2/8/2016

LABOR(S.U.Law2011)cont.
commencedbetweenthem.SLECCarguedthatthepetitionshouldbedismissedforviolatingtheoneyearandnegotiationbarrules
underpars.(c)and(d),Section11,RuleXI,BookVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCode.
On 29 November 2001, a CBA between [SMSLEC] and [SLECC] was ratified by its rankandfile employees and registered with
DOLERegionalOfficeNo.IVon9January2002.
Inthemeantime,on19December2001,[CLUPSLECCWA]fileditsOppositionandCommentto[SLECCS]MotiontoDismiss.
In his Order dated 29 July 2002, MedArbiter Anastacio L. Bactin dismissed CLUPSLECCWAs petition for direct certification on
thegroundofcontractbarrule.ThepriorvoluntaryrecognitionofSMSLECandtheCBAbetweenSLECCandSMSLECbarsthefiling
ofCLUPSLECCWAspetitionfordirectcertification.ThiswasreversedbytheSecretaryofLabor.TheSecretaryheldthatthe
subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with SMSLEC could not bar CLUPSLECCWAs
petition.CLUPSLECCanditsAffiliatesWorkersUnionconstitutedaregisteredlabororganizationatthetimeofSLECCs
voluntaryrecognitionofSMSLEC.
OnappealtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),theappellatecourtfurtherruledthattheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment(Secretary)
wascorrectwhensheheldthatthesubsequentnegotiationsandregistrationofacollectivebargainingagreement(CBA)executedby
SLECC with Samahang Manggagawa sa Sta. Lucia East Commercial (SMSLEC) could not bar Sta. Lucia East Commercial
CorporationWorkersAssociations(SLECCWA)petitionfordirectcertification.
Issue:
Can the subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with SMSLEC could not bar CLUPSLECCWAs
petition?
Ruling:
No. CLUPSLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union constituted a registered labor organization at the time of SLECCs voluntary
recognition of SMSLEC. It may be recalled that CLUPSLECC and its Affiliates Workers Unions initial problem was that they
constituted a legitimate labor organization representing a nonappropriate bargaining unit. However, CLUPSLECC and its Affiliates
WorkersUnionsubsequentlyreregisteredasCLUPSLECCWA,limitingitsmemberstotherankandfileofSLECC.SLECCcannot
ignore that CLUPSLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union was a legitimate labor organization at the time of SLECCs voluntary
recognition of SMSLEC. SLECC and SMSLEC cannot, by themselves, decide whether CLUPSLECC and its Affiliates Workers
Unionrepresentedanappropriatebargainingunit.
Theemployermayvoluntarilyrecognizetherepresentationstatusofaunioninunorganizedestablishments.SLECCwasnotan
unorganizedestablishmentwhenitvoluntarilyrecognizedSMSLECasitsexclusivebargainingrepresentativeon20July2001.CLUP
SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union filed a petition for certification election on 27 February 2001 and this petition remained
pending as of 20 July 2001. Thus, SLECCs voluntary recognition of SMSLEC on 20 July 2001, the subsequent negotiations and
resulting registration of a CBA executed by SLECC and SMSLEC are void and cannot bar CLUPSLECCWAs present petition for
certificationelection.
Wefinditstrangethattheemployeritself,SLECC,filedamotiontoopposeCLUPSLECCWAspetitionforcertificationelection.In
petitions for certification election, the employer is a mere bystander and cannot oppose the petition or appeal the MedArbiters
decision.Theexceptiontothisrule,whichhappenswhentheemployerisrequestedtobargaincollectively,isnotpresentinthecase
beforeus
HeritageHotelManilavs.PIGLAS
GR177024,October30,2009
Facts:
Sometimein2000,certainrankandfileemployeesofpetitionerHeritageHotelManilaformedtheHeritageHotelEmployeesUnion
(the HHE union). The Department of Labor and EmploymentNational Capital Region (DOLENCR) later issued a certificate of
registrationtothisunion.
Subsequently,theHHEunionfiledapetitionforcertificationelectionthatpetitionercompanyopposed.The company alleged that
the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when it was, in truth, a local chapter of the National Union of
WorkersinHotelandRestaurantandAlliedIndustries(NUWHRAIN).
Meanwhile,theMedArbitergrantedtheHHEunionspetitionforcertificationelection.Petitionercompanyappealedthedecisionto
theSecretaryofLaborbutthelatterdeniedtheappeal.TheSecretaryalsodeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration,prompting
thecompanytofileapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals.
OnOctober12,2001theCourtofAppealsissuedawritofinjunctionagainsttheholdingoftheHHEunionscertificationelection,
effectiveuntilthepetitionforcancellationofthatunionsregistrationshallhavebeenresolvedwithfinality.ThedecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsbecamefinalwhentheHHEunionwithdrewthepetitionforreviewthatitfiledwiththisCourt.
On December 10, 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed another union, the
respondent PinagIsang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union). Two months later, the

http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/laborsulaw2011cont.html

6/30

2/8/2016

LABOR(S.U.Law2011)cont.
members of the first union, the HHE union, adopted a resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union then filed a petition for
cancellationofitsunionregistration.
On September 4, 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company also opposed,
alleging that the new unions officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. According to the company, the
employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals injunction against the holding of the certification
electionsoughtbytheformerunion.Despitethecompanysopposition,however,theMedArbitergrantedthepetitionforcertification
election.
Issues:
(1)Didtheunionmadefatalmisrepresentationinitsapplicationforunionregistration?
(2)Isdualunionismagroundforcancellingaunionsregistration?
Ruling(FirstIssue):
No. Respondent PIGLAS unions organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. It was possible for the number of attendees to have
increasedfrom90to128asthemeetingprogressed.Besides,withatotalof250employeesinthebargainingunit,theunionneeded
only 50 members to comply with the 20 percent membership requirement. Thus, the union could not be accused of
misrepresentationsinceitdidnotpaditsmembershiptosecureregistration.
(SecondIssue):No.ThefactthatsomeofrespondentPIGLASunionsmemberswerealsomembersoftheoldrankandfileunion,
theHHEunion,isnotagroundforcancelingthenewunionsregistration.Therightofanypersontojoinanorganizationalsoincludes
therighttoleavethatorganizationandjoinanotherone.Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of
registration had already been cancelled. Thus, petitioners arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and
academic.
FVCLaborUnionPTGWOvsSANAMAFVCSIGLO
G.R.No.176249,November27,2009
Facts:
OnDecember22,1997,thepetitionerFVCLUPTGWOtherecognizedbargainingagentoftherankandfileemployeesoftheFVC
Philippines,Incorporatedsignedafiveyearcollectivebargainingagreementwiththecompany.ThefiveyearCBAperiodwasfrom
February1,1998toJanuary30,2003.Attheendofthe3rdyearofthefiveyeartermandpursuanttotheCBA,FVCLUPTGWOand
the company entered into the renegotiation of the CBA and modified, among other provisions, the CBAs duration. Article XXV,
Section2oftherenegotiatedCBAprovidesthat thisrenegotiationagreementshalltak eeffectbeginningFebruary1,2001anduntil
May31,2003thusextendingtheoriginalfiveyearperiodoftheCBAbyfour(4)months.OnJanuary21,2003,nine(9)daysbefore
the January 30, 2003 expiration of the originallyagreed fiveyear CBA term (and four [4] months and nine [9] days away from the
expirationoftheamendedCBAperiod),therespondentSamaSamangNagkakaisangManggagawasaFVCSolidarityofIndependent
and General Labor Organizations (SANAMASIGLO) filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for
certification election for the same rankandfile unit covered by the FVCLUPTGWO CBA. FVCLUPTGWO moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the certification election petition was filed outside the freedom period or outside of the sixty (60) days
beforetheexpirationoftheCBAonMay31,2003.
Issue:
Wasthecertificationelectionfiledwithinthefreedomperiod?
Ruling:
Yes. While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original fiveyear term together with all other CBA provisions, any such
amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. By
express provision of Article 253A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the representation status is a
legalmatternotfortheworkplacepartiestoagreeupon.Inotherwords,despiteanagreementforaCBAwithalifeofmorethanfive
years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five
yearsandcanbechallengedwithinsixty(60)dayspriortotheexpirationoftheCBAsfirstfiveyears.
Inthepresentcase,theCBAwasoriginallysignedforaperiodoffiveyears,i.e.,fromFebruary1,1998toJanuary30,2003,witha
provision for the renegotiation of the CBAs other provisions at the end of the 3rd year of the fiveyear CBA term. Thus, prior to
January 30, 2001 the workplace parties sat down for renegotiation but instead of confining themselves to the economic and non
economicCBAprovisions,alsoextendedthelifeoftheCBAforanotherfourmonths,i.e.,fromtheoriginalexpirydateonJanuary30,
2003toMay30,2003.
ThisnegotiatedextensionoftheCBAtermhasnolegaleffectontheFVCLUPTGWOsexclusivebargainingrepresentationstatus
whichremainedeffectiveonlyforfiveyearsendingontheoriginalexpirydateofJanuary30,2003.Thus,sixtydayspriortothisdate,
orstartingDecember2,2002,SANAMASIGLOcouldproperlyfileapetitionforcertificationelection.Itspetition,filedonJanuary21,
2003ornine(9)daysbeforetheexpirationoftheCBAandofFVCLUPTGWOsexclusivebargainingstatus,wasseasonablyfiled.

http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/laborsulaw2011cont.html

7/30

2/8/2016

LABOR(S.U.Law2011)cont.
MariwasaSiamCeramicsvs.SecretaryofLaborandEmployment,et.al.
G.R.No.183317December21,2009
Facts:
On May 2005, private respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSCIndependent) was
issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Region
IVA.On June 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against private
respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement and that it
committedmassivefraudandmisrepresentationinviolationofArticle239ofthesamecode.
TheRegionalDirectorofDOLEIVAissuedanOrdergrantingthepetition,revokingtheregistrationofrespondent,anddelistingitfrom
the roster of active labor unions. SMMSCIndependent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. BLR ruled in favor of the
respondent, thus, they remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The petitioner appealed and insisted that private
respondent failed to comply with the 20% union membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization
becauseofthedisaffiliationfromthetotalnumberofunionmembersof102employeeswhoexecutedaffidavitsrecantingtheirunion
membership.Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
Issues:
1)Wastherefailuretocomplywiththe20%unionmembershiprequirement?
2)Didthewithdrawalof31unionmembersaffectthepetitionforcertificationelectioninsofarasthe30%requirementisconcerned?
Ruling:
No.Whileitistruethatthewithdrawalofsupportmaybeconsideredasaresignationfromtheunion,thefactremainsthatatthetime
oftheunionsapplicationforregistration,theaffiantsweremembersofrespondentandtheycomprisedmorethantherequired20%
membershipforpurposesofregistrationasalaborunion.Article234oftheLaborCodemerelyrequiresa20%minimummembership
during the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership
requirementallthroughoutitsexistence.
Onthesecondissue,itappearsundisputedlythatthe31unionmembershadwithdrawntheirsupporttothepetitionbeforethefiling
ofsaidpetition.Thedistinctionmustbethatwithdrawalsmadebeforethefilingofthepetitionarepresumedvoluntaryunlessthereis
convincingprooftothecontrary,whereaswithdrawalsmadeafterthefilingofthepetitionaredeemedinvoluntary.Therefore,following
jurisprudence, the employees were not totally free from the employers pressure and so the voluntariness of the employees
executionoftheaffidavitsbecomessuspect.
Thecancellationofaunionsregistrationdoubtlesshasanimpairingdimensionontherightoflabortoselforganization.Forfraudand
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentationmustbegraveandcompellingenoughtovitiatetheconsentofamajorityofunionmembers.

FRAUDORMISREPRESENTATIONINTHEAPPLICATIONFORREGISTRATION

YokohamaTirePhils.Vs.YokohamaEmployeesUnion
G.R.No.163532,March10,2010

Facts:
Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor organization of the rankandfile employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.
(YTPI).YEUwasregisteredasalegitimatelaborlaborunionon10September1999.YEUfiledbeforetheRegionalOfficeapetition
for certification election. YTPI filed a petition in the Regional Office for the revocation of YEUs registration alleging fraud and
misrepresentation by including signatures of employees in the organizational documents despite the lack of knowledge of the
employees of the election of union officers and securing signatures of employees by making them believe that they were signing a
petitionfora125%increaseintheminimumwage,notapetitionforregistration.YTPIspetitionwasgrantedandYEUappealedto
theBLR,whichreversedthedecision.

TheBLRfoundthatthepersonswhosesignatureswereallegedlysecuredthroughmisrepresentationneveraskedfortheirsignatures
toberemovedfromtheorganizationaldocuments,thatsomeemployeesexecuteda SamaSamangPahayagwhichallegedthatthey
have indeed attended a meeting for the purpose of organizing and ratifying their Union By Laws and that the employees did not
questionthelegalityofYEUsorganization.TheBLRalsoheldthatalthoughthe SamaSamangPahayagdidnotspecificallymention
thatanelectiontookplaceduringtheorganizationalmeeting,itmaybepossiblethatthesamewasconductedandthatany 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
DOLEDepartmentOrderNo.9.

http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/laborsulaw2011cont.html

8/30

2/8/2016

LABOR(S.U.Law2011)cont.

YTPIfiledforamotionforreconsiderationbeforetheBLR,whichwasdenied.ThenapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65wasfiledin
theCA,thesamewasdenied,aswellasthemotionforreconsideration.
Issue:
DidYEUcommitfraudandmisrepresentation?
Ruling:
No. Whether YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to remove signatures of some employees from the list of
employeeswhosupportedYEUsapplicationforregistrationandwhetherYEUconductedanelectionofitsofficersarequestionsof
fact. 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. The CA already ruled that YTPI failed to prove that YEU committed fraud and
misrepresentation.
FactualfindingsoftheCAandotherlowertribunalsarebindingontheCourt.ApetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe
RulesofCourtshouldincludeonlyquestionsoflawquestionsoffactarenotreviewable.Aquestionoflawexistswhenthedoubt
centersonwhatthelawisonacertainsetoffacts,whileaquestionoffactexistswhenthedoubtcentersonthetruthorfalsityofthe
allegedfacts.Thereisaquestionoflawiftheissueraisediscapableofbeingresolvedwithoutneedofreviewingtheprobativevalue
oftheevidence.Oncetheissueinvitesareviewoftheevidence,thequestionisoneoffact.
EagleRidgeGolf&CountryClubvs.CA,et.al.
G.R.No.178989,March18,2010
Facts:
PetitionerEagleRidgeGolfandCountryClub(EagleRidge),whichhasaround112rankandfileemployees,allegesthatEagleRidge
Employees Union(EREU) committed fraud, misrepresentation and false statement when it filed for its registration and that EREU
failed to comply with the membership requirement for the registration as a labor organization. Eagle Ridge seeks to have EREUs
registration cancelled when the Union filed a petition for certification election. Eagle Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its
applicationforregistrationhaving30members,whentheminutesofitsDecember6,2005organizationalmeetingshoweditonlyhad
26 members. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy between the certification issued by the Union secretary
and president that 25 members actually ratified the constitution and bylaws on December 6, 2005 and the fact that 26 members
affixedtheirsignaturesonthedocuments,makingonesignatureaforgery.
DOLE Regional Director granted Eagle Ridges petition and delisted EREU from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. EREU
appealed to the BLR, which initially affirmed the order of the Regional Director, but upon filing of the EREU of a motion for
reconsiderationitwasreinstatedintherosteroflegitimatelabororganizations.EagleRidgefiledamotionforreconsiderationbutwas
denied, thus a petition for certiorari to the CA. The CA dismissed Eagle Ridges petition for being deficient as the verification and
certificationofnonforumshoppingwassubscribedtobyLunaC.Piezasonherrepresentationasthelegalcounselofthepetitioner,
butsans[therequisite]SecretarysCertificateorBoardResolutionauthorizinghertoexecuteandsignthesame.TheCAdenieda
motionforreconsideration.
Issue:
DidtheCAcommitgraveabuseofdiscretionindenyingEagleRidgespetitiontocancelEREUsregistration?
Ruling:
No.Ascrutinyoftherecordsfailstoshowanymisrepresentation,falsestatement,orfraudcommittedbyEREUtomeritcancellation
ofitsregistration.TheUnionsubmittedtherequireddocumentsattestingtothefactsoftheorganizationalmeetingonDecember6,
2005, the election of its officers, and the adoption of the Unions constitution and bylaws. EREU complied with the mandatory
minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234(c). when it had 30 employees as member when it registered. Any seeming
infirmity in the application and admission of union membership, most especially in cases of independent labor unions, must be
viewedinfavorofvalidmembership.
In the issue of the affidavits of retraction executed by six union members, the probative value of these affidavits cannot overcome
thoseofthesupportingaffidavitsof12unionmembersandtheircounselastotheproceedingsandtheconductoftheorganizational
meeting on December 6, 2005. The DOLE Regional Director and the BLR OIC Director obviously erred in giving credence to the
affidavitsofretraction,butnotaccordingthesametreatmenttothesupportingaffidavits.Itissettledthataffidavitspartakethenature
of hearsay evidence, since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the
affiantsstatement,whichmaythusbeeitheromittedormisunderstoodbytheonewritingthem.Itisrequiredforaffiantstoreaffirm
thecontentsoftheiraffidavitsduringthehearingoftheinstantcaseforthemtobeexaminedbytheopposingparty,i.e.,theUnion.
Fortheirnonpresentation,thesixaffidavitsofretractionareinadmissibleasevidenceagainsttheUnionintheinstantcase.Twenty
percent(20%)of112rankandfileemployeesinEagleRidgewouldrequireaunionmembershipofatleast22employees.Whenthe
EREUfileditsapplicationforregistrationonDecember19,2005,therewereclearly30unionmembers.Thus,whenthecertificateof
registrationwasgranted,thereisnodisputethattheUnioncompliedwiththemandatory20%membershiprequirement.Priortotheir
withdrawal,thesixemployeeswhoretractedwere bonafideunionmembers.Withthewithdrawalofsixunionmembers,thereisstill
compliancewiththemandatorymembershiprequirementunderArt.234(c),fortheremaining24unionmembersconstitutemorethan
the20%membershiprequirementof22employees.

http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/laborsulaw2011cont.html

9/30