Professional Documents
Culture Documents
- versus -
FACTS:
On October 11, 1995, respondent filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) a petition for certification
election.[2] The Med-Arbiter granted the petition on February 14, 1996 and ordered
the holding of a certification election.[3]
ISSUE:
WON respondents failure to submit the required documents for a number of years;
warrants its cancellation of its registration as the certified bargaining agent of the
covered employees.
HELD:
No.
xxxx
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within
thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the
financial report itself;
xxxx
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year
or whenever required by the Bureau.[35]
These provisions give the Regional Director ample discretion in dealing with a
petition for cancellation of a unions registration, particularly, determining whether
the union still meets the requirements prescribed by law. It is sufficient to give the
Regional Director license to treat the late filing of required documents as sufficient
compliance with the requirements of the law. After all, the law requires the labor
organization to submit the annual financial report and list of members in order to
verify if it is still viable and financially sustainable as an organization so as to
protect the employer and employees from fraudulent or fly-by-night unions. With
the submission of the required documents by respondent, the purpose of the law
has been achieved, though belatedly.
We cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Regional Director and the DOLE
Secretary in denying the petition for cancellation of respondents registration. The
union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit should not be deprived of a bargaining agent, merely because of the
negligence of the union officers who were responsible for the submission of the
documents to the BLR.
Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in treating petitions for
cancellation of union registration, lest they be accused of interfering with union
activities. In resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities. Labor authorities should 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 ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. [36] Thus, the
cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out
the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as a rule - its
rights under the Labor Code.[37]
R.A. No. 9481 also inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-A, which provides:
(b) Its list of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and list of
voters within thirty (30) days from election;
(c) Its annual financial report within thirty (30) days after the
close of every fiscal year; and
(d) Its list of members at least once a year or whenever required by the
Bureau.
Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground
for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring
officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or
any appropriate penalty.
At any rate, we note that on 19 May 2000, appellee had submitted its
financial statement for the years 1996-1999. With this submission,
appellee has substantially complied with its duty to submit its financial
report for the said period. To rule differently would be to preclude the
union, after having failed to meet its periodic obligations promptly, from
taking appropriate measures to correct its omissions. For the record, we
do not view with favor appellees late submission. Punctuality on the part
of the union and its officers could have prevented this petition. [41]
RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May
30, 2005 and Resolution dated June 4, 2007 are AFFIRMED.
S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL INC., - versus - S.S. VENTURES
LABOR UNION (SSVLU)
G.R. No. 161690; July 23, 2008
FACTS:
On March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition
for certification election in behalf of the rank-and-file employees of
Ventures. Five hundred forty two (542) signatures, 82 of which belong to
terminated Ventures employees, appeared on the basic documents supporting the
petition.
On August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Unions certificate of
registration invoking instances of fraud and misrepresentation.
Ventures then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for certiorari
ISSUE:
HELD:
The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,
Section 3[14] 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.
[15]
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 unions 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.
Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR and the CA in finding that there
was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Unionsufficient to justify
cancellation of its registration. In this regard, Ventures makes much of, first, the
separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who, in gist, alleged that they
were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting.
We are not persuaded. As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA, these mostly
undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or seven
months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration, partake of the
nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Unions filing of a
petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have in precedent
cases[18] 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, is it
not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the
registration of the union? Upon this light, 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.
xxxx
(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.
The BLR, based on its official records, answered the poser in the
affirmative. Wrote the BLR:
The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the list of those who
participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid
reason to cancel Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003. As
the Union tenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures, the double entries are
no more than normal human error, effected without malice. Even the labor arbiter
who found for Ventures sided with the Union in its explanation on the absence of
malice.[22]
In its Comment, the Union points out that for almost seven (7) years following the
filing of its petition, no certification election has yet been conducted among the
rank-and-file employees. If this be the case, the delay has gone far enough and can
no longer be allowed to continue. The CA is right when it said that Ventures should
not interfere in the certification election by actively and persistently opposing the
certification election of the Union. A certification election is exclusively the
concern of employees and the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge it.
[24]
In fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employers interference in a certification
election for such interference unduly creates the impression that it intends to
establish a company union.[25]
RULING:
Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR and the CA in finding that there
was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Unionsufficient to justify
cancellation of its registration. In this regard, Ventures makes much of, first, the
separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who, in gist, alleged that they
were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting.
We are not persuaded. As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA, these mostly
undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or seven
months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration, partake of the
nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Unions filing of a
petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have in precedent
cases[18] 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, is it
not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the
registration of the union? Upon this light, 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.
xxxx
(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.
The BLR, based on its official records, answered the poser in the
affirmative. Wrote the BLR:
The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the list of those who
participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid
reason to cancel Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003. As
the Union tenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures, the double entries are
no more than normal human error, effected without malice. Even the labor arbiter
who found for Ventures sided with the Union in its explanation on the absence of
malice.[22]
In its Comment, the Union points out that for almost seven (7) years following the
filing of its petition, no certification election has yet been conducted among the
rank-and-file employees. If this be the case, the delay has gone far enough and can
no longer be allowed to continue. The CA is right when it said that Ventures should
not interfere in the certification election by actively and persistently opposing the
certification election of the Union. A certification election is exclusively the
concern of employees and the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge it.
[24]
In fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employers interference in a certification
election for such interference unduly creates the impression that it intends to
establish a company union.[25]
RULING: