You are on page 1of 87

Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila

CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORP. VS.CA. G.R. No.XnoX<>xdate, 2006.A LABOR RELATION CASE. BELOW THIS DIGEST IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE CASE.

This is a special civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (1) the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57179 dated 28 October 2003 which annulled the Decision[2] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. 017822-99 dated 25 August 1999, thereby, reinstating the Decision[3] of Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos dated 7 August 1998; and (2) the Resolution[4] of the same court, dated 3 June 2004, which denied the petitioners¶ Motion for Reconsideration.

Herein petitioners are Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation (CAPASCO), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products; Benjamin Chua, Jr. (now deceased), the former CAPASCO President; VirgilioAgerro, CAPASCO¶s Vice -President; and Leonardo Visorro, Jr., CAPASCO¶s Administrative-Personnel Manager. Herein private respondents are Enrique Tamondong III, the Personnel Superintendent of CAPASCO who was previously assigned at the petitioners¶ Cainta Plant, and CAPASCO Union of Supervisory Employees (CUSE), a duly registered union of CAPASCO.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Four former employees of CAPASCO originally filed this labor case before the NLRC, namely:

Fidel Lacambra, Armando Dayson, Reynaldo Vacalares, and Enrique Tamondong III. However, in the course of the proceedings, Fidel Lacambra[5] and Armando Dayson[6] executed a Release and Quitclaim, thus, waiving and abandoning any and all claims that they may have against petitioner CAPASCO. On 3 November 1999, Reynaldo Vacalares also signed a Quitclaim/Release/Waiver.[7] Hence, this Petition shall focus solely on issues affecting private respondent Tamondong.

Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the Personnel Manager for its Cainta Plant on 16 February 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Superintendent. Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CUSE. Private respondent Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation. Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo[8] dated 3 February 1997, to private respondent Tamondong requiring him to explain and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment in the company. Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter[9] on 5 February 1997, invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. In view of that, on 6 February 1997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo[10] terminated the employment of private respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company.

Private respondent Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving unfair labor practice by filing a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice before the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch IV. According to him, there was no just cause for his dismissal

and it was anchored solely on his involvement and active participation in the organization of the union of supervisory personnel in CAPASCO. Though private respondent Tamondong admitted his active role in the formation of a union composed of supervisory personnel in the company, he claimed that such was not a valid ground to terminate his employment because it was a legitimate exercise of his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.

In contrast, petitioner CAPASCO contended that by virtue of private respondent Tamondong¶s position as Personnel Superintendent and the functions actually performed by him in the company, he was considered as a managerial employee, thus, under the law he was prohibited from joining a union as well as from being elected as one of its officers. Accordingly, petitioners maintained their argument that the dismissal of private respondent Tamondong was perfectly valid based on loss of trust and confidence because of the latter¶s active participation in the affairs of the union.

On 7 August 1998, Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent Tamondong, decreeing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding [petitioner CAPASCO] guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. Concomitantly, [petitioner CAPASCO] is hereby ordered: 1. To cease and desist from further committing acts of unfair labor practice, as charged; To reinstate [private respondent Tamondong] to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and his full backwages inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement, and herein partially computed as follows: a) b) c) d) P167,076.00 - backwages from February 7, 1997 to August 7, 1998; P18,564.00 - 13th month pay for 1997 and 1998; P4,284.00 - Holiday pay for 12 days; P3,570.00 - Service Incentive Leave for 1997 and 1998.

2.

P 193,494.00 - Total partial backwages and benefits.[11]

Aggrieved, petitioners appealed the afore-quoted Decision to the NLRC. On 25 August 1999, the NLRC rendered its Decision modifying the Decision of the Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED: a) Dismissing the Complaint for Illegal Dismissal filed by [private respondent Tamondong] for utter lack of merit; Dismissing the Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice for lack of factual basis; Deleting the awards to [private respondent Tamondong] of backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney¶s fees; Affirming the awards to [private respondent Tamondong], representing 13th month pay for 1997 and 1998, holiday pay for 12 days, and service incentive leave for 1997 totaling P26,418.00; and Ordering the payment of backwages to [private respondent Tamondong] reckoned from 16 September 1998 up to the date of this Decision.[12]

b)

c)

d)

e)

Petitioners filed a Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration, while, private respondent Tamondong filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said NLRC Decision, but the NLRC affirmed its original Decision in its Resolution[13] dated 25 November 1999.

Dissatisfied with the above-mentioned Decision of the NLRC, private respondents Tamondong and CUSE filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. Then, the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 28 October 2003, granted the said Petition. The dispositive of which states that:

the instant Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED and the herein assailed Decision dated August 25. insofar as [private respondent Tamondong] is concerned is hereby REINSTATED. private respondent Tamondong was not only a managerial employee but also a confidential employee having knowledge of confidential information involving company policies on personnel relations. and executing the same with full power and discretion. Third Division is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. and the notations ³NOTED BY´ of petitioner Agerro. Additionally. making him eligible to participate in the union activities of private respondent CUSE. they aver that private respondent Tamondong as Personnel Superintendent of CAPASCO was performing functions of a managerial employee because he was the one laying down major management policies on personnel relations such as: issuing memos on company rules and regulations. the Court of Appeals denied the said Motion for Reconsideration for want of convincing and compelling reason to warrant a reversal of its judgment. on the aforesaid memos are nothing but mere notice that petitioner Agerro was aware of such company actions performed by private respondent Tamondong. Ramos. 1999 of the NLRC. the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held that private respondent Tamondong was not a managerial employee but a mere supervisory employee. Hence. premises considered. therefore. .[14] Consequently. 1998 of NLRC. RAB IV Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. this present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. the Decision dated August 7. In the Memorandum[15] filed by petitioners. Accordingly. Nonetheless. Hence. petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision of the Court of Appeals. They claim that no further approval or review is necessary for private respondent Tamondong to execute these functions. the Vice-President of petitioner CAPASCO.WHEREFORE. imposing disciplinary sanctions such as warnings and suspensions.

which position was incompatible and in conflict with his union activities. prohibited from participating in union activities. the threshold issue that must first be resolved is whether or not the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the proper remedy for the petitioners. petitioners maintain that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it reinstated the Decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. to warrant the reversal of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2003 and 3 June 2004. and attorney¶s fees. Ramos holding CAPASCO liable for backwages. On the other hand. . Consequently.Petitioners further argue that they are not guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice because private respondent Tamondong was validly dismissed and the reason for preventing him to join a labor union was the nature of his position and functions as Personnel Superintendent. Now. They also claim that petitioners new ground that private respondent Tamondong was a confidential employee of CAPASCO. it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals to rule that petitioner CAPASCO was guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. thus. assert that the assailed Decision being a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is appealable to this Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and not under Rule 65 thereof. respectively. service incentive leave. exemplary damages. private respondents. 13th month pay. given the foregoing arguments raise by both parties. moral damages. Lastly. is not a valid ground to be r aised in this Petition for Certiorari seeking the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

[19] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or. speedy. a board. considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. or personal hostility. or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes.[18] Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power.The petition must fail. and (3) there is no appeal or any plain. in other words. The special civil action for Certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. board or officer is not authorized. or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function. It means lack of power to exercise authority. board. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. though within the general power of a tribunal.[17] Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act. (2) such tribunal. where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion. and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal.[20] In the case before this Court. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. petitioners fail to meet the third requisite for the proper invocation . prejudice.

[21] Time and again this Court reminded members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal[22] where the latter remedy is available. petitioners received on 9 June 2004 the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 3 June 2004 denying their Motion for Reconsideration.[23] In the case at bar. Upon receipt of the said Resolution. this Court has no remaining issues to resolve. they had 15 days or until 24 June 2004 within which to file an appeal by way of Petition for Review under Rule 45. It must be noted that the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals was already a disposition on the merits. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. to wit: that there is no appeal or any plain. especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one¶s own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. they just allowed the 15 day period to lapse.of Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. they filed this Petition for . but instead of doing so. hence. They did not bother to explain why an appeal cannot possibly cure the errors committed by the appellate court. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. speedy. and then on the 61stday from receipt of the Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration. Additionally. the general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. Such a remedy will not be a cure for failure to timely file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. the proper remedy available to the petitioners is to file Petition for Review under Rule 45 not under Rule 65. Nor can it be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. They simply alleged that the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion which amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution.

which was within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari. the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari. It cannot therefore be claimed that the Petition was used. Consequently. Inc. has the discretion to treat a Petition for Certiorari as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice. The . this Court finds no reason to justify a liberal application of the rules. such was not the situation in the present case. it is incumbent upon this Court to dismiss this Petition. in the present case. still it is dismissible.[26] Conversely.[27] It is obvious in this case that the arguments raised by the petitioners delved into the wisdom or legal soundness of the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner¶s counsel therein received the Court of Appeals Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration on 26 October 1993 and filed the Petition for Certiorari on 8 November 1993. this Court finds no compelling reason to justify a liberal application of the rules. granting arguendo. In any event. therefore.[25] In the said case. where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. that the present petition is proper. Accordingly. this Court. v. especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review. Court of Appeals.Certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court. Admittedly. as a substitute for appeal after that remedy has been lost thr ough the fault of the petitioner. this Court treated the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner therein as having been filed under Rule 45 because said Petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari. the proper remedy is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. as this Court did in the case of Delsan Transport Lines.[24] However. Hence. and not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision.

Inc. such as control and supervision over erring rank-and-file employees. thus. Withal. the functions performed by private respondent such as] issuance of warning[31] to employees with irregular attendance and unauthorized leave of absences and requiring employees to explain regarding charges of abandonment of work. v.Court of Appeals cannot be said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the Decision of the NLRC because the findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondent Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and not a managerial employee. xxx. terminate. In the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2003. x xx he does not possess the power to hire. At the most. the Court of Appeals cited the case of Engineering Equipment. by using his own discretion and disposition. or discipline erring employees of the company. and not by a manager. however. to lay down and execute major business and operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO. is very uncharacteristic of a managerial employee. transfer. which required private respondent Tamondong to observe fixed daily working hours from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. xxx. there was no clear showing that he is at liberty. it made reference to the Memorandum[28] dated 12 September 1996. [private respondent] Tamondong may have been exercising certain important powers. the Court of Appeals also held that upon careful examination of the documents submitted before it. Moreover. according to the Court of Appeals. [Also.[32] . To support such a conclusion. NLRC[29] where this Court held that one of the essential characteristics[30] of an employee holding a managerial rank is that he is not subjected to the rigid observance of regular office hours or maximum hours of work. eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private respondent CUSE. it found out that: [Private respondent] Tamondong may have possessed enormous powers and was performing important functions that goes with the position of Personnel Superintendent. nevertheless. This imposition upon private respondent Tamondong. [Petitioner] CAPASCO miserably failed to establish that [private respondent] Tamondong was authorized to act in the interest of the company using his independent judgment. were supported by evidence on record. are normally performed by a mere supervisor. the record merely showed that [private respondent] Tamondong informed and warned rank-and-file employees with respect to their violations of CAPASCO¶s rules and regulations.

Accordingly. private respondent was . Private respondent Tamondong did not perform any of the functions of a managerial employee as stated in the definition given to it by the Code. This principle applies to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. indeed. assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private respondent Tamondong. if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. given the foregoing findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondent is a supervisory employee. managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire. Thus. the Court of Appeals did not act whimsically. It is settled that an issue which was not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. it can be clearly inferred that private respondent Tamondong was just a supervisory employee. whereas. discharge. it was guided by the evidence submitted before it. thereby curtailing his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. Hence. petitioners failed to adduced evidence which will prove that. effectively recommend such managerial actions. Thus. the same cannot be validly raised in this Petition for Certiorari. to wit: supervisory employees are those who. recall. transfer. Article 212(m) of the Labor Code.[36] In addition. in the interest of the employer. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO. differentiates supervisory employees from managerial employees. as amended. assign or discipline employees.[35] With regard to the allegation that private respondent Tamondong was not only a managerial employee but also a confidential employee. suspend. the Labor Code[33] provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from joining. it is indeed an unfair labor practice[34] on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss him on account of his union activities. lay off. capriciously or in a despotic manner. from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code. he cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of private respondent CUSE. and in making such a conclusion. rather.

No. 017822-99 dated 25 August 1999. is hereby AFFIRMED. terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees. the instant Petition is DISMISSED. reinstating the Decision of Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. 1997. the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)±Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO). 1998 and December 29. With costs against petitioners. THIGCI thus submitted a list of the names of its 71 actual rank-and-file employees which it annexed[2] to its Comment to the petition for certification election. 142000. a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Local Chapter No. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION -PGTWO. and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition. SO ORDERED. 776. a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI. thereby. 2003] TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED. WHEREFORE. January 22. 57179.also a confidential employee. which annulled the Decision of the NLRC in NLRC Case No.: Before this Court on certiorari under Rule 45 is the petition of the Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated (THIGCI) assailing the February 15.. resigned. THIGCI. vs. IV. On October 16. premises considered. only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. SP No. And it therein incorporated the following tabulation[3] showing the number of signatories to said petition whose membership in the union was being questioned as disqualified and the reasons for disqualification: # of Signatures Reasons for Disqualification . 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12. Regional Branch No. in CA-G. 1997. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2003 and 3 June 2004. J. petitioner. Ramos dated 7 August 1998. as well as employees of The Country Club. filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit. 1998.R. [G. respondent. 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. in its Comment[1] filed on November 27. Inc. DECISION CARPIO-MORALES. respectively.R.

series of 1997. quoted verbatim: We evaluated carefully this instant petition and we are of the opinion that it is complete in form and substance. Supervisors of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands. automatically order the conduct of a certification election. Inc. 09. Inc. and its Implementing Rules as amended by Department Order No.[9] (Emphasis supplied) . Signatures that cannot be deciphered Names in list that were erased Names with first names only 14 6 3 1 4 16 2 THIGCI also alleged that some of the signatures in the list of union members were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means. Inc. Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. THEU thus concluded in its Reply[7] that under the circumstances. By Order of January 28. AWOL employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands. Resigned employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands. the Med-Arbiter should. Inc. as amended. it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization. the holding of a certification election is mandatory for it was clearly established that petiti oner is a legitimate labor organization. 9 Series of 1997 with all the legal right and personality to institute this instant petition. 9.[6] and that Section 5. 9. Terminated employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands. and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation.[5] on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on October 10. and submitted copies of the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the petition. Giving due course to this petition is therefore proper and appropriate. Inc. Pursuant therefore to the provisions of Article 257 of the Labor Code. Rule V of said Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral attack.[4] Replying to THIGCI¶s Comment.13 6 2 53 Supervisors of THIGCI Resigned employees of THIGCI AWOL employees of THIGCI Rank-and-file employees of The Country Club at Tagaytay Highlands. THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. In addition thereto. the accompanying documents show that indeed petitioner union is a legitimate labor federation and its local/chapter was duly reported to this Office as one of its affiliate local/chapter.[8] DOLE Med-Arbiter AnastacioBactin ordered the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI in this wise. pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11. 1998. since the respondent¶s establishment is unorganized. Its due reporting through the submission of all the requirements for registration of a local/chapter is a clear showing that it was already included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations in this Office pursuant to Department Order No. 1997.

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 following this Court¶s ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. the Med-Arbiter held that THIGCI failed to submit the job descriptions of the questioned employees and other supporting documents to bolster its claim that they are disqualified from joining THEU. by Resolution of June 4. THIGCI¶s Motion for Reconsideration of the November 12. ³the alleged retraction and withdrawal of support by 45 of the 70 remaining rank-and-file members . 1998.´ that rather than disregard the legitimate status already conferred on THEU by the Bureau of Labor Relations. and that regarding the participation of alleged resigned and AWOL employees and those whose signatures are illegible. Laguesma. resigned and AWOL employees or employees of a separate and distinct corporation. as emphasized in the case of St. 1998 Resolution.[14] By Decision of February 15. Upon Motion for Reconsideration by THEU. 2000. et al.´ 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. 1998. In any event. UndersecretaryDimapilis-Baldoz held that since THEU is a local chapter.[17] petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations.. . As for the allegation that some of the signatures were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means. Martin Funeral Home v. Bienvenido E. . THIGCI appealed to the Office of the DOLE Secretary which. Inc.[13] and in strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. issued DOLE Resolution of November 12. hence. It held that while a petition for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule.[11] it filed a petition for certiorari before this Court which. Hon. set aside the said Med-Arbiter¶s Order and accordingly dismissed the petition for certification election on the ground that there is a ³clear absence of community or mutuality of interests. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union et al[16] and Dunlop Slazenger [Phils. DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda DimalipisBaldoz. 1998[10] setting aside the June 4. In the November 12.. the issue can be resolved during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings at the preelection stage. Hon.[12] referred it to the Court of Appeals in line with its pronouncement in National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. The records of the case were thus ordered remanded to the Office of the Med-Arbiter for the conduct of certification election. 1999. should simply be removed from the THEU¶s roster of membership. cannot negate the legitimacy it has already acquired before the petition.] v. the present petition for certiorari. by authority of the DOLE Secretary. the names of alleged disqualified supervisory employees and employees of the Country Club. Secretary of Labor and Employment et al. raising the following ³ISSUES/ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION DATED 12 NOVEMER 1998 HOLDING THAT SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND NON -EMPLOYEES COULD SIMPLY BE REMOVED FROM APPELLEES ROSTER OF RANK -AND-FILE MEMBERSHIP INSTEAD OF RESOLVING THE LEGITIMACY OF RE SPONDENT UNION¶S STATUS THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION DATED 12 NOVEMBER 1998 HOLDING THAT THE DISQUALIFIED EMPLOYEES¶ STATUS COULD READILY BE RESOLVED DURING THE INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS . by Resolution of April 14. 1998. 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election.[15] the Court of Appeals denied THIGCI¶s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12. a separate and distinct corporation. the Med-Arbiter held that the same should be properly raised in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings at the pre-election conference. National Labor Relations Commission.Passing on THIGCI¶s allegation that some of the union members are supervisory. 1998 Resolution having been denied by the DOLE Undersecretary by Resolution of December 29. the twenty percent (20%) membership requirement is not necessary for it to acquire legitimate status. he held that it should be coursed through an independent petition for cancellation of union registration which is within the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director. Hence. hence.

´[22] Continuing.´ and the subsequent case of Progressive Development Corp. Not being one.´ Public respondent gravely misappreciated the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file employees. Ledesma[20] which held that: ³The Labor Code requires that in organized and unorganized establishments. petitioner argues that without resolving the status of THEU. an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot posses any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization. depends on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Labor Union. including the right to file a petition for cert ification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code. a petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. viz: µx x x ³Clearly. and vice-versa. anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election. In the case before us. be a legitimate labor organization. based on this provision [Article 245]. particularly the right to file a petition for certification election . therefore.. . Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join. petitioner contends that. 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 µfor all intents and purposes. is Article 245 of the Labor Code.¶´[21] (Underscoring and emphasis supplied). right of supervisory employees. It becomes necessary. SumasaklawsaManggagawasa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate organization. to wit: Article 245. assist or form any labor organization. a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all.THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONER HAD BEEN DULY PROVEN BY FAILURE OF RESPONDENT UNION TO DENY THE SAME AND BY THE SHEER WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER AND CONTAINED IN THE RECORDS OF THE CASE´ [18] The statutory authority for the exclusion of supervisory employees in a rank-and-file union. the DOLE Undersecretary ³conveniently deferred the resolution on the serious infirmity in the membership of [THEU] and ordered the holding of the certification election´ which is frowned upon as the following ruling of this Court shows: We also do not agree with the ruling of the respondent Secretary of Labor that the infirmity in the membership of the respondent union can be remedied in ³the 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. or vice-versa. . Citing Toyota[19]which held that ³a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election. first and foremost. While above-quoted Article 245 expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a rankand-file union. to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is . The acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization. quoting Toyota. for any guise or purpose. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization. ² Managerial employees are not eligible to join. ± Pizza Hut v. ³[i]t becomes necessary . It cannot. Due to the irreconcilability of their interest we held in Toyota Motor Philippines v. it does not provide what would be the effect if a rank-and-file union counts supervisory employees among its members.

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. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V.) The petition fails. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. (f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law. 300 SCRA 120 [1998]. or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law. checking off special assessment s or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation.´ (Emphasis by petitioner) (Dunlop Slazenger (Phils. Book V of the Implementing Rules. and the list of members who took part in the ratification. (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the ³cabo´ system. (h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code. false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto.). (i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or whenever required by the Bureau. 239. (d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days after the losing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. v. the minutes of ratification. and (j) Failure to comply with the requirements under Articles 237 and 238. false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself. false statement or fraud under the circumstances . while the procedure for cancellation of registration is provided for in Rule VIII. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (a) Misrepresentation. minutes of the election of officers. (Emphasis supplied) The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for under Article 239 of the Labor Code. (b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. Underscoring and emphasis supplied by petitioner. Book IV of the ³Rules to Implement the Labor Code´ (Implementing Rules) which section reads: Sec. but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. (g) Asking for or accepting attorney¶s fees or negotiation fees from employers. false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers. After a certificate of registration is issued to a union. Effect of registration. (Emphasis supplied). Secretary of Labor. (c) Misrepresentation.challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code. 5. as follows: Art. the list of voters. or failure to subject these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack.

¶ 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. LAGUESMA (Department of Labor and Employment) and ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES. While petitioner submitted a list of its employees with their corresponding job titles and ranks. itsfailure to present substantial evidence that the assailed employees are actually occupying supervisory positions. INC. R. at all events. the Mediation-Arbitration Unit. SUPERVISORY. v.[27] WHEREFORE. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification election. . SO ORDERED. As for petitioner¶s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition for certification election were obtained through fraud. In the case of National Steel Corporation vs.R. Such representation and certification election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non-adversary. January 29. Laguesma(G. IV. and not to intervene in a petition for certification election. for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration.. for the immediate conduct of a certification election subject to the usual pre-election conference. having been validly issued a certificate of registration.[24] there is nothing mentioned about the supervisors¶ respective duties. 96566 January 6. 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. the proper procedure is. Secretary of Labor:[26] Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees x xxThe mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not necessarily make him one. THEU. 1996). (Emphasis supplied). it. Otherwise. as found by the court a quo. this Court¶s following ruling is instructive: ³µ[T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election itself wherein the workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot. 103743. vs. should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. the petition is hereby DENIED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the office of origin. powers and prerogatives that would show that they can effectively recommend managerial actions which require the use of independent judgment. 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. 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 reflected above. No. Inc.[25] As this Court put it in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines. No. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E.enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code. petitioner. ADMINISTRATIVE. PERSONNEL. 1992 ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES. INC. Regional Branch No. false statement and misrepresentation.´[23] As for the lack of mutuality of interest argument of petitioner. does not lie given.

Esteban M.PRODUCTION. Supervisory. the supervisory. The petitioners. Inc. The petitioners opposed the private respondent's petition claiming that under Article 245 of the Labor code the private respondent cannot represent the supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes because the private respondent also represents the rank-and-file employees' union. the Med-Arbiter issued an order in favor of the private respondent. Lagman. The antecedent facts of the case as gathered from the records are as follows: On July 16. 1990. pp. GUTIERREZ. Production. 39-40) The petitioners. the dispositive portion of which provides: WHEREFORE. J. however. Accounting and Confidential Employees Association or ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL in short and which we shall hereafter refer to as the "supervisors" union. The local union adopted the name Atlas Lithographic Services. administrative personnel. accounting and confidential employees of the petitioner Atlas Lithographic Services. Valdecantos&Arreza Law Offices for petitioner. JR. Shortly thereafter. under Article 245 of the Labor Code. private respondent 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. respondents. Mendoza for private respondent. Romero. On September 18. as expected. (ALSI) affiliated with private respondent KaisahanngManggagawang Pilipino. Personnel. The public respondent. Incorporated is hereby ordered conducted within 20 days from receipt hereof. Personnel. with the following choices: 1. The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not. Production. in turn. 2. Inc. No union.:p This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the modification of the Order dated 14 December 1990 and the Resolution dated 21 November 1990 issued by the public respondents. a national labor organization. issued a resolution affirming the Med-Arbiter's order. production. 1990. SO ORDERED. premises considered. this petition for certiorari. a certification election among the supervisory employees belonging to the Administrative.. appealed for the reversal of the above order. (Rollo. a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees and which national federation actively represents its affiliates . KAMPIL (KATIPUNAN). Hence. subject to usual pre-election conference. Accounting Departments as well as confidential employees performing supervisory functions of Atlas Lithographic Services. Administrative. filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. ACCOUNTING AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES A SSOCIATIONKAISAHAN NG MANGGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL -KATIPUNAN).

The reason behind the Industrial Peace Act provision on the same subject matter has been adopted in the present statute. 6715 contemplates the principle laid down by this Court in the Adamson case interpreting Section 3 of Rep. form a supervisors union. that supervisory unions are presently no longer recognized nor allowed to exist and operate as such. Sanchez (144 SCRA 628 [1986]). Act No. Art. v. . namely: (1) managerial employees. Act No. A revision of the Labor Code undertaken by the bicameral Congress brought about the enactment of Rep. in the interest of the employer. . and (3) rank-and file employees. 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. therefore. namely: (1) the managerial employees. . The interests of supervisors on the one hand. Act No. 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. 212 (m) states: (m) . composed of the rank-and-file employees of the Bulletin Publishing Corporation. 633. it is distinctly stated in Section 11. on the other hand. and distinct from the nat ional federation. We are constrained to hold that the supervisory employees of petitioner firm may not. employees were classified into three groups. in Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. The Court ruled: In the light of the factual background of this case. and the rank-and-file employees on the . Neither the category of supervisors nor their right to organize under the old statute were recognized. The public respondent. 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. Under the Industrial Peace Act of 1953. 6715 in March 1989 in which employees were reclassified into three groups. Supervisory employees are those who. separate and distinct from the existing bargaining unit (BEU). 442). of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Hence. It cites as its legal basis the case of Adamson & Adamson. . It maintains that Rep. 442. . (2) supervisors. under the law. who were considered employees in relation to their employer could join a union but not a union of rank-and-file employees. the category of supervisory employees is once again recognized. the local union does not lose its personality which is separate. and (3) the rank and file employees. (pp. CIR (127 SCRA 268 [1984]). Rule II. Supervisors. The petitioner argues that KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN already represents its rank-and-file employees and. 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 supervisory unions existing since the effectivity of the New Code in January 1. With the enactment in 1974 of the Labor Code (Pres Decree No. It is evident that most of the private respondents are considered managerial employees. So that. Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing Pres. the Court interpreted the superseding labor law to have removed from supervisors the right to unionize among themselves. Decree No.in collective bargaining negotiations with the same employer of the supervisors and in the implementation of resulting collective bargaining agreements. employees were classified into managerial and rank-and-file employees. (2) supervisors. Inc. 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. Under the present law. 634) In Section 11. contends that despite affiliation with a national federation. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act) on the right of a supervisor's union to affiliate. to join or assist a rank -and-file union. Also. Rule II. 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.

of middle level executives from the category of managers brought about a third classification. This intent of the law is made clear in the deliberations of the legislators on then Senate Bill 530 now enacted as Rep. We agree with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of interest may arise in the areas of disci pline. 3 ² Employees' Right to Self Organization. being recommendatory in nature. In the area of bargaining. the rank-and file employees are directly under the supervisors organized by one and the same federation. To quote the Senate Journal: In reply to Sen. Act No. join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. are separate and distinct. p. the rank-and-file employees in the Adamson case were not under the supervision of the supervisors involved. First. In terms of classification. Herrera stated that while they are considered as rank-and-file employees. The functions of supervisors. Meanwhile. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own (Emphasis supplied). Volume 3. Act No. More important. 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is to prohibit supervisors from joining a labor organization of employees under their supervision. thus. 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. Members of the supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their comember rank-and-file employees. 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. In the case at bar. This was not the consideration in the Adamson case because as mentioned earlier. 6715 provides: .other. Moreover. Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form. First Regular Session. Article 245 of the Labor Code as amended by Rep. they identify with the interests of the employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank -and-file. when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of subordinates. 1988. the factual issues in the Adamson case are different from the present case. The exclusion. run counter to the interests of the rank-and-file. Guingona's query whether "supervisors" are included in the term "employee". their interests cannot be considered identical. The performance of those functions may. 6715. 2245). are more identified with the interests of the employer. the supervisory employees. the rank-and-file employees in the Adamson case are not directly under the supervisors who comprise the supervisors' union. they cannot join the union and they would have to form their own supervisors' union pursuant to Rep. collective bargaining and strikes. These supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowed to join the rankand-file union because of conflict of interest (Journal of the Senate. 3 of the Industrial Peace Act provides: Sec. therefore. (supra. 1987. the national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy strike on the sole basis of affiliation. Sec. Act 875. Sen. in the event of a strike. however. The contemplation of the law in Sec. 2288) The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not managers. The needs of one are different from those of the other. p.

245 is inapplicable to the case at bar. Against the advise of its own counsel and on the basis of alleged "industrial peace"." The respondent. justice. NLRC. In a motion dated November 15. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. Technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. of course. the petition is hereby GRANTED. not its literal construction. no violation of such a guarantee to the employee. which initially filed a petition for certification in behalf of the respondent union. however. and the promotion of labor peace. Thus. Where one interpretation would result in mischievous consequences while another would bring about equity. ² Managerial employees are not eligible to join. 1990 resolution of DOLE are contrary to law and must be declared as such. if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests. The private respondent is disqualified from . The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank-and-file is replete with jurisprudence. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. 245. v. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join. then a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-andfile employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the company. as in Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act. The December 14. the KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN. 1990 order and the November 21.Art. 1991 it appears that the petitioner has knuckled under to the respondents' pressures and agreed to let the national federation KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN represent its supervisors in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. WHEREFORE. there can be no doubt as to what interpretation shall prevail. There is no question about this intendment of the law. In the present case. There is. in the present case. however. 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 petitioner further contends that the term labor organization includes a federation considering that Art. the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. The intent of the law is clear especially where. What the law prohibits is their membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees (Art. the respondent contends that the law prohibits the employer from interfering with the employees' right to self-organization. In fact. Finally. free to grant whatever concessions it wishes to give to its employees unilaterally or through negotiations but we cannot allow the resulting validation of an erroneous ruling and policy of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to remain on the basis of the petitioner's loss of interest. Inc. 190 SCRA 747 [1990]) What should be paramount is the intent behind the law. argues that the phrase refers to a local union only in which case. the petitioner expressed a loss of interest in pursuing this action. The petitioner is. 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. The Court construes Article 245 to mean that. Supervisors are not prohibited from forming their own union. 212 (g) mentions "any union or association of employees. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization: right of supervisory employees. 245. as in the case at bar. the national union in the Adamson case did not actively represent its local chapters. it was the national federation. (Rapid Manpower Consultants. the local union is actively represented by the national federation. 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 Second. assist or form any labor organization. the prohibition in Art.

On the same day. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLE GE OF MEDICINE SUPERVISORY UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS. . While it is true that both regular rank-and-file employees and supervisory employees of herein respondent have affiliated with FFW. the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) cannot extend a charter certificate . 1998] DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE. issued a certificate to private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local chapter. property officers. vs. is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. on the other hand.affiliating with a national federation of labor organizations which includes the petitioner's rank -and-file employees.. respondents. The supervisory employees have a separate charter certificate issued by FFW. Med -Arbiter Regional Office No. it filed on behalf of private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. HON. [Petitioner] also argues that assuming that some of the employees concerned are not managerial but mere supervisory employees. [petitioner] . Undersecretary of Labor and Employment. On April 17. . med-arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. issued an order granting respondent union¶s petition for certification election. heads of various sections and the like. de la Cruz. 6. claims that based on the job descriptions which will be presented at th e hearing. . IV. It contended that ± 2. yet there are two separate unions organized by FFW.R.IV. Cavite. . DE LA CRUZ. . SECOND DIVISION [G. 102084. respondent Rolando S. DECISION MENDOZA. private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC denied petitioner¶s allegations. ROLANDO S. the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). Private respondent Federation of Free Workers±De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFWDLSUMCCMSUC). No.. It is not true that supervisory employees are joining the rank-and-file employees¶ union. petitioner. 1991. August 12. It does not intend to include managerial employees. personnel officers. He said: . LAGUESMA.[2] On July 5.: Petitioner De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine (DLSUMCCM) is a hospital and medical school at Dasmariñas. Its petition was opposed by petitioner DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees who signed the petition for certification election were managerial employees and that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company. Herein petition seeks for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of herein respondent. .. J. a national federation of labor unions. cashiers. 1991. BIENVENIDO E. 1991. the covered employees who are considered managers occupy the positions of purchasing officers.[1] In its reply dated May 22. SO ORDERED.

Consequently. Thus. there is now no question that [petitioner] has in its employ supervisory employees who are qualified to join or form a labor union. No further motions of a similar nature shall hereinafter be entertained. They are still considered separate with each other. this office is left with no alternative but to order the holding of certification election pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code. citing substantially the same arguments it had raised before the med-arbiter. dated August 30. respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. With respect to this question. respondent Laguesma stated: We reviewed the records once more. In its position paper. 1991. Petitioner DLSUMCCM contends that respondent Laguesma gravely abused his discretion. this petition for certiorari. The record likewise shows that [petitioner] promised to present the job descriptions of the concerned employees during the hearing but failed to do so. In his order dated September 19. . suffice it to state that the two groups are considered separate bargaining units and local chapters of FFW. Laguesma found the evidence presented by petitioner DLSUMCCM concerning the alleged managerial status of several employees to be insufficient. Inc. [5] Hence. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own´ because the FFW had similarly issued a charter certificate to its rank-and-file employees. following the ruling of this Court in Adamson & Adamson. While it does not anymore insist that several of those who joined the petition for certification election are holding managerial positions in the company. for all intents and purposes. thereby admitting that it has supervisory employees who are undoubtedly qualified to join or form a labor organization of their own. it argues: . As to the allegation of [petitioner] that the act of the supervisory employees in affiliating with FFW to whom the rank-and-file employees are also affiliated is violative of Article 245 of the Labor Code. petitioner DLSUMCCM appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit and the resolution of this office dated 30 August 1991 STANDS. we find no legal justification to alter.. of the employees listed in .. The mere fact. the motion for reconsideration must fail. as in the case of herein respondent. WHEREFORE. Accordingly. much less set aside. 1991.[4] unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may legally affiliate with the same national federation. He also held that. petitioner nonetheless pursues the question whether unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly affiliate with the same national federation. They are. if not all. separate with each other and their affiliation with FFW would not make them members of the same labor union. . as amended. In his resolution. which mandates the holding of certification election if a petition is filed by a legitimate labor organization involving an unorgan ized establishment. CIR. However. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied. this office has no basis in determining at this point i n time who among them are considered managerial or supervisory employees. its appeal was dismissed. the petition are considered managerial employees. Perforce. v. 1991.[3] On July 30. therefore. . This must be the case because it is settled that the locals are considered the basic unit or principal with the labor federation assuming the role of an agent. and find that the issues and arguments adduced by movant have been squarely passed upon in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered.. [petitioner] stated that most. the aforesaid resolution.to this group of employees without violating the express provision of Article 245 which provides that ³supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-andfile employees but may join. that they are represented by or under the same agent is of no moment. At any rate.

supervisory employees and security guards to form unions was abolished.. the supervisory employees . IN A CAPRICIOUS. We are afraid that without any corresponding provision covering the private sector. the . . the right of government workers. Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other classes of employees save only managerial ones. Lerum¶s proposal to amend Art. If supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a company are allowed to form a single union.D. Laguesma. ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO ACTING WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE DENIED THE PETITIONER¶S APPEAL AND ORDERED THE HOLDING OF A CERTIFICAT ION ELECTION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPERVISORY UNION EMPLOYED IN PETITIONER¶S COMPANY DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID SUPERVISORY UNION WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS TO WHICH THE RANK -AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME COMPANY ARE LIKEWISE AFFILIATED.[9] Conformably with the constitutional mandate.THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT. including those employed in the public and private sectors.. But what is tragic about this is that after the 1973 Consti tution was approved and in spite of an express recognition of the right to organize in P.. In sum.. will still be excluded and that is the purpose of this amendment. III. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. AS AMENDED. Art. by this provision.. we have unions of supervisory employees and of security guards. to restore the right of supervisory employees to self-organization which had been withdrawn from them during the period of martial law.. therefore.. associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. supervisory employees. subject to the limitation that they cannot join an organization of rank-and-file employees: Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join. The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company with respect to the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in their interests. 245 of the Labor Code now provides for the right of supervisory employees to self-organization. . LERUM. III. and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed. § 8 of the present Constitution: . known as the Labor Code.. Also. § 8 of the draft Constitution by including labor unions in the guarantee of organizational right should be taken in the context of statements that his aim was the removal of the statutory ban against security guards and supervisory employees joining labor organizations. 442. the security guards.[8] the framers of the Constitution intended. . to form unions. The approval by the Constitutional Commission of his proposal can only mean. LAGUESMA. CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 245 OF THE LABOR CODE. .. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. MR. The Constitution states that ³the right of the people. that the Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government workers. No... [6] The contention has no merit. Thus: Commissioner Lerum sought to amend the draft of what was later to become Art. . shall not be abridged. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E.´[7] As we recently held in UnitedPepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Supervisory employees are more closely identified with the employer than with the rank-and-file employees.

free to serve their own and the common interest of all. collective bargaining. only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Inc. CIR[14]where a different conclusion was reached. Workers should be allowed the practice of this freedom to the extent recognized in the fundamental law. that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and±file employees with one labor organization. Consequently. As we explained in that case. however. v.[19] Mention has already been made of the fact that the petition for certification election in this case . and strikes.[12] Second. The affiliation of two local unions in a company with the same national federation is not by itself a negation of their independence since in relation to the employer. This conclusion is in accord with the policy that any limitation on the exercise by employees of the right to self-organization guaranteed in the Constitution must be construed strictly. v. Their immediate professional relationship must be established. « and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it to existence. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. and the association of locals into the national union«was in furtherance of the same end. such a situation would obtain only where two conditions concur: First.conflicting interests of these groups impair their relationship and adversely affect discipline. the rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of supervisory employees. while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. just one union.:[15] The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital. Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rankand-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same national federation. then a local supervisors¶ union should not be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of unions of rank -and-file employees where that federation actively participates in union activities in the company. and that the respondent union will lose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation. are whether the rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM who compose a labor union are directly under the supervisory employees whose own union is affiliated with the same national federation (Federation of Free Workers) and whether such national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company so as to make the two unions in the same company. Inc.[13] Indeed. CIR. that there would be a merging of the two bargaining units. [16] The questions in this case. CIR:[18] We find without merit the contention of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed. Laguesma[11]that To avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors¶ labor organization would represent conflicting interests. Laguesmafrom Adamson & Adamson. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. Inc. v.[10] These consequences can obtain not only in cases where supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the same company belong to a single union but also where unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and±file employees of a company are allowed to affiliate with the same national federation. v. it is the presence of these two conditions which distinguished Atlas Lithographic Services. in reality. therefore. v. Inc. petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory employees. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor.[17] the fact that the two groups of workers are employed by the same company and the fact that they are affiliated with a common national federation are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that their organizations are actually just one. this Court has held in Atlas Lithographic Services Inc. As held in Adamson & Adamson. To borrow the language of Adamson & Adamson. the national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company. Liberty Cotton Mills. Inc. As held in Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. the FFW. the local unions are considered as the principals.

Inc.[4] . Respondents. without prejudice to refiling. DECISION QUISUMBING. Private respondents also alleged that the establishment in which they sought to operate was unorganized. INC. vs. 2003. the Med-Arbiter dismissed. Inc. denying petitioner¶s motion for reconsideration. The facts are as follows: On July 8. Petitioner Coastal Subic Bay Terminal. Laguesma. in CA-G. Supervisory. Petitioner. it was shown that the rank-and-file employees were directly under the supervisors organized by the same federation. This fact differentiates the case from Atlas Lithographic Services. and that the proposed bargaining units were not particularly described. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT ± OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. 1998. v. COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL. WHEREFORE. SP No. Rank-and-File Union (CSBTIRFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal. the petition is DISMISSED.[20] in which. Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed separate petitions for certification election before Med-Arbiter Eladio de Jesus of the Regional Office No. both petitions which had been consolidated. Without ruling on the legitimacy of the respondent unions.: For review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals¶ Decision [1] dated August 31. Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. RANK-AND-FILE UNION-ALU-TUCP. J. Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). and COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL. This circumstance. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the Decision [3] dated March 15. 157117 November 20. while showing active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company.R. It follows that respondent labor officials did not gravely abuse their discret ion. SUPERVISORY UNION-APSOTEU. 54128 and the Resolution [2] dated February 5. Inc. 2001. No. The rank-andfile union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a charter certificate by the Associated Labor Union (ALU). in addition to the fact that the petition for certi fication election had been filed by the national federation.R. (CSBTI) opposed both petitions for certification election alleging that the rank-and-file union and supervisory union were not legitimate labor organizations.. 245 since there is no proof that the supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the FFW. INC. 1999 of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) reversing the Mediator Arbiter¶s dismissal of private respondents¶ petitions for certification election. Thus. is by itself insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. and the supervisory union by the Associated Professional.was filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. III. private respondents Coastal Subic Bay Terminal. Inc. 2006 COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL. The Med-Arbiter held that the ALU and APSOTEU are one and the same federation having a common set of officers. SO ORDERED. INC. the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions were in effect affiliated with only one federation .

Regional Office No. NO UNION. For all supervisory employees of CSBTI: 1. NO UNION. The Secretary declared CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU as legitimate labor organizations having been chartered respectively by ALU and APSOTEU after submitting all the requirements with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). They also have different sets of locals. this Office finds the simultaneous filing of the instant petitions to be invalid and unwarranted. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Secretary. SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION -APSOTEU. INC. Baldoz. the rule applicable at the time of its registration. let the instant petitions be. the decision of the Med-Arbiter. PREMISES CONSIDERED. III is hereby REVERSED. with the following choices: I. [8] It held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary. including its payrolls for the last three months immediately preceding the issuance of this decision. 6715. It further ruled that ALU and APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor unions having separate certificates of registration from the DOLE. COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL. after the usual pre-election conference. Let separate certification elections be conducted immediately among the appropriate employees of CSBTI. [5] Both parties appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. SO ORDERED. COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL. and 2. shall be the basis for determining the qualified list of voters. [7] On appeal. RANK -AND-FILE UNION-ALU-TUCP.The Med-Arbiter ruled as follows: Viewed in the light of all the foregoing. viz: WHEREFORE. II. SO DECIDED. The Secretary thru Undersecretary R. the Secretary ordered the holding of separate certification election. ruled that CSBTI-SU and CSBTI-RFU have separate legal personalities to file their separate petitions for certification election. who reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. its findings are supported by evidence on record. For all rank and file employees of CSBTI: 1. as they are hereby DISMISSED. [6] The motion for reconsideration was also denied. INC. Accordingly. this Office has no recourse but to dismiss both petitions without prejudice to the refiling of either. Consequently. [9] The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. [10] Hence. The latest payroll of the employer. and 2. WHEREFORE. the instant petition by the company anchored on the following grounds: I . and thus should be accorded with respect and finality. The Secretary held that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization because it was properly registered pursuant to the 1989 Revised Rules and Regulations implementing Republic Act No.

Rule II. that it is the BLR that is authorized to process applications and issue certificates of registration in accordance with our ruling in Phil. and its chartered affiliate CSBTI -SU cannot attain the status of a legitimate labor organization to file a petition for certification election. 6715. Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) provides that: Section 2. the issues are (1) Can the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions file separate petitions for certification election?. Pertinent is Article 235 [14] of the Labor Code which provides that applications for registration shall be acted upon by the Bureau. procedure ± Any national labor organization or labor federation or local union may file an application for registration with the Bureau or the Regional Office where the applicant¶s principal offices is located. and (3) Were private respondents engaged in commingling? The issue on the status of the supervisory union CSBTI-SU depends on the status of APSOTEU. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED PUBLIC RESPONDENT¶S APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS TO HASTILY DISPOSE OF THE LEGAL PERSONALITY ISSUE OF APSOTEU.[13]where we held therein that Amigo Employees Union was not a duly registered independent union absent any record of its registration with the Bureau. The Bureau or the Regional Office shall immediately process and approve or deny the application." [11] Plainly. [15] Further. its mother federation. Inciong. the Bureau or the Regional Office shall issue . Petitioner argues that APSOTEU improperly secured its registration from the DOLE Regional Director and not from the BLR. Petitioner insists that APSOTEU lacks legal personality. AND (2) DISREGARDED EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF "ILLEGAL COMMINGLING. Where to file application. IV IN AFFIRMING PUBLIC RESPONDENT¶S FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE "SEPARATE FEDERATIONS. Act No. "Bureau" as defined under the Labor Code means the BLR and/or the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor. (2) Was the Secretary¶s decision based on stare decisis correct?. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DECIDE IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT AFFIRMED PUBLIC RESPONDENT¶S APPLICATION OF THE "UNION AUTONOMY" THEORY. In case of approval. and that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the law applicable at the time of APSOTEU¶s registration was the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Secretary of Labor. Association of Free Labor Unions v.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE "1989 REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING RA 6715" AS BASIS TO RECOGNIZE PRIVATE RESPONDENT APSOTEU¶S REGISTRATION BY THE DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. and possibly even void ab initio for being ultra vires.[12] that the certificates of registration issued by the DOLE Regional Director pursuant to the rules are questionable. Section 2. It relies on Villar v." THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: (1) IGNORED JURISPRUDENCE RECOGNIZING THE BINDING NATURE OF A MED ARBITER¶S FACTUAL FINDINGS.

the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. as amended by Department Order No. the rules did not divest the Regional Office and the BLR of their jurisdiction over applications for registration by labor organizations. national or industry union or trade union center shall be filed with the Bureau.[16] The Implementing Rules specifically Section 1. The records in this case showed that APSOTEU was registered on March 1. 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. Thus. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack. 9. thus: SECTION 1. ± The application for registration of any federation. but maybe questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. Book V of the Implementing Rules. Rule V. Accordingly. APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization and has authority to issue charter to its affiliates. together with all the requirements for registration as hereinafter provided. The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for registration of labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR. APSOTEU and ALU are the same federation. Section 5. 2003. . Private respondents disagree. 9 which took effect only on June 21. Where the application is filed with the Regional Office. further amending Book V of the above implementing rules.the registration certificate within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the application. xxxx The DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-03. Where to file applications. considering further that APSOTEU¶s principal office is located in Diliman. 1997. The applications for registration of an independent union shall be filed with and acted upon by the Regional Office where the applicant¶s principal office is located «. Quezon City. together with all the documents supporting the registration. which took effect on March 15. a rank-and-file union and APSOTEU. the law applicable at that time was Section 2. there was no record in the BLR that Amigo Employees Union was registered. the application would be acted upon by the BLR. Rule II. Inciong. [19] Did the Court of Appeals err in its application of stare decisis when it upheld the Secretary¶s ruling that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization and its personality cannot be assailed unless in an independent action for cancellation of registration certificate? [20] We think not. and not Department Order No. The amendments to the implementing rules merely specified that when the application was filed with the Regional Office.[18] In said case. [17] Even after the amendments. a supervisory union one and the same because of the commonalities between them? Are they commingled? The petitioner contends that applying by analogy. The petitioner misapplied Villar v. [22] It may issue a local charter certificate to CSBTI -SU and correspondingly. the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Bureau within forty-eight (48) hours from filing thereof. Rule III of Book V. Are ALU. Book V of the Implementing Rules states: Section 5. CSBTI-SU is legitimate. and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office. the certificate of registration is valid. [21] Thus. 1991.

[27] As such principals.R.First. and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. we reiterated the rule that for the prohibition to apply. [32] In the instant case. Laguesma. including the right to seek certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit. the national federations that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated with. actively participates in the CSBTI-SU while ALU. the supervisors must have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees. In addition. each continues to possess a separate legal personality. where the former acts in representation of the latter. [31] In De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine v. . to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors¶ labor union would represent conflicting interests. SO ORDERED. Hence. [26] Hence. as earlier discoursed. WHEREFORE. [25] A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. the rankand-file federation. In addition. [28] supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. The CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU are therefore affiliated with distinct and separate federations. 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. [23] In addition. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of interest. [33] When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a supervisory union. [30] Thus. the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. Under the rules implementing the Labor Code. APSOTEU. the legal personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked. it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action f or cancellation. For as long as they are affiliated with the APSOTEU and ALU. in the absence of any independent action for cancellation of registration against either APSOTEU or ALU. 54128 and the Resolution dated February 5. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality. and thus could not separately petition for certification elections. neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. 2003 are SET ASIDE. and unless and until their registrations are cancelled. SP No. once a labor union attains the status of a legitimate labor organization. in CA-G. a local supervisors¶ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-andfile employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company. 2001. the supervisory and rank-andfile unions both do not meet the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations. actively participates in the CSBTI-RFU. despite the commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU. giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of supervisory unions. The decision of the Med-Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED. the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented. It only gives rise to a contract of agency. [24] Thus. the action partakes the nature of a collateral attack. the unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Labor organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to organize themselves for the purpose of leveling the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep open the corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves. the supervisory federation. it is not enough that the supervisory union and the rank-and-file union are affiliated with a single federation. a chartered local union acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly registered federation or national union. A word of caution though. local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. do have a common set of officers. the petition is GRANTED. when the personality of the labor organization is questioned in the same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced. under Article 245 of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals¶ Decision dated August 31. [29] Further.

granted respondent company¶s Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. President. Laguesma. Said Order reads in part: ³xxx Confidential employees. among others. 1991. Bienvenido E. HONARABLE BIENVENIDO E. 1993. the public respondent. San Miguel Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to suspend proceedings. DECISION ROMERO. petitioner union filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for District Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exe mpt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. 1990. into one bargaining unit. Undersecretary Laguesma. No. On September 21. petitioners. Otis. v. pointing out. On March 11. an Order was issued by the public respondent granting the Motion. Inc.´ The Order excluded the employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 and the so-called exempt employees from the proposed bargaining unit and ruled out their participation in the certification election. NLRC[2] case. August 15.SECOND DIVISION [G. San Fernando and Otis. OS MA A-2-70-91[1] entitled ³In Re: Petition for Certification Election Among the Supervisory and Exempt Employees of the San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Plants of Cabuyao. PONCE.R. and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature. San Fernando and Otis. 1990.: This is a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of public respondent. S3 and S4 and the so-called exempt employees are admittedly confidential employees and . 110399. Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for on September 3. citing the doctrine enunciated in Philips Industrial Development. San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit. 1991 and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exemp t employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao. like managerial employees. 1991. 1991. 1997] SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union. are not allowed to form. join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. On July 23. Upon petitioner-union¶s motion dated August 7. 1993. in Case No. respondent company. dated March 11. respondents. Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment. Cabuyao and San Fernando. San Fernando and Otis. LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. the Med-Arbiter¶s error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants. REYNANTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MED -ARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. In this case. respondent San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal. vs. HONORABLE DANILO L. The antecedent facts are undisputed: On October 5. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. Med-Arbiter Danilo L. On January 18. On December 19. J. Petitioner. 1991.

and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. On the first issue. recall. Augusto Sanchez. by the very nature of their functions. The only question that need be addressed is whether these employees are properly classified as confidential employees or not. they are not allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join.therefore. v. in the normal course of their duties. are not eligible to join. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential employees. Therefore. assist and act in a confidential capacity to. the disposition of grievances. do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit. they are not allowed to participate in the certification election. join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining following the above court¶s ruling.[5] The two criteria are cumulative. the motion is hereby granted and the Decision of this Office dated 03 September 1991 is hereby modified to the extent that employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3 and S4) and the so-called exempt employees are not allowed to join the proposed bargaining unit and are therefore excluded from those who could participate in the certification election. v. layoff. become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the ³confidential employee rule.[12] An important element of the ³confidential employee rule´ is the employee¶s need to use labor relations information. or have access to confidential matters of. They are. hence ineligible from joining a union. they are not allowed to form. are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire. Ferrer-Calleja´[10] and in the more recent case of ³Philips Industrial Development.[7] ³Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the company¶s position with regard to contract negotiations. Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity. or other labor relations matters. NLRC´[11] which held that confidential employees. persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. Consequently. and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. suspend.´[3] Hence this petition. Inc. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. Thus. [6] The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who. Hon. this Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term ³confidential employees´ who may be prohibited from joining a union. WHEREFORE. therefore.´[8] There have been ample precedents in this regard. under Article 245[4] of the Labor Code. Inc. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. determine. the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. assist or join a labor union was held equally applicable to them. not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who. (2) to persons who formulate. In the very same provision. thus in Bulletin Publishing Company v.´ The same rationale was applied to confidential employees in ³Golden Farms. If they are not confidential employees. 2.[9] the Court held that ³if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union. and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee ± that is. the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form. the confidential relationship must exist between the employees and his supervisor. in determining the confidentiality of certain employees. a key questions frequently considered is the employees¶ necessary access to confidential labor relations . transfer. For resolution in this case are the following issues: 1. There is no question that the said employees. supervisors and the exempt employees. discharge or dismiss employees.´ The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests. assist or form any labor organization.

To effectively oversee the quality control function at the processing lines in the storage of chicken and other products.[22] In the case at bar. this Court rules that they may appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. National Labor Relations Board. will not clause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining unit representing employees of the union or association.[14] In the same questionnaire. or which the association represents. holding and rejection of direct manufacturing materials. and knowledge of labor relations information pertaining to the companies with which the union deals. From the foregoing functions.[13] It is the contention of respondent corporation that Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees come within the meaning of the term ³confidential employees´ primarily because they answered in the affirmative when asked ³Do you handle confidential data or documents?´ in the Position Questionnaires submitted by the Union. supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential employees merely because they handle ³confidential data´ as such must first be strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said restrictions. must have access to confidential labor information with respect to his employer. 4.information. To administer efficient system of evaluation of products in the outlets. to our mind. product standards and product specification which by no means relate to ³labor relations. such as financial information[18] or technical trade secrets.[23] In this connection. As held in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. jurisprudence has established that there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.´ It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to guarantee to ³all´ workers the right to self-organization. confidential employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees of their right bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing. even assuming that they are confidential employees. Thus. To be directly responsible for the recall. or the association. it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern the employer¶s internal business operations.´[19] Herein listed are the functions of supervisors 3 and higher: 1. said access does not render the employee a confidential employee. Hence. however. To undertake decisions to discontinue/temporarily stop shift operations when situations require. 2. an employee of a labor union. or of a management association.[20] It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their functions.´[17] ³Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint. 5. has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial.´[15] Granting arguendo that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance of such duties.[21] ³an employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning employer¶s internal business operations and which is not related to the field of labor relations. the union. such information must relate to the employer¶s labor relations policies. to be regarded a confidential employee.[16] ³If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in the determination of an employee¶s confidential status. will not render an employee a confidential employee. The information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business operations data which. it was also stated that the confidential information handled by questioned employees relate to product formulation. 3. Furthermore. the issue of whether the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia . Since the employees are not classifiable under the confidential type. To recommend and initiate actions in the maintenance of sanitation and hygiene throughout the plant.

In light of these considerations. 171153 September 12. Pampanga is immaterial. Laguna and the Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification election.Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. The two other plants still in operation can well step up their production and make up for the slack caused by the bargaining unit engaged in the concerted activity. they perform work of the same nature. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees. WHEREFORE. in Otis. is contrary to the one-company. consistent with equity to the employer. Pandacan. Manila. It adds that Supervisors level 1 to 4 and exempt employees of the three plants have a similarity or a community of interests. receive the same wages and compensation. SO ORDERED. Laguna. petitioner. the Solicitor General has opined that separate bargaining units in the three different plants of the division will fragmentize the employees of the said division. Metro Manila. Los Baños. Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed as demonstrated in UP v. Neither are there regional differences that are likely to impede the operations of a single bargaining representative.´[24] A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial.R. in Cabuyao. 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE and the Order of the Med-Arbiter on December 19.[27] The fact that the three plants are located in three different places. mutual interests in wages. SAN . Quezon City. hours. 1990 is REINSTATED under which a certification election among the supervisors (level 1 to 4) and exempt employees of the San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. which the collective interest of all the employees. This Court finds the contention of the petitioner meritorious. and in San Fernando. and most importantly. the assailed Order of March 11. working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining.´ which is the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.[25] It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have ³community or mutuality of interest. No. Padre Faura. San Fernando. and Otis as one bargaining unit is ordered conducted. in all probability. one each for Cabuyao Otis and San Fernando as ruled by the respondent Undersecretary. It is the contention of the petitioner union that the creation of three (3) separate bargaining units. Calleja-Ferrer where all non-academic rank and file employees of the University of the Philippines inDiliman. Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. 2007 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION ±PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU ±PTGWO). thus greatly diminishing their bargaining leverage. This means that.[26] It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation. vs. An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as ³a group of employees of a given employer. one-union policy. and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit needs to be threshed out. namely. although they belong to three different plants. share a common stake in concerted activities. not create much impact on the operations of the private respondent. Any concerted activity held against the private respondent for a labor grievance in one bargaining unit will. San Fernando. We rule that the distance among the three plants is not productive of insurmountable difficulties in the administration of union affairs. indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. This situation will clearly frustrate the provisions of the Labor Code and the Mandate of the Constitution.

it cannot directly create a local or chapter.13 Respondent appealed to the BLR.8 All three petitions were dismissed. 12 On 14 July 2000. NCR -OD-9908-007-IRD. In its petition. 66200. respondent submitted the requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal personality. and non-compliance with registration requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. In a Decision dated 19 February 2001. Regional Director Lim further ruled that respondent is allowed to directly create a local or chapter. The following are the antecedent facts: Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular monthlypaid rank and file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation (SMC).5 In compliance with registration requirements. petitioner claimed that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization. petitioner accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO. respondent1.6 Upon submission of its charter certificate and other documents. Respondent is registered as a chapter of PambansangDiwangManggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). respondent filed with the Med-Arbiter of the DOLE Regional Officer in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR). 112 to respondent on 15 June 1999. PDMP issued Charter Certificate No. and irregularity in the submission of documents by respondent. SMCSU. (b) and (c)10 and 234(c)11 of the Labor Code. Thus. on the ground that the separate petitions fragmented a single bargaining unit. DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. J. . denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.9 On 17 August 1999. Moreover. hence. appellant is not required to submit the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. petitioner SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU -PTGWO) prays that this Court reverse and set aside the (a) Decision 2 dated 9 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. three separate petitions for certification election to represent SMPP. in all offices and plants of SMC. affirming the Decision 3 dated 19 February 2001 of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which upheld the Certificate of Registration of respondent SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION±PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU±PDMP).R. SP No. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a). It had been the certified bargaining agent for 20 years ± from 1987 to 1997. including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna. thus.7 Thereafter.MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION ±PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU±PDMP). it declared: As a chartered local union. he found that respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and. Lim issued an Order dismissing the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. However. and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP). respondent was issued Certificate of Creation of Local or Chapter PDMP -01 by the BLR on 6 July 1999. ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. 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. namely. San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP). and SMBP. The petition was docketed as Case No. the revocation of its registration based on non-compliance with the 20% membership requirement does not have any basis in the rules. but a trade union center. the San Miguel Corporate Staff Unit (SMCSU). and (b) the Resolution4 dated 16 January 2006 of the Court of Appeals in the same case.

ruling as follows: In Department Order No. the principal office address of the local. the BLR denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed its Decision dated 19 February 2001. 9. SP No. the appeal is hereby GRANTED. the assailed decision and resolution of the BLR are AFFIRMED. it is a holder of Registration Certificate No. 14 While the BLR agreed with the findings of the DOLE Regional Director dismissing the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure docketed as CA-G. On this basis. in a Decision dated 9 March 2005. the decision of t he Regional Director dated July 14. The present petition questions the legal personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy. In a Resolution rendered on 19 June 2001 in BLR-A-C-64-05-9-00 (NCR-OD-9908007-IRD). Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the BLR. in accordance with the provisions of Department Order No. there is no need for SMPPEU to show a membership of 20% of the employees of the bargaining unit in order to be recognized as a legitimate labor union. PDMP can charter or create a local.R. association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: .15 Invoking the power of the appellate court to review decisions of quasi-judicial agencies. this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where petitioner raises the sole issue of: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND NAMES OF ALL ITS MEMBERS COMPRISING AT LEAST 20% OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT WHERE IT SEEKS TO OPERATE. The [herein respondent] is an affiliate of a registered federation PDMP. Hence. which bestowed upon it the status of a legitimate labor organization with all the rights and privileges to act as repres entative of its members for purposes of collective bargaining agreement. although PDMP is considered as a trade union center. dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision of the BLR. and the names of its officers and their addresses. Under the rules we have reviewed. FED-11558-LC issued by the BLR on 14 February 1991. a registered federation or national union may directly create a local by submitting to the BLR copies of the charter certificate. and the petition is DISMISSED. the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision. the local's constitution and by-laws. the local shall be issued a certificate and included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. Accordingly. it reversed the Regional Director's ruling that the 20% membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal personality as a labor organization. 2000. Appellant shall hereby remain in the roster of le gitimate labor organizations. 16 Subsequently. 9. canceling the registration of appellant San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-PambansangDiwangManggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. in a Resolution dated 16 January 2006. 66200. Upon complying with the documentary requirements. citing Article 234(c) of the Labor Code which stipulates that any applicant labor organization. The Court of Appeals. having been issued a charter certificate. WHEREFORE. xxxx In view of the foregoing.Further. and in upholding that PDMP can directly create a local or a chapter.

Appropriate Bargaining Unit. one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative 23 of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied. particularly the right to file a petition for certification election. 112 on 15 June 1999. in any case. respondent was directly chartered by PDMP. 25 A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a "local" or "chapter" of PDMP and was issued Charter Certificate No. b. .24 The acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization. Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. copies of its annual financial reports. the principal address of the labor organization. 21 and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public interest.00) registration fee. the employees in the transferred plant shall remain in the bargaining unit covered by this Agreement. a plant within the territory covered by this Agreement is transferred outside but within a radius of fifty (50) kilometers from the Rizal Monument. Hence. Rizal Park. The names of its officers. depends on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. There is merit in petitioner's contentions.The appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists of all regular rank and file employees paid on the basis of fixed salary per month and employed by the COMPANY in its Corporate Staff Units (CSU). that if during the term of this Agreement. and e. 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. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings. San Miguel Brewing Products (SMBP) and San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP) and in different operations existing in the City of Manila and suburbs. c. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years. their addresses. Article 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 18 quoted hereunder: ARTICLE 1 SCOPE Section 1. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union.a. including Metal Closure and Lithography Plant located at Canlubang. failed to meet this 20% membership requirement since it based its membership on the number of employees of a single division only. d. minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it."20 The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure strict compliance with the requirements on registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code. and includes any branch or local thereof. 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. namely. Petitioner refers to Section 1. Metro Manila.) Petitioner thus maintains that respondent. Fifty pesos (P50. 17 Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of respondent must be based not on the number of employees of a single division. the SMPP. first and foremost. A legitimate labor organization19 is defined as "any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. Laguna subject to the provisions of Article XV of this Agreement provided however.22 Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions.

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years. the principal address of the labor organization. Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an independent labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon its registration with the BLR: Any applicant labor organization.00) registration fee. (b) The names of the local/chapter's officers. finding application in the instant petition. 9. copies of its annual financial reports. Rule VI. The first involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The Implementing Rules as amended by D. and (c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws. 27 A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local or chapter by submitting to the DOLE Regional Office or to the BLR two copies of the following: (a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter. their addresses. 28 The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by a federation or national union. That where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union.26 The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: (a) Fifty pesos (P50. A duly constituted local or chapter created in accordance with the foregoing shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents with the BLR. this fact shall be indicated accordingly.29 The issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or the DOLE Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local or a chapter under Department Order No. (b) The names of its officers. 9. 9 should govern the resolution of the petition at bar since respondent's petition for certification election was filed with the BLR in 1999. (c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. This Court disagrees. as amended by Department Order No. All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President. 9 which took effect on 21 June 1997. as amended by Department Order No. and the principal office of the local/chapter.O. and again by Department Order No. their addresses. Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1. Provided. No. and that of petitioner on 17 August 1999. The second. 30 Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules. 40 dated 17 February 2003. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings. violated Article 234 of the Labor Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a chapter or local. and .The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is provided in Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of chartering.

As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration through fraud and misrepresentation. are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.32 The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor. the labor organization.(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union. indeed. local or chapter is treated differently. the same is no longer required of a branch. among other things. However. local or chapter. association or group of unions or workers. The law is very clear on this matter. and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Furthermore. cannot be subject to a collateral attack. in the landmark case of Progressive Development Corporation v. In the process. 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. 39 . and programs. this line of reasoning attempts to predicate that a trade union center is not a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner's argument creates a predicament as it hinges on the legitimacy of PDMP as a labor organization. This Court had. albeit indirectly. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies. this Court finds that the imputations are not impressed with merit. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. minutes of its adoption or ratification. such as PDMP."38 On the other hand. proof to declare that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting. standards. however. Secondly.) It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization. This Court. Anent the foregoing. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit. it being a trade union center. local or chapter. Article 212 (h) of the Labor Code. 36 Still. not being a legitimate labor organization. the same contention premises that a trade union center cannot directly create a local or chapter through the process of chartering. acquires no rights. and the list of the members who participated in it. as has been held in a long line of cases. holds on to a mere scrap of paper. this Court was unequivocal in finding that there is no inconsistency between the Labor Code and Department Order No. v. Firstly. that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Department of Labor and Employment. as amended. In the instant case. the creation of a branch. which. as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III. pronounced that registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized. 31 declared that when an unregistered union becomes a branch. Section 2 of the Implementing Rules. defines a legitimate labor organization37 as "any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE. petitioner postulates that respondent was not validly and legitimately created. 9. on several occasions. and includes any branch or local thereof. 35 This Court emphasizes. such as the BLR. some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Inc. Book V of the Implementing Rules. in Pagpalain Haulers. at best.33 Subsequently. which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. (Italics supplied. the legal personality of a legitimate labor organization. this Court is not a trier of facts. for PDMP cannot create a local or chapter as it is not a legitimate labor organization. Trajano34 where the validity of Department Order No. Secretary. a trade union center is any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members. for assisting such members in collective bargaining. and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III. Under such circumstances. or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies. the legitimacy of PDMP is being impugned. 9 was directly put in issue. The records of the case are devoid of such evidence.

and programs. The Labor Code was first amended by Republic Act No. 44 Presidential Decree No. PDMP is granted all the rights and privileges appurtenant to a legitimate labor organization. Once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization. in the case of an industry union. its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization subsists. and they continue to evolve. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein. and recently. we take this occasion to reiterate the first and fundamental duty of this Court. FED-11558-LC by the BLR on 14 February 1991. under Department Order No. Apropos. 46 The same rule provides that the application for registration of an industry or trade union center shall be supported by the following: (a) The list of its member organizations and their respective presidents and. 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. 6715. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union. . We now proceed to the contention that PDMP cannot directly create a local or a chapter. Being a legislation on social justice. PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued Registration Certificate No. Corollarily. This Court reverses the finding of the appellate court and BLR on this ground. or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies. a trade union center is any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members. (b) The resolution of membership of each member organization. approved by the Board of Directors of such union. both statutory and regulatory. considering that labor plays a major role as a socioeconomic force. standards. This being a collateral attack. The term trade union center was first adopted in the Implementing Rules. it continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation. and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III. The aforementioned provision is enunciated in the following: Sec. the industry where the union seeks to operate. 5. which is to apply the law. 43 we find no legal justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering. for assisting such members in collective bargaining. Effect of registration. 9. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack. 9. After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law provisions. Book V of the Implementing Rules. 442. but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. it being a trade union center. better known as the Labor Code. Section 2 of the Implementing Rules. by Republic Act No. 9481. was enacted in 1972.41 It bears to emphasize that what is being directly challenged is the personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization and not that of PDMP.40 It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V. even as it was amended by Republic Act No. this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain questions indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP. 6715. 442. Culling from its definition as provided by Department Order No. 45 the provisions of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules have been subject to several amendments. Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled. Incidentally.42 and continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is successfully impugned and thereafter cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation. the term trade union center was never mentioned under Presidential Decree No. its legal personalit y cannot be subject to collateral attack. and rules that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter.The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration.

while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten locals or chapters or affiliates. and (d) A copy of its constitution and by-laws and minutes of its ratification by a majority of the presidents of the member organizations.47 Evidently. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter. otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. 51 Republic Act No. it shall be sufficient that the fact of ratification be included in the minutes of the organizational meeting. as amended. each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective bargaining agent. Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. and (c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws. 234. Pertinent amendments read as follows: SECTION 1. 442. The provision reads: Section 1. this fact shall be indicated accordingly. the minutes of its organizational meeting/s. on the other hand. provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union. ² A federation. Article 234 of Presidential Decree No.49 The Implementing Rules. provided that where the ratification was done simultaneously with the organizational meeting. 442. . 9 defines a "chartered local" as a labor organization in the private sector operating at the enterprise level that acquired legal personality through a charter certificate. the names of its officers and their addresses. 50 Department Order No. 9481 or "An Act Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional Right to Self Organization. is composed of a group of registered national unions or federations.(c) The name and principal address of the applicant. issued by a duly registered federation or national union and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with Rule III. is hereby further amended to read as follows: ART. (b) The names of the local/chapter's officers.53 This law further amends the Labor Code provisions on Labor Relations. Section 2-E of these Rules. and the principal office of the local/chapter. their addresses. provide that "a duly registered federation or national union" may directly create a local or chapter. Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines" lapsed52 into law on 25 May 2007 and became effective on 14 June 2007. All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President. Requirements of Registration. ± A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: (a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter. 9 mentions two labor organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering ± a duly registered federation or a national union. Department Order No.48 a trade union center. 9. As Amended. as amended by Department Order No.00) registration fee. and the list of member organizations and their representatives who attended such meeting/s. national union or industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: (a) Fifty pesos (P50.

and (b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided. but interestingly. namely Article 234-A." Also worth emphasizing is that even in the most recent amendment of the implementing rules. since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules. then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly. this fact shall be indicated accordingly. This Court deems it proper to apply the Latin maxim expressiouniusestexclusioalterius. the principal address of the labor organization. If its intent were otherwise. and (e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union. their addresses. . it may not. minutes of its adoption or ratification. contract. Casus omissus pro omissohabendusest. A person. 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. be extended to other matters. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate. Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. If a statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision. and the principal office of the chapter. The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by its president.) Article 234 now includes the term trade union center. or will. the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. (d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years. 234-A. by interpretation or construction. 54 there was no mention of a trade union center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter. (c) In case the applicant is an independent union. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as Article 234-A to read as follows: ART. the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union. and the list of the members who participated in it. still makes no mention of a "trade union center. and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein. When certain persons or things are specified in a law. SECTION 2. Under this maxim of statutory interpretation. the law could have so easily and conveniently included "trade union centers" in identifying the labor organizations allowed to charter a chapter or local. 56 Such is the case here.(b) The names of its officers. Therefore. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom. object or thing omitted must have been omitted intentionally.57 The rule is restrictive in the sense that it proceeds from the premise that the legislating body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.55 Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters. 59 What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. the provision indicating the procedure for chartering or creating a local or chapter. That where the chapter's constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national union. (Emphasis ours. 58Expressiumfacitcessare tacitum. copies of its annual financial reports. ² A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization only upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate: (a) The names of the chapter's officers. other exceptions or effects are excluded. their addresses.

and SMPPEU-PDMP DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization.62 As a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code and involved in activities directly affecting public interest. it is necessary that the law afford utmost protection to the parties affected.The ruling of this Court in the instant case is not a departure from the policy of the law to foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement. 64 In sum.60 and thus assure the rights of workers to self-organization.R. 2009 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. JJ. The Decision dated 09 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. Absent the institution of safeguards. it has no power to directly create a local or chapter. Chairperson. J. but must have complied with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an independent union. Costs against petitioner. SECOND DIVISION THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner. the instant Petition is GRANTED. is to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as requisites for local or chapter formation. including the 20% membership requirement. Respondent. SO ORDERED. .. October 30. it becomes a convenient device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or union on unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness. Our only recourse. and Abad. J. G. 66200 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. it is not this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by law. The Certificate of Registration of San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union±PambansangDiwangManggagawang Pilipino is ORDERED CANCELLED. WHEREFORE. 177024 Present: Quisumbing.versus - PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA Promulgated: (PIGLAS-HERITAGE). 63 However. as previously discussed. Carpio.: . Thus. It has been observed that the formation of a local or chapter becomes a handy tool for the circumvention of union registration requirements. * Chico-Nazario. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment. No. as this Court has enunciated in Progressive Development Corporation v.x DECISION ABAD.** Brion.61 The mandate of the Labor Code in ensuring strict compliance with the procedural requirements for registration is not without reason. SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created under the more lenient requirements for chartering. which is basic to free unionism.

in truth. The company claimed that the HHE union intentionally omitted disclosure of its affiliation with NUWHRAIN because the company¶s supervisors union was already affiliated with it. prompting the company to file a petition for certiorari[7] with the Court of Appeals.[3] Thus. On October 12. The company alleged that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union.[8] The decision of the Court of Appeals became . effective until the petition for cancel lation of that union¶s registration shall have been resolved with finality.[4] Meanwhile. the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the HHE union¶s registration certificate. when it was.[6] The Secretary also denied petitioner¶s motion for reconsideration. the HHE union filed a petition for certification election [2] that petitioner company opposed. 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE union¶s certification election. a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). the Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union¶s petition for certification election. The Facts and the Case Sometime in 2000.[5] Petitioner company appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor but the latter denied the appeal. The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) later issued a certificate of registration[1] to this union.This case is about a company¶s objections to the registration of its rank and file union for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration. certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila (petitioner company) formed the ³Heritage Hotel Employees Union´ (the HHE union). Subsequently.

the employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals¶ injunction against the holding of the certification election sought by the former union. 2004. 2003.final when the HHE union withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court. 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election[12] that petitioner company also opposed. adopted a resolution for its dissolution. however. 2003 bore the signature of 127 members who ratified the union¶s Constitution and By-Laws. This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR[10] and got its registration certificate on February 9.[18] (d) . the respondent Pinag-IsangGaling at LakasngmgaManggagawasa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union).[13] On December 6. Two months later. the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election. the HHE union.[16] The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10. the members of the first union.[11] On September 4. alleging that the new union¶s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.[14] The company claimed that the documents submitted with the union¶s application for registration bore the following false information: (a) (b) (c) The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members. 2004 petitioner company filed a petition to cancel the union registration of respondent PIGLAS union. [9] On December 10.[17] and The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting. According to the company.[15] The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting on December 10. Despite the company¶s opposition. 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed another union.

according to the company. the Bureau of Labor Relation (BLR) affirmed the ruling of the DOLE-NCR.[19] On appeal. violated the policy against dual unionism and showed that the new union was merely an alter ego of the old. with a total of 250 employees in the bargaining unit. the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20 percent membership requirement. 2005 the DOLE-NCR denied the company¶s petition to cancel respondent PIGLAS union¶s registration for the reason that the discrepancies in the number of members stated in the application¶s supporting documents were not material and did not constitute misrepresentation. Here. because of the dissolution of the old union and the cancellation of its certificate of registration. The company further alleged that 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were members of the defunct HHE union. On February 22. It merely exposed a union member to a possible charge of disloyalty. It was possible for the number of attendees to have increased from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed. As for the issue of dual unionism. It reasoned that respondent PIGLAS union¶s organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. the members of the former union simply exercised their right to self-organization and to the freedom of association when they subsequently joined the PIGLAS union.Petitioner company 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 in the number of signatories to the attendance and signature sheets. said the BLR. The minutes reported that only 90 employees attended the meeting. an internal matter. As for the charge of dual unionism. the union could not be accused of misrepresentation since it did not pad its membership to secure registration. the same is not a ground for canceling registration. it has become moot and academic. Thus. This. Besides. [20] .

the company filed this petition for review under Rule 45.[22] The company filed a motion for reconsideration. [23] Hence. not being accompanied by material documents and portions of the record. A petition lacking in .Petitioner company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Rulings of the Court First. petitions for certiorari that lack copies of essential pleadings and portions of the record may be dismissed but this rule has not been regarded as absolute.[24] The Court of Appeals has three courses of action when the annexes to the petition are insufficient. Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration. As a general rule. or order the filing of an amended petition with the required pleadings or documents. [25] require the submission of the relevant documents. 2. It may dismiss the petition. and 3. attaching parts of the record that were deemed indispensable but the court denied it for lack of merit. But the latter court dismissed the petition. The omission may be cured. Issues Presented The petition presents the following issues: 1. While the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the company¶s petition initially for failure to attach material portions of the record.[21] assailing the order of the BLR. Whether or not ³dual unionism´ is a ground for canceling a union¶s registration. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari before it for failure of petitioner company to attach certain material portions of the record. the court should have bended back a little when petitioner company subsequently attached those missing materials to its motion for reconsideration.

.[26] Second. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents.essential pleadings or portions of the record may still be given due course. upon subsequent submission of the necessary documents or to serve the higher interest of justice. or reinstated if earlier dismissed. It is serious because once such charge is proved. Consequently. the case may now be resolved on the merits. Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that it did not. Since a remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for a determination of the substantive issues will only result in more delays and since these issues have been amply argued by the opposing sides in the various pleadings and documents they submitted to this Court. the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny.[27] Here. charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances. the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to labor authorities can be explained. petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the union¶s application for registration.

But. The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 a. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late attendees.While it appears in the minutes of the December 10. the names found in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the union¶s registration. This omission. to 11:00 p. the union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements. the Labor Code[28] and its implementing rules[29] do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit the names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning. There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127 members ratified the union¶s constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet. Yet the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. as the labor authorities held. it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance.m. A comparison of the documents shows that. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process. At any rate. For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by -laws democratically ratified. this discrepancy is immaterial.m. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to represent . except for six members. said the company. Notably.

consisted of 250 employees. the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26. is not a ground for canceling the new union¶s registration. 2006.R. JR.. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were required to unionize. petitioner¶s arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and academic. the PIGLAS union¶s supporting documents reveal the unmistakable yearning of petitioner company¶s rank and file employees to organize. COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU). Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union¶s members were also members of the old rank and file union. Here. DECISION VELASCO. SO ORDERED. 2007 1 and June 6.R. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. Besides. SP No. HHE union is dead. 98624. This yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.[30] Here. J. the union more than complied with such requirement. 2010 EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB. Thus. Respondents. WHEREFORE. Third. denying a similar recourse petitioner earlier interposed to set . Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. the HHE union.2 issued in CA-G. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already been cancelled. Petitioner. 2007. No. Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club (Eagle Ridge) assails and seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 27. 178989 March 18. vs.: In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Petitioner Eagle Ridge is a corporation engaged in the business of maintaining golf courses. 2007. Cert. EREU. 199810 before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office IV (RO IV). either of which is below the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. Eagle Ridge opposed this petition. 2005. the numerical composition of the Union. Form No. 2005 and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures on the documents. four additional employees joined the union on December 8. Going into specifics. at least 20% of Eagle Ridge¶s rank-and-file employees²the percentage threshold required under Article 234(c) of the Labor Code for union registration²had a meeting where they organized themselves into an independent labor union. Eagle Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 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 bylaws on December 6. Eagle Ridge¶s petition ascribed misrepresentation. Eagle Ridge contended that five employees who attended the organizational meeting had manifested the desire to withdraw from the union. The withdrawal of the five. The EREU then filed a petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf &Country Club. the required number would be 22 or 23 employees. 2005. Reckoned from 112 rank-and-file employees of Eagle Ridge. Cert. 2006 Decision3 of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or Union). 2006. 234(c) of the Labor Code. 2005. around 112 rank-and-file employees. As a counterpoint. at the end of CY 2005. I-LO. 5 elected a set of officers. false statement. Finally. effectively reduced the union membership to 20 or 21.11 followed by its filing of a petition for the cancellation12 of Reg. which does not make it either grave or malicious warranting the cancellation of the union¶s registration. and that they now wanted to be excluded from the Union. attesting that they arrived late at said meeting which they claimed to be drinking spree. 14 argued in gist: 1) the petition for cancellation was procedurally deficient as it does not contain a certification against forum shopping and that the same was verified by one not duly authorized by Eagle Ridge¶s board. Eagle Ridge maintained. 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members. Docketed as RO400-0602AU-003. 2005. making one signature a forgery. In time. It had. The instant case is an off-shot of the desire of a number of these employees to organize themselves as a legitimate labor union and their employer¶s opposition to their aspiration. that they did not know that the documents they signed on that occasion pertained to the organization of a union. docketed as Case No. RO400-0601-RU-002. 6 and ratified7 their constitution and by-laws.aside the December 21. when the minutes of its December 6. in it s Comment. thus raising the union membership to 30 members as of December 19. s. RO400-200512-UR-003. DOLE RO IV granted the application and issued EREU Registration Certificate (Reg. RO400-200512-UR-003. 3) the understatement by one member who ratified the constitution and by-laws was a typographical error. EREU formally applied for registration 9 and filed BLR Reg. as reiterated in a Resolution4 of March 7. The five executed individu al affidavits or Sinumpaang Salaysay13 on February 15. No.) No. or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws. and the election of its officers. 2005. 8 On December 19. The Facts On December 6. 4) the retraction of 5 union members should not be given any credence for the reasons that: (a) the . 2) the alleged discrepancies are not real for before filing of its application on December 19.

and approved by the union president. the Union appealed to the BLR. and (d) citing La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. 2006 or long before February 15. The Ruling of the DOLE Regional Director After due proceedings. thus contending that the retractions do not affect nor be deemed compelling enough to cancel its certificate of registration. issued on April 28. processed with recommendation for approval. Eagle Ridge presented another Sinumpaang Salaysay23 of retraction dated March 15. 2006 of the Union¶s legal counsel." it asserted the applicability of said ruling as the petition for certification election was filed on January 10. 2005. non-compliance with which is a ground to dismiss a petition for cancellation of a certificate of registration. of four other union members. Undeterred by successive set backs. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations. contending that: 1) Contrary to the ruling of the BLR OIC Director. Ferrer-Calleja 15 and Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. contrary to the requirement for the admission of such evidence under Sec. it presented the Sama-SamangSinumpaang Salaysay19 dated March 20. Art. another Sama-SamangSinumpaang Salaysay. Region IV-A. . This same member was listed in the first Sama-SamangSinumpaang Salaysay24 presented by the Union but did not sign it. In its Reply. 2006 of another union member. (c) following. RO400-200512-UR-003 being granted and EREU being delisted from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. Atty. No. the BLR.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. Cert. 17Belyca Corporation and Oriental Tin Can Labor Union. The membership of EREU had thus been further reduced to only 19 or 20. the employees¶ withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the petition. issued receipts for admission fees. And to rebut the allegations in the affidavits of retraction of the five union members. focusing on the question of misrepresentation. Moreover. As Eagle Ridge claimed. where the Court ruled that "once the required percentage requirement has been reached. 2006 when the affidavits of retraction were executed by the five union members. the recourse docketed as BLR A-C-30-5-31-06 (Case No.20 also bearing date March 20. 16 it can be presumed that "duress. 2006 an Order25 finding for Eagle Ridge. (DO) 40-03 and the Rules of Court. Belyca Corporation v. Domingo T. then headed by an Officer-in-Charge (OIC). 22 Eagle Ridge reiterated the grounds it raised in its petition for cancellation and asserted further that the four additional members were fraudulently admitted into the Union. The Ruling of the BLR Initially. Añonuevo. a certificate of non -forum shopping is mandatory requirement. coercion or valuable consideration" was brought to bear on the retracting members. affirmed 26 the appealed order of the DOLE Regional Director. These affidavits attested to the orderly and proper proceedings of the organizational meeting on December 6. 2006. its petition to cancel Reg. IV of the union¶s constitution and by-laws nor were they shown to have been duly received. (b) the retracting members did not deny signing the union documents. 2005 of four additional members. RO400-0602-AU-003). The Union presented the duly accomplished union membership forms18 dated December 8. the applications of the four neither complied with the r equirements under Section 2. EREU interposed a motion for reconsideration. 2) It was erroneous for both the Regional Director and the BLR OIC Director to give credence to the retraction statements of union members which were not presented for reaffirmation during any of the hearings of the case. Rule XI of DO 40-03. 2006 of eight union members. and the Sworn Statement21 dated March 16. the DOLE Regional Director. under Department Order No. Aggrieved. 11. Secretary of Labor and Employment.

The Ruling of the CA On April 27. [THE CA] COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE COMPANY¶S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND DENYING ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONSIDERING THAT THE COMPANY¶S PRE VIOUS COUNSEL WAS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE COMPANY IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BEFORE THE [CA]. IN ORDER NOT TO FURTHER PREJUDICE THE COMPANY. the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and our Resolution dated 28 July 2006 is hereby VACATED.27 dismissed Eagle Ridge¶s petition for being deficient. as: 1. but sans [the requisite] Secretary¶s Certificate or Board Resolution authorizing her to execute and sign the same. the Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU) shall remain in the roster of legitimate organizations. to represent the corporation. albeit the latter had submitted a certificate to show that its legal counsel has been authorized. The CA later denied. Eagle Ridge sought but was denied reconsideration per the BLR¶s Resolution dated March 7. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT COULD TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE MERITS OF THIS CASE AND RESOLVE THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. disposing as follows: WHEREFORE. the BLR Director eschewed procedural technicalities. now headed by Director Rebecca C. 2006 order of the BLR OIC Director. Nonetheless. in its second assailed resolution. Piezas on her representation as the legal counsel of the petitioner. II. 2006 and the Resolution dated March 7. 2007. Eagle Ridge thereupon went to the CA on a petition for certiorari. and 2. Eagle Ridge¶s motion for reconsideration. the BLR. The Issues Eagle Ridge is now before us via this petition for certiorari on the s ubmissions that: I. the appellate court. 28 The Court¶s Ruling We dismiss the petition. Accordingly. 2007. In turn aggrieved. she found as without basis allegations of misrepresentation or fraud as ground for cancellation of EREU¶s registration.In a Decision dated December 21. Chato. set aside the July 28. per a board resolution. . the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was subscribed to by Luna C. In finding for the Union. 2007 Resolution [appended to the petition] are mere machine copies. the questioned [BLR] Decision dated December 21. THERE WAS FRAUD. in a terse two-page Resolution. MISREPRESENTATION AND/OR FALSE STATEMENT WHICH WARRANT THE CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF EREU. 2006.

"31 Sec. The records yield the following material dates and incidents: Eagle Ridge received the May 7. as it in fact filed its petition on April 18. 2007. Atty. issues. 3. prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter of right. to represent it before the appellate court. the sworn verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the petition for certiorari of Eagle Ridge filed before the CA carried the sig nature of its counsel without the requisite authority. 2007 resolution of the BLR Director on March 9. he must state the status of the same x xx. to sign under oath the requisite certification against non-forum shopping. was passed within the reglementary period for filing the petition. (Emphasis supplied. ERGCCI 07/III-01 that authorized its counsel of record. The appellate court¶s assailed action is in no way tainted with grave abuse of discretion. was only issued in a meeting of its board on May 10. the approval of which is certified to by the secretary¶s certification. rejected Eagle Ridge¶s virtual plea for the relaxation of the rules on the signing of the verification and certification against forum shopping. The authorization for its counsel. This particular situation does not. however. 2007 to file a petition for certiorari. as Eagle Ridge would have this Court believed. Piezas has signed and filed for Eagle Ridge the petition for certiorari. 2007 before the CA. however. Eagle Ridge tried to address its faux pas by submitting its board secretary¶s Certificate 33 dated May 15. 35 Yet. Thus. attesting to the issuance on May 10. or any other tribunal or agency. 2007 or a couple of days beyond the 60day reglementary period referred to in filing a certiorari action.Procedural Issue: Lack of Authority Certiorari is an extraordinary. and cause of action. paragraphs 4 and 6 of Rule 46 pertinently provides: SEC. not his counsel. however. 30 Petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require a "sworn certification of non -forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3. there was no substantial . the Court of Appeals x xx. the Rules requires the petitioner. xxxx The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. effect of non-compliance with requirements. 34 The submission of the board secretary¶s certificate through a motion for reconsideration of the CA¶s decision dismissing the petition for certiorari may be considered a substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. 2007 of Board Resolution No. The CA. Such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party. ² xxxx xxxx xxxx The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court. a certification of non-forum shopping signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition. 32 In the instant case. 29 Accordingly. 2007. Piezas.) Evidently. observing that the board resolution adverted to was approved after Atty. an assurance to the court that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties. Luna C. if there is such other action or proceeding. Contents and filing of petition. this rule presupposes that the authorizing board resolution. Indeed. thus giving it 60 days or up to May 8. Rule 46. obtain under the premises. the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law. 3.

the counsel affixes his signature on it. as Eagle Ridge urges. thus.) It is. exceptions are invariably recognized and the relaxation of procedural rules on review has been effected to obviate jeopardizing substantial justice. And obviously. 37 But concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. should be treated as a ratificatory medium of the counsel¶s act of signing the sworn certification of non-forum shopping. however. If for the foregoing considerations alone. freed from the constraints of technicalities. as well as the typographical error in its . Sec. Nevertheless. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and. albeit passed after the filing of the petition was filed. and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. As earlier indicated. the Union asserts bona fide compliance with the registration requirements under Art. that its counsel¶s authority to represent the corporation was never questioned before the DOLE regional office and agency. Eagle Ridge maintains that the submitted board resolution. the Court will explore the merits of the instant case to obviate the inequity that might result from the outright denial of the petition. 5. explaining the seeming discrepancies between the number of employees who participated in the organizational meeting and the total number of union members at the time it filed its registration.compliance with the Rules. 3 of Rule 46 exacts this requirement. or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. but it is the client who must sign the verification and the certification against forum shopping. In filing a pleading. 239(a) and (c) of the Labor Code for its petition for cancellation of the EREU¶s registration. so does the first paragraph of Sec. Certification against forum shopping. The attestation or certification in either verification or certification of non-forum shopping requires the act of the principal party. for any reason. 234 of the Code. clear that the counsel is not the proper person to sign the certification against forum shopping. As with most rules of procedure. a complete statement of the present status thereof. Eagle Ridge has not satisfactorily explained its failure to comply. On the other hand. save when a board resolution authorizes the former to sign so.39 In addition. It may be true. We are not inclined to grant the desired liberality owing to Eagle Ridge¶s failure to sufficiently explain its failure to follow the clear rules. It is entirely a different matter for the counsel to sign the verification and the certificate of non -forum shopping. no such other action or claim is pending therein. We note that the authority to represent a client before a court or quasi -judicial agency does not require an authorizing board resolution. Eagle Ridge and its counsel erred in equating the latter¶s representation as legal counsel with the authority to sign the verification and the certificate of non-forum shopping in the former¶s behalf. ² The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. If. 5 of Rule 7 pertinently reading: SEC. the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. Substantive Issue: No Fraud in the Application Eagle Ridge cites the grounds provided under Art. he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. the Court could very well dismiss the instant petition. (Emphasis added. the principal party cannot sign the petition. But EREU¶s misstep could hardly lend Eagle Ridge comfort. as the counsel-client relationship is presumed by the counsel¶s representation by the filing of a pleading on behalf of the client. to the best of his knowledge. 36 This liberality stresses the importance of review in our judicial grievance structure to accord every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause. (b) if there is such other pending action or claim.381avvphi1 To us.

their addresses. or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election. Form No. ±± The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (a) Misrepresentation. minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it. association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: (a) Fifty pesos (P50.) A scrutiny of the records fails to show any misrepresentation. false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers . the following documents. (b) the list of rank-and-file employees44 of Eagle Ridge who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures. 2007. or fraud committed by EREU to merit cancellation of its registration. (c) the list of rank-and-file employees45 who ratified the union¶s constitution and by-laws showing the . GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION . It submitted before the DOLE Regional Office with its Application for Registration and the duly filled out BLR Reg. 2005 showing 26 founding members who elected its union officers by secret ballot. 41 xxxx ART. to wit: (a) the minutes of its organizational meeting43 held on December 6. ±± Any applicant labor organization. First. the list of voters. (c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. (b) The names of its officers. false statement. 42 (Emphasis supplied. and the adoption of the Union¶s constitution and bylaws. Before their amendment by Republic Act No. the minutes of ratification. s. 234. The Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting on December 6. xxxx (c) Misrepresentation. the election of its officers. 9481 40 on June 15. 2005.234 (on the requirements of registration of a labor union) and Art. I-LO. xxxx (e) Four copies (4) of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union. minutes of the election of officers. 1998. REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION.00) registration fee. the then governing Art. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of workers who participated in such meetings. 239 (on the grounds for cancellation of union registration) of the Labor Code respectively provided as follows: ART.certification which understated by one the number of union members who ratified the union¶s constitution and by-laws. the principal address of the labor organization. false statements or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. 239. and the list of members who took part in the ratification.

(c) merely required the list of names of all the union members comprising at least 20% of the bargaining unit. 234(b) and (c) of the Labor Code. 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. 234(c). as evidenced by the signatures beside their handwritten names. the Union already had 30 members when it applied for registration. The difference between the number of 26 members. (d) the union¶s constitution and by-laws46 as approved on December 6. (b) clearly required the submission of the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of workers who participated in the meetings. must be viewed in favor of valid membership. most especially in cases of independent labor unions. as pointed out by Eagle Ridge. that the Union. as shown by the factual antecedents. Second. 2005. Consequently. while not factual.very same list as those who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures except the addition of four employees without their signatures. a typographical error. 2005 for registration.e. Fourth. As aptly found by the BLR Director. 2005. Fifth. 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 forms. Grace Pollo.. The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. was clearly an error. Cherry Labajo. the total number of union members. which was truthfully indicated in its application for registration on December 19. 2005. 2005 while only 26 actually participated in the organizational meeting is borne by the records. All the foregoing documents except the sworn statement of the president and the secretary were accompanied by Certifications 50 by the union secretary duly attested to by the union president. owing to its scant membership. The fact. and the 25 members shown in the certification of the Union secretary as having ratified it. and (g) the Sworn Statement49 of the union¶s elected president and secretary. IV. the certification¶s understatement by one member. i. Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge. It was an insignificant mistake committed without malice or prevarication. 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. for the admission of new members is neither prohibited by law nor was it concealed in its application for registration. We are not persuaded. (e) the list of officers 47 and their addresses. Par. had not yet fully organized its different committees evidently shows the direct and valid acceptance of the four employee applicants rather than deter their admission²as erroneously asserted by Eagle Ridge. is. . Eagle Ridge¶s contention is flawed when it equated the requirements under Art. In its futile attempt to clutch at straws. as shown in the Sworn Statement of the Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its petition for cancellation. (f) the list of union members 48 showing a total of 30 members. The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19. Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission of union membership. AnnalynPoniente and Rowel Dolendo. specifically Sec. The right of employees to self-organization and membership in a union must not be trammeled by undue difficulties. The list of those who attended the organizational meeting shows 26 members. but neither a misleading one nor a misrepresentation of what had actually happened. In this case. 2 of Art. while par. Third. as of December 8. Thus. 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 that EREU had 30 members when it applied for registration on December 19. who ratified the Union¶s constitution and by-laws. was 30.

the Union. except when the party against whom the affidavit is being offered admits all allegations therein and waives the examination of the affiant. 11. In the more meaty issue of the affidavits of retraction executed by six union members. when the certificate of registration was granted. More so. as the case may be. (DO) 40-03 which was issued on February 17. For their non-presentation and consonant to the above-quoted rule. 234(c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-and-file employees in the employees¶ union. We answer in the negative. Sec. 51 The above rule affirms the general requirement in adversarial proceedings for the examination of the affiant by the party against whom the affidavit is offered. the six employees in question were bona fide union members. 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. the affidavit and jointaffidavits presented by the Union before the DOLE Regional Director were duly re-affirmed in the hearing of March 20. The six affiants of the affidavits of retraction were not presented in a hearing before the Hearing Officer (DOLE Regional Director). Evidently.4). It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of hearsay evidence. In the instant case. i. Said Rules is embodied in Department Order No. there were clearly 30 union members. 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. Thus. they never disputed affixing their . 2003 and took effect on March 15. it cannot be argued that the six affidavits of retraction retroact to the time o f the application of registration or even way back to the organizational meeting. since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant¶s statement. The DOLE Regional Director and the BLR OIC Director obviously erred in giving credence to the affidavits of retraction. 2006 by the affiants. The query is whether such separation from the Union can detrimentally affect the registration of the Union. the allegations in the six affidavits of retraction have no probative value and at the very least cannot outweigh the rebutting attestations of the duly re-affirmed affidavits presented by the Union. 2005. Rule XI of DO 40-03 specifically requires: Section 11.e. as required under the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code covering Labor Relations. it is required for affiants to re-affirm the contents of their affidavits during the hearing of the instant case for them to be examined by the opposing party. 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. The six retracting union members clearly severed and withdrew their union membership. which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover. indeed. Thus. Affirmation of testimonial evidence. 2005. 2003 to replace DO 9 of 1997. Seventh. Prior to their withdrawal. ± Any affidavit submitted by a party to prove his/her claims or defenses shall be re-affirmed by the presentation of the affiant before the MedArbiter or Hearing Officer. the six affidavits of retraction are inadmissible as evidence against the Union in the instant case. The fact that six union members. a reversible error was committed by the DOLE Regional Director and the BLR OIC Director in giving credence to the inadmissible affidavits of retraction presented by Eagle Ridge while not giving credence to the duly re-affirmed affidavits presented by the Union. but not according the same treatment to the supporting affidavits.. When the EREU filed its application for registration on December 19.Sixth. there is no dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory 20% membership requirement. Besides. Any affidavit submitted without the re-affirmation of the affiant during a scheduled hearing shall not be admitted in evidence.

for the remaining 24 union members constitute more than the 20% membership requirement of 22 employees. if any. evide ntiary value. given the factual antecedents of the instant case."54 Citing Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. 2006. 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. its attempt to raise the issue referred to is no more than an afterthought and ought to be rejected. and (5) On February 24. Evidently. as their affidavits of retraction were executed after the Union¶s petition for certification election had been filed. 2006. Cert. 2006. it may not be amiss to note. In Eastland Manufacturing Company. there is no grave abuse of discretion. 2005. on March 15. Eagle Ridge filed the instant case for cancellation of the Union¶s certificate of registration on essentially the same grounds it raised in its opposition to the Union¶s petition for certification election. 2006. the Union filed before the DOLE RO IV-A its petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge. there is still compliance with the mandatory membership requirement under Art. To be sure. it bears stressing that their affidavits of retraction were not re-affirmed during the hearings of the instant case rendering them of little. where the company seeks the cancellation of a union¶s registration during the pendency of a petition for certification election. While they alleged that they did not know what they were signing. Bureau of Labor Relations. 2006.56 Indeed. Noriel. the same grounds invoked to cancel should not be used to bar the certification election. 2006. as the Union persuasively argues. Obviously. (3) On January 10. This amounts to a clear circumvention of the law and cannot be countenanced. of course. No. and reiterated its earlier rulings. the withdrawal of six member-employees from the Union will affect neither the Union¶s registration nor its petition for certification election. v. the Union filed its formal application for registration indicating a total of 30 union members with the inclusion of four additional members on December 8. Eighth. the sixth. With the withdrawal of six union members. 2005.signatures beside their handwritten names during the organizational meetings. Inc. Eagle Ridge further argues that the list of union members includes a supervisory employee. we reiterate the following undisputed antecedent facts: (1) On December 6. the Union was organized. (2) On December 19. 2005 (Reg. For clarity. The initial five affidavits of retraction were executed on February 15. all six were executed way after the filing of the petition for certification election on January 10.55 the Court emphasized that a certification election is the most appropriate procedure for the desired goal of ascertaining which of the competing organizations should represent the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. with 26 employees of Eagle Ridge attending. 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. (4) On February 13. This is a factual issue which had not been raised at the first instance before the DOLE Regional Director and cannot be appreciated in this proceeding. Indisputably. 234(c). Eagle Ridge filed its Position Paper opposing the petition for certification election on essentially the same grounds it raised in the instant case. RO400-200512-UR-003 was eventually issued by the DOLE RO IV-A). Eagle Ridge knows well who among its personnel belongs or does not belong to the supervisory group.53 that "even if there were less than 30% [the required percentage of minimum membership then] of the employees asking for a certification election. that of itself would not be a bar to respondent Director ordering such an election provided. Finally. A certification election is the most expeditious and fairest mode of ascertaining .52 the Court emphasized.

vs. J.S. As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA. 2005 Resolution3 denying petitioner union¶s motion for reconsideration. 2000 Decision 2 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902019) and the September 16. 2005 Decision1 in CA-G. these mostly undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20. which annulled and set aside the January 13. SO ORDERED. 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. DECISION DEL CASTILLO.R. Respondent. It is a fundamental postulate that the will of the majority. while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union¶s filing of a petition for certification election on March 21. 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. CHARTER CHEMICAL and COATING CORPORATION. 58203. This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeal¶s March 15. Petitioner. we DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit.) WHEREFORE. premises considered.: 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. Costs against petitioner. or seven months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration. Inc. S. Republic of the Philippines SUPREMECOURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. Ventures International.S. 169717 March 16. 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. 59 (Emphasis supplied. ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO-Union President. Factual Antecedents On February 19. 2011 SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC -SUPER). SP No. is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union? Upon this light. 2001. Now then. We apply these principles to this case. v. if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition.the will of a collective bargaining unit as to its choice of its exclusive representative. 1999. is controlling. No. 2000. 58 The Court ends this disposition by reproducing the following apt excepts from its holding in S. Ventures Labor Union (SSVLU) on the effect of the withdrawal from union membership right before or after the filing of a petition for certification election: We are not persuaded. if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to make their choice. SamahangManggagawasa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a petition for certifi cation election .R.57 It is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force.

Med-Arbiter Tomas F. 1999. the same was filed out of time. on appeal. petitioner union has no right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. and 2. there was no obstacle to the grant of petitioner union¶s petition for certification election. likewise. 1998. Considering that petitioner union filed its petition only on February 14. the DOLE initially issued a Decision 8 in favor of respondent company dismissing petitioner union¶s appeal on the ground that the latter¶s petition for certification election was filed out of time. The Decision granting the said petition became final and executory on September 16." and "ListahanngmgaDumalosaPangkalahatangPulong at mgaSumang-ayon at NagratipikasaSaligang Batas" were not executed under oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code7 in relation to Section 1. 9. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certificate. As a result.among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE. series of 1997. Department of Labor and Employment¶s Ruling On July 16.5 Med-Arbiter¶s Ruling On April 30. fatally defective. Rule XI of D. 1998 and was remanded for immediate implementation. "Sama-samangPahayagngPagsapi at Authorization. Rule VI of Department Order (D. and (2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.e. the DOLE reversed its earlier ruling. mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory functions. 1999. The Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner union consisted of 12 batchman. previously filed a petition for certification election on January 16.O. series of 1997. 2000 Decision. respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss4 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. viz: WHEREFORE. On motion for reconsideration. the DOLE found that a review of the records indicates that no certification election was previously conducted in respondent company. National Capital Region. thus. Under Section 7. No Union. . 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. Hence.. contrary to the findings of the Med-Arbiter. the prior certification election filed by Pinag-isangLakasManggagawasa Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation was.O. Under Article 245 of the Labor Code. Pinag-isangLakasManggagawasa Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation. On the contrary. Although the DOLE ruled. was dismissed by the DOLE for being filed out of time.) No. the DOLE sustained the dismissal of the petition for certification after it took jud icial notice that another union. however. On April 14. a motion for intervention involving a certification election in an unorganized establishment should be filed prior to the finality of the decision calling for a certification election. 1999. 1999. denied by the Med-Arbiter and. The union registration was. said supervisory employees are prohibited from joining petitioner union which seeks to represent the rank-and-file employees of respondent company. In its January 13. SamahangManggagawasa Charter Chemical-Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER). Falconitin issued a Decision6 dismissing the petition for certification election. 9. i. No. not being a legitimate labor organization. the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the decision of this Office dated 16 July 1999 is MODIFIED to allow the certification election among the regular rank -and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation with the following choices: 1.

10 In nullifying the decision of the DOLE. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated January 13. It. the petition is hereby GRANTED. 2005. the CA held that the issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked collaterally in a petition for certification election and the infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a pre-election conference pursuant to the ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines v. III Whether x xx the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged failure to certify under oath the local charter certificate issued by its mother federation and list of the union membership attending the organizational meeting [is a ground] for the cancellation of petitioner [union¶s] legal personality as a labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification election. this issue must be deemed settled.R.11 Thus. After the promulgation of this Decision. upheld the Med-Arbiter¶s finding that petitioner union consisted of both rank-andfile and supervisory employees. Issues I Whether x xx the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in granting the respondent [company¶s] petition for certiorari (CA G. the DOLE ruled that petitioner union complied with all the documentation requirements and that there was no independent evidence presented to prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in petitioner union. . viz: WHEREFORE. Moreover. considering that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization. thus. 2000 are hereby [ANNULLED]and SET ASIDE. 58203) in spite of the fact that the issues subject of the respondent company[¶s] petition was already settled with finality and barred from being re-litigated. 12 Petitioner Union¶s Arguments Petitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election is barred by the Jul y 16. the appellate court gave credence to the findings of the MedArbiter that petitioner union failed to comply with the documentation requirements under the Labor Code. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union. SO DECIDED. 2000 and February 17. likewise.9 Court of Appeal¶s Ruling On March 15. SP No. No.Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of a certification election. it has no legal right to file a petition for certification election. the CA promulgated the assailed Decision. subject to the usual pre-election conference. In this decision. SO ORDERED. respondent company did not move for reconsideration. 1999 Decision of the DOLE. II Whether x xx the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employee[s] of petitioner [union¶s] membership is [a] ground for the cancellation of petitioner [union¶s] legal personality and dismissal of [the] petition for certification elec tion.

9.O. never attained finality because the parties timely moved for reconsideration. 1999 Decision of the DOLE. On the issue of lack of verification of the charter certificate.O. 2000. and the books of accounts. It contends that what is required to be certified under oath by the local union¶s secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local union¶s president are limited to the union¶s constitution and by-laws. the legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section 5. The issue as to the legal personality of petitioner union is not barred by the July 16. A review of the records indicates that the issue as to petitioner union¶s legal personality has been timely and consistently raised by respondent company before the Med-Arbiter. 1999 Decision. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor Union14 continues to be good case law. Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner union on January 13. Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V. 1999 Decision of the DOLE. the petition for certification election was dismissed on the ground that another union had previously filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the same bargaining unit in respondent company. the DOLE found that petitioner union complied with the documentation requirements of the Labor Code and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership. Thus. It upheld the right of petitioner union to file the subject petition for certification election because its previous decision was based on a mistaken appreciation of facts. respondent company timely moved for reconsideration by reiterating its previous arguments before the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union has no legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election. 9. CA and now this Court. Nonetheless. expressly requires that the charter certificate be certified under oath.Petitioner union further argues that the lack of verification of its charter certificate and the alleged illegal composition of its membership are not grounds for the dismissal of a petition for certification election under Section 11. as amended. . Rule XI of D. the DOLE reversed its previous ruling.15 From this adverse decision. the illegal composition of petitioner union nullifies its legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election and its legal personality may be collaterally attacked in the proceedings for a petition for certification election as was done here. therefore. Our Ruling The petition is meritorious. In its July 16. The said decision did not attain finality because the DOLE subsequently reversed its earlier ruling and. 1999 Decision of the DOLE. Respondent company maintains that the ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines vs. respondent company n otes that Article 235 of the Labor Code and Section 1. statement of the set of officers. No. The issue then as to the legal personality of petitioner union to file the certification election was properly raised before the DOLE. series of 1997. the appellate court and now this Court. It also contends that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because its composition is a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code. respondent company timely filed its motion for reconsideration. The July 16. series of 1997. from this decision. Rule V. Finally. Rule VIII of said issuance. DOLE. as amended by D. No. Book IV of t he Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incoprorated v. Tagaytay Highlands Empoyees Union-PTGWO. 13 Respondent Company¶s Arguments Respondent company asserts that it cannot be precluded from challenging the July 16. nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a union¶s registration under Section 3.

No. However. Hon. 21 In the main. All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President. Laguesma. It agreed with the MedArbiter that the Charter Certificate. the Sama-samangPahayagngPagsapi at Authorization and ListahanngmgaDumalosaPangkalahatangPulong at mgaSumang-ayon at NagratipikasaSaligang Batas are not among the documents that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor organization. 356 (1996). No. we believe that the same doctrine obtains in this case... No.O. their addresses. The then prevailing Section 1. 9481 16 which took effect on June 14. Thus. this fact shall be indicated accordingly. (b) The names of the local/chapter¶s officers.The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local union¶s secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president. 331 Phil. we shall decide the issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force (i.A. While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the previous Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments. No. supplied) . Preliminarily. 18 amending Book V of the Labor Code. We disagree.17 This law introduced substantial amendments to the Labor Code.O. 2007. 6715. Inc. 9. Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V. series of 1997. since the operative facts in this case occurred in 1999. the CA ruled that petitioner union failed to comply with the requisite documents for registration under Article 235 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. we ruled ± In San Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Chartering and creation of a local chapter ² A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: (a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter. 9. we must note that Congress enacted Republic Act (R. provides: Section 1. 9. as amended by D.A.A. the Court ruled that it was not necessary for the charter certificate to be certified and attested by the local/chapter officers. as amended by D. Philippines. Petitioner union concedes and the records confirm that its charter certificate was not executed under oath. As to the charter certificate. petitioner union cannot be accorded the status of a legitimate labor organization. in San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v.) No. it does not make sense to have the local/chapter¶s officers x xx certify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of23 (Emphasis . and ListahanngmgaDumalosaPangkalahatangPulong at mgaSumang-ayon at NagratipikasaSaligang Batas were not executed under oath. Id. 20 series of 1997) pursuant to our ruling in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg. Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union and not the local/chapter. Series of 1997. the above -quoted rule indicates that it should be executed under oath. However. 6715. and the principal office of the local/chapter.22 which was decided under the auspices of D.O. As readily seen. R. and the rules and regulations19 implementing R.e. Sama-samangPahayagngPagsapi at Authorization. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW). No. and (c) The local/chapter¶s constitution and by-laws provided that where the local/chapter¶s constitution and by-laws [are] the same as [those] of the federation or national union.

In Kawashima. Nonetheless. Sec. upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. Inc. For this reason. and its principal office. 31 (hereinafter Kawashima). their addresses.Any legitimate labor organization or the employer. consisting of batchman. the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory employees in petitioner union does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. Where to file. as upheld by the appellate court. hence. The appellate court¶s reliance on Toyota is misplaced in view of this Court¶s subsequent ruling in Republic v. falling within the definition of supervisory employees under Article 212(m)30 of the Labor Code. .. we note that petitioner union questions the factual findings of the Med -Arbiter. 2. However. . petitioner union failed to present any rebuttal evidence in the proceedings below after respondent company submitted in evidence the job descriptions29 of the aforesaid employees. shall contain. shall remain in that unit x xx. The petition. Who may file. when requested to bargain collectively. we are constrained to agree with the Med-Arbiter. Who may join unions. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. viz: "Sec. among others: xxxx (c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances . Preliminarily. The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization. It was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R. Thus. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) which supplied the deficiency by introducing the following amendment to Rule II (Registration of Unions): "Sec. The job descriptions indicate that the aforesaid employees exercise recommendatory managerial actions which are not merely routinary but require the use of independent judgment. 6715.A. Provided. supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees. as upheld by the appellate court. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union28(hereinafter Toyota).A petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. Kawashima Textile Mfg. No. viz: R. . However. Under Article 24527 of the Labor Code. it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate. may file the petition. 24 (2) the names of its officers. that those supervisory employees who are included in an existing rank-and-file bargaining unit. are supervisory employees. the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a legitimate labor organization pursuant to Toyota Motor Philippines v. (Emphasis supplied) and Rule V (Representation Cases and InternalUnion Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules.A. we explained at length how and why the Toyota doctrine no longer holds sway under the altered state of the law and rules applicable to this case. 1. when filed by a legitimate labor organization. that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit consisting of rank-andfile employees.xxxSupervisory employees and security guards shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join. that 12 of its members. Consequently. mill operator and leadman. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition [on the comingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees] would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.In accordance with this ruling. Philippines. petitioner union¶s charter certificate need not be executed under oath. The petition shall be in writing and under oath. 1. No. 25 and (3) its constitution and by-laws26² the last two requirements having been executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the records. The CA found that petitioner union has for its membership both rank-and-file and supervisory employees.

an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization. series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). citing Article 245 of the Labor Code. what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit. It cannot. for any guise or purpose. Trajano. to wit: "Section. Not being one. No. 9. In Pagpalain Haulers. the requirement under Sec. attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-andfile employees shall not include supervisory employees and/or security guards. 6715. be a legitimate labor organization. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules ± that the petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees ± was removed. thus: Rule XI Certification Elections xxxx Sec. 4. Inc. as amended by R. But then. held: "Clearly. 1992 and September 15. Thus. anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election. respectively. It becomes necessary. (Emphasis supplied) By that provision. but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees. it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election . the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules.A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the . 1995. in which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter. based on this provision. although the specific provision involved therein was only Sec. when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in Toyota. therefore. Specifically.. Rule VI. v. the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases. any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election.A." (Emphasis supplied) In Dunlop.otherwise require. as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions. 1. and provided further. on June 21. Instead. It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved in Toyota and Dunlop were filed on November 26. . among others. Forms and contents of petition. a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. Not being one. 1. to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code. including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. the union could not. the Court. xxxx In the case at bar.The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain. the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members. hence. the following: x xx (c) The description of the bargaining unit. the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members. 1997.

it cannot interfere with. the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered. (b) the names of the local/chapter's officers.O. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. San Miguel and Air Philippines. it had the right to file the subject petition for certification election. for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. 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. this fact shall be indicated accordingly. Thus. v. much less oppose. which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands that the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation. All said. 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. Toyotaand Dunlopno longer hold swayin the present altered state of the law and the rules. the Court explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide a list of its members. series of 1997. the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein. given the altered legal milieu. and the principal office of the local/chapter. the . for its creation and registration. The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked by respondent company in the certification election proceedings. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. their addresses. All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President. Kawashima applies with equal force here. No. provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union. and (c) the local/ chapter's constitution and bylaws. the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees. petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor organization even if some of its members were supervisory employees. a local or chapter submit a list of its members.32 [Underline supplied] The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those in Kawashima because the present petition for certification election was filed in 1999 when D. unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation." which does not require that. was still in effect. had already set the tone for it. it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual members. Golf Club. Inc. As we explained in Kawashima: Except when it is requested to bargain collectively. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. Tagaytay Highlands Employees UnionPGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for certification election. false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code. the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules. No. Petitioner union correctly argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in the certification election proceedings. an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election. This time. 9481. As a result. while the latest issuance is R. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW. Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative. Bureau of Labor Relations. In San Miguel Corp. Hence. as interpreted by the Court in Tagaytay Highlands. it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. More to the point is Air Philippines Corporation v.A. 9.creation or establishment of the local/chapter.

Inc. the BLR reversed the 18 December 2000 Decision. (YTPI). No pronouncement as to costs. YTPI alleged that YEU violated Article 239(a)8 of the Labor Code: (1) YEU fraudulently included the signature of a certain Ronald O. (3) YEU fraudulently obtained the employees¶ signatures by making them believe that they were signing a petition for a 125% increase in the minimum wage. in Case No. it did not. 58203 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition 7 dated 24 January 2000 for the revocation of YEU¶s registration. Petitioner. INC. The March 15. Respondent.33 WHEREFORE. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 12 March4 and 3 May5 2001 Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) in BLR-A-C-7-2-05-01. not Bernardo David. 2000 Decision of the Department of Labor and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-ODM-9902-019) is REINSTATED. RO300-0001-CP-002. SP No. not a petition for registration.R. San Fernando. 3. (2) Pineda was not aware of any election of union officers. No. Pineda (Pineda) in the organizational documents.. The BLR found that (1) Pineda did not approach any officer of YEU to have his signature removed from the organizational documents. In its 12 March 2001 Resolution. and (2) YEU declared that it conducted an election of union officers when.process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it. not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. and (5) YEU fraudulently stated in its organizational meeting minutes that its second vice president was Bernard David. In its 18 December 2000 Decision. The petition challenges the 16 January 2004 Decision2 and 12 May 2004 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification election.R. UNION.: This is a petition 1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. (2) Pineda¶s affidavit that . reversing the 18 December 2000 Decision6 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.R. the petition is GRANTED. 65460. SP No. J. YEU was registered as a legitimate labor labor union on 10 September 1999. YEU appealed the 18 December 2000 Decision to the BLR. 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 2010 vs. The January 13. the Regional Office granted the 24 January 2000 petition. Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines. SECOND DIVISION G. Pampanga (Regional Office). 163532 March 10. in truth. 2005 Decision and September 16. (4) the employees did not belong to a single bargaining unit. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES. RESOLUTION CARPIO. The Regional Office held that YEU committed misrepresentation: (1) YEU failed to remove Pineda¶s signature from the organizational documents despite instructions to do so.

(5) at least 82 other members of YEU did not question the legality of YEU¶s organization. . (4) the affidavit of a certain Bernardino David (David) that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier sinumpaangsalaysay. (6) Pineda did not approach any officer of YEU to have his signature removed from the organizational documents. (3) Calma¶s affidavit was unreliable because he admitted that he stayed at the organizational meeting for only 20 minutes. the BLR denied the motion for lack of merit. (3) the affidavit of a certain Rachelle Gonzales (Gonzales) that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with her earlier resignation letter. In its 3 May 2001 Resolution. the Court of Appeals denied the petition and held that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion: (1) Pineda¶s affidavit that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier written statement. xxx xxxx 5. YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a petition 13 for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (10) cancellation of union registration must be done with great caution. (2) the fact that there was no express mention of an election of union officers in the Sama-SamangPahayag did not necessarily mean that no election occurred. (5) David¶s affidavit was only filed before the BLR when YTPI filed its motion for reconsideration of the BLR¶s 12 March 2001 Resolution. in filing t he petition for revocation of YEU¶s registration. YTPI filed before the BLR a motion12 for reconsideration. Noong ika-25 ngHulyo 1999. In its 16 January 2004 Decision. and (5) cancellation of union registration must be done with great caution. (3) there was an organizational meeting and an organizational meeting may include an election of union officers. (2) Gonzales¶ affidavit that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with her earlier resignation letter. Malinawnaginagawangkompanyaanglahatngparaanupanghadlanganangamingkarapatansapag oorganisa at kilalaninbilangkinatawannglahatngmga regular namanggagawaparasasamasamangpakikipagtawaran. 7. Sa kabilanglahatngito. kami ay lubos pa ring naninindigansaamingUnyon patuloynaipaglalabanangamingkarapatansapag-oorganisa at sasama-samang pakikipagtawaran. (4) any infirmity in the election of union officers may be remedied under the last paragraph 11 of Article 241 of the Labor Code and under Rule XIV of DOLE Department Order No. the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit. (11) YTPI. (7) the Sama-SamangPahayag was entitled to credit even if it was an unsworn document. Walangkatotohananangalegasyonng Yokohama nawalangnaganapnapagpupulongkaugnayngpagoorganisa o pagtatayonaminngUnyon. (4) the affidavit of a certain Arthur Calma (Calma) did not state that no election of officers took place. 6. and (6) 50 YEU members executed a Sama-Samang Pahayag9 stating that: 3. In its 12 May 2004 Resolution. (9) Villanueva and Bognot were not signatories to YEU¶s organizational documents. (8) the allegation that the signatures of a certain Denry Villanueva (Villanueva) and a certain ApolinarBognot (Bognot) in the Sama-SamangPahayag were forged was only raised for the first time before the BLR when YTPI filed its motion for reconsideration of the BLR¶s 12 March 2001 Resolution.1avvphi1 YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a motion14 for reconsideration. kami ay dumalosaisangpulongparasapag-oorganisangamingUnyon at pagraratipikangSaligang Batas at Alituntuninnito. Nakakatuwa ring isipinangalegasyonngkompanyanahindinaminlubosnanaiintindihanangamingkapasyahangmagtayo at sumapisaamingUnyon. had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier written statement. and (12) YTPI failed to prove that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.10 at The BLR also held that (1) YTPI was estopped from questioning the fact that the SamaSamangPahayag was an unsworn document since it filed the 24 January 2000 petition for the revocation of YEU¶s registration based on unsworn documents. 9.

What appears is its abject failure to establish Tonton¶s actual identity. and (2) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. YEU¶s second vice president. xxx July 25. the BLR Director was neither capricious nor whimsical in his exercise of judgment. but. Respondent BLR Director is further assailed for not taking into consideration the affidavit asserting that no election of officers was ever conducted. deeming the meeting to include the holding of an election of officers. respondent BLR Director accorded greater credence to Pineda¶s handwritten statement. However. 99 .UnangPirmahan July 26. the petitioner relied largely on the affidavit of Pineda to substantiate its claim that no election of officers was held by the union. In sum. 234. In contrast. and because the affidavit was even inconsistent with David¶s earlier sinumpaangsalaysay. whereby he denied any knowledge of the holding of an election. does not itself distinguish between the two. A perusal of the affirmative handwritten statement easily explains why the public respondent preferred it to the negating affidavit. to wit: Noongunangarawnapumirmaakogalingakosa graveyard.pinapirmaakodoonsasiyam(9)napirasongpapelnoongumagangpag-uwinamin. wherein he made references to at least 2 meetings he had attended during which he had signed the organizational documents. The petitioner seemed content in making the insinuation in the petition for certiorari that Tonton was widely recognized as the organizer behind the creation of YEU. again. the BLR Director correctly ruled that evidence to prove the participation of YEU in the failure to delete Pineda¶s signature from the organizational documents was wanting. . stated that no election was held. because the affidavit was submitted only when the petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the questioned decision. whereby he attested to his attendance at the organizational meeting and to his election thereat as vice president. for. It is not deniable that Pineda never approached any officer of YEU.Pinatatanggalkoangakingpangalansalistahan The petitioner also relied on the affidavit of Ma. the present petition. the public respondent accorded more weight to the samasamangpahayag executed by 50 YEU members who averred about the holding of an organizational meeting. If the petitioner was [sic] sincere and intent on this imputed error. Rachelle Gonzales attesting that there was no election of officers.Pinirmahankoangsiyamnapiraso July 27. its effort to show so does not [sic] appear in the record. The petition is unmeritorious. YTPI raises as issues that (1) the Court of Appeals erred in finding that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation. 99 . Another affidavit. than to Pineda¶s later affidavit. 99 . As to the inclusion of Pineda¶s signature in the organizational documents. after all. which Bernardino David. Labor Code. however. Art. The Court of Appeals found that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation: Anent whether an election of officers was conducted or not. executed. (b). The omission is not serious enough. respondent BLR Director gave Calma¶saffidavit scant consideration because the affiant admittedly remained in the YEU office for only 20 minutes. The public respondent justifiably favored the latter. Pagkataposyungpangalawangmeeting graveyard din ako. and that Pineda approached a certain Tonton whom he knew to be a union organizer but who was not an officer of the union nor an employee of the company. That was not enough. but respondent BLR Director dismissed the affidavit as nothing but the petitioner¶s belated attempt to establish its claim about the election being held considering that Gonzales did not even intimate such matter in her handwritten resignation letter to YEU. that of Arthur Calma. and.Hence.

YTPI. while a question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 17 Whether YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to remove Pineda¶s signature from the list of employees who supported YEU¶s application for registration and whether YEU conducted an election of its officers are questions of fact. They are not reviewable. The Supreme Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence. the Court will not disturb the Court of Appeals¶ factual findings.15 YTPI claims that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation. as expressly required in Art. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence. 19 the Court held that. or with the minutes of the election of officers. (c). A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should include only questions of law ² questions of fact are not reviewable. 239. being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEU¶s registration. or in the list of votes. The respondent has the burden of proof in showing that an election of officers took place. 5. the Honorable Court of Appeals upheld the BLR Director¶s ruling that the petitioner had the burden of proving that subject election of officers never took place. 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. 18 In Encarnacion v. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court. Absent grave abuse of discretion. the petitioner simply failed to discharge its burden. the Regional Director held that there was no election of officers that had taken place during respondent¶s alleged organizational meeting as there was no proof of such election. as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined.21 (Emphasis in the original) The Court is not convinced. no degree of abuse of discretion was attendant. A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation. the petitioner does not have the burden of proof vis-à-vis whether or not the said elections took place. while permitted. The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. Court of Appeals. false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers. and We fully agree with him. On the other hand. But. Labor Code. 20 YTPI claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.5 In the Decision dated 16 January 2004. did not commit grave abuse of discretion. YTPI stated that: There was evidence that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation in its failure to omit the name of Ronald Pineda prior to the filing of the respondents organizational documents with the Department of Labor and Employment. more than mere abuse of discretion is required to be established by the petitioner. YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations ² that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pineda¶s signature from the organizational documents and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it . YTPI stated that: 5.6 However. For certiorari to lie.therefore. 16 (Emphasis in the original) The Court is not convinced. had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. "unless there is a clearly grave or whimsical abuse on its part. Herein. findings of fact of the appellate court will not be disturbed. As the applicant for cancellation. The Court of Appeals held that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation: The cancellation of union registration at the employer¶s instance. the question is one of fact." YTPI failed to show that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion.

23 (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE. petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. The Court held that the petition was rightfully denied because the employer failed to prove that the labor union committed fraud and misrepresentation. in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer.. No.versus - G. Petitioner. In Heritage Hotel Manila v. Standard Chartered Promulgated: Bank. SP No. Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the union¶s application for registration. 65460. . Consequently. Chairperson. we DENY the petition. 2008 x---------------------------------------------x DECISION . and REYES. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents. April 22.conducted an election of officers. Respondents. NACHURA. the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila Republic of the Philippines Baguio City THIRD DIVISION STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE). CHICO-NAZARIO. The Court held that: Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that it did not. Philippines. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN.R. accusing it of committing fraud and misrepresentation. It is serious because once such charge is proved. JJ. The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. We AFFIRM the 16 January 2004 Decision and 12 May 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. J.R.22 the employer filed a petition to revoke the registration of its rank-and-file employees¶ union. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. Pinag-IsangGaling at LakasngmgaManggagawasa Heritage Manila. SO ORDERED. 161933 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO. charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

cralawSO ORDERED.[6] the CA dismissed their petition and affirmed the Secretary's Orders. and in the assailed Decision dated October 9. Sto. the Standard Chartered Bank and the Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union are directed to execute their collective bargaining agreement effective 01 April 2001 until 30 March 2003 incorporating therein the foregoing dispositions and the agreements they reached in the course of negotiations and conciliation. On May 31. cralawThe charge of unfair labor practice for bargaining in bad faith and the claim for damages relating thereto are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Tomas of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an Order with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE. cralawFinally. Petitioner and the Standard Chartered Bank (Bank) began negotiating for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in May 2000 as their 1998-2000 CBA already expired. PREMISES CONSIDERED. 2001.[3] cralaw Both petitioner and the Bank filed their respective motions for reconsideration. All other submitted issues that were not passed upon are dismissed. Due to a deadlock in the negotiations. 2001 and August 30.: cralawFor resolution is an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. J. 2004 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA). 2002 and Resolution[2] dated January 26. Secretary Patricia A. 2001. 2004.AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. petitioner filed a Notice of Strike prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. the charge of unfair labor practice for gross violation of the economic provisions of the CBA is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. dismissing their petition and affirming the Secretary of Labor and Employment's Orders dated May 31. 2002[5] and Resolution dated January 26. 2001. assailing the Decision[1] dated October 9. which were denied by the Secretary per Order dated August 30.[4] Petitioner sought recourse with the CA via a petition for certiorari. herein petition based on the following grounds: . Hence.

nevertheless. Finance 4. Cebu and Iloilo.[7] The resolution of this case has been overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA. One confidential secretary of each of the: 1. Philippine Branches 2. All covenanted and assistant officers (now called National Officers) B. Head. Iloilo 7. While this would render the case moot and academic. Cebu 6. petitioner sought the exclusion of only the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees. Manager. Head. Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. Chief Executive. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECIDING THAT A ONE -MONTH OR LESS TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF A POSITION (ACTING CAPACITY) DOES NOT MERIT ADJUSTMENT IN REMUNERATION.[10] the excluded employees are as follows: A.I. and in any other branch that the BANK may establish in the . confidential employees. thus compelling its resolution. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR REVISING THE SCOPE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT UNDER THE CBA. Manager.[9] In the previous 1998-2000 CBA. C.[8] The CBA provisions in dispute are the exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit and the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for one month. In their proposal. Chief Cashiers. II. personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff. Covenanted Officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits. Deputy Chief Executive/Head. Assistant Cashiers. Corporate Banking Group 3. those with access to labor relations materials. Human Resources 5. the likelihood that the same issues will come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations is not far-fetched.

[12] With regard to the remuneration of employees working in an acting capacity. are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. casuals or emergency employees. D. which is not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. and G. Personnel of the Telex Department E. The Secretary's disposition of the issues raised by petitioner were affirmed by the CA. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join. without prejudice to Article 277 (c) of the Labor Code. maintained the previous exclusions because petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list qualify for exclusion.A. Whether or not the employees sought to be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees is a question of fact.[14] This holds more true in the present case in which petitioner failed to controvert with evidence the findings of the Secretary and the CA. All Security Guards F. jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence. Probationary employees. and at the same time. The Secretary agreed with the Bank's position that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative. however. The Secretary likewise rejected petitioner's proposal and instead. allowed additional pay for those who had been working in such capacity for one month. recognized that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation.[15] .[13] The Court sustains the CA. 6715. form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. as amended by R. The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence.country. One (1) HR Staff[11] The Secretary. it was petitioner's position that additional pay should be given to an employee who has been serving in a temporary/acting capacity for one week.

in Philips Industrial Development. petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be . cash codes for telegraphic transfers. it failed to buttress its claim. the branch's cash position. depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed confidential employees. persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. having access to confidential information. or joining. such that they should be excluded. vault combination. may become the source of undue advantage. 1166. this does not necessarily mean that the list of exclusions enumerated in the 1998-2000 CBA is contrary to law. in which human resources staff may be qualified.[19] Finally. e. Inc. and despite the Secretary's finding that there was no evidence to support it. Aside from its generalized arguments. Petitioner insists that the foregoing employees are not confidential employees. Petitioner did not even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees. demand drafts and other negotiable instruments. disqualified from joining or assisting a union. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. however.In this case.g. assisting or forming any other labor organization. statements of financial condition.4 of the Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody. As found by public respondent. custody and/or access to confidential matters. v. Inc. pursuant to Sec. or have access to confidential matters of.[20] the Court designated personnel staff. as confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions. petitioner still failed to substantiate its claim. National Labor Relations Commission. the question that needs to be answered is whether the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers. Ferrer-Calleja[18]meanwhile stated that confidential employees such as accounting personnel. Torres[16] declared that they are confidential employees having control. As aptly stated by the CA: While We agree that petitioner's proposed revision is in accordance with the law. personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees. radio and telegraph operators who.. v. and therefore. they assist and act in a confidential capacity to. As regards the qualification of bank cashiers as confidential employees.[17] Golden Farms.

There is likewise no reason for the Court to disturb the conclusion of the Secretary and the CA that the additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one month. personnel of the Telex department and one (1) HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file employees. At the same time. testimonial and documentary. Allegations must be supported by evidence. Thus. xxx[21] (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner cannot simply rely on jurisprudence without explaining how and why it should apply to this case. particularly where the findings of both the trial court (here. xxxx In arriving at its Order. xxx Thus. xxx[22] Thus. the Court reiterates the doctrine that: [T]he office of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law. public respondent concluded that a restrictive provision with respect to employees being placed in an acting capacity may curtail management's valid exercise of its prerogative. The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies. then they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. The Rule limits that function of the Court to the review or revision of errors of law and not to a second analysis of the evidence. are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the . accordingly. the public respondent took all the relevant evidence into account and weighed both parties arguments extensively. be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. there is barely any at all. Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor officials findings rest.removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should. Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers. We uphold the public respondent's Order that no employee should be temporarily placed in a position (acting capacity) for more than one month without the corresponding adjustment in the salary. adduced by the parties to an appeal. when supported by substantial evidence. it recognized that employees should not be made to perform work in an acting capacity for extended periods of time without being adequately compensated. The CA correctly stated: Likewise. absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment. In this case. the employee performing the job in an acting capacity will be entitled to salary corresponding to such position. such as the Department of Labor and Employment. Such order of the public respondent is not in violation of the equal pay for equal work principle. considering that after one (1) month. the DOLE Secretary) and the appellate court on the matter coincide. as in this case at bar. It is not our function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence.

BERSAMIN. JR.... Promulgated: August 3... ASIA BREWERY.. THIRD DIVISION TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY... G..: For resolution is an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil .appellate court be amply demonstrated. Petitioner. BRION. Respondent... JJ.... J.. 2010 x..R..* and VILLARAMA... INC. 162025 Present: CARPIO MORALES. J..versus Chairperson.[23] WHEREFORE. JR..-x DECISION VILLARAMA..... No..... we may not distusuch factual findings. the petition is DENIED...... ... ABAD.

Managers Assistant Managers Section Heads Supervisors Superintendents Confidential and Executive Secretaries Personnel. 2. The facts are: Respondent Asia Brewery. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file daily paid employees within the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit with respect to rates of pay. 2000. Section 2.[5] Article I of the CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit. bottled water and glass products. 6. shandy. 2002 and Resolution[2] dated January 28. assailing the Decision[1] dated November 22. However.[4] effective for five (5) years from August 1. to wit: 1. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. On October 3. 2000 to 31 July 2003. Accounting and Marketing Staff Communications Personnel Probationary Employees . Inc. The UNION shall not represent or accept for membership employees outside the scope of the bargaining unit herein defined. 2002. The bargaining unit shall be comprised of all regular rank-and-file dailypaid employees of the COMPANY. 55578. 1997 to July 31. 3. as amended.R. 2004 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. 1999. the following jobs/positions as herein defined shall be excluded from the bargaining unit. 5. with Bisig at LakasngmgaManggagawasa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT). 7. Recognition. ABI entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). sale and distribution of beer. 8. granting the petition of respondent company and reversing the Voluntary Arbitrator¶s Decision[3] dated October 14. (ABI) is engaged in the manufacture.Procedure. Bargaining Unit. 4. the exclusive bargaining representative of ABI¶s rank-and-file employees. 9. as follows: Section 1. SP No. ABI and BLMA- INDEPENDENT signed a renegotiated CBA effective from August 1.

11. he ruled that ABI failed to establish with sufficient clarity their basic functions as to consider them Quality Control Staff who were excluded from the coverage of the CBA. BLMA-INDEPENDENT lodged a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Twenty (20) checkers are assigned at the Materials Department of the Administration Division.10. the subject employees were declared eligible for inclusion within the bargaining unit represented by BLMA-INDEPENDENT. foregoing premises considered. Voluntary Arbitrator BienvenidoDevera sustained the BLMA-INDEPENDENT after finding that the records submitted by ABI showed that the positions of the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file category because their functions are merely routinary and clerical. b) the 81 employees cannot validly become members of respondent and/or if already members. As the parties failed to amicably settle the controversy.] Subsequently. the questioned decision of the Honorable Voluntary Arbitrator Bienvenido De Vera is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The parties eventually agreed to submit the case for arbitration to resolve the issue of ³[w]hether or not there is restraint to employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. as evident from the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. ruling that: WHEREFORE. the CA reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator.[9] On appeal. Article I of the CBA. Accordingly.´[8] In his Decision. believing that their membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated the CBA. a dispute arose when ABI¶s management stopped deducting union dues from eighty-one (81) employees. Security and Fire Brigade Personnel Monthly Employees 12.[7] BLMA-INDEPENDENT claimed that ABI¶s actions restrained the employees¶ right to self organization and brought the matter to the grievance machinery. and A NEW ONE ENTERED DECLARING THAT: a) the 81 employees are excluded from and are not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in Section 2. With respect to QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician. that . Eighteen (18) of these affected employees are QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge Technician who formed part of the Quality Control Staff. Full Goods Department of the Brewery Division and Packaging Division. He noted that the positions occupied by the checkers and secretaries/clerks in the different divisions are not managerial or supervisory. The rest are secretaries/clerks directly under their respective division managers. Purchasing and Quality Control Staff[6][emphasis supplied.

] (2) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE 81 EMPLOYEES CANNOT VALIDLY BECOME UNION MEMBERS. jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence. and c) petitioner has not committed any act that restrained or tended to restrain its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. (3) THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER (NOW PRIVATE RESPONDENT) HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ACT THAT RESTRAINED OR TENDED TO RESTRAIN ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION.[13] Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join. THAT THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS VIOLATIVE OF THE CBA AND THAT THEY SHOULD DISAFFILIATE FROM RESPONDENT.[10] BLMA-INDEPENDENT filed a motion for reconsideration. with attached petition signed by the union officers. form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. NO COSTS. 2002 wherein petitioner TunaynaPagkakaisangManggagawasa Asia (TPMA) won.[12] The petition is anchored on the following grounds: (1) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE 81 EMPLOYEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE BARGAINING UNIT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2. As the incumbent bargaining representative of ABI¶s rank-and-file employees claiming interest in the outcome of the case. ARTICLE 1 OF THE CBA[. are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.[14][15] Having access to confidential information. confidential employees may .[11] Both motions were denied by the CA. a certification election was held on August 10. SO ORDERED.their membership is violative of the CBA and that they should disaffiliate from respondent. petitioner filed with the CA an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the decision and intervention. In the meantime.

also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.[16] Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-andfile bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the Union membership. In Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC,[17] this Court held that petitioner¶s ³division secretaries, all Staff of General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations Department, Secretaries of Audit, EDP and Financial Systems´ are confidential employees not included within the rank-and-file bargaining unit.[18]Pier 8 Arrastre& Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor,[19] we declared that legal secretaries who are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of and receiving notices, and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation, fall under the category of confidential employees and hence excluded from the bargaining unit composed of rank -and-file employees.[20] Earlier, in Also considered having access to ³vital labor information´ are the executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager.[21] In the present case, the CBA expressly excluded ³Confidential and Executive Secretaries´ from the rank-and-file bargaining unit, for which reason ABI seeks their disaffiliation from pe titioner. Petitioner, however, maintains that except for Daisy Laloon, Evelyn Mabilangan and LennieSaguan who had been promoted to monthly paid positions, the following secretaries/clerks are deemed included among the rank-and-file employees of ABI:[22] NAME DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR

C1 ADMIN DIVISION

1. 2.

Angeles, Cristina C. Barraquio, Carina P.

Transportation Transportation

Mr. Melito K. Tan Mr. Melito K. Tan

3. 4.

Cabalo, Marivic B. Fameronag, Leodigario C.

Transportation Transportation

Mr. Melito K. Tan Mr. Melito K. Tan

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Abalos, Andrea A. Algire, Juvy L. Anoñuevo, Shirley P. Aviso, Rosita S. Barachina, Pauline C. Briones, Catalina P. Caralipio, Juanita P. Elmido, Ma. Rebecca S. Giron, Laura P.

Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials

Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co Mr. Andres G. Co

10. Mane, Edna A.

xxxx

C2 BREWERY DIVISION

1.

Laloon, Daisy S.

Brewhouse

Mr. William Tan

1. 2. 3.

Arabit, Myrna F. Burgos, Adelaida D. Menil, Emmanuel S.

Bottling Production Bottling Production Bottling Production

Mr. Julius Palmares Mr. Julius Palmares Mr. Julius Palmares

4.

Nevalga, Marcelo G.

Bottling Production

Mr. Julius Palmares

1. 2.

Mapola, Ma. Esraliza T. Velez, Carmelito A.

Bottling Maintenance Bottling Maintenance

Mr. Ernesto Ang Mr. Ernesto Ang

1. 2. 3. 4.

Bordamonte, Rhumela D. Deauna, Edna R. Punongbayan, Marylou F. Saguan, Lennie Y.

Bottled Water Bottled Water Bottled Water Bottled Water

Mr. Faustino Tetonche Mr. Faustino Tetonche Mr. Faustino Tetonche Mr. Faustino Tetonche

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Alcoran, Simeon A. Cervantes, Ma. Sherley Y. Diongco, Ma. Teresa M. Mabilangan, Evelyn M. Rivera, Aurora M. Salandanan, Nancy G.

Full Goods Full Goods Full Goods Full Goods Full Goods Full Goods

Mr. TsoiWah Tung Mr. TsoiWah Tung Mr. TsoiWah Tung Mr. TsoiWah Tung Mr. TsoiWah Tung Mr. TsoiWah Tung

1.

Magbag, Ma. Corazon C.

Tank Farm/ Cella Services

Mr. Manuel Yu Liat

1.

Capiroso, Francisca A.

Quality Assurance

Ms. Regina Mirasol

1.

Alconaba, Elvira C.

Engineering

Mr. Clemente Wong

2. 3. 4.

Bustillo, Bernardita E. Catindig, Ruel A. Sison, Claudia B.

Electrical Civil Works Utilities

Mr. Jorge Villarosa Mr. Roger Giron Mr. VenancioAlconaba

xxxx

C3 PACKAGING DIVISION

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Alvarez, Ma. Luningning L. Cañiza, Alma A. Cantalejo, Aida S. Castillo, Ma. Riza R. Lamadrid, Susana C. Mendoza, Jennifer L.

GP Administration GP Technical GP Engineering GP Production GP Production GP Technical

Ms. Susan Bella Mr. Chen Tsai Tyan Mr. Noel Fernandez Mr. Tsai Chen Chih Mr. Robert Bautista Mr. Mel Oña

As can be gleaned from the above listing, it is rather curious that there would be several secretaries/clerks for just one (1) department/division performing tasks which are mostly routine and clerical. Respondent insisted they fall under the ³Confidential and Executive Secretaries´ expressly excluded by the CBA from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. However, perusal of the job descriptions of these secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned duties and responsibilities involve routine activities of recording and monitoring, and other paper works for their respective departments while secretarial tasks such as receiving telephone calls and filing of office correspondence appear to have been commonly imposed as additional duties.[23]executive secretaries or division secretaries would have little or no significance considering the lack of or very limited access to confidential information of these secretaries/clerks. It is not even farfetched that the job category may exist only on paper since they are all daily-paid workers. Quite understandably, petitioner had earlier expressed the view that the positions were just being ³reclassified´ as these employees actually discharged routine functions. Respondent failed to indicate who among these numerous secretaries/clerks have access to confidential data relating to management policies that could give rise to potential conflict of interest with their Union membership. Clearly, the rationale under our previous rulings for the exclusion of

and the decorating and glass sections of the Production Department plainly showed that they perform routine and mechanical tasks preparatory to the delivery of the finished products. Again.´[26] There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. But we disagree with respondent¶s contention that the twenty (20) checkers are similarly confidential employees being ³quality control staff´ entrusted with the handling and custody of company properties and sensitive information. this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-and-file employees. evidence. become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the ³confidential employee rule. and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. respondent claimed. we hold that the twenty (20) checkers may not be considered confidential employees under the category of Quality Control Staff who were expressly excluded from the CBA of the rankand-file bargaining unit. The two (2) criteria are cumulative. vital and confidential information about [company¶s] products´ or ³have knowledge of mixtures of the products. their defects.We thus hold that the secretaries/clerks. numbering about forty (40). Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity. the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor. determine. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the company.[27] Not being confidential employees. under the express terms of the CBA. the secretaries/clerks and checkers are not disqualified from membership in the Union of respondent¶s rank-and-file employees. fall under a distinct category.no evidence was presented by the respondent to prove that these daily-paid checkers actually form part of the company¶s Quality Control Staff who as such ³were exposed to sensitive. are rank-and-file employees and not confidential employees. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who. there seems no dispute that they form part of the Quality Control Staff who. finishing section of the Packaging Department. and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee ± that is. Petitioner argues that respondent¶s act of unilaterally stopping the deduction of union dues from these employees constitutes unfair labor Such allegations of respondent must be supported by . With respect to the Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge Machine Technician. and even their formulas´ which are considered µtrade secrets¶. the job descriptions of these checkers assigned in the storeroom section of the Materials Department.[25] Consequently. in the normal course of their duties.[24] While it may be argued that quality control extends to postproduction phase -.proper packaging of the finished products -. and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. (2) to persons who formulate.

The Decision dated November 22. . SP No. 2002 and Resolution dated January 28.the petition is GRANTED. WHEREFORE. that social humiliation. 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 55578 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. and. or done in a manner contrary to morals. wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x xx´[28] from ABI¶s act in discontinuing the union dues deduction from those employees it believed were excluded by the CBA. SO ORDERED. of course. respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. good customs. or fraud. as provided in Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code.´ The prohibited acts are related to the workers¶ right to self organization and to the observance of a CBA. No costs. or was oppressive to labor. ³bad faith. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper.R. it must be shown that ABI was motivated by ill will. The checkers and secretaries/clerks of respondent company are hereby declared rank-and-file employees who are eligible to join the Union of the rank-and-file employees. Unfair labor practice refers to ³acts that violate the workers¶ right to organize.practice as it ³restrained´ the workers¶ exercise of their right to self -organization. nor have thereby demonstrated an anti-union stance. or public policy. Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit.