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

VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU) AND

DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS (BLR),
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA- registered export firm with principal place of
business at Phase I-PEZA- Bataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports
shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union) is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.
March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition for certification election in behalf of the rank-
and-file employees. August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration
alleging that the Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or less 82 former employees
no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who attended the organizational meeting and in
the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws; that No organizational meeting and ratification
actually took place; and the Union’s application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the
rank-and-file employees of Ventures. Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored Ventures and resolved
to Cancel the Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Director granted the Union’s appeal and reversing
the decision of RD. Ventures went to the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures’ petition as well as the MR. Hence,
this petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether the registration of the Union must be cancelled.

RULING:
NO. The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution
and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be
abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed
with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of registration confers
a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a
bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in
which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for
cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of the Labor Code, such as
fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and
like documents. The Court, has in previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show
that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the
supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents.

The evidence presented by Ventures consist mostly of separate hand-written statements of 82 employees
who alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting. However, these evidence was presented seven months after the union filed its petition for
cancellation of registration. Hence these statements partake of the nature of withdrawal of union
membership executed after the Union’s filing of a petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We
have said that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for
certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered
to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done
after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but logical to assume
that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union. 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.

The registration or the recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the corresponding papers is not
ministerial on the part of the BLR. It becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under
Art. 234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously complied with. If the union’s application is infected by
falsification and like serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and its
attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. The issuance to the
Union of Certificate of Registration, in the case at bar, necessarily implies that its application for registration
and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.

The relevance of the 82 individuals’ active participation in the Union’s organizational meeting and the signing
ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of determining whether or not the Union, even without
the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires to be submitted, requiring that the
union applicant must file 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.

In its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of 542 members. This
number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the establishment.
Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of the
maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees of the employer Venture.

Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed
in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference. The issue surrounding the
involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel
union registration.

For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239, the
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION
HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,
HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION

FACTS: A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 among the rank-and-file employees of
respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel) with the following results:

EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS’ LIST = 353

TOTAL VOTES CAST = 346

NUWHRAIN-MPHC = 151
HIMPHLU = 169

NO UNION = 1

SPOILED = 3

SEGREGATED = 22
In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC,
and respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-
Arbiter to decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated
because they were cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still pending before
the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were segregated because the employees who cast them were already
occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still five other votes were segregated on the
ground that they were cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however, that the vote of one Jose
Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was counted.
Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes, specially those cast by
the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six supposedly supervisory employees of the Hotel.
Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing
that the votes of the probationary employees should have been opened considering that probationary
employee Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered
169 votes, should not be immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17 segregated
ballots would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which
HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short of the majority which would then become 169.
Secretary affirmed the decision of the med-arbiter. In fine, the SOLE concluded that the certification of
HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper.
ISSUES: (1) whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be
allowed to vote (2) whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent.

HELD:

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

The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was not questioned but because probationary
employees have the right to vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other probationary employees
should thus also have been counted. As Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja holds:

In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary
or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states
that the “labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA
negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file
employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining
representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in
supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to “all” the employees in the bargaining
unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit.” (Emphasis
supplied)
For purposes of this section (Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003), any
employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her
service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization.
All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and
those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and
other legitimate purposes except collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)

The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot override the
Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor
Code and its Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.

A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a contract are valid only if they are not contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

II. As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, the Court rules in
the negative.
It is well-settled that under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid certification
election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered
majority of the valid votes cast.
Prescinding from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes
while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast
would increase – from 321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of
the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or
at least 170.

HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a
majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the opening of the 17 segregated
ballots will not materially affect the outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such
member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable.
It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve
as basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine which union won the elections. The
opening of the segregated but valid votes has thus become material.
To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to determine the appropriate
bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the
employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the determination of who between two
or more contending unions won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members of the
bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented and which union they want to represent them.
Having declared that no choice in the certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it
follows that a run-off election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should
represent the rank-and-file employees.

PETITION GRANTED.
_____________

NOTES:

A run-off election refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the 2 highest number of votes in
a certification or consent election with 3 or more choices, where such a certified or consent election results
in none of the 3 or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the total number
of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015

Facts:
On February 16, 2010, Samahan, through its authorized representative, Alfie F. Alipio, filed an application
for registration[5] of its name "Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE
Attached to the application were the list of... names of the association's officers and members, signatures
of the attendees of the February 7, 2010 meeting, copies of their Constitution and By-laws. The application
stated that the association had a total of 120 members.
On February 26, 2010, the DOLE Regional Office No. 3, City of San Fernando, Pampanga (DOLE-Pampanga),
issued the corresponding certificate of registration[6] in favor of Samahan.
On March 15, 2010, respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines (Hanjin),
with offices at Greenbeach 1, Renondo Peninsula, Sitio Agustin, Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay Freeport Zone,
filed a petition[7] with DOLE-Pampanga... praying for the cancellation of registration of Samahan's
association on the ground that its members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in
the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249).
Hanjin opined that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-employed, and those without
definite employers may form a workers' association. It further posited that one third (1/3) of the members
of the association had definite employers and the continued... existence and registration of the association
would prejudice the company's goodwill.
On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a supplemental petition,[8] adding the alternative ground that Samahan
committed a misrepresentation in connection with the list of members and/or voters who took part in the
ratification of their constitution and by-laws in... its application for registration. Hanjin claimed that Samahan
made it appear that its members were all qualified to become members of the workers' association.
The Ruling of the DOLE Regional Director
On April 20, 2010, DOLE Regional Director Ernesto Bihis ruled in favor of Hanjin. He found that the preamble,
as stated in the Constitution and By-Laws of Samahan, was an admission on its part that all of its members
were employees of Hanjin, to wit:
KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa HANJIN Shipyard (SAMAHAN) ay naglalayong na isulong ang pagpapabuti
ng kondisyon sa paggawa at katiyakan sa hanapbuhay sa pamamagitan ng patuloy na pagpapaunlad ng
kasanayan ng para sa mga kasapi nito. Naniniwala na sa pamamagitan ng... aming mga angking lakas,
kaalaman at kasanayan ay anting maitataguyod at makapag-aambag sa kaunlaran ng isang lipunan. Na
mararating at makakamit ang antas ng pagkilala, pagdakila at pagpapahalaga sa mga tulad naming mga
manggagawa.
The same claim was made by Samahan in its motion to dismiss, but it failed to adduce evidence that the
remaining 63 members were also employees of Hanjin. Its admission bolstered Hanjin's claim that Samahan
committed misrepresentation in its application for registration as it... made an express representation that
all of its members were employees of the former. Having a definite employer, these 57 members should
have formed a labor union for collective bargaining.[11] The dispositive portion of the decision of the Dole
Regional
Director, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the Certificate of
Registration as Legitimate Workers Association (LWA) issued to the SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA
SA HANJIN SHIPYARD (SAMAHAN) with Registration Numbers R0300-1002-WA-009... dated February 26,
2010 is hereby CANCELLED, and said association is dropped from the roster of labor organizations of this
Office.
SO DECIDED.[12]
The Ruling of the Bureau of Labor Relations
Aggrieved, Samahan filed an appeal[13] before the BLR, arguing that Hanjin had no right to petition for the
cancellation of its registration. Samahan pointed out that the words "Hanjin Shipyard," as used in its
application for registration, referred to a... workplace and not as employer or company. It explained that
when a shipyard was put up in Subic, Zambales, it became known as Hanjin Shipyard. Further, the remaining
63 members signed the Sama-Samang Pagpapatunay which stated that they were either working or had
worked at
Hanjin. Thus, the alleged misrepresentation committed by Samahan had no leg to stand on.[14]
In its Comment to the Appeal,[15] Hanjin averred that it was a party-in-interest. It reiterated that Samahan
committed misrepresentation in its application for registration before DOLE Pampanga. While Samahan
insisted that the remaining 63 members were... either working, or had at least worked in Hanjin, only 10
attested to such fact, thus, leaving its 53 members without any workplace to claim.
On September 6, 2010, the BLR granted Samahan's appeal and reversed the ruling of the Regional Director.
It stated that the law clearly afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including those without
definite employers.[16] As an expression... of the right to self-organization, industrial, commercial and self-
employed workers could form a workers' association if they so desired but subject to the limitation that it
was only for mutual aid and protection.[17] Nowhere could it be found that to form... a workers' association
was prohibited or that the exercise of a workers' right to self-organization was limited to collective
bargaining.[18]
The BLR was of the opinion that there was no misrepresentation on the part of Samahan. The phrase, "KAMI,
ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" if translated, would be: "We, the workers at Hanjin Shipyard."
The use of the preposition "at" instead of "of " would indicate... that "Hanjin Shipyard" was intended to
describe a place.[19] Should Hanjin feel that the use of its name had affected the goodwill of the company,
the remedy was not to seek the cancellation of the association's registration. At most, the use by Samahan
of... the name "Hanjin Shipyard" would only warrant a change in the name of the association.[20] Thus, the
dispositive portion of the BLR decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Order of DOLE Region III Director Ernesto C. Bihis dated
20 April 2010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard shall remain in the roster of legitimate
workers' association.[
Samahan argues that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to intermittent, ambulant and
itinerant workers. While the Labor Code allows the workers "to form, join or assist labor organizations of
their own choosing" for the purpose of collective bargaining, it... does not prohibit them from forming a
labor organization simply for purposes of mutual aid and protection. All members of Samahan have one
common place of work, Hanjin Shipyard. Thus, there is no reason why they cannot use "Hanjin Shipyard" in
their name.[39]
Hanjin counters that Samahan failed to adduce sufficient basis that all its members were employees of
Hanjin or its legitimate contractors, and that the use of the name "Hanjin Shipyard" would create an
impression that all its members were employess of HHIC.[40]
Samahan reiterates its stand that workers with a definite employer can organize any association for purposes
of mutual aid and protection. Inherent in the workers' right to self-organization is its right to name its own
organization. Samahan referred "Hanjin Shipyard" as their... common place of work. Therefore, they may
adopt the same in their association's name
Issues:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT SAMAHAN CANNOT FORM A WORKERS'
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES IN HANJIN AND INSTEAD SHOULD HAVE FORMED A UNION, HENCE THEIR
REGISTRATION AS A WORKERS' ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE CANCELLED.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ORDERING THE REMOVAL/DELETION OF THE WORD
"HANJIN" IN THE NAME OF THE UNION BY REASON OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY RIGHT OVER THE
COMPANY NAME "HANJIN."
Ruling:
Right to self-organization includes right to form a union, workers' association and labor management
councils
More often than not, the right to self-organization connotes unionism. Workers, however, can also form and
join a workers' association as well as labor-management councils (LMC). Expressed in the highest law of
the land is the right of all workers to self-organization.
Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and
promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of
all workers to... self-organization,... collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law. xxx
[Emphasis Supplied]
And Section 8, Article III of the 1987 Constitution also states:
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
In relation thereto, Article 3 of the Labor Code provides:
Article 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers
and employers. The State shall... assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
[Emphasis Supplied]
As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides, the right to self-organization includes the right to
form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of
their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities... for the same purpose for their mutual aid
and protection. This is in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and voluntary organization of a
strong and united labor movement as well as to make sure that workers participate in policy and decision-
making processes... affecting their rights, duties and welfare.[42]
The right to form a union or association or to self-organization comprehends two notions, to wit: (a) the
liberty or freedom, that is, the absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may act for himself
without being prevented by law; and (b) the power, by virtue of... which an employee may, as he pleases,
join or refrain from joining an association.[43]
In view of the revered right of every worker to self-organization, the law expressly allows and even
encourages the formation of labor organizations. A labor organization is defined as "any union or association
of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of... collective bargaining or of dealing with
employers concerning terms and conditions of employment."[44] A labor organization has two broad rights:
(1) to bargain collectively and (2) to deal with the employer concerning terms and conditions of employment.
To... bargain collectively is a right given to a union once it registers itself with the DOLE. Dealing with the
employer, on the other hand, is a generic description of interaction between employer and employees
concerning grievances, wages, work hours and other terms and conditions... of employment, even if the
employees' group is not registered with the DOLE.[45]
A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective bargaining and for other
legitimate purpose,[46] while a workers' association is an organization of workers formed for the mutual aid
and protection of its members or... for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining.[47]
Many associations or groups of employees, or even combinations of only several persons, may qualify as a
labor organization yet fall short of constituting a labor union. While every labor union is a labor organization,
not every labor organization is a labor union. The... difference is one of organization, composition and
operation.[48]
Collective bargaining is just one of the forms of employee participation. Despite so much interest in and the
promotion of collective bargaining, it is incorrect to say that it is the device and no other, which secures
industrial democracy. It is equally misleading to say that... collective bargaining is the end-goal of employee
representation. Rather, the real aim is employee participation in whatever form it may appear, bargaining or
no bargaining, union or no union.[49] Any labor organization which may or may not be a... union may deal
with the employer. This explains why a workers' association or organization does not always have to be a
labor union and why employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective bargaining.[50]
Right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers' association belongs to workers themselves
In the case at bench, the Court cannot sanction the opinion of the CA that Samahan should have formed a
union for purposes of collective bargaining instead of a workers' association because the choice belonged
to it. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily... includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising the said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted
by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right.[53] Also inherent... in the
right to self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective bargaining
or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.
The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law. For instance, the
Labor Code specifically disallows managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor union.
Meanwhile, supervisory employees, while eligible for... membership in labor organizations, are proscribed
from joining the collective bargaining unit of the rank and file employees.[54] Even government employees
have the right to self-organization. It is not, however, regarded as existing or available for... purposes of
collective bargaining, but simply for the furtherance and protection of their interests.[55]
Hanjin posits that the members of Samahan have definite employers, hence, they should have formed a
union instead of a workers' association. The Court disagrees. There is no provision in the Labor Code that
states that employees with definite employers may form, join or assist... unions only.
The Court cannot subscribe either to Hanjin's position that Samahan's members cannot form the association
because they are not covered by the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249), to wit:
Article 243. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial,
industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions,
whether operating for profit or not, shall... have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and
itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may... form
labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1,
1980)
[Emphasis Supplied]
Further, Article 243 should be read together with Rule 2 of Department Order (D.O.) No. 40-03, Series of
2003, which provides:
RULE II
COVERAGE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Section 2. Who may join labor unions and workers' associations
All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and
those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and
other legitimate purposes except collective... bargaining.
Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing implementing rules which provides that workers, with definite
employers, cannot form or join a workers' association for mutual aid and protection. Section 2 thereof even
broadens the coverage of workers who can form or join a workers'... association. Thus, the Court agrees
with Samahan's argument that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant,
intermittent and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies with the
workers themselves, and whether... they have definite employers or not.
Principles:
The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an association for
mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes.
Right to self-organization includes right to form a union, workers' association and labor management
councils
Right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers' association belongs to workers themselves
Hanjin posits that the members of Samahan have definite employers, hence, they should have formed a
union instead of a workers' association. The Court disagrees. There is no provision in the Labor Code that
states that employees with definite employers may form, join or assist... unions only.

HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL vs. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her official capacity as Secretary o
f the Department of Labor and Employment, and PINAG-
ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS – HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES
LABOR UNION (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS) G.R. No. 179146, 23 July 2013

FACTS:

A petition for certification election was filed by private respondent Pinag-

Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis – Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HC
CS-
TELUPIGLAS). Holy Child Parochial School raised that members of private respondent do not belong to th
e same class; it is not only a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-
file employees – as three (3) are vice-
principals, one (1) is a department head/supervisor, and eleven (11) are coordinators – but also a combina
tion of teaching and non-teaching personnel – as twenty-seven (27) are non-
teaching personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord with Article 24510 of the Labor Code, private re
spondent is an illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition for certification election
The Med-Arbiter denied the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the labor organization’s
membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
RULING:
No. Before, when the 1989 Rules was still in application, mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and
duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election. But the
n, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1
997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnib
us 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.

Petitioner argued that, in view of the improper mixture of teaching and non-
teaching personnel in private respondent due to the absence of mutuality of interest among its members, t
he petition for certification election should have been dismissed on the ground that private respondent is n
ot qualified to file such petition for its failure to qualify as a legitimate labor organization, the basic qualifica
tion of which is the representation of an appropriate bargaining unit. The Supreme Court disagreed and sai
d that the concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor organization are different from, but related to, the c
oncept of a bargaining unit.

In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer lik
e petitioner is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union’s certificate of registration due to misre
presentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Co
de, as amended. To reiterate, private respondent, having been validly issued a certificate of registration, sh
ould be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not be attacked collaterally.

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (SMCEU-
PTGWO) v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union- Pambansang Diwa Ng Manggagawang
Pilipino
“Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est”

G.R. No. 171153; September 12, 2007

Facts:

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union- Philippines Transport and General Workers (SMCEU-PTGWO)
filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of San Miguel Packaging Products Employees
Union – Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP) registration and its dropping from
the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. DOLE-NCR Regional Director issued an Order dismissing the
allegations. It was found that respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus,
ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor
organizations. Respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).While the BLR agreed with the
findings of the DOLE Regional Director, it reversed the ruling that the 20% membership is a requirement for
respondent to attain legal personality as a labor organization. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 9
March 2005, dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether the respondent is a legitimate labor organization.

Ruling:

When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others
from its operation may be inferred. Such is the case here. If its intent were otherwise, the law could have
so easily and conveniently included “trade union centers” in identifying the labor organizations allowed to
charter a chapter or local. 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. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est.
A person, object or thing omitted must have been omitted intentionally. Under the pertinent status and
applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local
through chartering is given to a federation or national union, then a trade union center is without authority
to charter directly. Although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power
to directly create a local or chapter.

HERITAGE HOTEL V. PIGLAS-HERITAGE | EFFECT OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION

OF UNION REGISTRATION

July 4, 2019

G.R. No. 177024, October 30, 2009

Petitioners: THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL
CORPORATION)
Respondents: PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-
HERITAGE)
APPLICABLE LAW.
Art. 246 Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. – A petition for cancellation of union registration
shall notsuspend the proceedings for certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for
certification election.
In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek just and equitable remedies
in the appropriate courts.

FACTS:
• Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file employees of Heritage Hotel Manila (Company) formed the
“Heritage Hotel Employees Union” (HHE Union). DOLE-NCR later issued a certificate of
registration to this union.
• Subsequently, the HHE Union filed a petition for certification election.
• Opposed by Company: the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent
union, when it was, in truth, a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel
and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). (intentional omission to disclose
its affiliation with NUWHRAIN because the Company’s supervisors union was already
affiliated with it) Thus, the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the HHE
union’s registration certificate.
 • Meanwhile, the Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union’s petition for certification election. Company
appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor (Denied)
• On October 12, 2001, CA issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE union’s
certification election, effective until the petition for cancellation of that union’s registration shall
have been resolved with finality. (This decision became final when the HHE union withdrew the
petition for review that it filed with SC)
• On December 2003, certain rank and file employees of Company held a meeting and formed
another union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage
Manila (PIGLAS union). This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR and got its
registration certificate on February 2004. Two months later, the HHE union adopted a resolution
for its dissolution. The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.
• On September 2004, PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner
company also opposed, alleging that the new union’s officers and members were also those who
comprised the old union. (Med-Arbiter GRANTED the petition for certification)
• On December 2004, Company filed a petition to cancel the union registration of PIGLAS union.
The Company claimed that the documents submitted with the union’s application for registration
bore the following false information:
1. The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members;
2. The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attendedthe meeting on December 10, 2003;
3. TheAttendance Sheetof the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the signature of 127 members
who ratifiedthe union’s Constitution and By-Laws; and
4. The Signature Sheet bore 128 signaturesof those who attended that meeting.
• On February 2005, DOLE-NCR denied the company’s petition to cancelPIGLAS union’s registration:
• the discrepanciesin the number of members stated in the application’s supporting documents were
not materialand did not constitute misrepresentation.
• dual unionism is not a ground for canceling registration. It merely exposed a union member to a
possible charge of disloyalty, an internal matter. Here, 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.
• On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relation (BLR) affirmedthe ruling of the DOLE-NCR.
• PIGLAS union’s organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. It was possible for the number of
attendees to have increased from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed. Besides, with a total of
250 employees in the bargaining unit, the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20
percent membership requirement. Thus, the union could not be accused of misrepresentation
since it did not pad its membership to secure registration.
• dual unionism has become moot and academic because of the dissolution of the old union and the
cancellation of its certificate of registration.
• CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, not being accompanied by material documents and
portions of the record. The company filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching parts of the
record that were deemed indispensable but the court denied it for lack of merit. Hence, the
company filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD

CONTENTIONS of HOTEL:
• MISRERESENTANTION BY DISCREPANCY: The misrepresentation was evidenced by the
discrepancy in the number of union membersappearing in the applicationand thelistas well as in
 the number of signatories to the attendanceand signature sheets. The minutes reported that only
90 employees attended the meeting.
• PROHIBITION ON DUAL UNIONISM: 33 members of PIGLAS union were members of the defunct
HHE union.This, violated the policy against dual unionism and showed that the new union was
merely an alter ego of the old.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration. – NO.
2. Whether “dual unionism” is a ground for canceling a union’s registration. – NO.

RULING + RATIO:
NO FATAL MISREPRESENTATION
• As correctly ruled by DOLE-NCR and BLR, PIGLAS did not union commit fraud and
misrepresentation in its application for union registration.
• The discrepancies as to the number of union membersinvolved as appeared on the documents
that supported the union’s application for registration cannot be taken as an indication that
respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents.

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION MUST BE PROVED DUE TO SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE

• The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its
registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such
charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered
organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence
and the surrounding circumstances.

VALIDITY OF THE DISCREPANCIED

• Here, the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various
supporting documents that PIGLAS union submitted to labor authorities can be explained. While
it appears in the minutes of the December 10, 2003 organizational meeting that only 90
employees responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number
could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12
hoursfrom 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to
exclude late attendees.
• 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. It cannot be
assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. Any member
had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifyingthose documents or to simply ignore the
process.
• At any rate, the Labor Codeand its implementing rulesdo not require that the number of members
appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. For as long as the
documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-
laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with registration
requirements.
NO MATERIAL MISREPRENSENTATION AS TO THE MINIMUM MEMBERSHIP (MORE THAN PA!)
• 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. Yet
the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance
sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. This omission, said the company,
amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the union’s
registration.
• But, as the labor authorities held, this discrepancy is immaterial. A comparison of the documents
shows that, except for six members, the names found in the subject list are also in the attendance
and signature sheets. Notably, the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to
represent consisted of 250 employees. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were
required to unionize. Here, the union more than complied with such requirement.
• Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.Here, the PIGLAS union’s supporting
documents reveal the unmistakable yearning of petitioner company’s rank and file employees to
organize. This yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.
NO DUAL UNIONISM(MOOT)
• The fact that some of PIGLAS union’s members were also members of the old rank and file union,
the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the new union’s registration. The right of any person
to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one.
• Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already been
cancelled. Thus, petitioner’s arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and
academic.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26, 2006

CASE TITLE: Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. CA GR NO.: 178989 DATE: March 18, 2010 PETITIONER:
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB RESPONDENT: COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES
UNION (EREU) DOCTRINE: The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the desire to withdraw their
membership through their affidavits of retraction will not cause the cancellation of registration on the ground
of violation of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum 20% membership of rank-
and-file employees in the employees' union FACTS: At least 20% of Eagle Ridge's rank-and-file employees
had a meeting where they organized themselves into an independent labor union, named "Eagle Ridge
Employees Union" (EREU or Union), elected a set of officers, and ratified their constitution and by-laws.
Thereafter, they formally applied for registration before the DOLE which was later on issued to them.
Subsequently, petitioner filed for cancellation of the Union’s registration. Petitioner alleged that EREU
declared in its application for registration having 30 members, when the minutes of its December 6, 2005
organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members. Moreover, petitioner contended that five employees
who attended the organizational meeting had manifested, through their individual affidavits, the desire to
withdraw from the union. Thus, the union membership reduced to 20 or 21, either of which is below the
mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code. Reckoned from
112 rank-and-file employees of Eagle Ridge, the required number would be 22 or 23 employees. The DOLE
RD ruled in favor of the petitioner which was affirmed by the BLR. On MR, the BLR set aside the previous
rulings and ruled in favor of the Union. Petitioner went to the CA but to no avail, thus this petition. ISSUE:
Was there a bona fide compliance with the registration requirements? HELD: Yes. First, the Union submitted
the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting on December 6, 2005, the
election of its officers, and the adoption of the Union's constitution and by-laws. Second, The members of
the Union totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19, 2005 for registration. The Union thereby
complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234 (c). Third, The Union
has sufficiently explained the discrepancy between the number of those who attended the organizational
meeting showing 26 employees and the list of union members showing 30. The difference is due to the
additional four members admitted two days after the organizational meeting as attested to by their duly
accomplished Union Membership forms. Fourth, The fact that six union members, indeed, expressed the
desire to withdraw their membership through their affidavits of retraction will not cause the cancellation of
registration on the ground of violation of Art. 234 (c) of the Labor Code requiring the mandatory minimum
20% membership of rank-and-file employees in the employees' union. When the EREU filed its application
for registration on December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the certificate of
registration was granted, there is no dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory 20% membership
requirement

G.R. No. 169717: March 16, 2011.

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR

EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS [SMCC-SUPER], ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT,
Petitioner, v. CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

On February 19, 1999,Samahang Manggagawasa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines
for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a petition for certification election among the regular
rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the
Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National Capital Region. On April 14, 1999, respondent company
filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization because of (1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the
inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.

The Med-Arbiter agreed with the respondent company. Though the DOLE disagreed with the Med-Arbiter
on its findings regarding the documentation requirements and the inclusion of supervisory employees in the
union, it ruled that the petitioner union did not file its petition on time. Another union, supposedly, had filed
a petition for certification election and its petition has been decided with finality. The CA upheld the findings
of the Med-Arbiter.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the unions charter certificate needed to be certified under oath

2. Whether or not the mingling of supervisory employees with rank and file employees nullifies the legal
personality of the union

HELD:

The petition is granted.

LABOR LAW: Legal personality of a union, when nullified.

First issue: Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of
1997 does require that a charter certificate be under oath. However, in San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-
and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW), which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. 9,
Series of 1997, we ruled that it was not necessary for the charter certificate to be certified and attested by
the local/chapter officers, since it does not make sense to have the local/chapters officers certify or attest
to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of. In accordance with this ruling, petitioner unions
charter certificate need not be executed under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a
legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate, (2) the names of its officers, their
addresses, and its principal office, and (3) its constitution and by-laws the last two requirements having
been executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the records.

Second issue: In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO
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, the Court, given the altered milieu, abandoned the view
inToyotaandDunlopand reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the
mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not
provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it
may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between
supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among
the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. As a result, petitioner union
was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor organization even if some of its members were
supervisory employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for certification election.

GRANTED.

G.R. No. 163532: March 10, 2010

YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.

CARPIO,J.:

FACTS:

Respondent YEU is the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of petitioner YTPI. YEU was
registered as a legitimate labor labor union on 10 September 1999.

YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification election.YTPI filed before the Regional Office
a petition on 24 January 2000 for the revocation of YEUs registration alleging among other matters that YEU
violated Article 239(a) of the Labor Code for committing fraud or misrepresentation for fraudulently including
the signature of a certain Ronald O. Pineda in the organizational documents.
The Regional Office granted the petition and ruled that YEU committed misrepresentation: (1) YEU failed to
remove Pinedas signature from the organizational documents despite instructions to do so; and (2) YEU
declared that it conducted an election of union officers when, in truth, it did not.

On appeal, the BLR reversed the decision of the Regional Office. The BLR also held among other matters
that (1) YTPI was estopped from questioning the fact that theSama-Samang Pahayagwas an unsworn
document since it filed the 24 January 2000 petition for the revocation of YEUs registration based on
unsworn documents; (2) the fact that there was no express mention of an election of union officers in
theSama-Samang Pahayagdid not necessarily mean that no election occurred; (3) there was an
organizational meeting and an organizational meeting may include an election of union officers; (4) any
infirmity in the election of union officers may be remedied under the last paragraph of Article 241 of the
Labor Code and under Rule XIV of DOLE Department Order No. 9; and (5) cancellation of union registration
must be done with great caution.

YTPI filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied the motion for lack of merit. On its appeal
for certiorari, the CA denied the petition and held that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner had the burden of proof that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation?
HELD:

The petition is denied.

LABOR LAW

As correctly held by the Court of Appeal, the cancellation of union registration at the employers instance,
while permitted, must be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong to a
legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such membership will not be denied
to the employees.As the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof
sufficient to warrant the cancellation.The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU
committed misrepresentations, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers, or
with the minutes of the election of officers, or in the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c),Labor
Code.But, as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, the petitioner simply failed to
discharge its burden.

YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEUs registration, had the burden of proving
that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its
accusations that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pinedas signature from the organizational documents
and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.

REMEDIAL LAW

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should include only questions of law,
 questions of fact are not reviewable.A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on
a certain set of facts, while a question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts.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.Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question
is one of fact.

Whether YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to remove Pinedas signature from the list of
employees who supported YEUs application for registration and whether YEU conducted an election of its
officers are questions of fact.They are not reviewable.

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court.Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court
will not disturb the Court of Appeals factual findings. InEncarnacion v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 101292,
8 June 1993), the Court held that, unless there is a clearly grave or whimsical abuse on its part, findings of
fact of the appellate court will not be disturbed.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.YTPI failed to show
that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion.

CA AFFIRMED.

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

Topic: Labor Organization; Government Regulation; Requirements

FACTS:

1) Petitioner filed with the DOLE a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration of
Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that the latter is guilty of
misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect to the number of those who participated in the
organizational meeting, the adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election of
its officers.

Ø contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of respondent, only 68 attendees signed the
attendance sheet, and which number comprised only 17% of the total number of the 396 regular rank- and-
file employees which respondent sought to represent, and hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20%
minimum membership requirement.

Ø insisted that the document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no signatures of the alleged 119 union
members; and that employees were not given sufficient information on the documents they signed; that the
document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not submitted at the time of the filing of respondent's
application for union registration.

2) Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119 union members were more than the 20%
requirement for union registration. The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon" which it
presented in its petition for certification election supported their claim of 119 members.
3) DOLE Regional Director granted the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration;
finding that the 68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was obviously less than 20% of the
total number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent sought to represent, hence, short of
the union registration requirement.

4) BLR: reversed DOLE RD, finding that petitioner failed to prove that respondent deliberately and maliciously
misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees; that the list of employees who participated in the
organizational meeting was a separate and distinct requirement from the list of the names of members
comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit; and that there was no requirement for
signatures opposite the names of the union members.

5) CA affirmed the decision of the BLR.

ISSUES: WON respondent obtained the minimum required number of employees for purposes of
organization and registration.

RULING: YES. 119 (of 396) employees as union members is even beyond the 20% minimum membership
requirement.

Art. 234, Labor Code: Requirements of Registration. - A federation, national union or industry or trade
union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration
based on the following requirements:

a) Fifty pesos (P50.00)registration fee;

b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of
the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least twenty
percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports;
and

e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification,
and the list of the members who participated in it."

And after the issuance of the certificate of registration, the labor organization's registration could be assailed
directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the
Labor Code.
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational meeting must
comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact, even the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the Labor Code does not so provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it
seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the
union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b)
and (c) provide for separate requirements, which must be submitted for the union's registration, and which
respondent did submit.

Here, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of which was about 79.
Respondent submitted a document entitled "Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon" showing the names of 119
employees as union members, thus respondent sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum
membership requirement. Respondent also submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting
which contained the names and signatures of the 68 union members who attended the meeting. Considering
that there are 119 union members which are more than 20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit,
and since the law does not provide for the required number of members to attend the organizational meeting,
the 68 attendees which comprised at least the majority of the 119 union members would already constitute
a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution and By-laws of the union. There
is, therefore, no basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation of respondent's union
registration.

DISPOSITIVE: Respondent won.

DOCTRINE: It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational
meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. It is only under Article 234 (c) that
requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’
membership in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting.

AIM v. AIM FACULTY ASSOC.

Asian Institute of Management vs. Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association

G.R. No. 207971

January 23, 2017

Facts:
On May 16, 2007, respondent filed a petition for certification election6 seeking to represent a bargaining
unit in AIM consisting of forty faculty members. Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming that respondent's
members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather, and managerial employees. On July 11, 2007,
petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds of
misrepresentation in registration and that respondent is composed of managerial employees who are
prohibited from organizing as a union.

Issues:

Whether or not the members of AIMFA are managerial employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court finds the employees to be managerial employees.

Article 212 of the Labor Code defines managerial employees as:

ART. 212. Definitions.

Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend
such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are
considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.'

There are, therefore, two kinds of managerial employees under Art. 212 of the Labor Code. Those who 'lay
down management policies', such as the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies
and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees'.

MSMG-UWP v. Ramos (April 27, 2001)

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Labor Law

FACTS: The petitioners were terminated by the company but the NLRC upheld the dismissal. Later on, the
SC reversed the decision and ordered all of them reinstated and paid full backwages but it also held that
the officers of the company shouldn’t be held liable. This is the subject of this motion for partial record as
the union argues that it was the officers who made the decision to terminate the employees. Petitioners
further contend that while the case was pending, the company began removing its machineries and
equipment from its plant and began diverting jobs intended for the regular employees to its sub-
contractor/satellite branches.

ISSUE: W/N the officers should be held liable for the illegal dismissed.

HELD: The SC ruled that the officers cannot be held liable because a crop has a personality separate and
distinct from those acting in its behalf. The rule is that obligations incurred by the corp, through its
directors, officers and employees are its sole liabilities. In labor cases, corporate directors and officers are
solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment or corporate employees done with
malice or in bad faith. Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest
purpose of some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty thru some
motive or interest or will; it partwages of the nature of fraud. In this case, there is nothing on record to show
that the officers acted in patent bad faith or were guilty of gross negligence in terminating the services of
petitioners so as to warrant personal liability.

Philippine Skylanders vs NLRC

NOVEMBER 6, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

Philippine Skylanders vs NLRC

GR 127374
Facts:

In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated
with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted
among the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders
Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the
Secretary of Labor.
Several months later, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation.

PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name to
Philippine Skylanders Employees Association – National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain
continuity within the organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their
positions as elected officers in the newly-formed PSEA-NCW.

On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI which was
immediately registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA’s shift of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary General Serafin Ayroso wrote
Mariles C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI’s audited financial statement. On 30 July 1994 PSI through its
personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied the request citing as reason PSEA’s disaffiliation from PAFLU
and its subsequent affiliation with NCW.

Issue: WON PSEA’s disaffiliation is legitimate.

Held:
At the outset, let it be noted that the issue of disaffiliation is an inter-union conflict the jurisdiction of which
properly lies with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and not with the Labor Arbiter.

We upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate
and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation
to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. Yet the local unions remain the basic
units of association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution
and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in
the agreement which brought such affiliation into existence.

There is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden
to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the
pendency of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute
a bar to a valid disaffiliation.
It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with PSEA-NCW. As
PSEA had validly severed itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from
subsequently affiliating with NCW and entering into a collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its
members.

Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national
federation, those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically though, the desires of the mother
federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be shunned. It will however be to err greatly against the
Constitution if the desires of the federation would be favored over those of its members. That, at any rate,
is the policy of the law. For if it were otherwise, instead of protection, there would be disregard and neglect
of the lowly workingmen.

SIAM CERAMICS VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR

DIGEST Admin3 years ago

Avg. Rating:

Summary:
DOLE granted SMMSC-Independent’s petition for registration as legitimate labor organization but a
subsequent Petition for Cancellation of Registration was filed by Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. on the
ground that the union failed to meet the 20% membership requirement and has in the process committed
massive fraud and misrepresentation SC ruled that the union met the 20% membership requirement. Also,
massive fraud and misrepresentation was not committed.

Doctrine:
20% membership requirement is only required during the petition for registration but there is no rule
requiring it to maintain such 20% membership to maintain its status of legitimacy

2. When retraction is done after the filing of a petition for registration, a presumption that such withdrawal
was tainted with duress, coercion and for valuable consideration arise.

Facts:

• Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. has 528 rank and file employees and 173 signed up for the union
membership when the Petition for Registration was filed.
SMMSC- Independent was granted Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by DOLE
on 04 May 2005

• Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. on 14 June 2005 filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union
Registration of SMMSC- Independent on the ground that they were not able to meet the 20%
membership requirement of the Labor Code and has in the process committed massive fraud and
misrepresentation in violation of 245.

• The basis of Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. is the disaffiliation of 102 employee who have
executed affidavits recanting their union membership. The charge of fraud and misrepresentation
was based on the 2 signatures affixed by the same person in the petition for registration.

• Regional Director of DOLE 4-A: Granted the petition, revoked the certificate of registration and
delisted SMMSC-Independent from the list of active labor unions

Appeal to BLR: Reversed the decision of Dole Regional Director revoking the Certificate of Registration

Petition for Certiorari in the CA: denied for lack of merit

Issues Ratio:
WON the union was able to comply with the 20% membership requirement – YES

Ratio.

1. WON the union was able to comply with the 20% membership requirement – YES

The Court noted that the submitted affidavit recanting union membership is pro forma stating the
following:

1.
1. They were forced to sign up as members
2. They wish to terminate their affiliation with the union

Moreover, the court noted that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the submission of the
affidavits. There were 2 sets of affidavits filed to the DOLE on 2 different dates (14 June 2005 and 12 July
2005) but were notarized on the same date
The court cited the ruling in La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v Director of BLR: if the withdrawal is
made before the filing of the petition, it means that the member is withdrawing its support from filing the
petition for registration. But if the withdrawal of membership is done after the filing of the petition for
registration, it would be presumed that the withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The presumption would
arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress, coercion or for valuable consideration. The reason
for this dichotomy is that if the retraction is made before the filing of the petition, the identity of the
employee-supporters is unknown to the employer- as such the voluntariness of retraction can be
assumed. But if the retraction is done post-filing the identities of the employee-supporter are revealed to
the employer since the list of members is attached to the petition filed.

In this case, withdrawal of the employees were done after the filing of the certificate of registration.
Nevertheless, even if the retraction were given credence, such ground is not enough to grant a petition
for cancellation of registration because the law only mandates that there be 20% membership
requirement at the time of the filing of petition for registration and the law does NOT require the union
to maintain 20% membership for its continued existence.

Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement can only be used as a ground to de-certify a union when it
pertains to adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto or election of
officers. The minutes of the pertinent meetings MUST be submitted to the BLR. Moreover, the fraud and
misrepresentation has to be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
members.

Dispositive:
The court affirms the decision of the CA and ruled that there was proper issuance of the Certificate of
Registration as a legitimate labor organization.

SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMMA CORP DIGEST

DECEMBER 19, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

G.R. No. 167141 March 13, 2009

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG

ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA), Petitioner,
vs.
SAMMA CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma– Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng
Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001 in the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office IV.4 It claimed that: (1) it was a local chapter of the LIKHA
Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE; (2) it sought to represent all the rank-
and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate labor organization
representing these rank-and-file employees; (4) respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining
agreement and (5) no certification or consent election had been conducted within the employer unit for the
last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition.
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its
legal personality; (2) petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the
certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees.
Med-arbiter ordered the dismissal. , Acting Secretary Manuel G. Imson, treating the motion for
reconsideration as an appeal, rendered a decision reversing the order of the med-arbiter. He ruled that the
legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an independent
petition for cancellation of registration. Thus, he directed the holding of a certification election among the
rank-and-file employees of respondent, subject to the usual pre-election conference and inclusion-exclusion
proceedings. CA reversed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: whether a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a petition for certification election
HELD: NO

In ruling against petitioner, the CA declared that under Administrative Circular No. 04-94,16 a certificate of
non-forum shopping was required in a petition for certification election. The circular states:
The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this Circular are the original civil
complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention,
petition, or applicationwherein a party asserts his claim for relief. (Emphasis supplied)
According to the CA, a petition for certification election asserts a claim, i.e., the conduct of a certification
election. As a result, it is covered by the circular.
We disagree.

The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints, counter-claims, cross-claims,
petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding the claim for
relief of the complainant, claimant, petitioner or applicant. A certification proceeding, even though initiated
by a “petition,” is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character.
Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are
merely of an inquisitorial nature. The Board’s functions are not judicial in nature, but are merely of an
investigative character. The object of the proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of
wrongs nor asserted deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of proper bargaining units and
the ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees in respect of the selection of a bargaining
representative. The determination of the proceedings does not entail the entry of remedial orders to redress
rights, but culminates solely in an official designation of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees’
expressed choice of bargaining agent.
Under the omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code as amended by D.O. No. 9,22 it is supposed to be
filed in the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer or where the
bargaining unit is principally situated.23 The rules further provide that where two or more petitions involving
the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, the same shall be automatically
consolidated.24 Hence, the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely
happen in this proceeding and, if it does, will be easy to discover.
Notably, under the Labor Code and the rules pertaining to the form of the petition for certification election,
there is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping either in D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 or in
D.O. No. 40-03, series of 2003 which replaced the former.
Considering the nature of a petition for certification election and the rules governing it, we therefore hold
that the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is inapplicable to such a petition.

RP VS. KAWASHIMA

NOVEMBER 17, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE),Petitioner,
vs.
KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS: KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in
the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent.
Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss8 the petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any
legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article
245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in
Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment.

Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for certification
election, stating that, Since petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees,
petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.
Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory employees from it membership before it can attain the status
of a legitimate labor organization.
Respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration
of KFWU,13 the final outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the records.

KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal; ordered the case be remanded to the office of origin
for the immediate conduct of certification election xxx CA reversed. MR denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
(1) whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the
dismissal of a petition for certification election in view of the amendment brought about by D.O. 9, series of
1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule that “[t]he appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employee shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards;” and

(2) whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be collaterally attacked in a petition
for a certification election through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile
Manufacturing Phils., Inc.

HELD: The petition is imbued with merit.

The key to the closure that petitioner seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 [AN ACT
STRENGTHENING THE WORKERS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES] Sections 8 and 9 (See NOTES)
However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007;26 hence, it applies only to labor representation
cases filed on or after said date.27 As the petition for certification election subject matter of the present
petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000,28 R.A. No. 9481 cannot apply to it. There may have been
curative labor legislations29 that were given retrospective effect,30 but not the aforecited provisions of R.A.
No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already vested would be impaired in the process.

Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for certification election
on January 24, 2000 are R.A. No. 6715,32 amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor
Code),33as amended, and the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715,34 as amended by
Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.35

One area of contention has been the composition of the membership of a labor organization, specifically
whether there is a mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and how such questioned mingling
affects its legitimacy.

Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the questioned mingling in one labor
organization, viz:

Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows
“Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees.
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.” (Emphasis supplied)

Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the
prohibition would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.

Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in Toyota,48 the Court, citing Article
245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, held:
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor
organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a
petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore,
anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, 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 xxxx

In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27)
supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory
employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess
the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election.

But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order
No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 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.

Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting the petition
for certification election of KFWU.

II. Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy
of a labor organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for certification election.

Except when it is requested to bargain collectively,62 an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for
certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof
is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer.63 The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer
cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing
a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it;64 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.65 The employer’s only right in the proceeding is to be notified
or informed thereof.66
The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.

Petition is GRANTED.
___________
NOTES:
Section 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Art. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory
Employees. – Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-
and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor
organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors’ union operating within the same
establishment may join the same federation or national union.”

Section 9. A new provision, Article 245-A is inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:
“Art. 245-A. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. – The inclusion as
union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the
registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership
of said union.” (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, under Section 4, a pending petition for cancellation of registration will not hinder a legitimate
labor organization from initiating a certification election, viz:

Sec. 4. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as Article 238-A to read as follows:

“Art. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. – A petition for cancellation of union
registration shall not suspend the proceedings for certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a
petition for certification election.
 In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek just and equitable remedies
in the appropriate courts.” (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9481, employers have no personality to interfere with or thwart
a petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization, to wit:

Sec. 12. A new provision, Article 258-A is hereby inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows:
“Art. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. – In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by
an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a
concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in such
proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting
the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the
petition.” (Emphasis supplied)

LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS vs. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA G.R. No. 169754

TOPIC: Labor Organization; Government Regulation; Effect of Registration

FACTS:

1. KML filed with Med Arbitration Unit of DOLE a Petition for Certification Election. KML alleged that it is a
legitimate labor organization. Legend moved to dismiss the petition alleging that KML is not a legitimate
labor organization because its membership is a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in
violation of Art. 245 of the Labor Code.

2. Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of Petitioner, KML appealed to Sec. of DOLE, Sec. ruled that that KMLs legitimacy
as a union could not be collaterally attacked, citing Section 5, Rule V of Department Order No. 9, series of
1997. In a Resolution dated August 20, 2002, the Office of the Secretary of DOLE denied LEGENDs motion
for reconsideration. It opined that Section 11, paragraph II (a), Rule XI of Department Order No. 9 requires
a final order of cancellation before a petition for certification election may be dismissed on the ground of
lack of legal personality.

3.

ISSUE: Whether or not the legal personality of KML can be collaterally attacked.
RULING: No, it cannot be collaterally attacked

Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a certification election may be conducted during the
pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for certification was filed,
the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same. There is therefore no
basis for LEGENDs assertion that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the
time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KMLs activities, including its filing of the petition for
certification election and its demand to collectively bargain.

In Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor and
Employment, the Court ruled that such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only
through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it.

[T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The
law is very clear on this matter. x x x 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.
Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. In may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5
of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied, Private respondent won.

DOCTRINE: [T]he legal personality of a legitimate labor organization x x x cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. The law is very clear on this matter. x x x 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. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to
a collateral attack. In may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with
Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.

The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) G.R. No. 178296,
January 12, 2011

FACTS:

The respondent’s petition for certification election was granted. Petitioner then discovered that respondent
had failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) its annual financial report for several years an
d the list of its members since it filed its registration papers in 1995. Consequently, it filed a Petition for C
ancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-
submission of the said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondent’s Certificate of Creation of Local/Cha
pter be cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further requeste
d the suspension of the certification election proceedings. Nevertheless, the certification election pushed t
hrough and the respondent won.

The Regional Director of DOLE-

NCR and DOLE Secretary both held that constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right of wo
rkers to self-
organization outweighed respondent’s noncompliance with the statutory requirements to maintain its statu
s as a legitimate labor organization.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the failure to comply with the statutory requirement(filing financial reports and the list of it
s members) sufficient ground for the cancellation of registration of the respondent as a labor union.

Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
HELD:

No, the non-

compliance should not be a ground for the cancellation. Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code provide th
at failure to file financial reports and the list of its members are grounds for the cancellation of Union Orga
nization. However, consideration must be taken of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Sectio
n 3 of the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities sh
ould bear in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of legitimacy and the concomitant right
and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, particularly the right to participate in or as
k for certification election in a bargaining unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the e
quivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses – as a rule –
its rights under the Labor Code.

Furthermore, that the Labor Code’s provisions on cancellation of union registration and on reportorial requ
irements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers’
Constitutional Right to Self-
Organization, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as t
he Labor Code of the Philippines, which says that failure to file financial reports and list of union members
shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or member
s to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

DHL-URFA-FFW vs. BUKLOD DIGEST

DECEMBER 19, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

TOPIC: DUTY/DUTIES OF MED-ARBITER/ ELECTION OFFICER

DHL-URFA-FFW vs. BUKLOD

G.R. No. 152094

July 22, 2004

FACTS: a certification election was conducted among the regular rank and file employees in the main office
and the regional branches of DHL Philippines Corporation. The contending choices were petitioner and “no
union.”
On the basis of the results of the certification election, with petitioner receiving 546 votes and “no union”
garnering 348 votes, the election officer certified the former as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the rank and file employees of the corporation.
Thereafter, Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed with the
Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE a Petition for the nullification of the certification election. The
officers of petitioner were charged with committing fraud and deceit in the election proceedings, particularly
by misrepresenting to the voter-employees that it was an independent union, when it was in fact an affiliate
of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
This misrepresentation was supposedly the basis for their selection of petitioner in the certification
election. Allegedly supporting this claim was the fact that those whom it had misled allegedly withdrew their
membership from it and subsequently formed themselves into an independent union. The latter union,
BUKLOD, was issued a Certificate of Registration by DOLE.
ISSUE: Was the certification election valid?
HELD: NO; another election should be made
Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V (Labor Relations) of the Labor Code, as amended,
the election officer’s authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which there has
been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within five days from
the close of the election proceedings.
The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their
failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not
be taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers.
What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor
organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal committed by
petitioner’s officers in the present case, the employees were prevented from making an intelligent and
independent choice.
The making of false statements or misrepresentations that interfere with the free choice of the employees
is a valid ground for protest. A certification election may be set aside for misstatements made during the
campaign, where 1) a material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an opportunity for reply
has been lacking; and 3) the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees
participating in the election.
NOTES: (eto ung duties)

Section 14 of the Rules Implementing Book V (Labor Relations) of the Labor Code provides that when a
protest has been perfected, only the med-arbiter can proclaim and certify the winner. Clearly, this rule is
based on the election officer’s function, which is merely to conduct and supervise certification elections. It
is the med-arbiter who is authorized to hear and decide representation cases. Consequently, the decision
whether to certify the results of an election or to set them aside due to incidents occurring during the
campaign is within the med-arbiter’s discretion.

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS vs. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC., petitioner versus BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE OCAMPO
MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., respondent

G.R. No. 192648

March 15, 2017

FACTS:
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly-organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines. De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center and De Ocampo Memorial College. Under the
aforementioned institution is Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Medical Center a union which was granted
Union Registration No. on September 26, 2003. Another permit was issued for Bigkis Manggagawa ng De
Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated December 5, 2003; Union Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local
Chapter No. NCR-l 2-CC-002-2003, declaring that they are legitimate organization.

A Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor and Employment -
National Capital Region was filed by De Ocampo against Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial
School, Inc. dated March 4, 2004. Stating in the petition the grounds of revocation of registration 1.)
Misrepresentation of declaring the officers and members 2.) Mixed membership of rank file 3.) Inappropriate
bargaining unit.

A Comment-Opposition was then filed by BMDOMSI, denying De Ocampo's allegations and claiming that the
latter only wants to impede the formation of the union.

A decision of Acting Regional Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad III of the DOLE-NCR ruled that BMDOMSI
committed misrepresentation by making it appear that the bargaining unit is composed of faculty and
technical employees, dated July 26, 2004.

The respondents then filed an appeal to Bureau of Labor Relations. On December 29, 2004, a decision was
released by BLR reversing the Regional Director's finding of misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
BMDOMSI’s application for registration.

According to BLR the petitioner failed to present proof to support its allegation of mixed membership within
respondent union. Certiorari was filed by the petitioner to the CA seeking to annul and set aside the BLR
Decision as well as the Resolution dated January 24, 2005 denying its motion for reconsideration. CA
affirmed the Decision of the BLR. It ruled that there was no misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
the application for registration. The respondents were able to substantiate that there have been no
misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes of the general membership meeting BMDOMSI
Union, and the list of members who attended the meeting and ratified the union constitution and by-laws,
are in truth employees of the school, though some service the hospital.

Although, the CA observed that the members of the union, who are from academic, non-academic, and
general services, do not perform work of the same nature and these factors dictate the separation of the
categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining, the CA reasoned that such lack of mutuality
and commonality of interest of the union members is not among the grounds for cancellation of union
registration under Article 247 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:

Whether or not De Ocampo Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. Union Registration
should be revoked

HELD:

No. The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to have grounds for cancelation of their Union
Registration. BMDOMSI Union was able to testify to the court that there were no misrepresentation, mixed
membership and inappropriate bargaining unit in their union. The CA ruled the according to Article 247 of
the Labor Code provides: Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. The following may
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

1.) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who
took part in the ratification;

2.)Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters;

3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

The petitioner was not able to establish to the court the violation alleged to the respondents, wherefore CA
decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the petition denied for lack of merit.