Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 196276 June 4, 2014
TAKATA (PHILIPPINES)
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG
TAKATA (SALAMAT), Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari
filed by petitioner TAKATA Philippines
Corporation assailing the Decision1 dated
December 22, 2010 and the Resolution 2 dated
March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 112406.
On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office a Petition3for Cancellation of the
Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent
Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata
(SALAMA1) 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. It
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. Petitioner 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; that the 119 union members
were actually only 117; and, that the total
number of petitioner's employees as of May 1,
2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent
claimed.4
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 election5 supported their claim of
119 members. Respondent also contended that
petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal
personality as it agreed to a certification election
and actively participated in the pre-election
conference of the certification election
proceedings.6 Respondent argued that the union
members were informed of the contents of the
documents they signed and that the 68
attendees to the organizational meeting
constituted more than 50% of the total union
membership, hence, a quo rumexisted for the
conduct of the said meeting.7
On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director,
Atty. Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., issued a
Decision8 granting the petition for cancellation of
respondent's certificate of registration, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations,
the petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,
the respondent Union Certificate of Registration
No. RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG, dated May
19, 2009 is hereby REVOCKED (sic) and /or
CANCELLED pursuant to paragraph (a) & (b),
Section 3, Rule XIV of Department Order No.
40-03 and the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa
ng TAKATA (SALAMAT) is hereby delisted from
the roll of legitimate labor organization of this
office.9
In revoking respondent's certificate of
registration, the Regional Director found 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; that the attendance sheet which
contained the signatures and names of the
union members totalling to 68 contradicted the
list of names stated in the document
denominated as "Pangalan ng mga Kasaping
Unyon." The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag
ng Pagsapi" was not attached to the application
for registration as it was only submitted in the
petition for certification election filed by
respondent at a later date. The Regional
Director also found that the proceedings in the
cancellation of registration and certification
elections are two different and entirely separate
and independent proceedings which were not
dependent on each other.
Dissatisfied, respondent, through Bukluran ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Paralegal Officer,
Domingo P. Mole, filed a Notice and
Memorandum of Appeal10 with the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR). However, on September
28,2009, respondent, through its counsels,
Attys.
Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie W.
Velandrez, filed an Appeal Memorandum with
Formal Entry of Appearance11 to the Office of the
DOLE Secretary, which the latter eventually
referred to the BLR. Petitioner filed an
Opposition to the Appeals12 praying for their
dismissal on the ground of forum shopping as
respondent filed two separate appeals in two
separate venues; and for failing to avail of the
correct remedy within the period; and that the
certificate of registration was tainted with fraud,
misrepresentation and falsification.
In its Answer,13 respondent claimed that there
was no forum shopping as BMP's Paralegal
Officer was no longer authorized to file an
appeal on behalf of respondent as the latter's
link with BMP was already terminated and only
the Union President was authorized to file the
appeal; and that it complied with Department
Order No. 40-03.
On December 9, 2009, after considering
respondent's Appeal Memorandum with Formal
Entry of Appearance and petitioner's Answer, the
BLR rendered its Decision14 reversing the Order
of the Regional Director, the decretal portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED.
The Decision of Regional Director Ricardo S.
Martinez, Sr., dated 27 August 2009, is hereby
REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng
TAKATA (SALAMAT) shall remain in the roster of
labor organizations.15
In reversing, the BLR found that petitioner failed
to prove that respondent deliberately and
maliciously misrepresented the number of rank-
and-file employees. It pointed out petitioner's
basis for the alleged noncompliance with the
minimum membership requirement for
registration was the attendance of 68 members
to the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting
supposedly comprising only 17% of the total
396 regular rank-and-file employees. However,
the BLR found that the list of employees who
participated in the organizational meeting was a
separate and distinct requirement from the list
of the names of members comprising at least
20% of the employees in the bargaining unit;
and that there was no requirement for
signatures opposite the names of the union
members; and there was no evidence showing
that the employees assailed their inclusion in
the list of union members.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the BLR in a
Resolution16 dated January 8, 2010.
Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
After the submission of the parties' respective
pleadings, the case was submitted for decision.
On December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its
assailed decision which denied the petition and
affirmed the decision of the BLR. Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated March 29, 2011.
Hence this petition for review filed by petitioner
raising the following issues, to wit:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF PUBLIC
RESPONDENT BLR AND NOT FINDING ANY
VIOLATION BY SAMAHANG LAKAS
MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) OF THE
RULE ON FORUM SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF
TWO VERIFIED APPEALS FOR AND ITS BEHALF.
BOTH OF THE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT
BLR, ON GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA
(SALAMAT) WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.
CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OBTAINING IN THE REGISTRATION OF
SALAMAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS
TAINTED WITH FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION
AND FALSIFICATION. SALAMAT DID NOT
POSSESS THE REQUIREDNUMBER OF MEMBERS
AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITS APPLICATION
FOR REGISTRATION, HENCE, IT SHOULD BE
HELD GUILTY OF MISREPRESENTATION, AND
FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.17
Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that
respondent had filed two separate appeals with
two different representations at two different
venues, in violation of the rule on multiplicity of
suits and forum shopping, and instead of
dismissing both appeals, the appeal erroneously
filed before the Labor Secretary was the one
held validly filed, entertained and even granted;
that it is not within the discretion of BLR to
choose which between the two appeals should
be entertained, as it is the fact of the filing of
the two appeals that is being prohibited and not
who among the representatives therein
possessed the authority.
We are not persuaded.
We find no error committed by the CA in finding
that respondent committed no forum shopping.
As the CA correctly concluded, to wit:
It is undisputed that BMP Paralegal Officer
Domingo P. Mole was no longer authorized to file
an appeal on behalf of union SALAMAT and that
BMP was duly informed that its services was
already terminated. SALAMAT even submitted
before the BLR its "Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009"
terminating the services of BMP and revoking
the representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any
of the pending cases being handled by him on
behalf of the union. So, considering that BMP
Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no longer
authorized to file an appeal when it filed the
Notice and Memorandum of Appeal to DOLE
Regional Office No. IV-A, the same can no
longer be treated as an appeal filed by union
SALAMAT. Hence, there is no forum shopping to
speak of in this case as only the Appeal
Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance
filed by Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty.
Jehn Louie W. Velandrez is sanctioned by
SALAMAT.18
Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not
specifically authorized by respondent, such
appeal is considered to have not been filed at
all. It has been held that "if a complaint is filed
for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not
authorized to do so, the complaint is not
deemed filed.
An unauthorized complaint does not produce
any legal effect."19
Respondent through its authorized
representative filed its Appeal Memorandum
with Formal Entry of Appearance before the
Labor Secretary, and not with the BLR. As the
appeal emanated from the petition for
cancellation of certificate of registration filed
with the Regional Office, the decision canceling
the registration is appealable to the BLR, and
not with the Labor Secretary. However, since the
Labor Secretary motu propio referred the appeal
with the BLR, the latter can now act on it.
Considering that Mole's appeal with the BLR was
not deemed filed, respondents appeal, through
Banzuela and Associates, which the Labor
Secretary referred to the BLR was the only
existing appeal with the BLR for resolution.
There is, therefore, no merit to petitioner's claim
that BLR chose the appeal of Banzuela and
Associates over Mole's appeal.
The case of Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc.
v. Abbott Laboratories Employees Union20 cited
by petitioner is not at all applicable in this case
as the issue therein is the authority of the Labor
Secretary to review the decision of the Bureau
of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over decision of the
Regional Director in cases involving
cancellations of certificate of registration of
labor unions. We found no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the Secretary of Labor
in not acting on therein petitioner's appeal. The
decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations on
cases brought before it on appeal from the
Regional Director are final and executory.
Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to
seasonably avail of the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 and the Rules of Court.
In this case, after the Labor Secretary motu
propio referred respondent's appeal filed with it
to the BLR which rendered its decision reversing
the Regional Director, petitioner went directly to
the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule
65.
As to the second issue, petitioner seeks the
cancellation of respondent's registration on
grounds offraud and misrepresentation bearing
on the minimum requirement of the law as to its
membership, considering the big disparity in
numbers, between the organizational meeting
and the list of members, and so misleading the
BLR that it obtained the minimum required
number of employees for purposes of
organization and registration.
We find no merit in the arguments.
Art. 234 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. - A
federation, national union or industry or trade
union center or an independent union shall
acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to
the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of
the certificate of registration based on the
following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00)registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their
addresses, the principal address of the
 labor organization, the minutes of the
organizational meetings and the list of
the workers who participated in such
meetings;
(c) In case the applicant is an
independent union, the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty
percent (20%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate;
(d) If the applicant union has been in
existence for one or more years, copies
of its annual financial reports; and
(e) Four copies of the constitution and
by-laws of the applicant union, minutes
of its adoption or ratification, and the list
of the members who participated in it."
And after the issuance of the certificate of
registration, the labor organization's registration
could be assailed directly through cancellation of
registration proceedings in accordance with
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code. And the
cancellation of union certificate of registration
and the grounds thereof are as follows:
ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration. - The
certificate of registration of any legitimate labor
organization, whether national or local, may be
cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only
on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.
ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union
Registration. - The following may constitute
grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-
laws or amendments thereto, the
minutes of ratification, and the list of
members who took part in the
ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements
or fraud in connection with the election
of officers, minutes of the election of
officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the
members.
Petitioner's charge that respondent committed
misrepresentation and fraud in securing its
certificate of registration is a serious charge and
must be carefully evaluated. Allegations thereof
should be compounded with supporting
circumstances and evidence.21 We find no
evidence on record to support petitioner's
accusation.
Petitioner's allegation of misrepresentation and
fraud is based on its claim that during the
organizational meeting on May 1, 2009, only 68
employees attended, while respondent claimed
that it has 119 members as shown in the
document denominated as "Pangalan ng mga
Kasapi ng Unyon;" hence, respondent
misrepresented on the 20% requirement of the
law as to its membership.
We do not agree.
It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the
Labor Code that the attendees in the
organizational meeting must comprise 20% of
the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact,
even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code does not so provide. It is only
under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of
all its members comprising at least twenty
percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.
Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains
to the employees membership in the union and
not to the list of workers who participated in the
organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b)
and (c) provide for separate requirements,
which must be submitted for the union's
registration, and which respondent did submit.
Here, the total number of employees in the
bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of which was
about 79. Respondent submitted a document
entitled "Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon"
showing the names of 119 employees as union
members, thus respondent sufficiently complied
even beyond the 20% minimum membership
requirement. Respondent also submitted the
attendance sheet of the organizational meeting
which contained the names and signatures of
the 68 union members who attended the
meeting. Considering that there are 119 union
members which are more than 20% of all the
employees of the bargaining unit, and since the
law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting,
the 68 attendees which comprised at least the
majority of the 119 union members would
already constitute a quorum for the meeting to
proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution
and By-laws of the union. There is, therefore, no
basis for petitioner to contend that grounds
exist for the cancellation of respondent's union
registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to
be grounds for cancellation of union registration
under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the nature
of the fraud and misrepresentation must be
grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union members.22
Petitioner's claim that the alleged union
members signed documents without adequate
information is not persuasive. The one who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a
mere allegation is not evidence.23 In fact, we
note that not one of those listed in the
document denominated as "Pangalan ng Mga
Kasaping Unyon" had come forward to deny
their membership with respondent. Notably, it
had not been rebutted that the same union
members had signed the document entitled
"Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi," thus,
strengtheningtheir desire to be members of the
respondent union.
Petitioner claims that in the list of members,
there was an employee whose name appeared
twice and another employee who was merely a
project employee. Such could not be considered
a misrepresentation in the absence of showing
that respondent deliberately did so for the
purpose of increasing their union membership.
In fact, even if those two names were not
included in the list of union members, there
would still be 117 members which was still more
than 20% of the 396 rank-and-file employees.
organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to
be grounds for cancellation of union registration
under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.1wphi1
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA
that respondent could not have possibly
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false
statements. The alleged failure of respondent to
indicate with mathematical precision the total
number of employees in the bargaining unit is of
no moment, especially as it was able to comply
with the 20% minimum membership
requirement. Even if the total number of rank-
and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while
respondent declared that it should only be 455,
it still cannot be denied that the latter would
have more than complied with the registration
requirement.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
for review is DENIED. The Decision dated
December 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated
March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-
G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

As to petitioner's argument that the total

number of its employees as of May 1, 2009 was
470, and not396 as respondent claimed, still the
117 union members comprised more than the
20% membership requirement for respondent's
registration.

In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of the

Department of Labor and Employment, 24 we
said:

For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as

respondent, it must be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of
the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification; or, in
connection with the election of officers, the
minutes of the election of officers, the list of
voters, or failure to submit these documents
together with the list of the newly elected-
appointed officers and their postal addresses to
the BLR.

The bare fact that two signatures appeared

twice on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting would not, to our mind,
provide a valid reason to cancel respondents
certificate of registration. The cancellation of a
unions registration doubtless has an impairing
dimension on the right of labor to self-
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 115077. April 18, 1997]
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT, petitioner, vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, in his
capacity as Undersecretary of Labor, and
NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA
(NLM)-KATIPUNAN, respondents.
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:
On July 9, 1993, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng
Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent
Union) filed a petition for certification election
with the Department of Labor (National Capital
Region) in behalf of the rank and file employees
of the Progressive Development Corporation
(Pizza Hut) docketed as NCR Case No. NCR-OD-
M-9307-020.[1]
Petitioner filed on August 20, 1993, a verified
Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud,
falsification and misrepresentation in the
respondent Union's registration making it void
and invalid. The motion specifically alleged that:
a) respondent Union's registration was tainted
with false, forged, double or multiple signatures
of those who allegedly took part in the
ratification of the respondent Union's
constitution and by-laws and in the election of
its officers that there were two sets of supposed
attendees to the alleged organizational meeting
that was alleged to have taken place on June
26, 1993; that the alleged chapter is claimed to
have been supported by 318 members when in
fact the persons who actually signed their
names were much less; and b) while the
application for registration of the charter was
supposed to have been approved in the
organizational meeting held on June 27, 1993,
the charter certification issued by the federation
KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1)
day prior to the formation of the chapter, thus,
there were serious falsities in the dates of the
issuance of the charter certification and the
organization meeting of the alleged chapter.
Citing other instances of misrepresentation and
fraud, petitioner, on August 29, 1993, filed a
Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss,[2] claiming
that:
1) Respondent Union alleged that the election of
its officers was held on June 27, 1993; however,
it appears from the documents submitted by
respondent union to the BIR-DOLE that the
Union's constitution and by-laws were adopted
only on July 7, 1993, hence, there was no bases
for the supposed election of officers on June 27,
1993 because as of this date, there existed no
positions to which the officers could be validly
elected;
2) Voting was not conducted by secret ballot in
violation of Article 241, section (c) of the Labor
Code;
3) The Constitution and by Laws submitted in
support of its petition were not properly
acknowledged and notarized.[3]
On August 30, 1993, petitioner filed a
Petition[4] seeking the cancellation of the Union's
registration on the grounds of fraud and
falsification, docketed as BIR Case No. 8-21-83.
[5]
Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with
the Med-Arbiter requesting suspension of
proceedings in the certification election case
until after the prejudicial question of the Union's
legal personality is determined in the
proceedings for cancellation of registration.
However, in an Order dated September 29,
1993,[6] Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah
directed the holding of a certification election
among petitioner's rank and file employees. The
Order explained:
x x x Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa ng Pizza Hut
is a legitimate labor organization in
contemplation of law and shall remain as such
until its very charter certificate is canceled or
otherwise revoked by competent authority. The
alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false
statement in connection with the issuance of the
charter certificate are collateral issues which
could be properly ventilated in the cancellation
proceedings.[7]
On appeal to the office of the Secretary of
Labor, Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma in a Resolution dated December 29,
1993[8] denied the same.
A motion for reconsideration of the public
respondent's resolution was denied in his
Order[9] dated January 27, 1994, hence, this
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court where the principal
issue raised is whether or not the public
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion
in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order to conduct a
certification election among petitioner's rank
and file employees, considering that: (1)
respondent Union's legal personality was
squarely put in issue; (2) allegations of fraud
and falsification, supported by documentary
evidence were made; and (3) a petition to
cancel respondent Union's registration is
pending with the regional office of the
Department of Labor and Employment.[10]
We grant the petition.
In the public respondent's assailed Resolution
dated December 29, 1993, the suggestion is
made that once a labor organization has filed
the necessary documents and papers and the
same have been certified under oath and
attested to, said organization necessarily
becomes clothed with the character of a
legitimate labor organization. The resolution
declares:
Records show that at the time of the filing of the
subject petition on 9 July 1993 by the petitioner
NLM-KATIPUNAN, for and in behalf of its local
affiliate Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa ng Pizza
Hut, the latter has been clothed with the status
and/or character of a legitimate labor
organization. This is so, because on 8 July 1993,
petitioner submitted to the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR), this Department, the following
documents: Charter Certificate, Minutes of the
Organizational Meeting, List of Officers, and
their respective addresses, financial statement,
Constitution and By-Laws (CBL, and the minutes
of the ratification of the CBL). Said documents
(except the charter certificate) are certified
under oath and attested to by the local union's
Secretary/Treasurer and President, respectively.
As to the contention that the certification
election proceedings should be suspended in
view of the pending case for the cancellation of
the petitioner's certificate of registration, let it
be stressed that the pendency of a cancellation
case is not a ground for the dismissal or
suspension of a representation proceedings
considering that a registered labor organization
continues to be a legitimate one entitled to all
the rights appurtenant thereto until a final valid
order is issued canceling such registration.[11]
In essence, therefore, the real controversy in
this case centers on the question of whether or
not, after the necessary papers and documents
have been filed by a labor organization,
recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations
merely becomes a ministerial function.
We do not agree.
In the first place, the public respondent's views
as expressed in his December 29, 1993
Resolution miss the entire point behind the
nature and purpose of proceedings leading to
the recognition of unions as legitimate labor
organizations. Article 234 of the Labor Code
provides:
Art. 234. Requirements of registration. - Any
applicant labor organization, association or
group of unions or workers shall acquire legal
personality and shall be entitled to the rights
and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
registration based on the following
requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) 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) 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 (4) 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.
A more than cursory reading of the aforecited
provisions clearly indicates that the
requirements embodied therein are intended as
preventive measures against the commission of
fraud. After a labor organization has filed the
necessary papers and documents for
registration, it becomes mandatory for the
Bureau of Labor Relations to check if the
requirements under Article 234 have been
sedulously complied with. If its application for
registration is vitiated by falsification and
serious irregularities, especially those appearing
on the face of the application and the supporting
documents, a labor organization should be
denied recognition as a legitimate labor
organization. And if a certificate of recognition
has been issued, the propriety of 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, or indirectly, by
challenging its petition for the issuance of an
order for certification election.
These measures are necessary - and may be
undertaken simultaneously - if the spirit behind
the Labor Code's requirements for registration
are to be given flesh and blood. Registration
requirements specifically afford a measure of
protection to unsuspecting employees who may
be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-
night unions whose sole purpose is to control
union funds or use the labor organization for
illegitimate ends.[12] Such requirements are a
valid exercise of the police power, because the
activities in which labor organizations,
associations and unions of workers are engaged
directly affect the public interest and should be
protected.[13]
Thus, in Progressive Development Corporation
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[14] we
held:
The controversy in this case centers on the
requirements before a local or chapter of a
federation may file a petition for certification
election and be certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner's
employees.
xxx
But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor
General directs the automatic conduct of a
certification election in an unorganized
establishment, it also requires that the petition
for certification election must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization. xxx
xxx
xxx. The employer naturally needs assurance
that the union it is dealing with is a bona-fide
organization, one which has not submitted false
statements or misrepresentations to the
Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and
attestation requirements will in a marked degree
allay these apprehensions of management. Not
only is the issuance of any false statement and
misrepresentation or ground for cancellation of
registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it
is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury.
The certification and attestation requirements
are preventive measures against the
commission of fraud. They likewise afford a
measure of protection to unsuspecting
employees who may be lured into joining
unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole
purpose is to control union funds or to use the
union for dubious ends.
xxx
xxx. It is not this Court's function to augment
the requirements prescribed by law in order to
make them wiser or to allow greater protection
to the workers and even their employer. Our
only recourse is, as earlier discussed, to exact
strict compliance with what the law provides as
requisites for local or chapter formation.
xxx
The Court's conclusion should not be
misconstrued as impairing the local union's right
to be certified as the employees' bargaining
agent in the petitioner's establishment. We are
merely saying that the local union must first
comply with the statutory requirements in order
to exercise this right. Big federations and
national unions of workers should take the lead
in requiring their locals and chapters to faithfully
comply with the law and the rules instead of
merely snapping union after union into their
folds in a furious bid with rival federations to get
the most number of members.
Furthermore, the Labor Code itself grants the
Bureau of Labor Relations a period of thirty (30)
days within which to review all applications for
registration.Article 235 provides:
"Art. 235. Action on application. - The Bureau
shall act on all applications for registration
within thirty (30) days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be
certified under oath by the secretary or the
treasurer of the organization, as the case may
be, and attested to by its president."
The thirty-day period in the aforecited provision
ensures that any action taken by the Bureau of
Labor Relations is made in consonance with the
mandate of the Labor Code, which, it bears
emphasis, specifically requires that the basis for
the issuance of a certificate of registration
should be compliance with the requirements for
recognition under Article 234. Since, obviously,
recognition of a labor union or labor
organization is not merely a ministerial function,
the question now arises as to whether or not the
public respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter's order in
spite of the fact that the question of the Union's
legitimacy was squarely put in issue and that
the allegations of fraud and falsification were
adequately supported by documentary evidence.
The Labor Code requires that in organized and
unorganized[15] establishments, a petition for
certification election must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization. The acquisition of
rights by any union or labor organization,
particularly the right to file a petition for
certification election, first and foremost,
depends on whether or not the labor
organization has attained the status of a
legitimate labor organization.
In the case before us, the Med-Arbiter
summarily disregarded the petitioner's prayer
that the former look into the legitimacy of the
respondent Union by a sweeping declaration
that the union was in the possession of a charter
certificate so that "for all intents and purposes,
Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was)
a legitimate labor organization."[16] Glossing over
the transcendental issue of fraud and
misrepresentation raised by herein petitioner,
Med-Arbiter Rasidali Abdullah held that:
The alleged misrepresentation, fraud and false
statement in connection with the issuance of the
charter certificate are collateral issues which
could be ventilated in the cancellation
proceedings.[17]
It cannot be denied that the grounds invoked by
petitioner for the cancellation of respondent
Union's registration fall under paragraph (a) and
(c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code. to wit:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
in connection with the adoption or ratification of
the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of
members who took part in the ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of
members who took part in the ratification;
xxx
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud
in connection with the election of officers,
minutes of the election of officers, the list of
voters, or failure to submit these documents
together with the list of the newly elected-
appointed officers and their postal addresses
within thirty (30) days from election
xxx
The grounds ventilated in cancellation
proceedings in accordance with Article 239 of
the Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to
the right of respondent Union to ask for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter should
have looked into the merits of the petition for
cancellation before issuing an order calling for
certification election. Registration based on false
and fraudulent statements and documents
confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization
irregularly recognized, which, at best, holds on
to a mere scrap of paper. Under such
circumstances, the labor organization, not being
a legitimate labor organization, acquires no
rights, particularly the right to ask for
certification election in a bargaining unit.
As we laid emphasis in Progressive
Development Corporation Labor,[18] "[t]he
employer needs the assurance that the union it
is dealing with is a bona fide organization, one
which has not submitted false statements or
misrepresentations to the Bureau." Clearly,
fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in
obtaining recognition as a legitimate labor
organization are contrary to the Med-Arbiter's
conclusion not merely collateral issues. The
invalidity of respondent Union's registration
would negate its legal personality to participate
in certification election.
Once a labor organization attains the status of a
legitimate labor organization it begins to
possess all of the rights and privileges granted
by law to such organizations. As such rights and
privileges ultimately affect areas which are
constitutionally protected, the activities in which
labor organizations, associations and unions are
engaged directly affect the public interest and
should be zealously protected. A strict
enforcement of the Labor Code's requirements
for the acquisition of the status of a legitimate
labor organization is in order.
Inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent
Union had been seriously challenged, it would
have been more prudent for the Med-Arbiter and
public respondent to have granted petitioner's
request for the suspension of proceedings in the
certification election case, until the issue of the
legality of the Union's registration shall have
been resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbiter and
public respondent to heed the request
constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
instant petition is GRANTED and the Resolution
and Order of the public respondent dated
December 29, 1993 and January 24, 1994,
respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the Med-Arbiter to
resolve with reasonable dispatch petitioner's
petition for cancellation of respondent Union's
registration
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 183317 December 21,
2009
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS,
INC., Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CHIEF OF THE
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
DOLE REGIONAL OFFICE NUMBER IV-A &
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC. (SMMSC-
INDEPENDENT), Respondents.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul
the Decision2 dated December 20, 2007 and the
Resolution3 dated June 6, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98332.
The antecedent facts are as follows
On May 4, 2005, respondent Samahan Ng Mga
Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.
(SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate
of Registration4 as a legitimate labor
organization by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), Region IV-A.
On June 14, 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Union Registration against respondent, claiming
that the latter violated Article 2345 of the Labor
Code for not complying with the 20%
requirement, and that it committed massive
fraud and misrepresentation in violation of
Article 2396 of the same code. The case was
docketed as Case No. RO400-0506-AU-004.
On August 26, 2005, the Regional Director of
DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition,
revoking the registration of respondent, and
delisting it from the roster of active labor
unions.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR).
In a Decision7 dated June 14, 2006, the BLR
granted respondents appeal and disposed as
follows
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal
by Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) is hereby
GRANTED, and the Decision dated 26 August
2005 by DOLE-Region-IV-A Director Maximo B.
Lim is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent), under
Registration Certificate No. RO400-200505-UR-
002, remains in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations.
SO DECIDED.8
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
the BLR denied it in a Resolution9 dated
February 2, 2007.
Petitioner sought recourse with the Court of
Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari;
but the CA denied the petition for lack of merit.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA
Decision was likewise denied, hence, this
petition based on the following grounds
Review of the Factual Findings of the Bureau of
Labor Relations, adopted and confirmed by the
Honorable Court of Appeals is warranted[;]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred
in ruling that the affidavits of recantation cannot
be given credence[;]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred
in ruling that private respondent union complied
with the 20% membership requirement[; and]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred
when it ruled that private respondent union did
not commit misrepresentation, fraud or false
statement.10
The petition should be denied.
The petitioner insists that respondent failed to
comply with the 20% union membership
requirement for its registration as a legitimate
labor organization because of the disaffiliation
from the total number of union members of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting
their union membership.
It is, thus, imperative that we peruse the
affidavits appearing to have been executed by
these affiants.
The affidavits uniformly state
Ako, _____________, Pilipino, may sapat na
gulang, regular na empleyado bilang Rank & File
sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., Bo. San
Antonio, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, matapos na
makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya
at kusang loob na nagsasaad ng mga
sumusunod:
1. Ako ay napilitan at nilinlang sa pagsapi sa
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Mariwasa
Siam Ceramics, Inc. o SMMSC-Independent sa
kabila ng aking pag-aalinlangan[;]
2. Aking lubos na pinagsisihan ang aking
pagpirma sa sipi ng samahan, at handa ako[ng]
tumalikod sa anumang kasulatan na aking
nalagdaan sa kadahilanan na hindi angkop sa
aking pananaw ang mga mungkahi o adhikain
ng samahan.
SA KATUNAYAN NANG LAHAT, ako ay lumagda
ng aking pangalan ngayong ika-____ ng
______, 2005 dito sa Lalawigan ng Batangas,
Bayan ng Sto. Tomas.
____________________
Nagsasalaysay
Evidently, these affidavits were written and
prepared in advance, and the pro forma
affidavits were ready to be filled out with the
employees names and signatures.
The first common allegation in the affidavits is a
declaration that, in spite of his hesitation, the
affiant was forced and deceived into joining the
respondent union. It is worthy to note, however,
that the affidavit does not mention the identity
of the people who allegedly forced and deceived
the affiant into joining the union, much less the
circumstances that constituted such force and
deceit. Indeed, not only was this allegation
couched in very general terms and sweeping in
nature, but more importantly, it was not
supported by any evidence whatsoever.
The second allegation ostensibly bares the
affiants regret for joining respondent union and
expresses the desire to abandon or renege from
whatever agreement he may have signed
regarding his membership with respondent.
Simply put, through these affidavits, it is made
to appear that the affiants recanted their
support of respondents application for
registration.
In appreciating affidavits of recantation such as
these, our ruling in La Suerte Cigar and
Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations11 is enlightening, viz.
On the second issuewhether or not the
withdrawal of 31 union members from NATU
affected the petition for certification election
insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned,
We reserve the Order of the respondent Director
of the Bureau of Labor Relations, it appearing
undisputably that the 31 union members had
withdrawn their support to the petition before
the filing of said petition. It would be otherwise
if the withdrawal was made after the filing of the
petition for it would then be presumed that the
withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The
presumption would arise that the withdrawal
was procured through duress, coercion or for
valuable consideration. In other words, the
distinction must be that withdrawals made
before the filing of the petition are presumed
voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the
contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the
filing of the petition are deemed involuntary.
The reason for such distinction is that if the
withdrawal or retraction is made before the filing
of the petition, the names of employees
supporting the petition are supposed to be held
secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such
withdrawal or retraction shows voluntariness in
the absence of proof to the contrary. Moreover,
it becomes apparent that such employees had
not given consent to the filing of the petition,
hence the subscription requirement has not
been met.
When the withdrawal or retraction is made after
the petition is filed, the employees who are
supporting the petition become known to the
opposite party since their names are attached to
the petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it
would not be unexpected that the opposite party
would use foul means for the subject employees
to withdraw their support.12
In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation
were executed after the identities of the union
members became public, i.e., after the union
filed a petition for certification election on May
23, 2005, since the names of the members were
attached to the petition. The purported
withdrawal of support for the registration of the
union was made after the documents were
submitted to the DOLE, Region IV-A. The logical
conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence, is
that the employees were not totally free from
the employers pressure, and so the
voluntariness of the employees execution of the
affidavits becomes suspect.
It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25
pro forma affidavits shows that the affidavits
were executed by the individual affiants on
different dates from May 26, 2005 until June 3,
2005, but they were all sworn before a notary
public on June 8, 2005.
There was also a second set of standardized
affidavits executed on different dates from May
26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77
affidavits were notarized on different dates, 56
of these were notarized on June 8, 2005, the
very same date when the first set of 25 was
notarized.
Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits was
submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005, it is
surprising why petitioner was able to submit the
second set of affidavits only on July 12, 2005.
Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to
these affidavits, which were executed under
suspicious circumstances, and which contain
allegations unsupported by evidence. At best,
these affidavits are self-serving. They possess
no probative value.
A retraction does not necessarily negate an
earlier declaration. For this reason, retractions
are looked upon with disfavor and do not
automatically exclude the original statement or
declaration based solely on the recantation. It is
imperative that a determination be first made as
to which between the original and the new
statements should be given weight or accorded
belief, applying the general rules on evidence. In
this case, inasmuch as they remain bare
allegations, the purported recantations should
not be upheld.13
Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the
affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of
respondent as a labor organization must be
affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal of
support may be considered as a resignation
from the union, the fact remains that at the
time of the unions application for registration,
the affiants were members of respondent and
they comprised more than the required 20%
membership for purposes of registration as a
labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code
merely requires a 20% minimum membership
during the application for union registration. It
does not mandate that a union must maintain
the 20% minimum membership requirement all
throughout its existence.141avvphi1
Respondent asserts that it had a total of 173
union members at the time it applied for
registration. Two names were repeated in
respondents list and had to be deducted, but
the total would still be 171 union members.
Further, out of the four names alleged to be no
longer connected with petitioner, only two
names should be deleted from the list since
Diana Motilla and T.W. Amutan resigned from
petitioner only on May 10, 2005 and May 17,
2005, respectively, or after respondents
registration had already been granted. Thus, the
total union membership at the time of
registration was 169. Since the total number of
rank-and-file employees at that time was 528,
169 employees would be equivalent to 32% of
the total rank-and-file workers complement, still
very much above the minimum required by law.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as
respondent, it must be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of
the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto; the minutes of ratification; or, in
connection with the election of officers, the
minutes of the election of officers, the list of
voters, or failure to submit these documents
together with the list of the newly elected-
appointed officers and their postal addresses to
the BLR.15
The bare fact that two signatures appeared
twice on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting would not, to our mind,
provide a valid reason to cancel respondents
certificate of registration. The cancellation of a
unions registration doubtless has an impairing
dimension on the right of labor to self-
organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to
be grounds for cancellation of union registration
under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA
that respondent could not have possibly
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false
statements. The alleged failure of respondent to
indicate with mathematical precision the total
number of employees in the bargaining unit is of
no moment, especially as it was able to comply
with the 20% minimum membership
requirement. Even if the total number of rank-
and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while
respondent declared that it should only be 455,
it still cannot be denied that the latter would
have more than complied with the registration
requirement.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
assailed December 20, 2007 Decision and the
June 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No.131374. January 26, 2000]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHILIPPINES,
INC., petitioner, vs. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, MR.
CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, in his capacity as
Acting Secretary of The Department of
Labor and Employment and MR.
BENEDICTO ERNESTO BITONIO, JR., in his
capacity as Director IV of the Bureau of
Labor Relations, respondents. ULANDU
DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
This special civil action
for certiorari and mandamus assails the action
of the then Acting Secretary of Labor and
Employment Cresenciano. B. Trajano contained
in its letter dated 19 September 1997,
[1]
informing petitioner Abbott Laboratories
Philippines, Inc. (hereafter ABBOTT), thru its
counsel that the Office of the Secretary of Labor
cannot act on ABBOTT's appeal from the
decision of 31 March 1997[2] and the Order of 9
July 1997[3] of the Bureau of Labor Relations, for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.
ABBOTT is a corporation engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical
drugs. On 22 February 1996,[4] the Abbott
Laboratories Employees Union (hereafter ALEU)
represented by its president, Alvin B. Buerano,
filed an application for union registration in the
Department of Labor and Employment. ALEU
alleged in the application that it is a labor
organization with members consisting of 30
rank-and-file employees in the manufacturing
unit of ABBOTT and that there was no certified
bargaining agent in the unit it sought to
represent, namely, the manufacturing unit.
On 28 February 1996,[5] ALEU's application was
approved by the Bureau of Labor Relations,
which in due course issued Certificate of
Registration No. NCR-UR-2-1638-96.
Consequently, ALEU became a legitimate labor
organization.
On 2 April 1996,[6] ABBOTT filed a petition for
cancellation of the Certificate of Registration No.
NCR-UR-2-1638-96 in the Regional Office of the
Bureau of Labor Relations. This case was
docketed as Case No. OD-M-9604-006. ABBOTT
assailed the certificate of registration since
ALEU's application was not signed by at least
20% of the total 286 rank-and-file employees of
the entire employer unit; and that it omitted to
submit copies of its books of account. LEX
On 21 June 1996,[7] the Regional Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations decreed the
cancellation of ALEU's registration certificate No.
NCR-UR-II-1585-95.[8] In its decision, the
Regional Director adopted the 13 June
1996[9] findings and recommendations of the
Med-Arbiter. It ruled that the union has failed to
sliow that the rank-and-file employees in the
manufacturing unit of ABBOTT were bound by a
common interest to justify the formation of a
bargaining unit separate from those belonging
to the sales and office staff units. There was,
therefore, sufficient reason to assume that the
entire membership of the rank-and-file
consisting of 286 employees or the "employer
unit" make up the appropriate bargaining unit.
However, it was clear on the record that the
union's application for registration was
supported by 30 signatures of its members or
barely constituting 10% of the entire rank-and-
file employees of ABBOTT. Thus the Regional
Director found that for ALEU's failure to satisfy
the requirements of union registration under
Article 234 of the Labor Code; the cancellation
of its certificate of registration was in order.
Forthwith, on 19 August 11996,[10] ALEU
appealed said cancellation to the Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, which
referred the same to the Director of the Bureau
of Labor Relations. The said appeal was
docketed as Case No. BLR-A-10-25-96.
On 31 March 1997,[11] the Bureau of Labor
Relations rendered judgment reversing the 21
June 1996 decision of the Regional Director,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the
decision of the Regional Director dated 21 June
1996 is hereby REVERSED. Abbott Laboratories
Employees Union shall remain in the roster of
legitimate labor organizations, with all the
rights, privileges and obligations appurtenant
thereto.[12]
It gave the following reasons to justify the
reversal: ( 1) Article 234 of the Labor Code does
not require an applicant union to show proof of
the "desirability of more than one Ibargaining
unit within an employer unit," and the absence
of such proof is not a ground for the cancellation
of a union's registration pursuant to Article 239
of Book V, Rule II of the implementing rules of
the Labor Code; (2) the issue pertaining to the
appropriateness of a bargaining unit cannot be
raised in a cancellation proceeding but may be
threshed out in the exclusion-inclusion process
during a certification election; and (3) the "one-
bargaining unit, one-employer unit policy" must
not be interpreted in a manner that shall
derogate the right of the employees to self-
organization and freedom of association as
guaranteed by Article III, Section 8 of the 1987
Constitution and Article II of the International
Labor Organization's Convention No.87. Jj sc
Its motion to reconsider the 31 March 1997
decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations having
been denied for lack of merit in the Order[13] of 9
July 1997, ABBOTT appealed to the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. However, in its letter
dated 19 September 1997,[14] addressed to
ABBOTT's counsel, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment refused to act on ABBOTT's appeal
on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to
review the decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations on iappeals in cancellation cases
emanating from the Regional Offices. The
decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations therein
is final and executory under Section 4, Rule III,
Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing thc Labor Code, as amended by
Department Order No. 09, s. of 1997. Finally,
the Secretary stated:
It has always been the policy of this Office that
pleadings denominated as appeal thereto over
decisions of the BLR in cancellation cases
coming from the Regional Offices are referred
back to the BLR, so that the same may be
treated as motions for reconsideration and
disposed of accordingly. However, since your
office has already filed a motion for
reconsideration with the BLR which has been
denied in its Order dated 09 July 1997, your
recourse should have been a special civil action
for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, please be informed
that the Office of the Secretary cannot act upon
your Appeal, except to cause the BLR to include
it in the records of the case.
Hence, this petition. ABBOTT premised its
argument on the authority of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment to review the decision of
the Bureau of Labor Relations and at the same
time raised the issue on the validity of ALEU's
certificate of registration.
We find no merit in this petition.
At the outset, it is wortl1y to note that the
present petition assails only the letter of the
then Secretary of Labor & Employment refusing
to take cognizance of ABBOTT's appeal for lack
of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, in the resolution
of the present petition, it is just appropriate to
limit the issue on the power of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment to review the decisions
of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the Regional Director in cases
involving cancellations of certificates of
registration of labor unions. The issue anent the
validity of ALEU's certificate of registration is
subject of the Bureau of Labor Relations
decision dated 31 March 1997. However, said
decision is not being assailed in the present
petition; hence, we are not at liberty to review
the same. Sc jj
Contrary to ABBOTT's contention, there has
been no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Its
refusal to take cognizance of ALEU's appeal from
the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations is
in accordance with the provisions of Rule VIII,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code as amended by Department Order
No. 09.[15] The rule governing petitions for
cancellation of registration of any legitimate
labor organization or worker association, as it
now stands, provides:
SECTION 1. Venue of Action --If the respondent
to the petition is a local/chapter, affiliate, or a
workers' association with operations limited to
one region, the petition shall be filed with the
Regional Office having jurisdiction over the place
where the respondent principally operates.
Petitions filed against federations, national or
industry unions, trade union centers, or workers'
associations operating in more than one regional
jurisdiction, shall be filed with the Bureau.
SECTION 3. Cancellation of registration;. nature
and grounds. -- Subject to the requirements of
notice and due process, the registration of any
legitimate labor organization or worker's
association may be cancelled by the Bureau or
the Regional Office upon the filing of an
independent petition for cancellation based on
any of the following grounds:
(a) Failure to comply with any of the
requirements prescribed under Articles 234, 237
and 238 of the Code;
(b) Violation of any of the provisions of Article
239 of the Code;
(b) Commission of any of the acts enumerated
under Article 241 of the Code; provided, that no
petition for cancellation based on this ground
may be granted unless supported by at least
thirty percent (30%) of all the members of the
respondent labor organization or workers'
association.
Section 4. Action on the petition; appeals -- The
Regional or Bureau Director, as the case may
be, shall have thirty (30) days from submission
of the case for resolution within which to resolve
the petition. The decision of the Regional or
Bureau Director may be appealed to the Bureau
or the Secretary, as the case may be, within ten
(10) days from receipt thereof by the aggrieved
party on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
or any violation of these Rules.
The Bureau or the Secretary shall have fifteen
( 15) days from receipt of the records of the
case within which to decide the appeal. The
decision of the Bureau or the Secretary shall be
final and executory. Sj cj
Clearly, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of
ABBOTT. The appellate jurisdiction of the
Secretary .of Labor and Employment is limited
only to a review of cancellation proceedings
decided by the Bureau of Labor Relations in the
exercise of its exclusive and original jurisdiction.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has no
jurisdiction over decisions of the Bureau of
Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its
appellate power to review the decision of the
Regional Director in a petition to cancel the
union's certificate of registration, said decisions
being final and inappealable.[16] We sustain the
analysis and interpretation of the OSG on this
matter, to wit:
From the foregoing, the Office of the Secretary
correctly maintained that it cannot take
cognizance of petitioner's appeal from the
decision of BLR Director Bitonio. Sections 7 to
9[17] (of the Implementing Rules of the Labor
Code) thus provide for two situations:
(1) The first situation involves a petition for
cancellation of union registration which is filed
with a Regional Office. A decision of a Regional
Office cancelling a union's certificate of
registration may be appealed to the BLR whose
decision on the matter shall be final and
inappealable.
(2) The second situation involves a petition for
cancellation of certificate of union registration
which is filed directly with the BLR. A decision of
the BLR cancelling a union's certificate of
registration may be appealed to the Secretary of
Labor whose decision on the matter shall be
final and inappealable.
Respondent Acting Labor Secretary's ruling
--that the BLR's decision upholding the validity
of respondent union's certificate of registration
is final and inappealable --is thus in accordance
with aforequoted Omnibus Rules because the
petition for cancellation of union registration was
filed by petitioner with a Regional Office,
specifically, with the Regional Office of the BLR,
National Capital Region (vide pp.1-2, Annex 2,
Petition). The cancellation proceedings initiated
by petitioner before the Regional Office is
covered by the first situation contemplated by
Sections 7 to 9 of the Omnibus Rules. Hence, an
appeal from the decision of the Regional Office
may be brought to the BLR whose decision on
the matter is final and inappealable. Supreme
In the instant case, upon the cancellation of
respondent union's registration by the Regional
Office, respondent union incorrectly appealed
said decision to the Office of the Secretary.
Nevertheless, this situation was immediately
rectified when the Office of the Secretary motu
proprio referred the appeal to the BLR However,
upon reversal by the BLR of the decision of the
Regional Office cancelling registration, petitioner
should have immediately elevated the BLR
decision to the Supreme Court in a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
Under Sections 3 and 4, Rule VIII of Book V of
the Rules and Regulations implementing the
Labor Code, as amended by Department Order
No. 09, petitions for cancellation of union
registration may be filed with a Regional office,
or directly, with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Appeals from the decision of a Regional Director
may be filed with the BLR Director whose
decision shall be final and executory. On the
other hand, appeals from the decisions of the
BLR may be filed with the Secretary of Labor
whose decision shall be final and executory .
Thus, under Sections 7 to 9 of the Omnibus
Rules and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Implementing Rules (as amended by
Department Order No. 09), the finality of the
BLR decision is dependent on whether or not the
petition for cancellation was filed with the BLR
directly. Under said Rules, if the petition for
cancellation is directly filed with the BLR, its
decision cancelling union registration is not yet
final and executory as it may still be appealed to
the Office of the Secretary. However, if the
petition for cancellation was filed with the
Regional Office, the decision of the BLR
resolving an appeal of the decision of said
Regional Office is final and executory.[18] Court
It is clear then that the Secretary of Labor and
Employment did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in not acting on ABBOTT's appeal. The
decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations on
cases brought before it on appeal from the
Regional Director are final and executory.
Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to
seasonably avail of the special civil action
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[19]
Even if we relaxed the rule and consider the
present petition as a petition for certiorari not
only of the letter of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment but also of the decision of the
Bureau of the Labor Relations which overruled
the order of cancellation of ALEU's certificate of
registration, the same would still be dismissable
for being time-barred. Under Sec. 4 of Rule 65
of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court the special
civil action for certiorari should be instituted
within a period of sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed. ABBOTT received the decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations on 14 April 1997 and
the order denying its motion for reconsideration
of the said decision on 16 July 1997. The
present petition was only filed on 28 November
1997, after the laps of more than four months.
Thus, for failure to avail of the correct remd4y
within the period provided by law, the decision
of the Bureau of Labor Relations has become
final and executory. WHEREFORE, the Petition
is DENIED. The challenged order in BLR-A-10-
25-96 of the SoLE embodied in its 19September
letter is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.