration. It does not mean that the
said local union cannot stand on its own. Neither can it be
interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests
independently of the federation. A local union owes its
creation and continued existence to the will of its members
and not to the federation to which it belongs.
When the local union withdrew from the old federation to
join a new federation, it was merely exercising its primary
right to labor organization for the effective enhancement
and protection of common interests. In the absence of
enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution
preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever
its relationship with its parent (People's Industrial and
Commercial Employees and Workers Organization (FFW)
v. People's Industrial and Commercial Corporation, No.
37687, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 440).
There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the
constitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was
expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation (pp.
62, 281, Rollo), The alleged non-compliance of the local
union with the provision in the NATU Constitution requiring
the service of three months notice of intention to withdraw
did not produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation for
the following grounds: firstly, NATU was not even a
legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not
registered at that time with the Department of Labor, and
therefore did not possess and acquire, in the first place, the
legal personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much
less the right and privilege under the Labor Code to
organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its group,
and secondly, the act of non-compliance with the procedure
on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds
which cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-
organization.
Respondent Secretary of Labor, in affirming the decision of
the respondent Commission, concluded that the supposed
decision to disaffiliate was not the subject of a free and
open discussion and decision on the part of the THEU-
NATU general membership (p. 305, Rollo). This, however,
is contradicted by the evidence on record. Moreover, We
are inclined to believe Arbitrator Villatuya's findings to the
contrary, as follows:
. . . . However, the complainants refute this
allegation by submitting the following: a) Letter
dated December 20, 1.973 signed by 142
members (Exhs. "B to B-5") resolution dated
January 12, 1974, signed by 140 members (Exhs.
"H to H-6") letter dated February 26, 1974 to the
Department of Labor signed by 165 members
(Exhs. "I to I-10"); d) letter dated January 30, 1974
to the Secretary of the National Defense signed by
144 members (Exhs. "0 to 0-5") and; e) letter dated
March 6, 1974 signed by 146 members addressed
to the President of the Philippines (Exhs. "HH to
HH-5"), to show that in several instances, the
members of the THEU-NATU have acknowledged
their disaffiliation from NATU. The letters of the
complainants also indicate that an overwhelming
majority have freely and voluntarily signed their
union's disaffiliation from NATU, otherwise, if there
was really deception employed in securing their
signatures as claimed by NATU/ Dilag, it could not
be possible to get their signatures in five different
documents. (p. 144, Rollo)
We are aware of the time-honored doctrine that the findings
of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor are binding on this
Court if supported by substantial evidence. However, in the
same way that the findings of facts unsupported by
substantial and credible evidence do not bind this Court,
neither will We uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC
and the Secretary of Labor when We find that the latter
committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
decision of the labor arbiter (San Miguel Corporation v.
NLRC, L-50321, March 13, 1984, 128 SCRA 180). In the
instant case, the factual findings of the arbitrator were
correct against that of public respondents.
Further, there is no merit in the contention of the
respondents that the act of disaffiliation violated the union
security clause of the CBA and that their dismissal as a
consequence thereof is valid. A perusal of the collective
bargaining agreements shows that the THEU-NATU, and
not the NATU federation, was recognized as the sole and
exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its workers and
employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work
and other terms and conditions of employment (pp. 667-
706, Rollo). Although NATU was designated as the sole
bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form
attached to the CBA, this simply means it was acting only
for and in behalf of its affiliate. The NATU possessed the
status of an agent while the local union remained the basic
principal union which entered into contract with the
respondent company. When the THEU disaffiliated from its
mother federation, the former did not lose its legal
personality as the bargaining union under the CBA.
Moreover, the union security clause embodied in the
agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted
to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances
obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in
case an employee is expelled from the union for joining
another federation or for forming another union or who fails
or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar
does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employees
from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its
federation. Clearly, since there is no violation of the union
security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient
ground to terminate the employment of petitioners.
Public respondents considered the existence of Arturo
Dilag's group as the remaining true and valid union. We,
however, are inclined to agree instead with the Arbitrator's
findings when he declared:
. . . . Much more, the so-called THEU-NATU under
Dilag's group which assumes to be the original
THEU-NATU has a very doubtful and questionable
existence not to mention that the alleged president
is performing supervisory functions and not
qualified to be a bona fide member of the rank and
file union. (p. 146, Rollo)
Records show that Arturo Dilag had resigned in the past as
President of THEU-NATU because of his promotion to a
managerial or supervisory position as Assistant Unit
Manager of respondent Company. Petitioner Jose Encinas
replaced Dilag as President and continued to hold such
position at the time of the disaffiliation of the union from the
federation. It is therefore improper and contrary to law for
Dilag to reassume the leadership of the remaining group
which was alleged to be the true union since he belonged
to the managerial personnel who could not be expected to
work for the betterment of the rank and file employees.
Besides, managers and supervisors are prohibited from
joining a rank and file union (Binalbagan Isabela Sugar
Co., Inc. (BISCOM) v. Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU), et al., L-18782, August 29, 1963, 8 SCRA
700). Correspondingly, if a manager or supervisor
organizes or joins a rank and file union, he will be required
to resign therefrom (Magalit, et al. v. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., L-20448, May 25, 1965,14 SCRA 72).
Public respondents further submit that several employees
who disaffiliate their union from the NATU subsequently
retracted and reaffirmed their membership with the THEU-
NATU. In the decision which was affirmed by respondent
Secretary of Labor, the respondent Commission stated
that:
. . . out of the alleged one hundred and seventy-
one (171) members of the THEU-CGW whose
signatures appeared in the "Analysis of Various
Documents Signed by Majority Members of the
THEU-CGW, (Annex "T", Complainants), which
incidentally was relied upon by Arbitrator Villatuya
in holding that complainant THEU-CGW
commanded the majority of employees in
respondent company, ninety-three (93) of the
alleged signatories reaffirmed their membership
with the THEU-NATU and renounced whatever
connection they may have had with other labor
unions, (meaning the complainant THEU-CGW)
either through resolution or membership
application forms they have unwittingly signed." (p.
306, Rollo)
Granting arguendo, that the fact of retraction is true, the
evidence on record shows that the letters of retraction were
executed on various dates beginning January 11, 1974 to
March 8, 1974 (pp. 278-280, Rollo). This shows that the
retractions were made more or less after the suspension
pending dismissal on January 11, 1974 of Jose Encinas,
formerly THEU-NATU President, who became THEU-CGW
President, and the suspension pending their dismissal of
the other elected officers and members of the THEU-CGW
on January 15, 1974. It is also clear that some of the
retractions occurred after the suspension of the first set of
workers numbering about twenty-four (24) on March 5,
1974. There is no use in saying that the retractions
obliterated the act of disaffiliation as there are doubts that
they were freely and voluntarily done especially during
such time when their own union officers and co-workers
were already suspended pending their dismissal.
Finally, with regard to the process by which the workers
were suspended or dismissed, this Court finds that it was
hastily and summarily done without the necessary due
process. The respondent company sent a letter to
petitioners herein, advising them of NATU/Dilag's
recommendation of their dismissal and at the same time
giving them forty-eight (48) hours within which to comment
(p. 637, Rollo). When petitioners failed to do so,
respondent company immediately suspended them and
thereafter effected their dismissal. This is certainly not in
fulfillment of the mandate of due process, which is to afford
the employee to be dismissed an opportunity to be heard.
The prerogative of the employer to dismiss or lay-off an
employee should be done without abuse of discretion or
arbitrainess, for what is at stake is not only the employee's
name or position but also his means of livelihood. Thus, the
discharge of an employee from his employment is null and
void where the employee was not formally investigated and
given the opportunity to refute the alleged findings made by
the company (De Leon v. NLRC, L-52056, October 30,
1980, 100 SCRA 691). Likewise, an employer can be
adjudged guilty of unfair labor practice for having dismissed
its employees in line with a closed shop provision if they
were not given a proper hearing (Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar
Co., Inc.,(BISCOM) v. Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU) et al., L-18782, August 29, 1963, 8 SCRA
700).
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the
mother federation and its local, with the company
suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of
the mother federation then, the company's liability should
be limited to the immediate reinstatement of the workers.
And since their dismissals were effected without previous
hearing and at the instance of NATU, this federation should
be held liable to the petitioners for the payment of their
backwages, as what We have ruled in the Liberty Cotton
Mills Case (supra).
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the
assailed decision of respondent Secretary of Labor is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the respondent
company is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate all the
petitioner employees within thirty (30) days from notice of
this decision. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the
respondent company is ordered to pay petitioners
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every
year of service. The respondent NATU federation is
directed to pay petitioners the amount of three (3) years
backwages without deduction or qualification. This decision
shall be immediately executory upon promulgation and
notice to the parties.
SO ORDERED.
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION G.R. No. 155395
OF THE UNION REGISTRATION OF AIR
PHILIPPINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS Present:
ASSOCIATION,
AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,
Petitioners, QUISUMBING,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and
AIR PHILIPPINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS Promulgated:
ASSOCIATION,
Respondents. June 22, 2006
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
For resolution is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, filed
by petitioner Air Philippines Corporation (APC), assailing
the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 10 January
[1]
2002 and 13 September 2002.
The case initially centered on the union registration of
respondent Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association
(APFLAA), which was issued a Certificate of Registration
No. NCR-UR-3-2067-99 by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). APFLAA filed on 17 March 1999 a
petition for certification election as the collective bargaining
representative of the flight attendants of APC. After the
Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering the holding of a
certification election, such election was held on 5 August
[2]
1999, with majority of the votes cast in favor of APFLAA.
On 25 November 1999, APC filed a Petition for De-
Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration against
APFLAA with the DOLE. APC alleged that APFLAA could
not be registered as a labor organization, as its
composition consisted of a mixture of supervisory and
rank-and-file flight attendants. Particularly, APC alleged that
flight attendants holding the position of Lead Cabin
Attendant, which according to it is supervisory in character,
were among those who comprised APFLAA.
On 18 July 2001, the DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR)
Regional Director Alex E. Maraan rendered a Decision
dismissing the petition. The DOLE-NCR held that Article
245 of the Labor Code, which states that supervisory
employees are not eligible for membership in labor
organizations of rank-and-file employees, does not provide
a ground for cancellation of union registration, which is
instead governed by Article 239 of the Labor Code.[3]
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal regarding
this Decision of the DOLE-NCR. In a Resolution dated 18
July 2001, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) denied the
appeal, affirming the rationale of the DOLE-NCR. [4]
APC then immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari
dated 12 December 2001 with the Court of Appeals,
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BLR
in denying its appeal. However, the petition was dismissed
outright by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 10
January 2002, on the ground that APC had failed to avail of
the remedy of a prior Motion for Reconsideration before the
filing of the certiorari petition, which step, it stressed, is a
condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for
certiorari.[5]
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 5 February
2002, but this too was denied by the Court of Appeals in a
Resolution dated 13 September 2002. This time, the
appellate court ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration
was totally defective, for failing to contain the proof of
service or registry return receipts to the respondents. The
Court of Appeals even noted that the Affidavit of Service
attached to the Motion for Reconsideration failed to
indicate the registry return receipts of the registered mails
to the respondents.[6]
Hence, the present petition.
APC argues that its petition before the Court of
Appeals involved mere questions of law, among which is
whether APFLAAs union registration may be cancelled relative to APCs missteps is consistent with procedural

considering that the union is allegedly composed of a rules.

mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. It is

Still, the Court has deigned to give a close look at the
posited that questions of law may be raised directly in a
substantial arguments raised in APCs petition before the
petition for certiorari without need of a prior motion for
Court of Appeals.
reconsideration.[7]

However, it is clear from the petition filed by APC before The DOLE-NCR Regional Director, in dismissing

the Court of Appeals that the issues involved do not consist the petition for cancellation, cited our minute resolution

of questions of law only. It is insisted therein that in SPI Technologies Incorporated v. DOLE[11] wherein the

employees holding the position of Lead Cabin Attendants Court observed that Article 245 [12] of the Labor Code, the

are supervisory employees and hence disallowed from legal basis for the petition for cancellation, merely

joining a union of rank-and-file employees. [8] On the other prescribed the requirements for eligibility in joining a union

hand, APFLAA countered before the DOLE-NCR and the and did not prescribe the grounds for cancellation of union

BLR that only rank-and-file flight attendants comprised its registration.[13] Since the filing of this petition, the Court has

membership.[9] Thus, the very question of whether Lead had occasion to rule, in Tagaytay Highlands International

Cabin Attendants are indeed supervisory employees Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-

appears to be factual in nature, the proper resolution of PGTWO,[14] that [t]he inclusion in a union of disqualified

which necessitates a factual determination of the actual employees is not among the grounds for cancellation,

duties of Lead Cabin Attendants. Indeed, APC made unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false

reference therein to such documents as an employees statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in

manual in support of its argument,[10] documents that would Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239[[15]] of the Labor Code.[16]

evidently require factual evaluation before accorded proper

Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is
evidentiary value.
not enough to establish that the rank-and-file union

There is admittedly some leeway for the Court of Appeals if includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant

it was so minded to give due course to APCs petition, to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be

notwithstanding the failure to file a motion for shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement or

reconsideration. Yet ultimately, the determination of fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the

whether or not to admit a petition attended with such defect constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the

falls within the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. minutes of ratification, or in connection with the election of

officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters,

Should the Court of Appeals decide, as it did, to dismiss or failure to submit these documents together with the list

the petition outright on such ground, it would commit no of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal

reversible error of law nor any grave abuse of discretion, addresses to the BLR.[17]

considering that the rule requiring the filing of a motion for

In its Petition for De-certification and Cancellation of Union
reconsideration before resorting to the special civil action of
Registration, APC did not impute on APFLAA such
certiorari is well entrenched in jurisprudence.
misrepresentation of the character necessitated under

It also does not escape the attention of the Court that the Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. APC merely

Motion for Reconsideration filed by APC before the Court of argued that APFLAA was not qualified to become a

Appeals was itself fatally defective, allowing the appellate legitimate labor organization by reason of its mixed

court to deny the same without having to evaluate its composition of rank-and-file and supervisory employees;

substantial arguments. The action of the appellate court and that APFLAA committed misrepresentation by making

it appear that its composition was composed purely of

rank-and-file employees. Such misrepresentation (if it can
be called as such) as alleged by APC, is not conformable
to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. Indeed, it
appears from the record that APC instead devoted the bulk
of its arguments in establishing that supervisory employees
comprised part of the membership of APFLAA, a ground
which is not sufficient to cause the cancellation of union
registration. And this is of course all under the assumption
that Lead Cabin Attendants are indeed supervisory
employees, a claim consistently denied by APFLAA and
which was not confirmed by either the DOLE-NCR or the
BLR.
There may be remedies available to
proscription set forth in Article 245 of the Labor Code on
supervisory employees joining the union of rank-and-file
employees. But consistent with jurisprudence, the rule
under Article 245 barring supervisory employees from
joining the union of rank-and-file employees is not a ground
for cancellation of union registration. Accordingly, we see
no error on the part of the DOLE-NCR and the BLR in
having dismissed APCs petition, and thus no cause to
compel the Court of Appeals to disregard APCs procedural
errors and accept the petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, G.R. No. 161690
INC.,
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
- versus - YNARES-SANTIAGO,*
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION
(SSVLU) and DIR. HANS LEO Promulgated:
CACDAC, in His capacity as
Director of the Bureau of Labor July 23, 2008
Relations (BLR),
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a
PEZA-registered export firm with principal place of
business at Phase I-PEZA-Bataan Export
Mariveles, Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing
sports shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union
(Union), on the other hand, is a labor organization
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) under Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-
UR-0003.
On March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a
petition for certification election in behalf of the rank-and-
file employees of
Ventures. Five hundred forty two (542)signatures, 82 of
which belong to
______________________
* Additional member as per Special Order No. 509
dated July 1, 2008.
terminated Ventures employees, appeared on the basic
documents supporting the petition.
enforce the On August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition [1] to cancel
the Unions certificate of registration invoking the grounds
set forth in Article 239(a) of the Labor Code. [2] Docketed as
Case No. RO300-0008-CP-002 of the same DOLE regional
office, the petition alleged the following:
(1) The Union deliberately and maliciously included
the names of more or less 82 former employees no longer
connected with Ventures in its list of members who
attended the organizational meeting and in the
adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws held on
January 9, 2000 in Mariveles, Bataan; and the Union
forged the signatures of these 82 former employees to
make it appear they took part in the organizational meeting
and adoption and ratification of the constitution;
(2) The Union maliciously twice entered the
signatures of three persons namely: Mara Santos,
Raymond Balangbang, and Karen Agunos;
(3) No organizational meeting and ratification
actually took place; and
(4) The Unions application for registration was not
supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees
of Ventures, or 418 of the total 2,197-employee
complement.Since more or less 82 of the 500 [3] signatures
were forged or invalid, then the remaining valid signatures
would only be 418, which is very much short of the 439
minimum (2197 total employees x 20% = 439.4) required
by the Labor Code.[4]
In its Answer with Motion to Dismiss,[5] the Union
Zone, denied committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery and
alleged that: (1) the organizational meeting actually took
place on January 9, 2000 at the Shoe City basketball court
in Mariveles; (2) the 82 employees adverted to in Ventures
petition were qualified Union members for, although they Ventures then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on
have been ordered dismissed, the one-year prescriptive a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the recourse
period to question their dismissal had not yet lapsed; (3) it docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74749. On October 20, 2003,
had complied with the 20%-member registration the CA rendered a Decision,[11] dismissing Ventures
requirement since it had 542 members; and (4) the double petition. Ventures motion for reconsideration met a similar
signatures were inadvertent human error. fate.[12]

In its supplemental reply memorandum[6] filed Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45,
on March 20, 2001, with attachments, Ventures cited other petitioner Ventures raising the following grounds:
instances of fraud and misrepresentation, claiming that the I.
affidavits executed by 82 alleged Union members show PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED
that they were deceived into signing paper minutes or were RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
harassed to signing their attendance in the organizational AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
meeting. Ventures added that some employees signed the DISREGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL
AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
affidavits denying having attended such meeting. ADDUCED BY THE PETITIONER
In a Decision dated April 6, 2001, Regional Director Ana C. SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT UNION
PERPETRATED FRAUD, FORGERY,
Dione of DOLE-Region III found for Ventures, the MISREPRESENTATION AND
MISSTATEMENTS IN CONNECTION
dispositive portion of which reads:
WITH THE ADOPTION AND
RATIFICATION OF ITS CONSTITUTION
AND BY-LAWS, AND IN THE
Viewed in the light of all the
PREPARATION OF THE LIST OF
foregoing, this office hereby grants the
MEMBERS WHO TOOK PART IN THE
petition. WHEREFORE, this office resolved
ALLEGED ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
to CANCEL Certificate of Registration No.
BY HOLDING THAT:
[RO300-00-02-UR-0003] dated 28
February 2000 of respondent S.S.
A.
Ventures Labor Union-Independent.
THE 87 AFFIDAVITS OF
So Ordered.[7]
ALLEGED UNION
MEMBERS HAVE NO
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT.

B.
Aggrieved, the Union interposed a motion for
reconsideration, a recourse which appeared to have been THE INCLUSION OF THE 82
EMPLOYEES IN THE
forwarded to the Bureau of Labor Relations LIST OF ATTENDEES TO
(BLR). Although it would later find this motion to have been THE JANUARY 9, 2000
MEETING IS AN
belatedly filed, the BLR, over the objection of Ventures INTERNAL MATTER
WITHIN THE AMBIT OF
which filed a Motion to Expunge, gave it due course and
THE WORKERS RIGHT
treated it as an appeal. TO SELF-
ORGANIZATION AND
OUTSIDE THE SPHERE
Despite Ventures motion to expunge the appeal,[8] the BLR OF INFLUENCE (OF)
THIS OFFICE (PUBLIC
Director rendered on October 11, 2002 a decision[9] in BLR- RESPONDENT IN THIS
A-C-60-6-11-01, granting the Unions appeal and reversing CASE) AND THE
PETITIONER.
the decision of Dione. The fallo of the BLRs decision reads:
II.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision of Director Ana PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED
C. Dione dated 6 April 2001 is hereby RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. S.S. GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
Ventures Labor Union-Independent shall AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
remain in the roster of legitimate labor IGNORING AND DISREGARDING THE
organizations. BLATANT PROCEDURAL LAPSES OF
SO ORDERED.[10] THE RESPONDENT UNION IN THE
FILING OF ITS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL.

Ventures sought reconsideration of the above decision but A.

was denied by the BLR. BY GIVING DUE
COURSE TO THE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
 FILED BY THE
Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR and the
RESPONDENT UNION D
ESPITE THE FACT THAT CA in finding that there was no fraud or misrepresentation
IT WAS FILED BEYOND
THE REGLEMENTARY on the part of the Union sufficient to justify cancellation of
PERIOD. its registration. In this regard, Ventures makes much

B. of, first, the separate hand-written statements of 82

employees who, in gist, alleged that they were unwilling or
BY ADMITTING THE
APPEAL FILED BY ATTY. harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the
ERNESTO R. ARELLANO
organizational meeting.
AND HOLDING THAT
THE SAME DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE FORUM
SHOPPING UNDER We are not persuaded. As aptly noted by both the
SUPREME COURT BLR and CA, these mostly undated written statements
CIRCULAR NO. 28-91.
submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or seven
III. months after it filed its petition for cancellation of
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED registration, partake of the nature of withdrawal of union
RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
membership executed after the Unions filing of a petition
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have in
INVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND precedent cases[18] said that the employees withdrawal
ILO CONVENTION NO. 87 TO JUSTIFY from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for
THE MASSIVE
FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, certification election is presumed voluntary, while
MISSTATEMENTS AND FORGERY withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to
COMMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNION.[13] be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a
The petition lacks merit. withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for
certification election has been filed does not vitiate such
The right to form, join, or assist a union is petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal
specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 [14] of the cannot work to nullify the registration of the union? Upon
Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of this light, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the
the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it
be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82
considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with members had no evidentiary weight.
the right and privileges granted by law to such
organization. While a certificate of registration confers a It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration
union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to or the recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the
participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the
unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be BLR. Far from it. After a labor organization has filed the
decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union necessary registration documents, it becomes mandatory
is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 [19] of
[15]
Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of the Labor Code have been sedulously complied with. [20] If
any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) [16] of the Labor the unions application is infected by falsification and like
Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the
with the adoption or ratification of the unions constitution face of the application and its attachments, a union should
and like documents. The Court, has in previous cases, said be denied recognition as a legitimate labor
that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the organization. Prescinding from these considerations, the
union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration No.
must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false RO300-00-02-UR-0003 necessarily implies that its
statement, or fraud in connection with the application for application for registration and the supporting documents
registration and the supporting documents, such as the thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.
adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the Second, Ventures draws attention to the inclusion
constitution or by-laws, among other documents.[17] of 82 individuals to the list of participants in the January 9,
2000 organizational meeting. Ventures submits that the 82,
being no longer connected with the company, should not
have been counted as attendees in the meeting and the Whatever misgivings the petitioner
ratification proceedings immediately afterwards. may have with regard to the 82 dismissed
employees is better addressed in the
inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a
The assailed inclusion of the said 82 individuals to pre-election conference x x x. The issue
surrounding the involvement of the 82
the meeting and proceedings adverted to is not really fatal employees is a matter of membership
to the Unions cause for, as determined by the BLR, the or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to
cancel union registration. (Emphasis
allegations of falsification of signatures or added.)
misrepresentation with respect to these individuals are
without basis.[21] The Court need not delve into the question
The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the
of whether these 82 dismissed individuals were still Union
list of those who participated in the organizational meeting
members qualified to vote and affix their signature on its
would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
application for registration and supporting documents.
Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003. As
Suffice it to say that, as aptly observed by the CA, the
the Union tenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures,
procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and
the double entries are no more than normal human error,
the determination of who are qualified or disqualified to be
effected without malice. Even the labor arbiter who found
members are matters internal to the union and flow from its
for Ventures sided with the Union in its explanation on the
right to self-organization.
absence of malice.[22]

To our mind, the relevancy of the 82 individuals

active participation in the Unions organizational meeting
and the signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for
purposes of determining whether or not the Union, even
without the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the
Labor Code requires to be submitted, to wit:
Art. 234. Requirements of
Registration.Any applicant labor
organization x x x 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:
xxxx
(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.
The BLR, based on its official records, answered
the poser in the affirmative. Wrote the BLR:
It is imperative to look into the
records of respondent union with this
Bureau pursuant to our role as a central
registry of union and CBA records under
Article 231 of the Labor Code and Rule
XVII of the rules implementing Book V of
the Labor Code, as amended x x x.
The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless
has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-
organization. Accordingly, we can accord concurrence to
the following apt observation of the BLR: [F]or fraud and
misrepresentation [to be grounds for] cancellation of union
registration under Article 239 [of the Labor Code], the
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave
and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority
of union members.[23]
In its Comment, the Union points out that for almost seven
(7) years following the filing of its petition, no certification
election has yet been conducted among the rank-and-file
employees. If this be the case, the delay has gone far
enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. The CA
is right when it said that Ventures should not interfere in the
certification election by actively and persistently opposing
the certification election of the Union. A certification
election is exclusively the concern of employees and the
employer lacks the legal personality to challenge it. [24] In
fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employers interference in
a certification election for such interference unduly creates
the impression that it intends to establish a company union.
[25]

In its union records on file with this

Ventures allegations on forum shopping and the procedural
Bureau, respondent union submitted the
names of [542] members x x x. This lapse supposedly committed by the BLR in allowing a
number easily complied with the 20%
requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 belatedly filed motion for reconsideration need not detain
employees in the establishment. Even us long. Suffice it to state that this Court has consistently
subtracting the 82 employees from 542
leaves 460 union members, still within ruled that the application of technical rules of procedure in
440 or 20% of the maximum total of
2,202 rank-and-file employees.
labor cases may be relaxed to serve the demands of code.The case was docketed as Case No. RO400-0506-
substantial justice.[26] So it must be in this case. AU-004.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution dated October 20, 2003 and January 19, 2004,
respectively, of the CA are AFFIRMED. S.S. Ventures
Labor Union shall remain in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations, unless it has in the meantime lost its
legitimacy for causes set forth in the Labor Code. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC.,
Petitioner,
On August 26, 2005, the Regional Director of DOLE IV-A
issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the
registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of
active labor unions.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR).
In a Decision[7] dated June 14, 2006, the BLR granted
G.R. No. 183317
respondents appeal and disposed as follows

Present: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

appeal by Samahan ng Manggagawa sa
CORONA, Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
- versus - Chairperson, Independent) is hereby GRANTED, and
VELASCO, JR.,the Decision dated 26 August 2005 by
NACHURA, DOLE-Region-IV-A Director Maximo B. Lim
PERALTA, andis hereby REVERSED and SET
DEL ASIDE. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
AND EMPLOYMENT, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF Independent), under Registration
LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND Certificate No. RO400-200505-UR-002,
EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF DOLE remains in the roster of legitimate labor
REGIONAL OFFICE NUMBER IV-A & organizations.
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MARIWASA
SIAM CERAMICS, INC. (SMMSC-INDEPENDENT), SO DECIDED.[8]
Respondents.
Promulgated:

December 21, 2009

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- denied it in a Resolution[9] dated February 2, 2007.

--x

Petitioner sought recourse with the Court of Appeals (CA)

DECISION
through a Petition for Certiorari; but the CA denied the
NACHURA, J.: petition for lack of merit.

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of

Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision
the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the
was likewise denied, hence, this petition based on the
Decision[2] dated December 20, 2007 and the
following grounds
Resolution[3] dated June 6, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 98332. Review of the Factual Findings of
the Bureau of Labor Relations, adopted
and confirmed by the Honorable Court of
The antecedent facts are as follows Appeals is warranted[;]

The Honorable Court of Appeals

On May 4, 2005, respondent Samahan Ng Mga seriously erred in ruling that the affidavits
of recantation cannot be given credence[;]
Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration [4] as a The Honorable Court of Appeals
seriously erred in ruling that private
legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor respondent union complied with the 20%
membership requirement[; and]
and Employment (DOLE), Region IV-A.
The Honorable Court of Appeals
seriously erred when it ruled that private
On June 14, 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, respondent union did not commit
Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration misrepresentation, fraud or false
statement.[10]
against respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article
234[5] of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20%
requirement, and that it committed massive fraud and The petition should be denied.

misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 [6] of the same

The petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with
the 20% union membership requirement for its registration
as a legitimate labor organization because of the
disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting their union
membership.
It is, thus, imperative that we peruse the affidavits
appearing to have been executed by these affiants.
The affidavits uniformly state
Ako, _____________, Pilipino, may sapat
na gulang, regular na empleyado bilang
Rank & File sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics,
Inc., Bo. San Antonio, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, matapos na makapanumpa ng
naaayon sa batas ay malaya at kusang
loob na nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:
1. Ako ay napilitan at nilinlang sa pagsapi
sa Samahan ng mga Manggagawa
sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.
o SMMSC-Independent sa kabila
ng aking pag-aalinlangan[;]
2. Aking lubos na pinagsisihan ang aking
pagpirma sa sipi ng samahan, at
handa ako[ng] tumalikod sa
anumang kasulatan na aking
nalagdaan sa kadahilanan na hindi
angkop sa aking pananaw ang
mga mungkahi o adhikain ng
samahan.
SA KATUNAYAN NANG LAHAT,
ako ay lumagda ng aking pangalan
ngayong ika-____ ng ______, 2005 dito sa
Lalawigan ng Batangas, Bayan ng Sto.
Tomas.
____________________
Nagsasalaysay
Evidently, these affidavits were written and prepared in
advance, and the pro forma affidavits were ready to be
filled out with the employees names and signatures.
The first common allegation in the affidavits is a
declaration that, in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was
forced and deceived into joining the respondent union. It is
worthy to note, however, that the affidavit does not mention
the identity of the people who allegedly forced and
deceived the affiant into joining the union, much less the
circumstances that constituted such force and
deceit. Indeed, not only was this allegation couched in very
general terms and sweeping in nature, but more
importantly, it was not supported by any evidence
whatsoever.
The second allegation ostensibly bares the affiants
regret for joining respondent union and expresses the
desire to abandon or renege from whatever agreement he
may have signed regarding his membership with
respondent.
Simply put, through these affidavits, it is made to
appear that the affiants recanted their support of
respondents application for registration.
In appreciating affidavits of recantation such as
these, our ruling in La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory
v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations[11] is
enlightening, viz.
On the second issuewhether or not the
withdrawal of 31 union members from
NATU affected the petition for certification
election insofar as the 30% requirement is
concerned, We reserve the Order of the
respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, it appearing undisputably that
the 31 union members had withdrawn their
support to the petition before the filing of
said petition. It would be otherwise if the
withdrawal was made after the filing of the
petition for it would then be presumed that
the withdrawal was not free and
voluntary. The presumption would arise
that the withdrawal was procured through
duress, coercion or for valuable
consideration. In other words, the
distinction must be that withdrawals made
before the filing of the petition are
presumed voluntary unless there is
convincing proof to the contrary, whereas
withdrawals made after the filing of the
petition are deemed involuntary.
The reason for such distinction is that if the
withdrawal or retraction is made before the
filing of the petition, the names of
employees supporting the petition are
supposed to be held secret to the opposite
party. Logically, any such withdrawal or
retraction shows voluntariness in the
absence of proof to the contrary. Moreover,
it becomes apparent that such employees
had not given consent to the filing of the
petition, hence the subscription
requirement has not been met.
When the withdrawal or retraction is made
after the petition is filed, the employees
who are supporting the petition become
known to the opposite party since their
names are attached to the petition at the
time of filing. Therefore, it would not be
unexpected that the opposite party would
use foul means for the subject employees
to withdraw their support.[12]
In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were
executed after the identities of the union members became
public, i.e., after the union filed a petition for certification
election on May 23, 2005, since the names of the members
were attached to the petition. The purported withdrawal of
support for the registration of the union was made after the
documents were submitted to the DOLE, Region IV-A. The
logical conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence, is
that the employees were not totally free from the employers
pressure, and so the voluntariness of the employees
execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.
It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 pro
forma affidavits shows that the affidavits were executed by
the individual affiants on different dates from May 26,
2005 until June 3, 2005, but they were all sworn before a
notary public on June 8, 2005.
There was also a second set of standardized
affidavits executed on different dates from May 26,
2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77 affidavits were
notarized on different dates, 56 of these were notarized on
June 8, 2005, the very same date when the first set of 25
was notarized.
Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits was
submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005, it is surprising
why petitioner was able to submit the second set of
affidavits only on July 12, 2005.
Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to these
affidavits, which were executed under suspicious
circumstances, and which contain allegations unsupported
by evidence. At best, these affidavits are self-serving. They
possess no probative value.
A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. For this reason, retractions are looked upon
with disfavor and do not automatically exclude the original
statement or declaration based solely on the recantation. It
is imperative that a determination be first made as to which
between the original and the new statements should be
given weight or accorded belief, applying the general rules
on evidence. In this case, inasmuch as they remain bare
allegations, the purported recantations should not be
upheld.[13]
Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the affidavits
of recantation, the legitimacy of respondent as a labor
organization must be affirmed. While it is true that the
withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation
from the union, the fact remains that at the time of the
unions application for registration, the affiants were
members of respondent and they comprised more than the
required 20% membership for purposes of registration as a
labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires
a 20% minimum membership during the application for
union registration. It does not mandate that a union must
maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all
throughout its existence.[14]
Respondent asserts that it had a total of 173 union
members at the time it applied for registration. Two names
were repeated in respondents list and had to be deducted,
but the total would still be 171 union members. Further, out
of the four names alleged to be no longer connected with
petitioner, only two names should be deleted from the list
since Diana Motilla and T.W. Amutan resigned from
petitioner only on May 10, 2005 and May 17, 2005,
respectively, or after respondents registration had already
been granted. Thus, the total union membership at the time
of registration was 169. Since the total number of rank-and-
file employees at that time was 528, 169 employees would
be equivalent to 32% of the total rank-and-file workers
complement, still very much above the minimum required
by law.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as
respondent, it must be shown that there was
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; or,
in connection with the election of officers, the 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 to the BLR. [15]
The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice
on the list of those who participated in the organizational
meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to
cancel respondents certificate of registration. The
cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an
impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-
organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration under the
Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation
must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA
that respondent could not have possibly committed
misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged
failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical
precision the total number of employees in the bargaining
unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply
with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if
the total number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is
528, while respondent declared that it should only be 455,
it still cannot be denied that the latter would have more
than complied with the registration requirement.
 notice. The preelection conference resumed on January
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
29, 2000.
assailed December 20, 2007 Decision and the June 6,
2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
Subsequently, petitioner discovered that respondent had
are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) its
annual financial report for several years and the list of its
SO ORDERED.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting G.R. No. 178296
members since it filed its registration papers in 1995.
through its owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL
CORPORATION, Present: Consequently, on May 19, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition
Petitioner, for Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the
CARPIO,
- versus - ground of the non-submission of the said documents.
Chairperson,
NACHURA, Petitioner prayed that respondents Certificate of Creation
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED ABAD, andof Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted
INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA MENDOZA,
from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-
HHMSC), requested the suspension of the certification election
Respondent. Promulgated:
proceedings.[4]
January 12,
On2011
June 1, 2000, petitioner reiterated its request by filing a
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Motion to Dismiss or Suspend the [Certification Election]
Proceedings,[5] arguing that the dismissal or suspension of
DECISION the proceedings is warranted, considering that the
legitimacy of respondent is seriously being challenged in
NACHURA, J.:
the petition for cancellation of registration. Petitioner
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the
maintained that the resolution of the issue of whether
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 30,
respondent is a legitimate labor organization is crucial to
2005 and Resolution dated June 4, 2007. The assailed
the issue of whether it may exercise rights of a legitimate
Decision affirmed the dismissal of a petition for cancellation
labor organization, which include the right to be certified as
of union registration filed by petitioner, Grand Plaza Hotel
the bargaining agent of the covered employees.
Corporation, owner of Heritage Hotel Manila, against
respondent, National Union of Workers in the Hotel,
Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through on
Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
June 23, 2000. Respondent emerged as the winner. [6]
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), a labor
organization of the supervisory employees of Heritage
On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with
Hotel Manila.
Motion to Defer Certification of Election Results and
The case stemmed from the following antecedents:
Winner,[7] stating that the certification election held on June
23, 2000 was an exercise in futility because, once
On October 11, 1995, respondent filed with the
respondents registration is cancelled, it would no longer be
Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital
entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
Region (DOLE-NCR) a petition for certification election.
[2] the supervisory employees. Petitioner also claimed that
The Med-Arbiter granted the petition on February 14,
some of respondents members were not qualified to join
1996 and ordered the holding of a certification election.
[3] the union because they were either confidential employees
On appeal, the DOLE Secretary, in a Resolution dated
or managerial employees. It then prayed that the
August 15, 1996, affirmed the Med-Arbiters order and
certification of the election results and winner be deferred
remanded the case to the Med-Arbiter for the holding of a
until the petition for cancellation shall have been resolved,
preelection conference on February 26, 1997. Petitioner
and that respondents members who held confidential or
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on
managerial positions be excluded from the supervisors
September 23, 1996.
bargaining unit.
Meanwhile, respondent filed its Answer[8] to the petition for
The preelection conference was not held as initially
the cancellation of its registration. It averred that the
scheduled; it was held a year later, or on February 20,
petition was filed primarily to delay the conduct of the
1998. Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the petition
certification election, the respondents certification as the
due to alleged repeated non-appearance of respondent.
exclusive bargaining representative of the supervisory
The latter agreed to suspend proceedings until further
employees, and the commencement of bargaining
negotiations. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the
petition for the following reasons: (a) petitioner is estopped
from questioning respondents status as a legitimate labor
organization as it had already recognized respondent as
such during the preelection conferences; (b) petitioner is
not the party-in-interest, as the union members are the
ones who would be disadvantaged by the non-submission
of financial reports; (c) it has already complied with the
reportorial requirements, having submitted its financial
statements for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, its updated list
of officers, and its list of members for the years 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, and 1999; (d) the petition is already moot and
academic, considering that the certification election had
already been held, and the members had manifested their
will to be represented by respondent.
Citing National Union of Bank Employees v. Minister of
Labor, et al.[9] and Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific
[10]
Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma, the Med-Arbiter held that the
pendency of a petition for cancellation of registration is not
a bar to the holding of a certification election. Thus, in an
Order[11] dated January 26, 2001, the Med-Arbiter
dismissed petitioners protest, and certified respondent as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory
employees.
Petitioner subsequently appealed the said Order to the
DOLE Secretary.[12] The appeal was later dismissed by
DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (DOLE Secretary
Sto. Tomas) in the Resolution of August 21, 2002.
[13]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the motion was
also denied.[14]
In the meantime, Regional Director Alex E. Maraan
(Regional Director Maraan) of DOLE-NCR finally resolved
the petition for cancellation of registration. While finding
that respondent had indeed failed to file financial reports
and the list of its members for several years, he,
nonetheless, denied the petition, ratiocinating that freedom
of association and the employees right to self-organization
are more substantive considerations. He took into account
the fact that respondent won the certification election and
that it had already been certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. In view of
the foregoing, Regional Director Maraanwhile emphasizing
that the non-compliance with the law is not viewed with
favorconsidered the belated submission of the annual
financial reports and the list of members as sufficient
compliance thereof and considered them as having been
submitted on time. The dispositive portion of the
[15]
decision dated December 29, 2001 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant petition to delist the
National Union of Workers in the Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage
Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter from the
roll of legitimate labor organizations is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the decision to the BLR.
[17]
BLR Director Hans Leo Cacdac inhibited himself from
the case because he had been a former counsel of
respondent.
In view of Director Cacdacs inhibition, DOLE Secretary Sto.
Tomas took cognizance of the appeal. In a
resolution[18] dated February 21, 2003, she dismissed the
appeal, holding that the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers to self-
organization outweighed respondents noncompliance with
the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a
legitimate labor organization.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, [19] but
the motion was likewise denied in a resolution [20] dated May
30, 2003. DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas admitted that it was
the BLR which had jurisdiction over the appeal, but she
pointed out that the BLR Director had voluntarily inhibited
himself from the case because he used to appear as
counsel for respondent. In order to maintain the integrity of
the decision and of the BLR, she therefore accepted the
motion to inhibit and took cognizance of the appeal.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, raising
the issue of whether the DOLE Secretary acted with grave
abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the appeal and
affirming the dismissal of its petition for cancellation of
respondents registration.
In a Decision dated May 30, 2005, the CA denied the
petition. The CA opined that the DOLE Secretary may
legally assume jurisdiction over an appeal from the
decision of the Regional Director in the event that the
Director of the BLR inhibits himself from the case.
According to the CA, in the absence of the BLR Director,
there is no person more competent to resolve the appeal
than the DOLE Secretary. The CA brushed aside the
allegation of bias and partiality on the part of the DOLE
Secretary, considering that such allegation was not
supported by any evidence.
The CA also found that the DOLE Secretary did not commit
grave abuse of discretion when she affirmed the dismissal
of the petition for cancellation of respondents registration
as a labor organization. Echoing the DOLE Secretary, the
CA held that the requirements of registration of labor
organizations are an exercise of the overriding police
power of the State, designed for the protection of workers
against potential abuse by the union that recruits them.
These requirements, the CA opined, should not be
exploited to work against the workers constitutionally
protected right to self-organization.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, invoking this
Courts ruling in Abbott Labs. Phils., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
Employees Union,[21] which categorically declared that the
DOLE Secretary has no authority to review the decision of
the Regional Director in a petition for cancellation of union
registration, and Section 4,[22] Rule VIII, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
In its Resolution[23] dated June 4, 2007, the CA denied
petitioners motion, stating that the BLR Directors inhibition
from the case was a peculiarity not present
the Abbottcase, and that such inhibition justified the
assumption of jurisdiction by the DOLE Secretary.
In this petition, petitioner argues that:
I.
The Court of Appeals seriously erred in
ruling that the Labor Secretary properly
assumed jurisdiction over Petitioners
appeal of the Regional Directors Decision
in the Cancellation Petition x x x.
A. Jurisdiction is conferred
only by law. The Labor
Secretary had no jurisdiction to
review the decision of the
Regional Director in a petition
for cancellation. Such
jurisdiction is conferred by law
to the BLR.
B. The unilateral inhibition by
the BLR Director cannot justify
the Labor Secretarys exercise
of jurisdiction over the Appeal.
C. The Labor Secretarys
assumption of jurisdiction over
the Appeal without notice
violated Petitioners right to due
process.
II.
The Court of Appeals gravely erred in
affirming the dismissal of the Cancellation
Petition despite the mandatory and
unequivocal provisions of the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules.[24]
The petition has no merit.
Jurisdiction to review the decision of the Regional Director
lies with the BLR. This is clearly provided in the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code and enunciated by
the Court in Abbott. But as pointed out by the CA, the
present case involves a peculiar circumstance that was not
present or covered by the ruling in Abbott. In this case, the
BLR Director inhibited himself from the case because he
was a former counsel of respondent. Who, then, shall
resolve the case in his place?
In Abbott, the appeal from the Regional Directors
decision was directly filed with the Office of the DOLE
Secretary, and we ruled that the latter has no appellate
jurisdiction. In the instant case, the appeal was filed by
petitioner with the BLR, which, undisputedly, acquired
jurisdiction over the case. Once jurisdiction is acquired by
the court, it remains with it until the full termination of the
case.[25]
in Thus, jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite
the BLR Directors inhibition. When the DOLE Secretary
resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of
the BLR Director and performed a function that the latter
could not himself perform. She did so pursuant to her
power of supervision and control over the BLR.[26]
Expounding on the extent of the power of control, the
Court, in Araneta, et al. v. Hon. M. Gatmaitan, et al.,
[27]
pronounced that, if a certain power or authority is vested
by law upon the Department Secretary, then such power or
authority may be exercised directly by the President, who
exercises supervision and control over the departments.
This principle was incorporated in the Administrative Code
of 1987, which defines supervision and control as including
the authority to act directly whenever a specific function is
entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate. [28] Applying
the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that the DOLE
Secretary, as the person exercising the power of
supervision and control over the BLR, has the authority to
directly exercise the quasi-judicial function entrusted by law
to the BLR Director.
It is true that the power of control and supervision does not
give the Department Secretary unbridled authority to take
over the functions of his or her subordinate. Such authority
is subject to certain guidelines which are stated in Book IV,
Chapter 8, Section 39(1)(a) of the Administrative Code of
1987.[29] However, in the present case, the DOLE
Secretarys act of taking over the function of the BLR
Director was warranted and necessitated by the latters
inhibition from the case and the objective to maintain the
integrity of the decision, as well as the Bureau itself. [30]

Petitioner insists that the BLR Directors subordinates
should have resolved the appeal, citing the provision under
the Administrative Code of 1987 which states, in case of
the absence or disability of the head of a bureau or office,
his duties shall be performed by the assistant head. [31] The
provision clearly does not apply considering that the BLR
Director was neither absent nor suffering from any
disability; he remained as head of the BLR. Thus, to dispel
any suspicion of bias, the DOLE Secretary opted to resolve
the appeal herself.
Petitioner was not denied the right to due process when it
was not notified in advance of the BLR Directors inhibition
and the DOLE Secretarys assumption of the case. Well-
settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply
an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.[32] Petitioner had the opportunity to question
the BLR Directors inhibition and the DOLE Secretarys
taking cognizance of the case when it filed a motion for
reconsideration of the latters decision. It would be well to
state that a critical component of due process is a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, for all the
elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would be
meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a
partial and biased judge.[33] It was precisely to ensure a fair
trial that moved the BLR Director to inhibit himself from the
case and the DOLE Secretary to take over his function.
Petitioner also insists that respondents registration as a
legitimate labor union should be cancelled. Petitioner posits
that once it is determined that a ground enumerated in
Article 239 of the Labor Code is present, cancellation of
registration should follow; it becomes the ministerial duty of
the Regional Director to cancel the registration of the labor
organization, hence, the use of the word shall. Petitioner
points out that the Regional Director has admitted in its
decision that respondent failed to submit the required
documents for a number of years; therefore, cancellation of
its registration should have followed as a matter of course.
We are not persuaded.
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code read:
ART. 238. CANCELLATION OF
REGISTRATION; APPEAL
The certificate of registration of any
legitimate labor organization, whether
national or local, shall be canceled by the
Bureau if it has reason to believe, after
due hearing, that the said labor
organization no longer meets one or
more of the requirements herein
prescribed.[34]
ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR
CANCELLATION OF UNION
REGISTRATION.
The following shall constitute
grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
xxxx
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial
report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days
after the closing of every fiscal year and
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in
the preparation of the financial report itself;
xxxx
(i) Failure to submit list of individual
members to the Bureau once a year or
whenever required by the Bureau.[35]
These provisions give the Regional Director ample
discretion in dealing with a petition for cancellation of a
unions registration, particularly, determining whether the
union still meets the requirements prescribed by law. It is
sufficient to give the Regional Director license to treat the
late filing of required documents as sufficient compliance
with the requirements of the law. After all, the law requires
the labor organization to submit the annual financial report
and list of members in order to verify if it is still viable and
financially sustainable as an organization so as to protect
the employer and employees from fraudulent or fly-by-night
unions. With the submission of the required documents by
respondent, the purpose of the law has been achieved,
though belatedly.
We cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Regional
Director and the DOLE Secretary in denying the petition for
cancellation of respondents registration. The union
members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the
appropriate bargaining unit should not be deprived of a
bargaining agent, merely because of the negligence of the
union officers who were responsible for the submission of
the documents to the BLR.
Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in
treating petitions for cancellation of union registration, lest
they be accused of interfering with union activities. In
resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of
the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities should bear
in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of
legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted
by law to a legitimate labor organization, particularly the
right to participate in or ask for certification election in a

bargaining unit.[36] Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of
registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a
labor organization. For without such registration, it loses -
as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code.[37]
It is worth mentioning that the Labor Codes provisions on
cancellation of union registration and on reportorial
requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9481, 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,
which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 and became
effective on June 14, 2007. The amendment sought to
strengthen the workers right to self-organization and
enhance the Philippines compliance with its international
obligations as embodied in the International Labour
Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87, [38]pertaining to the
non-dissolution of workers organizations by administrative
authority.[39] Thus, R.A. No. 9481 amended Article 239 to
read:
ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of
Union Registration.The following may
constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
(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, and the list of members who
took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or
fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers,
and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
R.A. No. 9481 also inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-
A, which provides:
ART. 242-A. Reportorial Requirements.The
following are documents required to be
submitted to the Bureau by the legitimate
labor organization concerned:
(a) Its constitution and by-laws, or
amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who
took part in the ratification of the
constitution and by-laws within thirty (30)
days from adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto;
(b) Its list of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and list of voters within
thirty (30) days from election;
(c) Its annual financial report within
thirty (30) days after the close of every
fiscal year; and
(d) Its list of members at least once a year
or whenever required by the Bureau.
Failure to comply with the above
requirements shall not be a ground for
cancellation of union registration but
shall subject the erring officers or
members to suspension, expulsion
from membership, or any appropriate
penalty.
ILO Convention No. 87, which we have ratified in 1953,
provides that workers and employers organizations shall
not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by
administrative authority. The ILO has expressed the opinion
that the cancellation of union registration by the registrar of
labor unions, which in our case is the BLR, is tantamount to
dissolution of the organization by administrative authority
when such measure would give rise to the loss of legal
personality of the union or loss of advantages necessary
for it to carry out its activities, which is true in our
jurisdiction. Although the ILO has allowed such measure to
be taken, provided that judicial safeguards are in
place, i.e., the right to appeal to a judicial body, it has
nonetheless reminded its members that dissolution of a
union, and cancellation of registration for that matter,
involve serious consequences for occupational
representation. It has, therefore, deemed it preferable if
such actions were to be taken only as a last resort and
after exhausting other possibilities with less serious effects
on the organization.[40]
The aforesaid amendments and the ILOs opinion on this
matter serve to fortify our ruling in this case. We therefore
quote with approval the DOLE Secretarys rationale for
denying the petition, thus:
It is undisputed that appellee failed
to submit its annual financial reports and
list of individual members in accordance
with Article 239 of the Labor Code.
However, the existence of this ground
should not necessarily lead to the
cancellation of union registration. Article
239 recognizes the regulatory authority of
the State to exact compliance with
reporting requirements. Yet there is more
at stake in this case than merely
monitoring union activities and requiring
periodic documentation thereof.
The more substantive considerations
involve the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers
to self-organization. Also involved is the
public policy to promote free trade
unionism and collective bargaining as
instruments of industrial peace and
democracy. An overly stringent
interpretation of the statute governing
cancellation of union registration without
regard to surrounding circumstances
cannot be allowed. Otherwise, it would
lead to an unconstitutional application of
 the statute and emasculation of public Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office a
policy objectives. Worse, it can render Petition3 for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union
nugatory the protection to labor and social Registration of Respondent Samahang Lakas
justice clauses that pervades the Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that the
Constitution and the Labor Code. latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and
fraud with respect to the number of those who participated
Moreover, submission of the required in the organizational meeting, the adoption and ratification
documents is the duty of the officers of the of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election of its
union. It would be unreasonable for this officers. It contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational
Office to order the cancellation of the union meeting of respondent, only 68 attendees signed the
and penalize the entire union membership attendance sheet, and which number comprised only 17%
on the basis of the negligence of its of the total number of the 396 regular rank- and-file
officers. In National Union of Bank employees which respondent sought to represent, and
Employees vs. Minister of Labor, L-53406, hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum
14 December 1981, 110 SCRA 296, the membership requirement. Petitioner insisted that the
Supreme Court ruled: document “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon” bore no
As aptly ruled by signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and that
respondent Bureau of employees were not given sufficient information on the
Labor Relations Director documents they signed; that the document “Sama-Samang
Noriel: The rights of Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted at the time of the
workers to self- filing of respondent's application for union registration; that
organization finds general the 119 union members were actually only 117; and, that
and specific constitutional the total number of petitioner's employees as of May 1,
guarantees. x x x Such 2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent
constitutional guarantees claimed.4cralawred
should not be lightly taken
much less nullified. A Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119
healthy respect for the union members were more than the 20% requirement for
freedom of association union registration. The document “Sama-Samang Pahayag
demands that acts ng Pagsapi sa Unyon” which it presented in its petition for
imputable to officers or certification election5 supported their claim of 119
members be not easily members. Respondent also contended that petitioner was
visited with capital estopped from assailing its legal personality as it agreed to
punishments against the a certification election and actively participated in the pre-
association itself. election conference of the certification election
proceedings.6Respondent argued that the union members
At any rate, we note that on 19 May 2000, were informed of the contents of the documents they
appellee had submitted its financial signed and that the 68 attendees to the organizational
statement for the years 1996-1999. With meeting constituted more than 50% of the total union
this submission, appellee has substantially membership, hence, a quorum existed for the conduct of
complied with its duty to submit its financial the said meeting.7cralawred
report for the said period. To rule differently
would be to preclude the union, after On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director, Atty. Ricardo
having failed to meet its periodic S. Martinez, Sr., issued a Decision 8 granting the petition for
obligations promptly, from taking cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration, the
appropriate measures to correct its dispositive portion of which
omissions. For the record, we do not view reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
with favor appellees late submission.
Punctuality on the part of the union and its WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, the
officers could have prevented this petition. petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the respondent
[41]
Union Certificate of Registration No. RO400A-2009-05-01-
UR-LAG, dated May 19, 2009 is hereby REVOCKED (sic)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals
and /or CANCELLED pursuant to paragraph (a) & (b),
Decision dated May 30, 2005 and Resolution dated June 4, Section 3, Rule XIV of Department Order No. 40-03 and
the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng TAKATA
2007 are AFFIRMED. (SALAMAT) is hereby delisted from the roll of legitimate
labor organization of this office.9

SO ORDERED. In revoking respondent's certificate of registration, the

Regional Director found that the 68 employees who
G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014 attended the organizational meeting was obviously less
than 20% of the total number of 396 regular rank-and-file
TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) employees which respondent sought to represent, hence,
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR short of the union registration requirement; that the
RELATIONS AND SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA attendance sheet which contained the signatures and
NG TAKATA (SALAMAT), Respondents. names of the union members totalling to 68 contradicted
the list of names stated in the document denominated as
“Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon.” The document
DECISION “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not attached to
the application for registration as it was only submitted in
PERALTA, J.: the petition for certification election filed by respondent at a
later date. The Regional Director also found that the
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by proceedings in the cancellation of registration and
petitioner TAKATA Philippines Corporation assailing the certification elections are two different and entirely separate
Decision1 dated December 22, 2010 and the and independent proceedings which were not dependent
Resolution2 dated March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals on each other.
in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406.
Dissatisfied, respondent, through Bukluran ng
On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Paralegal Officer, Domingo
P. Mole, filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal 10 with
the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). However, on
September 28, 2009, respondent, through its counsels,
Attys. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie W.
Velandrez, filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry
of Appearance11 to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which
the latter eventually referred to the BLR. Petitioner filed an
Opposition to the Appeals12 praying for their dismissal on
the ground of forum shopping as respondent filed two
separate appeals in two separate venues; and for failing to
avail of the correct remedy within the period; and that the
certificate of registration was tainted with fraud,
misrepresentation and falsification.
In its Answer,13 respondent claimed that there was no forum
shopping as BMP's Paralegal Officer was no longer
authorized to file an appeal on behalf of respondent as the
latter's link with BMP was already terminated and only the
Union President was authorized to file the appeal; and that
it complied with Department Order No. 40-03.
On December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's
Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance and
petitioner's Answer, the BLR rendered its
Decision14 reversing the Order of the Regional Director, the
decretal portion of which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The
Decision of Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr.,
dated 27 August 2009, is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng TAKATA
(SALAMAT) shall remain in the roster of labor
organizations.15
In reversing, the BLR found that petitioner failed to prove
that respondent deliberately and maliciously
misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees. It
pointed out petitioner's basis for the alleged non-
compliance with the minimum membership requirement for
registration was the attendance of 68 members to the May
1, 2009 organizational meeting supposedly comprising only
17% of the total 396 regular rank-and-file employees.
However, the BLR found that the list of employees who
participated in the organizational meeting was a separate
and distinct requirement from the list of the names of
members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the
bargaining unit; and that there was no requirement for
signatures opposite the names of the union members; and
there was no evidence showing that the employees
assailed their inclusion in the list of union members.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied by the BLR in a Resolution16 dated January 8, 2010.
Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
After the submission of the parties' respective pleadings,
the case was submitted for decision.
On December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed
decision which denied the petition and affirmed the
decision of the BLR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration
was denied in a Resolution dated March 29, 2011.
Hence this petition for review filed by petitioner raising the
following issues, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR AND NOT
FINDING ANY VIOLATION BY SAMAHANG LAKAS
MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT ) OF THE RULE
ON FORUM SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF TWO
VERIFIED APPEALS FOR AND ITS BEHALF. BOTH OF
THE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED
OUTRIGHT BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR, ON
GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION OF SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA
SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE
LAW. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OBTAINING IN THE REGISTRATION OF SALAMAT, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS TAINTED WITH FRAUD,
MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSIFICATION. SALAMAT
DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITS
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, HENCE, IT
SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY OF MISREPRESENTATION ,
AND FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.17
Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that respondent
had filed two separate appeals with two different
representations at two different venues, in violation of the
rule on multiplicity of suits and forum shopping, and instead
of dismissing both appeals, the appeal erroneously filed
before the Labor Secretary was the one held validly filed,
entertained and even granted; that it is not within the
discretion of BLR to choose which between the two
appeals should be entertained, as it is the fact of the filing
of the two appeals that is being prohibited and not who
among the representatives therein possessed the authority.
We are not persuaded.
We find no error committed by the CA in finding that
respondent committed no forum shopping. As the CA
correctly concluded, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is undisputed that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P.
Mole was no longer authorized to file an appeal on behalf
of union SALAMAT and that BMP was duly informed that its
services was already terminated. SALAMAT even
submitted before the BLR its “Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009”
terminating the services of BMP and revoking the
representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any of the pending
cases being handled by him on behalf of the union. So,
considering that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole
was no longer authorized to file an appeal when it filed the
Notice and Memorandum of Appeal to DOLE Regional
Office No. IV-A, the same can no longer be treated as an
appeal filed by union SALAMAT. Hence, there is no forum
shopping to speak of in this case as only the Appeal
Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance filed by
Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty. Jehn Louie W.
Velandrez is sanctioned by SALAMAT.18
Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically
authorized by respondent, such appeal is considered to
have not been filed at all. It has been held that “if a
complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not
authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An
unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect.”19cralawred
Respondent through its authorized representative filed its
Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance
before the Labor Secretary, and not with the BLR. As the
appeal emanated from the petition for cancellation of
certificate of registration filed with the Regional Office, the
decision canceling the registration is appealable to the
BLR, and not with the Labor Secretary. However, since the
Labor Secretary motu propio referred the appeal with the
BLR, the latter can now act on it. Considering that Mole's
appeal with the BLR was not deemed filed, respondent’s
appeal, through Banzuela and Associates, which the Labor
Secretary referred to the BLR was the only existing appeal
with the BLR for resolution. There is, therefore, no merit to
petitioner's claim that BLR chose the appeal of Banzuela
and Associates over Mole's appeal.
The case of Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. v. Abbott
Laboratories Employees Union20 cited by petitioner is not at
all applicable in this case as the issue therein is the
authority of the Labor Secretary to review the decision of
the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction over decision of the Regional
Director in cases involving cancellations of certificate of
registration of labor unions. We found no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the Secretary of Labor in not
acting on therein petitioner's appeal. The decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations on cases brought before it on
appeal from the Regional Director are final and executory.
Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to seasonably
avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65
and the Rules of Court. In this case, after the Labor
Secretary motu propio referred respondent's appeal filed
with it to the BLR which rendered its decision reversing the
Regional Director, petitioner went directly to the CA via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
As to the second issue, petitioner seeks the cancellation of
respondent's registration on grounds of fraud and
misrepresentation bearing on the minimum requirement of
the law as to its membership, considering the big disparity
in numbers, between the organizational meeting and the
list of members, and so misleading the BLR that it obtained
the minimum required number of employees for purposes
of organization and registration.
We find no merit in the arguments.
Art. 234 of the Labor Code
provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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."
And after the issuance of the certificate of registration, 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.
And the cancellation of union certificate of registration and
the grounds thereof are as
follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration. - The certificate of
registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether
national or local, may be cancelled by the Bureau, after
due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article 239
hereof.
ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. -
The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration:
(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, and the list of members who took
part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Petitioner's charge that respondent committed
misrepresentation and fraud in securing its certificate of
registration is a serious charge and must be carefully
evaluated. Allegations thereof should be compounded with
supporting circumstances and evidence.21 We find no
evidence on record to support petitioner's accusation.
Petitioner's allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is
based on its claim that during the organizational meeting
on May 1, 2009, only 68 employees attended, while
respondent claimed that it has 119 members as shown in
the document denominated as “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi
ng Unyon;” hence, respondent misrepresented on the 20%
requirement of the law as to its membership.
We do not agree.
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that
the attendees in the organizational meeting must comprise
20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact, even
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code
does not so provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that
requires 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. Clearly, the 20% minimum
requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the
union and not to the list of workers who participated in the
organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b) and (c)
provide for separate requirements, which must be
submitted for the union's registration, and which
respondent did submit. Here, the total number of
employees in the bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of
which was about 79. Respondent submitted a document
entitled “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” showing the
names of 119 employees as union members, thus
respondent sufficiently complied even beyond the 20%
minimum membership requirement. Respondent also
submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting which contained the names and signatures of the
68 union members who attended the meeting. Considering
that there are 119 union members which are more than
20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit, and since
the law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting, the 68
attendees which comprised at least the majority of the 119
union members would already constitute a quorum for the
meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution and
By-laws of the union. There is, therefore, no basis for
petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation
of respondent's union registration. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the nature
of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of
union members.22cralawred
Petitioner's claim that the alleged union members signed
documents without adequate information is not persuasive.
The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and
a mere allegation is not evidence. 23 In fact, we note that not
one of those listed in the document denominated as
“Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” had come forward to
deny their membership with respondent. Notably, it had not
been rebutted that the same union members had signed
the document entitled “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng
Pagsapi,” thus, strengthening their desire to be members of
the respondent union.
Petitioner claims that in the list of members, there was an
employee whose name appeared twice and another
employee who was merely a project employee. Such could
not be considered a misrepresentation in the absence of
showing that respondent deliberately did so for the purpose
of increasing their union membership. In fact, even if those
two names were not included in the list of union members,
there would still be 117 members which was still more than
20% of the 396 rank-and-file employees.

As to petitioner's argument that the total number of its

employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as
respondent claimed, still the 117 union members comprised
more than the 20% membership requirement for
respondent's registration.

In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of the

Department of Labor and Employment,24 we
said:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as

respondent, it must be shown that there was
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; or,
in connection with the election of officers, the 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 to the BLR.

The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list
of those who participated in the organizational meeting
would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
respondent’s certificate of registration. The cancellation of
a union’s registration doubtless has an impairing dimension
on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling
enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
members.

In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that a

especially as it was able to comply with the 20% minimum
membership requirement. Even if the total number of rank-
and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while respondent
declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be denied
that the latter would have more than complied with the
registration requirement. 25

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for

review is DENIED. The Decision dated December 22, 2010
and the Resolution dated March 29, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.