Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v.

Bureau of Labor Relations, Hanjin Heavy Industries

G.R. 211145 – 14, 2015
J. Mendoza

Topic: Right to Self-Organization – Extent and Scope of Right

Doctrine: The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an
association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes.

Petitioners: Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard represented by its President Alfie Alipio
(Samahan)
Respondents: Bureau of Labor Relations, Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. (Hanjin)

Case Summary: Samahan filed for their registration as a workers’ association. Hanjin Industries prayed for
the cancellation of registration on the grounds that, first, most of the employees had definite employers and
should have formed a union instead, and second, that the name Hanjin Shipyard should be dropped as the
members are not official employees of the company. The SC clarified that there is no prohibition for
definitely employed members of society to form workers’ associations, the people are given the choice as to
whether they will form a union or a workers’ association. The SC, however, did rule that Samahan should
drop “Hanjin Shipyard” from their association name as it may be misleading and may cause the public to
think that the members are all employed by Hanjin Heavy Industries.

Facts:
 February 16, 2010: the Samahan through Alipio filed an application for registration of its name
“Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” with DOLE
o The application stated that the association had a total of 120 members
 February 26, 2010: the DOLE-Pampanga issued the certificate of registration
 March 15, 2010: Hanjin prayed for the cancellation of registration of Samahan on the ground that its
members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the second sentence of Art. 243
of the LC
o The enumeration included only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-
employed, and those without definite employers may form a workers’ association
o Hanjin also posited that 1/3 of the members of the association had definite employers and the
continued existence of the association would prejudice the company
o Hanjin added that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection with the list of
members who took part in the ratification of their constitution and by-laws  Hanjin claimed
that Samahan made it appear that its members were all qualified to become members of the
worker’s association
 DOLE Regional Director: Ruled in favor of Hanjin
o RD Bihis found that the preamble as stated in the Consti and by-laws of Samahan, was an
admission that all its members were employees of Hanjin:
 “KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard ay naglalayong na isulong ang
pagbpapabuti…”
o The same claim was made by Samahan it its motion to dismiss, but it failed to adduce
evidence that the remaining 63 members were employees of Hanjin
 RD Bihis stated that the remaining employees should have formed a labor union for
collective bargaining instead
 Aggrieved, Samahan filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations  Samahan pointed out that the
words “Hanjin Shipyard” was used to refer to a workplace and not as an employer or company
o When a shipyard was put up in Subic, Zambales, it became known as Hanjin Shipyard
o Further, the remaining 63 members stated that they were either working or had worked at
Hanjin  therefore no misrepresentation
 Bureau of Labor Relations: Granted Samahan’s appeal and reversed the decision of the RD, but
directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from name of association
o BLR stated that the law clearly afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including
those without definite employers
  BUT subject to the limitation that it is only for mutual aid and protection
 It is NOT stated anywhere that the right to self-organization is limited to collective
bargaining
o The BLR stated that there was no misrepresentation – “kami ang manggagawa sa Hanjin
shipyard”, if translated is: “We, the workers AT Hanjin Shipyard…”  The use of the
preposition “at” is intended to describe a place
o At most, the use by Samahan of the name Hanjin Shipyard would only warrant a
change in the name of the association
 CA: Reversed the decision of the BLR; the registration of Samahan is contrary to the Labor Code
o The CA stressed that only 57/120 members were actually working at Hanjin while the phrase
in the preamble created an impression that ALL members were employees of Hanjin  a
clear proof of misrepresentation

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the CA erred in cancelling the registration of Samahan – YES
 Right to self-organization (SO) includes the right to form a union, workers’ association and labor
management councils:
o More often than not, the right to SO connotes unionism  workers, however, can also form
and join a workers’ association as well as labor-management councils
 Art. XIII of the ’87 Consti Sec. 3 states that the State shall guarantee the rights of
all workers to SO
 Art. III of the LC states that the State shall assure the rights of workers to SO,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
o The right to form a union or association or to SO comprehends to notions
 The liberty or freedom which guarantees that the employee may act for himself
without being prevented by law; and
 The power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from
joining an association
o The law expressly allows and even encourages the formation of labor organizations
o A labor organization has 2 broad rights: (1) to bargain collectively, and (2) to deal with the
employer concerning terms and conditions of employment
 (1) to bargain collectively – a right given to registered unions
 (2) to deal with employers – is a generic description of interaction between ER and
EE concerning grievances, wages, work hours, etc., even if the group is NOT
registered with DOLE
o A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective
bargaining, while a workers’ association is an organization of workers formed for the mutual
aid and protection of its members
o The difference between the 2 rights is one of organization, composition and operation
 It is misleading to say that collective bargaining is the end-goal of employee
representation  the real aim is employee participation in whatever form it may
appear
 In unions which allow collective bargaining, there must be an EE-ER relationship;
in contrast, the existence of said relationship is not mandatory in the formation of
a workers’ association
 Right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers’ association belongs to workers
themselves
o In the case at bar, the SC cannot sanction the opinion of the CA that Samahan should have
formed a union instead because the choice belonged to it
 It is evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by
law, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right
o The right to SO, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law
 Ex. Managerial employees cannot join, assist or form any labor union
o The SC also cannot subscribe to Hanjin’s position that Samahan should have formed a union
because they have definite employers
  There is NO provision in the LC which states that employees with definite
employers may ONLY join, assist, or form labor unions
 Art. 243 of the LC states that ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers MAY form
labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
 Said provision should also be read in harmony with Rule II of DO 40-43 Sec. 1
which states that 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.
 Clearly, there is NOTHING in the rules which provides that workers with
definite employers can only form unions and NOT workers’ associations
 The SC agrees with Samahan that they may form a workers’ association

2. W/N Samahan should drop the words “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name – YES
 No misrepresentation on the part of Samahan to warrant cancellation of registration
o Misrepresentation, as a ground for cancellation is committed when it is done maliciously and
deliberately
o When a union’s application is infected by falsification and like serious irregularities
 Such particularities which are crucial in the proceedings of registration
o Based on the foregoing, the SC concludes that there was no misrepresentation
 “Kami, ang mga manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard…” did not constitute
misrepresentation so as to warrant the cancellation of the registration
 Removal of the words “Hanjin Shipyard” from the associations name, however, does not infringe
on Samahan’s right to SO
o The SC agrees with the BLR that the words “Hanjin Shipyard” must be removed
 Having been granted a certificate of registration, Samahan’s association is now
recognized by law and is now recognized by law as a legitimate workers’ association
o There is no provision under labor laws which speak of the use of name by a workers’
association, but the SC referred to the Corporation Code, which governs the name of juridical
persons
 Sec. 18: NO corporate name may be allowed by the SEC if the proposed name is
identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or
to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or
contrary to existing laws…
o It would be misleading for the members of Samahan to use “Hanjin Shipyard” as it could give
the wrong impression that all of its members are employed by Hanjin

Ruling: the petition is PARTLY GRANTED.