S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.S.

VENTURES LABOR UNION G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008

DOCTRINE: To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union

includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown
that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection
with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such
as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or
by-laws, among other documents.
FACTS:

 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. 542 signatures, 82 of which belong to terminated Ventures
employees, appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition.
 On August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the
Union’s certificate of registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article
239(a) of the Labor Code. 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 Union’s 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
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.
 In its Answer, the Union 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 have been ordered
dismissed, the one-year prescriptive period to question their dismissal
had not yet lapsed; (3) it had complied with the 20%-member registration
requirement since it had 542 members; and (4) the "double"
signatures were inadvertent human error.
 In its supplemental reply memorandum Ventures cited other
instances of fraud and misrepresentation, claiming that the "affidavits"
executed by 82 alleged Union members show that they were deceived
into signing paper minutes or were harassed to signing their attendance
in the organizational meeting. Ventures added that some employees
signed the "affidavits" denying having attended such meeting.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Certification of Registration of the Union
should be revoked
SC RULING: The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically
protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution and such right,
according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor
Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is
considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and
privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of
registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to
participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the
registration may be cancelled or the union may be decertified as the
bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a
legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for cancellation is the
commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of the Labor
Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the
adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents.
 To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union
includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown
that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection
with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such
as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or
by-laws, among other documents.
 Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR and the CA in finding
that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Union
sufficient to justify cancellation of its registration. In this regard, Ventures
makes much of, first, the separate hand-written statements of 82
employees who, in gist, alleged that they were unwilling or harassed
signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting.
 However, as aptly noted by both the BLR and CA, these mostly
undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or
seven months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration,
3partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed
after the Union’s filing of a petition for certification election on March 21,
2000. It was held that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union
made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed
voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered
to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal
from union membership done after a petition for certification election has
been filed does not vitiate such petition, is it not but logical to assume
that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union?
Upon this light, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR
did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the
affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary weight.
 It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration or the
recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the corresponding
papers is not ministerial on the part of the BLR. After a labor organization
has filed the necessary registration documents, it becomes mandatory
for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 of the Labor
Code have been complied with. If the union’s application is infected by
falsification and like serious irregularities, a union should be denied
recognition as a legitimate labor organization. Prescinding from these
considerations, the issuance to the Union of the Certificate of
Registration necessarily implies that its application for registration and
the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating
irregularities.
 The cancellation of a union’s registration doubtless has an
impairing dimension on the right of labor to selforganization. Accordingly,
we can accord concurrence to the following apt observation of the BLR:
"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."
 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. In fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employer’s interference
in a certification election for such interference unduly creates the
impression that it intends to establish a company union.
 NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND
ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL
CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, G.R.
No. 181531 July 31, 2009
FACTS: A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 among
the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion
Hotel (the Hotel) with the following results:
EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS’ LIST = 353

TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346

NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151

HIMPHLU = 169

NO UNION = 1

SPOILED = 3

SEGREGATED = 22

 In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending

unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and respondent Holiday Inn
Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to
Med-Arbiter to decide which among those votes would be opened and
tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated because they were cast
by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still
pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were segregated
because the employees who cast them were already
occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still five other
votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast
by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot vote. It bears
noting early on, however, that the vote of one Jose Gatbonton
(Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was counted.
 Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22
segregatedvotes, specially those cast by the 11 dismissed employees and
those cast by the six supposedly supervisory employees of the Hotel.
 Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the Secretary
of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the votes of the
probationary employees should have been opened considering that
probationary employee Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. And petitioner
averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes, should not
be immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17
segregated ballots would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151
+ 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be
one vote short of the majority which would then become 169.
 Secretary affirmed the decision of the med-arbiter. In fine, the
SOLE concluded that the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive
bargaining agent was proper.

ISSUES: (1) whether employees on probationary status at the time of the

certification elections should be allowed to vote (2) whether HIMPHLU
was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent.

HELD:

I. On the first issue, the Court rules in the affirmative.

 The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was

not questioned but because probationary employees have the right to
vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other probationary
employees should thus also have been counted. As Airtime Specialists,
Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja holds:
 In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are
entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor
Code which states that the “labor organization designated or selected by
the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes
of collective bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified
union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file
employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the
selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no
distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in
supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to “all” the
employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support
the petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit.” (Emphasis supplied)
 For purposes of this section (Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order
No. 40-03, series of 2003), any employee, whether employed for a
definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service,
be eligible for membership in any labor organization.
 All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other
workers, the self-employed, rural workers and those without any definite
employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and
protection and other legitimate purposes except collective bargaining.
 The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees
from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right of
workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence
thereon.
 A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a
contract are valid only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.
 II. As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent, the Court rules in the negative.
 It is well-settled that under the so-called “double majority rule,”
for there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining unit
must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of
the valid votes cast.
 Prescinding from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary
employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the
supervisory employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of
valid votes cast would increase – from 321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the
Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by
the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority
is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.
 HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes.
Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of
both the SOLE and the appellate court that the opening of the 17
segregated ballots will not materially affect the outcome of the
certification election as for, so they contend, even if such member were
all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable.
 It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the
number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the
required majority, and not just to determine which union won the
elections. The opening of the segregated but valid votes has thus
become material.
 To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold
objective: to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain
the majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the
employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the
determination of who between two or more contending unions won, but
whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members of the bargaining
unit as to whether they want to be represented and which union they
want to represent them.
 Having declared that no choice in the certification election
conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off election
must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner
should represent the rank-and-file employees.
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD v. BUREAU
OF LABOR RELATIONS G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015

FACTS

 February 16, 2010: Petitioner SAMAHAN, through its authorized

representative, ALIPIO, filed an application for registration of its name,
"Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE.
Attached to the application were: (a) the list of names of the association's
officers and members; (b) signatures of the attendees of the Feb. 7
meeting; (c) copies of their Constitution and By-laws. Application stated
that the association had a total of 120 members.
 February 26, 2010: the DOLE Regional Office No. 3, City of San
Fernando, Pampanga (DOLE-Pampanga), issued the corresponding
certificate of registration6 in favor of SAMAHAN.
 March 15, 2010: Private Respondent HANJIN Heavy Industries
and Construction Co. Philippines, with offices at Greenbeach 1, Renondo
Peninsula, Sitio Agustin, Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay Freeport Zone,
filed a petition with DOLE-Pampanga praying for the cancellation of
registration of Samahan's association on the ground that its members did
not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the second
sentence of Article 243 (now 249).
 HANJIN’s opined: (a) only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural
workers, self-employed, and those without definite employers may form a
workers' association; (b) 1/3 of the members of the association had
definite employers and the continued existence and registration of the
association would prejudice the company's goodwill.
 March 18, 2010: HANJIN filed a supplemental petition, adding
the alternative ground that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in
connection with the list of members and/or voters who took part in the
ratification of their constitution and by-laws in its application for
registration. Hanjin claimed that Samahan made it appear that its
members were all qualified to become members of the workers'
association.
 DOLE-Pampanga called for a conference (3/26/10). SAMAHAN
requested for a 10-day period to file a responsive pleading. No pleading
was submitted, but SAMAHAN instead filed a Motion to Dismiss
(4/14/10).
 DOLE Regional Dir. Ernesto Bihis ruled (4/20/10) in favor of
HANJIN, having found that the preamble, as stated in the Constitution
and By-Laws of Samahan, was an admission on its part that all of its
members were employees of HANJIN, to wit: KAMI, ang mga
Manggagawa sa HANJIN Shipyard (SAMAHAN) ay naglalayong na
isulong ang pagpapabuti ng kondisyon sa paggawa at katiyakan sa
hanapbuhay sa pamamagitan ng patuloy na pagpapaunlad ng
kasanayan ng para sa mga kasapi nito. Naniniwala na sa pamamagitan
ng aming mga angking lakas, kaalaman at kasanayan ay anting
maitataguyod at makapag-aambag sa kaunlaran ng isang lipunan. Na
mararating at makakamit ang antas ng pagkilala, pagdakila at
pagpapahalaga sa mga tulad naming mga manggagawa. x x x10
 The same claim was made by SAMAHAN in its MTD, but it failed
to adduce evidence that the remaining 63 members were also
employees of HANJIN. SAMAHAN’s admission bolstered Hanjin's claim
that SAMAHAN committed misrepresentation in its application for
registration as it made an express representation that all of its members
were employees of the HANJIN. Having a definite employer, these 57
members should have formed a labor union for collective bargaining.
 DOLE Regional Dir thus GRANTED the petition of HANJIN, and
CANCELLED the Certificate of Registration as Legitimate Workers
Association issued to of SAMAHAN
 SAMAHAN appealed to BLR, arguing: (a) HANJIN had no right
to petition for the cancellation of its registration; (b) the words "Hanjin
Shipyard," in its application for registration, referred to a workplace and
not as employer or company, because when a shipyard was put up in
Subic, Zambales, it became known as Hanjin Shipyard; (c) the remaining
63 members signed the Sama-Samang Pagpapatunay which stated that
they were either working or had worked at Hanjin; (d) Thus, the alleged
misrepresentation committed by Samahan had no leg to stand on.
 HANJIN’s Comment on Appeal: (a) averred that it was a party-in-
interest; (b) reiterated that SAMAHAN committed misrepresentation in its
application for registration before DOLE Pampanga; (c) While Samahan
insisted that the remaining 63 members were either working, or had at
least worked in Hanjin, only 10 attested to such fact, thus, leaving its 53
members without any workplace to claim.
 BLR Ruling: (a) granted Samahan's appeal (9/6/10) and
reversed the ruling of the Regional Director; (b) law clearly afforded the
right to self-organization to all workers including those without definite
employers; (c) As an expression of the right to self-organization,
industrial, commercial and self-employed workers could form a workers'
association if they so desired but subject to the limitation that it was only
for mutual aid and protection.17 Nowhere could it be found that to form a
workers' association was prohibited or that the exercise of a workers'
right to self-organization was limited to collective bargaining; (d) there
was no misrepresentation, because the phrase, "KAMI, ang mga
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" if translated, would be: "We, the
workers at Hanjin Shipyard." The use of the preposition "at" instead of "of
" would indicate that "Hanjin Shipyard" was intended to describe a place;
(e)19 Should Hanjin feel that the use of its name had affected the
goodwill of the company, the remedy was not to seek the cancellation of
the association's registration. At most, the use by Samahan of the name
"Hanjin Shipyard" would only warrant a change in the name of the
association.
 HANJIN filed an MR, but BLR affirmed its 9/6/10 Decision.
However, BLR directed SAMAHAN to remove the words “Hanjin
Shipyard” from its name, explaining that the Labor Code had no
provision on the use of trade or business name of a worker’s association,
such matters being governed by the Corporation Code. The most
equitable relief that would strike a balance between the contending
interests of Samahan and Hanjin was to direct Samahan to drop the
name "Hanjin Shipyard" without delisting it from the roster of legitimate
labor organizations.
 Unsatisfied, Samahan filed a petition for certiorari25 under Rule
65 before the CA.
 CA decision: Dismissed (3/21/2012) the petition because of
Samahan's failure to file an MRmotion for reconsideration of the assailed
November 28, 2011 Resolution.
 SAMAHAN filed MR on CA decision on 4/16/12. HANJIN filed a
comment (7/18/12) to oppose.
 CA resolution: Granted SAMAHAN’s MR (10/22/12) and
reinstating the petition. Hanjin was directed to file a comment five (5)
days from receipt of notice.
 HANJIN filed its comment, arguing that to require SAMAHAN to
change its name was not tantamount to interfering with the workers' right
to self-organization.31 Thus, it prayed, among others, for the dismissal of
the petition for Samahan's failure to file the required motion MR, then
SAMAHAN filed its reply, then HANJIN filed a memorandum.
 CA DECISION: Dismissed petition and affirmed BLR Directive on
change of name, plus REINSTATED order of CANCELLATION. Held
that registration of SAMAHAN as a legitimate workers’ association was
CONTRARY to Art. 243 of Labor Code. (a) only 57 out of the 120
members were actually working in HANJIN; phrase in the preamble of
Samahan's Constitution and By-laws, "KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa
Hanjin Shipyard" created an impression that all its members were
employees of HHIC; (b) Such unqualified manifestation which was used
in its application for registration, was a clear proof of misrepresentation
which warranted the cancellation of Samahan's registration. (c) members
of SAMAHAN could not register it as a legitimate worker's association
because the place where HANJIN’s industry was located was not a rural
area. Neither was there any evidence to show that the members of the
association were ambulant, intermittent or itinerant workers; (d) dropping
the words "Hanjin Shipyard" from the association name would not
prejudice or impair its right to self-organization because it could adopt
other appropriate names. Hence, this petition at the SC

MAIN ISSUE: Whether SAMAHAN’s registration was correctly cancelled

on the ground that it cannot form a Workers’ Association of Employees in
HANJIN, and should have instead of formed a union;
(Issue in the case, not on topic: Whether the decision ordering the removal of the word
“HANJIN” in the name of SAMAHAN was proper, by reason of the company’s property right
over the company name “Hanjin.”)

HELD: NO, SAMAHAN‘s registration should have NOT been cancelled

Right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers' association
belongs to workers themselves. The right to form or join a labor
organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising the said right. Also inherent in the right to self-organization is
the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective
bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid
and protection

RATIO:
 Right to self-organization includes right to form a union, workers'
association and labor management councils:
 More often than not, the right to self-organization connotes
unionism. Workers, however, can also form and join a workers'
association as well as labor-management councils (LMC). Expressed in
the highest law of the land is the right of all workers to self-organization.
Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution states: “Section 3. The
State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law. Xxx [Emphasis Supplied] And Section 8, Article III of the 1987
Constitution also states: Section 8. The right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. In relation thereto, Article 3 of the Labor Code provides: Article
3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor,
promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of
sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and
employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and
humane conditions of work.
 As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides, the right to
self-organization includes the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted
activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection. This is
in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and voluntary
organization of a strong and united labor movement as well as to make
sure that workers participate in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
 The right to form a union or association or to self-organization
comprehends two notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, that is, the
absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may act for
himself without being prevented by law; and (b) the power, by virtue of
which an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an
association.
 In view of the revered right of every worker to self-organization,
the law expressly allows and even encourages the formation of labor
organizations. A labor organization is defined as "any union or
association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose
of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms
and conditions of employment."44 A labor organization has two broad
rights: (1) to bargain collectively and (2) to deal with the employer
concerning terms and conditions of employment. To bargain collectively
is a right given to a union once it registers itself with the DOLE. Dealing
with the employer, on the other hand, is a generic description of
interaction between employer and employees concerning grievances,
wages, work hours and other terms and conditions of employment, even
if the employees' group is not registered with the DOLE.
 A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector
organized for collective bargaining and for other legitimate purpose,
while a workers' association is an organization of workers formed for the
mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose
other than collective bargaining.47 Many associations or groups of
employees, or even combinations of only several persons, may qualify
as a labor organization yet fall short of constituting a labor union. While
every labor union is a labor organization, not every labor organization is
a labor union. The difference is one of organization, composition and
operation.
 Collective bargaining is just one of the forms of employee
participation. Despite so much interest in and the promotion of collective
bargaining, it is incorrect to say that it is the device and no other, which
secures industrial democracy. It is equally misleading to say that
collective bargaining is the end-goal of employee representation. Rather,
the real aim is employee participation in whatever form it may appear,
bargaining or no bargaining, union or no union. Any labor organization
which may or may not be a union may deal with the employer. This
explains why a workers' association or organization does not always
have to be a labor union and why employer-employee collective
interactions are not always collective bargaining.
 To further strengthen employee participation, Article 255 (now
261) of the Labor Code mandates that workers shall have the right to
participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment
where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect
their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and
employers may form LMCs.
 A cursory reading of the law demonstrates that a common
element between unionism and the formation of LMCs is the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. Where neither party is an employer
nor an employee of the other, no duty to bargain collectively would exist.
In the same manner, expressed in Article 255 (now 261) is the
requirement that such workers be employed in the establishment before
they can participate in policy and decision making processes.
 In contrast, the existence of employer-employee relationship is
not mandatory in the formation of workers' association. What the law
simply requires is that the members of the workers' association, at the
very least, share the same interest. The very definition of a workers'
association speaks of "mutual aid and protection."
 Right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers'
association belongs to workers themselves
 In the case at bench, the Court cannot sanction the opinion of
the CA that Samahan should have formed a union for purposes of
collective bargaining instead of a workers' association because the
choice belonged to it. The right to form or join a labor organization
necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising the said
right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise
of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to
exercise such a conferred right. Also inherent in the right to self-
organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes
of collective bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of
providing mutual aid and protection. The right to self-organization,
however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law. For
instance, the Labor Code specifically disallows managerial employees
from joining, assisting or forming any labor union. Meanwhile,
supervisory employees, while eligible for membership in labor
organizations, are proscribed from joining the collective bargaining unit of
the rank and file employees. Even government employees have the right
to self-organization. It is not, however, regarded as existing or available
for purposes of collective bargaining, but simply for the furtherance and
protection of their interests. Hanjin posits that the members of Samahan
have definite employers, hence, they should have formed a union
instead of a workers' association. The Court disagrees. There is no
provision in the Labor Code that states that employees with definite
employers may form, join or assist unions only.

ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC., vs. LAGUESMA

G.R. No. 96566 January 6, 1992
FACTS:
 On July 16, 1990, the supervisory, administrative personnel,
production, accounting and confidential employees of Atlas Lithographic
Services Inc (ALSI) affiliated with Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipinom
a national labor organization. The local union adopted the name ALSI-
SAPPACEA-KAMPIL, which shall hereafter refer to as the “supervisors”
union.
 Kampil-Katipunan filed on behalf of the “supervisors” union a
petition for certification election so that it could be the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. ALSI opposed the
petition claiming that under Art. 245 of the Labor Code, Kampil-
Katipunana cannot represent the supervisory employees for collective
bargaining purposes because it also represents the rank-and-file
employees’ union.
 On September 18, 1990, the Med-Arbiter issued an order
allowing the certification election. ALSI appealed but such appeal was
denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE(S):
 WON, under Art. 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of
supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national
federation of labor organization of rank-and-file employees where such
federation represents its affiliates in the collective bargaining negotiation
with the same employer of the supervisors and in the implementation of
the CBAs.

HELD: NO, supervisors are not prohibited from forming their own union.
What the law prohibits is their membership in a labor organization of
rank-and-file employees or their joining in a federation of rank-and-file
employees that includes the very local union which they are not allowed
to directly join.

RATIO:
 ALSI’s arguments: KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN already represents its
rank-and-file employees and, therefore, to allow the supervisors of those
employees to affiliate with the private respondent is tantamount to
allowing the circumvention of the principle of the separation of unions
under Article 245 of the Labor Code.
 It further argues that the intent of the law is to prevent a single
labor organization from representing different classes of employees with
conflicting interests.
 KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN’s arguments: Despite affiliation with a
national federation, the local union does not lose its personality which is
separate, and distinct from the national federation. [Adamson &
Adamson vs. CIR (1984)]
 It maintains that Rep. Act No. 6715 contemplates the principle
laid down by this Court in the Adamson case interpreting Section 3 of
Rep. Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act) on the right of a supervisor's
union to affiliate. The private respondent asserts that the legislature must
have noted the Adamson ruling then prevailing when it conceived the
reinstatement in the present Labor Code of a similar provision on the
right of supervisors to organize.

DISCUSSION:
 The basis of the Adamson case is R.A. No. 875 (Industrial Peace
Act) where employees were classified into three groups, namely: 1)
managerial employees; 2) supervisors; and 3) rank-and-file employees.
Supervisors who were considered employees in relation to their
employer could join a union but not a union of rank-and-file employees.
 With the enactment in 1974 of the Labor Code (Pres Decree No.
442), employees were classified into managerial and rank-and-file
employees. Neither the category of supervisors nor their right to organize
under the old statute were recognized. So that, in Bulletin Publishing
Corporation v. Sanchez (144 SCRA 628 [1986]), the Court interpreted
the superseding labor law to have removed from supervisors the right to
unionize among themselves. The Court ruled:
 In the light of the factual background of this case, We are
constrained to hold that the supervisory employees of petitioner firm may
not, under the law, form a supervisors union, separate and distinct from
the existing bargaining unit (BEU), composed of the rank-and-file
employees of the Bulletin Publishing Corporation. It is evident that most
of the private respondents are considered managerial employees. Also, it
is distinctly stated in Section 11, Rule II, of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, that supervisory unions are presently no
longer recognized nor allowed to exist and operate as such. (pp. 633,
634)
 In Section 11, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
implementing Pres. Decree No. 442, the supervisory unions existing
since the effectivity of the New Code in January 1, 1975 ceased to
operate as such and the members who did not qualify as managerial
employees under this definition in Article 212 (k) therein became eligible
to form, to join or assist a rank-and-file union.
 A revision of the Labor Code undertaken by the bicameral
Congress brought about the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6715 in March
1989 in which employees were reclassified into three groups, namely: (1)
the managerial employees; (2) supervisors; and (3) the rank and file
employees. Under the present law, the category of supervisory
employees is once again recognized. Hence, Art. 212 (m) states:
 (m) . . . Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of
the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the
exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. . . .
 The rationale for the amendment is the government's recognition
of the right of supervisors to organize with the qualification that they shall
not join or assist in the organization of rank-and-file employees. The
reason behind the Industrial Peace Act provision on the same subject
matter has been adopted in the present statute. The interests of
supervisors on the one hand, and the rank-and-file employees on the
other, are separate and distinct. The functions of supervisors,
being recommendatory in nature, are more identified with the interests of
the employer. The performance of those functions may, thus, run counter
to the interests of the rank-and-file.
 This intent of the law is made clear in the deliberations of the
legislators on the Senate Bill 530 now enacted as Rep. Act No. 6715.
 The definition of managerial employees was limited to those
having authority to hire and fire while those who only recommend
effectively the hiring or firing or transfers of personnel would be
considered as closer to rank-and-file employees. The exclusion,
therefore, of middle level executives from the category of managers
brought about a third classification, the supervisory employees. These
supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are
not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of conflict of interest
(Journal of the Senate, First Regular Session, 1987, 1988, Volume 3,
p. 2245).
 In terms of classification, however, while they are more closely
identified with the rank-and-file they are still not allowed to join the union
of rank-and-file employees. The peculiar role of supervisors is such that
while they are not managers, when they recommend action
implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of
subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may act
contrary to the interests of the rank-and-file.
 The Court agrees with ALSI’s contention that a conflict of interest
may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.
Members of the supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary
measures against their co-member rank-and-file employees. And also, in
the event of a strike, the national federation might influence the
supervisors’ union to conduct a sympathy strike on the sole basis of
affiliation.
 The Court construes Article 245 to mean that, as in Section 3 of
the Industrial Peace Act, supervisors shall not be given an occasion to
bargain together with the rank-and-file against the interests of the
employer regarding terms and conditions of work.
 The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a
case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The
prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union applying for membership
in a national federation the members of which include local unions of
rank-and-file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where,
as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
 There is no question about this intendment of the law. There is,
however, in the present case, no violation of such a guarantee to the
employee. Supervisors are not prohibited from forming their own union.
What the law prohibits is their membership in a labor organization of
rank-and-file employees (Art. 245, Labor Code) or their joining a national
federation of rank-and-file employees that includes the very local union
which they are not allowed to directly join.
 NOTE: Before this case was resolved, ALSI caved in to the
pressure and was no longer interested to pursue this case. SC just said
the employer is free to grant whatever concession it wishes to give to its
employees unilaterally or through negotiations. However, the resolutions
issued by DOLE were still struck down.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The private
respondent is disqualified from affiliating with a national federation of
labor organizations which includes the petitioner's rank-and-file
employees.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB

INCORPORATED v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-
PGTWO G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003

DOCTRINE: After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its

legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance
with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor
Code." The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for
under Article 239 of the Labor Code. The inclusion in a union of
disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless
such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article
139 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code. THEU, having been
validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered to have
already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed
collaterally. As for petitioner's allegation that some of the signatures in
the petition for certification election were obtained through fraud, false
statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected
above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of
registration, and not to intervene in a petition for certification election.

FACTS:
 On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
(THEU) – Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to
represent majority of the rank- and-file employees of Tagaytay Highlands
International Golf Club Incorporated (THIGCI), filed a petition for
certification election before the DOLE Mediation- Arbitration Unit,
Regional Branch No. IV.
 THIGCI, in its Comment, opposed THEU’s petition for
certification election on the ground that the list of union members
submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names
and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without
leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club,
Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the
192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file
employees of THIGCI. THIGCI thus submitted a list of the names of its
71 actual rank-and-file employees to the petition for certification election.
And it therein incorporated a tabulation showing the number of
signatories to said petition whose membership in the union was being
questioned as disqualified and the reasons for disqualification.
 THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid
affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations
pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account
of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on
October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order
provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to
collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation,
it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor
Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09,
automatically order the conduct of a certification election.
 On January 28, 1998, DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin
ordered the holding of a certification election.
 THIGCI appealed to the Office of the DOLE Secretary which, by
Resolution of June 4, 1998, set aside the said Med-Arbiter’s Order and
accordingly dismissed the petition for certification election on the ground
that there is a "clear absence of community or mutuality of interests," it
finding that THEU sought to represent two separate bargaining units
(supervisory employees and rank-and- file employees) as well as
employees of two separate and distinct corporate entities.
 Upon Motion for Reconsideration by THEU, DOLE
Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimalipis-Baldoz, by authority of the DOLE
Secretary, issued DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 setting aside
the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification
election. She held that since THEU is a local chapter, the twenty percent
(20%) membership requirement is not necessary for it to acquire
legitimate status, hence, "the alleged retraction and withdrawal of
support by 45 of the 70 remaining rank-and-file members . . . cannot
negate the legitimacy it has already acquired before the petition".
THIGCI’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the DOLE
Undersecretary hence it filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
 The CA denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the
DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition
for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule,
hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the
basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well
as lack of employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to adduce
substantial evidence to support its allegations.

ISSUE: Whether the union’s legal personality can be subject to collateral

attack after a certificate of registration is issued

SC RULING: NO. Petition is DENIED, and the records of the case are
remanded to the office of origin.
 While above-quoted Article 245 expressly prohibits supervisory
employees from joining a rank-and-file union, it does not provide what
would be the effect if a rank-and-file union counts supervisory employees
among its members, or vice-versa.
 Citing Toyota which held that "a labor organization composed of
both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at
all," and the subsequent case of Progressive Development Corp. – Pizza
Hut v. Ledesma20 which held that:
 "The Labor Code requires that in organized and unorganized
establishments, a petition for certification election must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization. The acquisition of rights by any union or
labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification
election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor
organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.
 In the case before us, the Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded
the petitioner’s prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the
respondent Union by a sweeping declaration that the union was in the
possession of a charter certificate so that ‘for all intents and purposes,
Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate
organization,’"21 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied).
 We also do not agree with the ruling of the respondent
Secretary of Labor that the infirmity in the membership of the
respondent union ca n b e re m e d ie d in "the pre - election
conference thru the exclusion inclusion proceedings wherein those
employees who are occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded
from the list of eligible voters."
 After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal
personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned
only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with
Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code"
(Implementing Rules) which section reads:
 Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers’
association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality
on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal
personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be
questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance
with these Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
 The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among
the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances
enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of above-quoted Article
239 of the Labor Code.
 THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of registration,
should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which
may not be assailed collaterally.
 As for petitioner’s allegation that some of the signatures in the
petition for certification election were obtained through fraud, false
statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected
above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of
registration, and not to intervene in a petition for certification election.
 Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union members from
participating in the certification election, this Court’s following ruling is
instructive:
 "‘The best forum for determining whether there were indeed
retractions from some of the laborers is in thecertification election itself
wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot.’
Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees should in
every possible instance be determined by secret ballot rather than by
administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and
certification election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations
for suits but as mere investigations of a non-adversary, fact-finding
character as to which of the competing unions represents the genuine
choice of the workers to be their sole and exclusive collective bargaining
representative with their employer."
 As for the lack of mutuality of interest argument of petitioner, it,
at all events, does not lie given, as found by the court a quo, its failure to
present substantial evidence that the assailed employees are actually
occupying supervisory positions.
 While petitioner submitted a list of its employees with their
corresponding job titles and ranks, there is nothing mentioned about the
supervisors’ respective duties, powers and prerogatives that would show
that they can effectively recommend managerial actions which require
the use of independent judgment.
 As this Court put it in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor:
 Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description
of subject employees x x x the mere fact that an employee is designated
manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be
an absurd situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived
of the right to be a member of a union. In the case of National Steel
Corporation vs. Laguesma (G. R. No. 103743, January 29, 1996), it was
stressed that:
 What is essential is the nature of the employee’s function and
not the nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether
the employee has rank-and-file or managerial status or whether he is a
supervisory employee.

SAN MIGUEL CORP EMPLOYEES UNION VS SAN MIGUEL

PACKING EMPLOYEES UNION . G.R. No. 171153
QUICKIE SUMMARY:
SM Packing Employees Union is a LOCAL or CHAPTER of PDMP which
seeks to be an INDEPENDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION. For its
registration AS A CHAPTER, the applicable law to them is the D.O. No. 9
which no longer requires the submission of the names of at least 20% of
all its employees in the bargaining unit. San Mig Corp Union claims that
SM Packing failed to meet the requirements set forth by Art 234 of the
Labor Code which mandates the submission of the 20% names and that
the Implementing Rules of D.O. No. 9 is violative of Art 234 of the Labor
Code because it provides a less stringent rule (which does not require
the submission of the 20% names). SC ruled that the requirements for
the registration of an INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION and the
requirements for the creation of a LOCAL or CHAPTER are different.
Since SM Packing seeks to be a legitimate labor organization, D.O No. 9
is not the one applicable, but Art 234 of the Labor Code.
FACTS:
 Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining
unit comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of the
three divisions of San Miguel Corporation namely San Miguel Corporate
Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the
San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP)
 Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng
Manggagawang Pilipino.Thereafter, respondent filed three separate
petitions for certification election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and
SMBP. All three petitions were dismissed, on the ground that the
separate petitions fragmented a single bargaining unit.
 Petitioner filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the
cancellation of respondent’s registration and its dropping from the rolls of
legitimate labor organizations. Petitioner accused respondent of
committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration
requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration. It raised
allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a), (b) and (c) and
234(c) of the Labor Code.
 DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. Lim found that
respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and,
thus, ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal
from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations
 Bureau of Labor Relations: Reversed DOLE NCR and declared
that SM Packing Employees shall hereby remain in the roster of
legitimate labor organizations. CA affirmed BLR
 Petitioner’s contention: Petitioner posits that respondent is
required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing
Article 234(c) of the Labor Code. Petitioner also insists that the 20%
requirement for registration of respondent must be based not on the
number of employees of a single division, but in all three divisions of the
company in all the offices and plants of SMC since they are all part of
one bargaining unit. Petitioner thus maintains that respondent, in any
case, failed to meet this 20% membership requirement since it based its
membership on the number of employees of a single division only,
namely, the SMPP.

ISSUE: W/N SM Packing Employees met the requirements and thus,

must remain a legitimate labor organization

RULING: NO, SM Packing Employees failed to meet the requirement.

Hence, they cannot be declared as a legitimate labor organization

RATIO:
 A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered
with the BLR as a local or chapter of PDMP. The applicable
Implementing Rules (Department Order No. 9) enunciates a two-fold
procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. The first involves the
affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or
industry union. The second, finding application in the instant petition,
involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of
chartering. The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may
be directly created by a federation or national union.
 Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules, as
amended by Department Order No. 9, violated Article 234 of the Labor
Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of
a chapter or local. Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an
independent labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon its
registration with the BLR: xxx 3) 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; xxx
 It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of
an independent labor organization, association or group of unions or
workers.

 However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated

differently. This Court, in the landmark case of Progressive Development
Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,
declared that when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or
chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no
longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of
an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the
number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least
20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate,
as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule
III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of
a branch, local or chapter. The intent of the law in imposing less
requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or
national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a
federation or national union in order to increase the local unions
bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.
 DISPOSITIVE: San Miguel Corp Union won. The Certificate of
Registration of San Miguel Packaging Union is ORDERED
CANCELLED, and DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor
organizations.
 DOCTRINE: When an unregistered union becomes a branch,
local or chapter, some of the requirements for registration are no longer
necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an
independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the
number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least
20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY
GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING
AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA
(PIGLAS-HERITAGE) G.R. No. 177024, October 30, 2009

DOCTRINES:

 The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that
the number of members appearing on the documents in question should
completely dovetail. For as long as the documents and signatures are
shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws
democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with
registration requirements.
 Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if
doing so would affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-
organization.
 The right of any person to join an organization also includes the
right to leave that organization and join another one.

FACTS: The Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE) was formed in

2000 by certain rank and file employees of herein petitioner Heritage
Hotel Manila, to which the Department of Labor and Employment-
National Capital Region issued a certificate of registration. HHE filed a
petition for certification election which petitioner opposed on the ground
that HHE misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when in fact
it was a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and
Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). It was also alleged that
such omitted disclosure was intentional because petitioner’s supervisors
union was already affiliated with it. Petitioner also filed a petition to
cancel the union’s registration certificate. The Med-Arbiter nevertheless
granted HHE’s petition for certification election.
 Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor but it was denied
as well as its motion for reconsideration, prompting petitioner to file a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA issued a writ of
injunction against the holding of HHE’s certification election until the
petition for cancellation of its registration shall have been resolved with
finality.
 In 2003, another union, herein respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at
Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (PIGLAS), was formed
by certain rank and file employees of petitioner at a meeting. PIGLAS
was issued its registration certificate by the DOLE-NCR in 2004. HHE
later on adopted a resolution for its dissolution and then filed a petition
for cancellation of its union registration.
 PIGLAS filed a petition for certification election which petitioner
opposed alleging that the new union’s officers and members were also
those who comprised the old union. Petitioner likewise alleged that
PIGLAS was formed to circumvent the CA’s injunction earlier issued. The
Med-Arbiter nevertheless granted the petition for certification election.
 Petitioner filed a petition to cancel PIGLAS’ registration, claiming
that the documents submitted with the union’s application for registration
bore the following false information:
 The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100
union members;
 The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the
meeting on December 10, 2003; The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of
December 10, 2003 bore the signature of 127 members who ratified the
union’s Constitution and By-Laws; and The Signature Sheet bore 128
signatures of those who attended that meeting.
 Petitioner alleged that the misrepresentation was evidenced by
the discrepancy in the number of union members appearing in the
application and the list as well as the number of signatories to the
attendance and signature sheets. The minutes reported only 90
employees attended the meeting. Petitioner also alleged that 33
members of PIGLAS were members of HHE, which is in violation of the
policy against dual unionism.
 DOLE-NCR denied petitioner’s petition to cancel PIGLAS’
registration because the discrepancies in the number of members in the
application’s supporting documents were not material and did not
constitute misrepresentation. The dual unionism is also not a ground for
canceling registration, since the members of HHE simply exercised their
right to self-organization and freedom of association when they joined
PIGLAS. The Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the DOLE-NCR, by
reasoning that PIGLAS’ organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. Thus,
it was possible for the number of attendees to have increased as the
meeting progressed. Besides, the union only needed 50 members of the
total of 250 employees in the bargaining unit to comply with the 20%
membership requirement. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals but it was denied as well as petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its
application for union registration
 (2) Whether or not dual unionism is a ground for canceling a
union’s registration.
HELD: (1) NO. Petitioner has no evidence of the alleged
misrepresentation. The discrepancies alone cannot be taken as
indication that PIGLAS misrepresented the information contained in
these documents. Charges of fraud and misrepresentation should be
clearly established by evidence and surrounding circumstances because
once it is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to
registered organizations.
 The discrepancies can be explained. While it appears that in the
minutes of the December 10, 2003 organizational meeting, only 90
employees responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be
assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the
signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from
11:00am to 11:00pm. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was
locked up to exclude late attendees. As to the fact that only 127
members ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws when 128 signed
the attendance sheet, it cannot be assumed that all those who attended
approved of such. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from
ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process. The Labor
Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of
members appearing on the documents in question should completely
dovetail. For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be
genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically
ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with registration
requirements.
 The discrepancy in the list of members (showing only 100
members) and the signature and attendance sheets (showing 127 or 128
members) submitted is immaterial. A comparison of the documents
shows that except for six members, the names found in the list are also
in the attendance and signature sheets. PIGLAS more than complied
with the 20% requirement since only 50 employees out of 250
employees in the bargaining unit were required to unionize.
 Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if
doing so would affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-
organization. PIGLAS union’s supporting documents reveal the
unmistakable yearning of petitioner company’s rank and file employees
to organize. This yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential
technicalities.
 (2) NO. The right of any person to join an organization also
includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. HHE
union ceased to exist, its certificate of registration being already
cancelled. Thus, the petition is denied.
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (ER EU) G.R No. 178989,
March 18, 2010 VELASCO, JR., J:
DOCTRINE: We have in precedent cases said that the employees'
withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for
certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the
filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect
the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a
petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such
petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work
to nullify the registration of the union?

FACTS: Petitioner Eagle Ridge is a corporation engaged in the business

of maintaining golf courses. It had, at the end of CY 2005, around 112
rank-and-file employees. On December 6, 2005, at least 20% of Eagle
Ridge’s rank-andfile employees—the percentage threshold required
under Article 234(c) of the Labor Code for union registration— had a
meeting where they organized themselves into an independent labor
union, named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or Union), elected
a set of officers, and ratified their constitution and by-laws.
 On December 19, 2005, EREU formally applied for registration
before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional
Office IV (RO IV). In time, DOLE RO IV granted the application. The
EREU then filed a petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf &
Country Club. Eagle Ridge opposed this petition, followed by its filing of
a petition for the cancellation of the application.
 Eagle Ridge’s petition ascribed misrepresentation, false
statement, or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its
constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the Union, and
the election of its officers. Petitioner alleged that the EREU declared in
its application for registration having 30 members, when the minutes of
its December 6, 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26
members. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy
between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president
that 25 members actually ratified the constitution and by-laws on
December 6, 2005 and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures
on the documents, making one signature a forgery. Finally, petitioner
contended that five employees who attended the organizational meeting
had manifested the desire to withdraw from the union. The five executed
individual affidavits or Sinumpaang Salaysay on February 15, 2006,
attesting that they arrived late at said meeting which they claimed to be
drinking spree; that they did not know that the documents they signed on
that occasion pertained to the organization of a union; and that they now
wanted to be excluded from the Union. The withdrawal of the five, Eagle
Ridge maintained, effectively reduced the union membership to 20 or 21,
either of which is below the mandatory minimum 20% membership
requirement under Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code. Reckoned from 112
rank-and-file employees of Eagle Ridge, the required number would be
22 or 23 employees.
 As a counterpoint, EREU alleged that discrepancies are not real
for before filing of its application on December 19, 2005, four additional
employees joined the union on December 8, 2005, thus raising the union
membership to 30 members as of December 19, 2005; that the
understatement by one member who ratified the constitution and by-laws
was a typographical error, which does not make it either grave or
malicious warranting the cancellation of the union’s registration; that the
retraction of 5 union members should not be given any credence for the
reasons that: (b) the sworn statements of the five retracting union
members sans other affirmative evidence presented hardly qualify as
clear and credible evidence considering the joint affidavits of the other
members attesting to the orderly conduct of the organizational meeting;
(c) the retracting members did not deny signing the union documents; (d)
it can be presumed that "duress, coercion or valuable consideration" was
brought to bear on the retracting members; and (e) once the required
percentage requirement has been reached, the employees’ withdrawal
from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for
certification election will not affect the petition.
 After due proceedings, the DOLE Regional Director, focusing on
the question of misrepresentation, issued an Order finding for Eagle
Ridge. Aggrieved, the Union appealed to the BLR, which affirmed the
appealed order of the DOLE Regional Director. Undeterred by
successive set backs, EREU interposed a motion for reconsideration
which was granted. Eagle Ridge sought but was denied reconsideration.
Eagle Ridge thereupon went to the CA, which dismissed the petition for
certiorari. The CA later denied Eagle Ridge’s motion for reconsideration,
hence the recourse with the SC.

ISSUE: Whether there was fraud in the application to merit the

cancellation of the EREU’s registration

SC RULING: NO, a scrutiny of the records fails to show any

misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud committed by EREU to merit
cancellation of its registration. The Supreme Court succinctly explained
this decision in eight points:
 First. The Union submitted the required documents attesting to
the facts of the organizational meeting on December 6, 2005, the
election of its officers, and the adoption of the Union’s constitution and
by-laws.
 Second. The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when
it applied on December 19, 2005 for registration. The Union thereby
complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement
under Art. 234(c). Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file
employees in Eagle Ridge, as shown in the Sworn Statement of the
Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its
petition for cancellation.
 Third. The Union has sufficiently explained the discrepancy
between the number of those who attended the organizational meeting
showing 26 employees and the list of union members showing 30. The
difference is due to the additional four members admitted two days after
the organizational meeting as attested to by their duly accomplished
Union Membership form.
 Fourth. In its futile attempt to clutch at straws, Eagle Ridge
assails the inclusion of the additional four members allegedly for not
complying with what it termed as "the sine qua non requirements" for
union member applications under the Union’s constitution and by-laws,
specifically Sec. 2 of Art. IV. We are not persuaded. Any seeming
infirmity in the application and admission of union membership, most
especially in cases of independent labor unions, must be viewed in favor
of valid membership.
 The right of employees to self-organization and membership in a
union must not be trammeled by undue difficulties. In this case, when the
Union said that the four employee-applicants had been admitted as
union members, it is enough to establish the fact of admission of the four
that they had duly signified such desire by accomplishing the
membership form. The fact, as pointed out by Eagle Ridge, that the
Union, owing to its scant membership, had not yet fully organized its
different committees evidently shows the direct and valid acceptance of
the four employee applicants rather than deter their admission— as
erroneously asserted by Eagle Ridge.
 Fifth. The difference between the number of 26 members, who
ratified the Union’s constitution and by-laws, and the 25 members shown
in the certification of the Union secretary as having ratified it, is, as
shown by the factual antecedents, a typographical error. It was an
insignificant mistake committed without malice or prevarication. The list
of those who attended the organizational meeting shows 26 members,
as evidenced by the signatures beside their handwritten names.
 Sixth. In the more meaty issue of the affidavits of retraction
executed by six union members, we hold that the probative value of
these affidavits cannot overcome those of the supporting affidavits of 12
union members and their counsel as to the proceedings and the conduct
of the organizational meeting on December 6, 2005. The DOLE Regional
Director and the BLR OIC Director obviously erred in giving credence to
the affidavits of retraction, but not according the same treatment to the
supporting affidavits.
 The six affiants of the affidavits of retraction were not presented
in a hearing before the Hearing Officer (DOLE Regional Director), as
required under the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code
covering Labor Relation. It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of
hearsay evidence, since they are not generally prepared by the affiant
but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s
statement, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the
one writing them. For their non-presentation and consonant to the above-
quoted rule, the six affidavits of retraction are inadmissible as evidence
against the Union in the instant case.
 Seventh. The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed
the desire to withdraw their membership through their affidavits of
retraction will not cause the cancellation of registration on the ground of
violation of Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory
minimum 20% membership of rank-and- file employees in the
employees’ union.
 The six retracting union members clearly severed and withdrew
their union membership. The query is whether such separation from the
Union can detrimentally affect the registration of the Union. We answer in
the negative.
 Twenty percent (20%) of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle
Ridge would require a union membership of at least 22 employees (112
x 205 = 22.4). When the EREU filed its application for registration on
December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30 union members. Thus, when
the certificate of registration was granted, there is no dispute that the
Union complied with the mandatory 20% membership requirement. With
the withdrawal of six union members, there is still compliance with the
mandatory membership requirement under Art. 234(c), for the remaining
24 union members constitute more than the 20% membership
requirement of 22 employees.
 Eighth. Finally, it may not be amiss to note, given the factual
antecedents of the instant case, that Eagle Ridge has apparently
resorted to filing the instant case for cancellation of the Union’s certificate
of registration to bar the holding of a certification election. This can be
gleaned from the fact that the grounds it raised in its opposition to the
petition for certification election are basically the same grounds it
resorted to in the instant case for cancellation of EREU’s certificate of
registration. This amounts to a clear circumvention of the law and cannot
be countenanced.
SMCC v. CHARTER CHEMICAL and COATING CO. G.R. No. 169717
March 16, 2011
DOCTRINE: The right to file a petition for certification election is
accorded to a labor organization provided that it complies with the
requirements of law for proper registration. The inclusion of supervisory
employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining
unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a
legitimate labor organization.
FACTS: Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of
Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC) filed a
petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (CHARTER)
with the Mediation Arbitration Unit.
 CHARTER filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1)
failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and
(2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.
 MED ARBITER’S RULING: Dismissed the petition for
certification election. Petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization because the Charter Certificate were not executed under
oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union
president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code. As a result, not
being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file
a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.
 DOLE’S RULING: Dismissed the SMCC’s appeal on the ground
that the latter’s petition for certification election was filed out of time.
Although, contrary to the findings of the Med-Arbiter, that the charter
certificate need not be verified and that there was no independent
evidence presented to establish respondent company’s claim that some
members of petitioner union were holding supervisory positions
 DOLE’S RULING ON MR: DOLE reversed its earlier ruling.
DOLE found that a review of the records indicates that no certification
election was previously conducted in respondent company. There was
no obstacle to the grant of petitioner union’s petition for certification
election.
 CA’S RULING: Nullified DOLE’s ruling. 1. It gave credence to
the findings of the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union failed to comply with
the documentation requirements under the Labor Code 2. Upheld the
finding that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and
supervisory employee 3. Issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union
may be attacked collaterally in a petition for certification election and the
infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied
through the exclusioninclusion proceedings in a pre-election conference
4. Considering that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization,
it has no legal right to file a petition for certification election.

ISSUES: 1. Is the mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees of

SMCC’s membership is a ground for the cancellation of SMCC’s
personality and dismissal of petition for certification election? 2. Is failure
to certify under oath the local charter certificate issued by its mother
federation and list of the union membership attending the organizational
meeting is a ground for the cancellation of SMCC’s legal personality as a
labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification
election? 3. May the legal personality of a union be collaterally attacked
in the certification election proceedings?

SC RULING: NO. The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory

employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization.
 The job descriptions indicate that the aforesaid employees
exercise recommendatory managerial actions which are not merely
routinary but require the use of independent judgment, hence, falling
within the definition of supervisory employees under Article 212. The
inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory employees in petitioner union does
not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization.
 R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of
the prohibition [on the co-mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees] would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.
 It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification
election involved in Toyota and Dunlop (previous cases where the SC
ruled that labor organization had no legal right to file a certification
election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as
long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members) were
filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively;
hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases.
 The Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and
reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition
against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one
labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects
thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been
registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate
labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not
among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such
mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
 NO. The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by
the local union’s secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president.
[The operative facts in this case occurred in 1999, we shall decide the
issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force (i.e., R.A. No.
6715)]
 The Court ruled that it was not necessary for the charter
certificate to be certified and attested by the local/chapter officers. Id.
While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the previous
Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997
amendments, we believe that the same doctrine obtains in this case.
Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the
national union and not the local/chapter, it does not make sense to have
the local/chapter’s officers x x x certify or attest to a document which they
had no hand in the preparation of.
 SMCC’s charter certificate need not be executed under oath.
Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor
organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate, (2) the names
of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office, and (3) its
constitution and by-laws — the last two requirements having been
executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the
records.
 NO. The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be
collaterally attacked by respondent company in the certification election
proceedings.
 Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer
is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such
proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose
thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees
in their collective bargaining with the employer.
YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES
UNION G.R. No. 163532: March 10, 2010

FACTS:

 Respondent YEU is the labor organization of the rank-and-file

employees of petitioner YTPI. YEU was registered as a legitimate labor
labor union on 10 September 1999.
 YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification
election.YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition on 24 January
2000 for the revocation of YEUs registration alleging among other
matters that YEU violated Article 239(a) of the Labor Code for
committing fraud or misrepresentation for fraudulently including the
signature of a certain Ronald O. Pineda in the organizational documents.
 The Regional Office granted the petition and ruled that YEU
committed misrepresentation: (1) YEU failed to remove Pinedas
signature from the organizational documents despite instructions to do
so; and (2) YEU declared that it conducted an election of union officers
when, in truth, it did not.
 On appeal, the BLR reversed the decision of the Regional Office.
The BLR also held among other matters that (1) YTPI was estopped
from questioning the fact that theSama-Samang Pahayagwas an
unsworn document since it filed the 24 January 2000 petition for the
revocation of YEUs registration based on unsworn documents; (2) the
fact that there was no express mention of an election of union officers in
theSama-Samang Pahayagdid not necessarily mean that no election
occurred; (3) there was an organizational meeting and an organizational
meeting may include an election of union officers; (4) any infirmity in the
election of union officers may be remedied under the last paragraph of
Article 241 of the Labor Code and under Rule XIV of DOLE Department
Order No. 9; and (5) cancellation of union registration must be done with
great caution.
 YTPI filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied
the motion for lack of merit. On its appeal for certiorari, the CA denied
the petition and held that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of
discretion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
 Was it proper to appreciate the votes of the dismissed
employees? YES
 Whether or not petitioner had the burden of proof that YEU
committed fraud and misrepresentation?

HELD:
 Even the new rule has explicitly stated that without a final
judgment declaring the legality of dismissal, dismissed employees are
eligible or qualified voters. Thus,
 Rule IX Conduct of Certification Election - Section 5.
Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion. - . . . An employee who has
been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal
in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the
order for the conduct of a certification election shall be considered a
qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared valid in a final
judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election.
 Thus, we find no reversible error on the part of the DOLE Acting
Secretary and the Court of Appeals in ordering the appreciation of the
votes of the dismissed employees.
 Finally, we need not resolve the other issues for being moot. The
68 votes of the newly regularized rank-and-file employees, even if
counted in favor of "No Union," will not materially alter the result. There
would still be 208 votes in favor of respondent and 18921 votes in favor
of "No Union."
 We also note that the certification election is already a fait
accompli, and clearly petitioner's rank-and-file employees had chosen
respondent as their bargaining representative.
 As correctly held by the Court of Appeal, the cancellation of
union registration at the employers instance, while permitted, must be
approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to
belong to a legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges
appurtenant to such membership will not be denied to the employees.As
the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to
present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation.The petitioner was
thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed
misrepresentations, false statements or fraud in connection with the
election of its officers, or with the minutes of the election of officers, or in
the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c),Labor Code.But, as
the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, the petitioner
simply failed to discharge its burden.
 YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of
YEUs registration, had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud
and misrepresentation.YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of
its accusations that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pinedas signature
from the organizational documents and that YEU fraudulently
misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.
 The petition is denied.

TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION V. BLR G.R. No. 196276

FACTS:
 Petitioner filed with the DOLE a Petition for Cancellation of the
Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent Samahang Lakas
Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that the latter is
guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect to the
number of those who participated in the organizational meeting, the
adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the
election of its officers.
Ø contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of
respondent, only 68 attendees signed the attendance sheet, and which
number comprised only 17% of the total number of the 396 regular rank-
and-file employees which respondent sought to represent, and hence,
respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum membership
requirement.
Ø insisted that the document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng
Unyon" bore no signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and that
employees were not given sufficient information on the documents they
signed; that the document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not
submitted at the time of the filing of respondent's application for union
registration.
 Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119 union
members were more than the 20% requirement for union registration.
The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon" which it
presented in its petition for certification election supported their claim of
119 members.
 DOLE Regional Director granted the petition for cancellation of
respondent's certificate of registration; finding that the 68 employees who
attended the organizational meeting was obviously less than 20% of the
total number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent
sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration requirement.
 BLR: reversed DOLE RD, finding that petitioner failed to prove
that respondent deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the number
of rank-and-file employees; 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.
 CA affirmed the decision of the BLR.

ISSUES: WON respondent obtained the minimum required number of
employees for purposes of organization and registration.

RULING: YES. 119 (of 396) employees as union members is even

beyond the 20% minimum membership requirement.
 Art. 234, Labor Code: 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:
 Fifty pesos (P50.00)registration fee;
 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;
 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;
 If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more
years, copies of its annual financial reports; and
 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.
 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.

DOCTRINE: 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. 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.