Valentin Guijarno vs Court of Industrial Relations looks with disfavor on such a provision being used as an excuse for
August 27, 1973| Fernando, J. | termination of employment.
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY: Petitioners were dismissed by their employer company due to a closed-
shop provision in their CBA, which was retroactively applied (all petitioners were hired
before the CBA was agreed on). The SC ruled that such was obviously unjust and
oppressive. There was no basis for such action in either law or principle, and the Court
ordered the reinstatement of the petitioners with back wages.
DOCTRINE: The labor union is nothing but the means of assuring that these
objectives would be met. It is the instrumentality thru which an individual laborer may
achieve economic well-being. Workers unorganized are weak; workers organized are
strong. Necessarily then, they join labor unions.
FACTS:
 23 unfair labor practice cases for unlawful dismissal were filed against respondent
Central Santos Lopez Co., Inc because it was asked by the USWU-ILO. In view of
a closed-shop provision in the CBA, CSLI could dismiss members of the labor
organization if the same action was sought by the union.
 The respondent court found that the company had never committed acts of unfair
labor practice against tits employees/workers, but it has a solemn obligation to
comply with the terms and conditions of the contract; that a closed-shop
agreement is sanctioned under RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act), thus the dismissal is
merely an exercise of a right allowed by law. Hence, this pettion..
RULING: Petiition is GRANTED. Decision and Resolution of CIR are REVERSED.
Central Lopez Co. ordered to reinstate petitioners to the positions they occupied prior
to their illegal dismissal.
W/N the closed-shop provision is not to be given retroactive effect (YES)
(1) The doctrine that a closed-shop provision in a CBA is not to be given
retroactive effect is traceable to the case of Confederated Sons of Labor v.
Anakan Lumber Co., where it was said that an employee may be deemed
bound to dismiss employees for non-union membership, but the
stipulation must be so clear and unequivocal and doubts must be resolved
against the existence of closed-shop.
(2) In Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. CIR, it was held that the closed-
shop provision therein should not apply to persons to be hired or to
employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. In
Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Ng Alak v. Hamilton Distillery Company, the
Court held that a stipulation allowing the dismissal of those already
employed is null and void. In Salunga v. CIR, it was held that unions are
not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership, and
a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging an
employee whom the union refuses to admit to membership. The Court
(3) The Constitution affords protection to labor, in order to promote social
justice and to insure the well-being and economic security of all the
people. Thus, it is the individual employee who must be attended to; he is
the beneficiary of the concern manifest in the fundamental law. The
labor union is nothing but the means of assuring that these
objectives would be met. It is the instrumentality thru which an
individual laborer may achieve economic well-being. Workers
unorganized are weak; workers organized are strong. Necessarily
then, they join labor unions.
(4) To increase their effectiveness, a closed-shop provision has been allowed
in various CBAs.. However, such a stipulation may be utilized against
minority groups or individual workers, as in this case. The labor union
may no longer be a haven of refuge, but as much a potential foe as
management itself.
W/N petitioners are entitled to reinstatement (YES)
(1) Clearly, they should be reinstated with back pay. In another case (Salunga
v. CIR), it was the labor union that was held liable for back pay. The same
should apply here, as CSLI would not have dismissed the petitioners if not
for the insistence of the labor union.
(2) In the exercise of sound judgment, the lower court may take such
measures as it may deem best, including the power to authorize the
Company to make deductions for petitioners benefit. From the sums due
to the Union.
ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING AND RECORDING CORP v.
LAGUNZAD
July 27, 2011| Brion, J. |
Digester: Yee, Jenine
SUMMARY: Private respondent Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Manggagawa ng
Electromat-Wasto (UNION), a charter affiliate of WASTO applied for registration
before the BLR. After submitting the required documents, BLR issued a Certification of
Creation of Local Chapter pursuant to DO 40-03.4. Petitioner (COMPANY) filed a
petition for cancellation for the union’s failure to comply with Art 234 of the LC. It
further assailed the constitutionality of DO 40-03.3 as it diminishes the requirements for
union registration. The SC upheld the validity of the DO.
DOCTRINE: D.O. 40-03 represents an expression of the government’s implementing
policy on trade unionism. It is consistent with the intent of the government to
encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union to enhance
the local’s bargaining power.
FACTS:
 The private respondent Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Manggagawa ng
Electromat-Wasto (union), a charter affiliate of the Workers Advocates for Struggle,
Transformation and Organization (WASTO), applied for registration with the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
 Supporting the application were the following documents: (1) copies of its ratified
constitution and by-laws (CBL); (2) minutes of the CBL’s adoption and ratification;
(3) minutes of the organizational meetings; (4) names and addresses of the union
officers; (5) list of union members; (6) list of rank- and-file employees in the
company; (7) certification of non- existence of a collective bargaining agreement
CBA) in the company; (8) resolution of affiliation with WASTO, a labor federation;
(9) WASTO’s resolution of acceptance; (10) Charter Certificate; and (11)
Verification under oath.
 The BLR thereafter issued the union a Certification of Creation of Local
Chapter (equivalent to the certificate of registration of an independent
union), pursuant to Department Order No. (D.O.) 40-03.4
 On October 1, 2003, the petitioner Electromat Manufacturing and Recording
Corporation (company) filed a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration
certificate, for the union’s failure to comply with Article 234 of the Labor Code. It
argued that D.O. 40­03 is an unconstitutional diminution of the Labor Code’s
union registration requirements under Article 234.
 Acting Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE)-National Capital Region: DISMISSED the petition.
 In the appeal by the company, BLR: AFFIRMED the dismissal.
 CA: DISMISSED and AFFIRMED BLR ruling.
 On MR, CA: DENIED MR.
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of
merit. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Whether DO. 40-03.4 is a valid exercise of rule-making power of DOLE—YES
 PETITIONER: Enumeration of the requirements for union registration under the
law is exclusive and should not be diminished. The same requirement should apply
to all labor unions, whether they are independent labor org, federations, or local
chapters. In making a different rule for local chapters, DO 40-03 expanded Art
234, resulting in an invalid exercise by DOLE.
 As in the case of D.O. 9 (which introduced Section 3 Rule II, Book V of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code) in Progressive Development v. Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment, D.O. 40­03 represents an expression of the government’s
implementing policy on trade unionism.
 It builds upon the old rules by further simplifying the requirements for the
establishment of locals or chapters.
 As in D.O. 9, there is nothing contrary to the law or the Constitution in the
adoption by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of D.O. 40-03 as this
department order is consistent with the intent of the government to
encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union
to enhance the local’s bargaining power. If changes were made at all, these were
those made to recognize the distinctions made in the law itself between federations
and their local chapters, and independent unions; local chapters seemingly have
lesser requirements because they and their members are deemed to be direct
members of the federation to which they are affiliated, which federations are the
ones subject to the strict registration requirements of the law.
 In any case, the local union in the present case has more than satisfied the
requirements the petitioner complains about:
(1) copies of the ratified CBL;
(2) the minutes of the CBL’s adoption and ratification;
(3) the minutes of the organizational meetings;
(4) the names and addresses of the union officers;
(5) the list of union members;
(6) the list of rank-and-file employees in the company;
(7) a certification of non- existence of a CBA in the company;
(8) the resolution of affiliation with WASTO and the latter’s
acceptance; and
(9) their Charter Certificate.
NOTES:
 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.”
TAKATA CORPORATION (PHIL) v. BLR & SALAMAT
June 4, 2014 | Peralta, J. | Cancellation of Union Certificate of Registration
Digester: Chan, Ysabelle
SUMMARY: Takata filed a petition for cancellation of the registration of SALAMAT
on the grounds of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect to the
number of participants in the organizational meeting, the composition of the union, etc.
It claimed that based on the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting, the Union
lacked the 20% required number of members. The DOLE ruled in favor of Takata but
this was reversed by the BLR. The SC ruled that it is not necessary to achieve 20% for
the attendance of the organizational meeting. The 20% only goes into the number of
members a Union is required to have. Moreover, the SC found no evidence to support
the allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and false statement
DOCTRINE: Article 234(b) and (c) provide for separate requirements with respect to
number of attendees to an organizational meeting and the number of union members,
respectively. 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.
FACTS:
 Takata Corp. filed with the DOLE Regional Office a Petition for Cancellation of
the Certificate of Union Registration of Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata
(SALAMAT) on the grounds 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.
 Takata alleged that:
o in the organizational meeting of SALAMAT, 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; hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum
membership requirement.
o 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;
o the document “Sama­Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted at the
time of the filing of respondent’s application for union registration;
o the 119 union members were actually only 117;
o the total number of petitioner’s employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not
396 as respondent claimed.
 SALAMAT denied and claimed that:
o the 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement for union
registration.
o The document “Sama­Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon” which it
presented in its petition for certification election supported their claim of 119
members.
o petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal personality as it agreed to a
certification election and actively participated in the preelection conference of
the certification election proceedings
o 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 quorum existed for
the conduct of the said meeting.
 |DOLE| granted the petition for cancellation of SALAMAT’s certificate of
registration
o the 68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was 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;
o 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 Kasapi ng Unyon.”
o The document “Sama­Samang 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.
o 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.
 |BLR| reversed the order
o petitioner failed to prove that respondent deliberately and maliciously
misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees.
o petitioner’s basis for the alleged noncompliance with the minimum
membership requirement for registration was the attendance of 68 members to
the organizational meeting supposedly comprising only 17% of the total 396
regular rank-and-file employees. However, the 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; 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.
 MR denied
 |CA| affirmed the decision of BLR
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether SALAMAT’s registration should be cancelled - NO
 Petitioner seeks the cancellation on grounds of fraud 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.
 Court: For the issuance of the certificate of registration, a union seeking to
represent the employees must comply first with the requirements of registration set
forth in Article 2341 of the Labor Code
 1ART. 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;
 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 set forth
in Article 239.2
 Petitioner’s allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim that
during the organizational meeting, 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.
 The Court finds no evidence on record to support petitioner’s accusation of
misrepresentation and fraud.
 Article 234(b) of the Labor Code does not require that the attendees in the
organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
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 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.
 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.
 The attendance sheet of the organizational meeting also showed 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
(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least
twenty percent (20%) unit where it seeks to operate; (of all the employees in the bargaining 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.
2 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.
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.
 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. In fact, the Court notes that not
one of those listed in the document denominated as “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng
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 “Sama­Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi,” thus, strengthening their 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.
 As to petitioner’s argument that the total number of its employees as of May 1,
2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed, still the 117 union members
comprised more than the 20% membership requirement for respondent’s
registration.
 Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. SOLE: 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 respondent’s certificate of registration.
The cancellation of a union’s 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.
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC. 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 IVA & SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MARIWASA
SIAM CERAMICS, INC. (SMMSCINDEPENDENT),
December 21, 2009 | Nachura, J. | Regulation of Labor Organization: Requirements of
Registration
Digester: Arreza, Dapor
SUMMARY: Respondent Samahan was issued a certificate of registration as a
legitimate labor org by the DOLE. Petitioner Mariwasa filed a petition for cancellation
of union registration against respondent claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of
the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement, and that it committed
massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code.
Regional Director of DOLE issued an order granting petition revoking the registration
of respondent. Respondent appealed to BLR, which granted the appeal. Petitioner
appealed with CA but denied it for lack of merit. The Court held that 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 union’s 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.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS:
 May 4, 2005: Respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a
legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Region IVA.
 June 14, 2005: Petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration against respondent, claiming that the latter
violated Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20%
requirement, and that it committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in
violation of Article 239 of the same code.
 Aug. 26, 2005: Regional Director of DOLE-IV 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 BLR.
 BLR: Granted respondents’ appeal. Decision by DOLE Region IV-A Director
Maximo B. Lim is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSCIndependent) remains in
the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
 Petitioner filed MR with BLR but was denied.
 CA: Denied petition for lack of merit.
 Petitioner filed MR with CA but was denied based on the ff 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.”
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed December 20, 2007
Decision and the June 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
WoN SMMSC-Independent fail to comply with the 20% requirement and
commit massive fraud and misrepresentation, deeming its delisting from the
roster of active labor unions valid. – NO. The petition should be dismissed.
 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.
o To answer this, imperative that we peruse the affidavits appearing to have
been executed by these affiants:
“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
pagaalinlangan[;]
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 affiant’s 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 respondent’s 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 Relations is enlightening:
 o “…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.”
 In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities of
the union members became public 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 IVA.
The logical conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence, is that the employees
were not totally free from the employer’s 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.
 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.
 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 union’s 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.
 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.
 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.
NOTES:
 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:
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.
 ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION.
- The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of
the constitution and bylaws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of
members who took part in the ratification;
xxxx
(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 newlyelected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within
thirty (30) days from election.
COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and EMPLOYMENT-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, COASTAL SUBIC
BAY TERMINAL, INC. SUPERVISORY UNIONAPSOTEU, and COASTAL
SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. RANK-AND-FILE UNIONALU-TUCP,
November 20, 2006 | Quisumbing, J. | Union Chartering/Affiliation: Requirements of
Registration
Digester: Arreza, Dapor
SUMMARY: Private respondents CSBTIRFU (rank-and-file union) and CSBTISU
(supervisors union) both filed petitions for certification election before the MA
separately. The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization
having been issued a charter certificate by the ALU, while the supervisory union by the
APSOTEU. Petitioner opposed the petitions for certification election alleging that both
unions were not legitimate labor organizations and that the proposed bargaining units
were not particularly described. The MA dismissed the petition. The SOLE reversed the
decision of the MA. The CA affirmed the decision of the SOLE. The Court
GRANTED the petition, AFFIRMING the decision of the MA, holding that the ALU
and APSOTEU are one and the same federation having a common set of officers. Thus,
the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions were in effect affiliated with only one
federation.
DOCTRINE: The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise
is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of
labor. When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a supervisory
union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented. Labor organizations should
ensure the freedom of employees to organize themselves for the purpose of leveling the
bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep open the
corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves.
FACTS:
 July 8, 1998: Private respondents Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-and-File
Union (CSBTIRFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Supervisory Union
(CSBTISU) filed separate petitions for certification election before the Med-
Arbiter. The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization
having been issued a charter certificate by the Associated Labor Union (ALU), and
the supervisory union by the Associated Professional, Supervisory, Office and
Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). Private respondents also alleged that the
establishment in which they sought to operate was unorganized.
 Petitioner Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI) opposed both petitions for
certification election alleging that the rank-and-file union and supervisory union
were not legitimate labor organizations, and that the proposed bargaining units
were not particularly described.
 Med-Arbiter: Dismissed, without prejudice to refiling, both petitions which had
been consolidated. It held that the ALU and APSOTEU are one and the same
federation having a common set of officers. Thus, the supervisory and the rank-
and-file unions were in effect affiliated with only one federation.
 SOLE: Reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. It ruled that CSBTISU and
CSBTIRFU have separate legal personalities to file their separate petitions for
certification election. It held that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization
because it was properly registered pursuant to the 1989 Revised Rules and
Regulations implementing RA No. 6715. It further ruled that ALU and APSOTEU
are separate and distinct labor unions having separate certificates of registration
from the DOLE. They also have different sets of locals. The Secretary declared
CSBTIRFU and CSBTISU as legitimate labor organizations having been chartered
respectively by ALU and APSOTEU after submitting all the requirements with the
BLR. Accordingly, the Secretary ordered the holding of separate certification
election.
o MR was DENIED.
 CA: Affirmed the decision of the SOLE, holding that there was no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Secretary; its findings are supported by evidence on
record; and thus should be accorded with respect and finality.
o MR was DENIED.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’
Decision dated August 31, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 54128 and the Resolution dated
February 5, 2003 are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Med-Arbiter is hereby
AFFIRMED.
WoN the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions can file separate petitions for
certification election. – YES.
 The issue on the status of the supervisory union CSBTISU depends on the status
of APSOTEU, its mother federation.
o Petitioner argues that APSOTEU improperly secured its registration from
the DOLE Regional Director and not from the BLR; that it is the BLR
that is authorized to process applications and issue certificates of
registration in accordance with our ruling in Phil. Association of Free Labor
Unions v. Secretary of Labor; that the certificates of registration issued by the
DOLE Regional Director pursuant to the rules are questionable, and
possibly even void ab initio for being ultra vires; and that the CA erred
when it ruled that the law applicable at the time of APSOTEU’s
registration was the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of
RA No. 6715.
o Petitioner insists that APSOTEU lacks legal personality, and its chartered
affiliate CSBTISU cannot attain the status of a legitimate labor
organization to file a petition for certification election. It relies on Villar v.
Inciong, where we held therein that Amigo Employees Union was not a
duly registered independent union absent any record of its registration
with the Bureau.
 Article 235 of the Labor Code provides that applications for registration shall be
acted upon by the Bureau, which, as defined under the Labor Code means the BLR
and/or the LRD in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor. Section 2,
Rule II, Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules of the Labor Code and
the Implementing Rules specifically Section 1, Rule III of Book V, as amended by
DO No. 9, provide the rules on where to file the application for registration of any
federation, national or industry union or trade union center.
o The DOLE issued DO No. 40-03, which took effect on March 15, 2003,
further amended Book V of the above implementing rules, explicitly
providing that applications for registration of labor organizations shall be
filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR.
o Even after the amendments, the rules did not divest the Regional Office
and the BLR of their jurisdiction over applications for registration by
labor organizations. The amendments to the implementing rules merely
specified that when the application was filed with the Regional Office, the
application would be acted upon by the BLR.
 The records in this case showed that APSOTEU was registered on March 1, 1991.
Accordingly, the law applicable at that time was Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, and not DO No. 9 which took effect only on June 21, 1997.
Thus, considering further that APSOTEU’s principal office is located in Diliman,
Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the
certificate of registration is valid.
 The petitioner misapplied Villar v. Inciong. In said case, there was no record in the
BLR that Amigo Employees Union was registered.
WoN the CA erred in its application of stare decisis when it upheld the
Secretary’s ruling that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization and its
personality cannot be assailed unless in an independent action for cancellation of
registration certificate. – NO.
 Section 5, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules provides that “the labor
organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on
the date of issuance of its certificate of registration…” Thus, APSOTEU is a legitimate labor
organization and has authority to issue charter to its affiliates and it may issue a
local charter certificate to CSBTISU and correspondingly, CSBTISU is legitimate.
WoN ALU, a rank-and-file union and APSOTEU, a supervisory union one and
the same because of the commonalities between them. Are they commingled? –
NO.
 The petitioner contends that applying by analogy, the doctrine of piercing the veil
of corporate fiction, APSOTEU and ALU are the same federation. Private
respondents disagree.
 As discussed above, once a labor union attains the status of a legitimate labor
organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or
revoked in an independent action for cancellation. In addition, the legal personality
of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked.
o Thus, when the personality of the labor organization is questioned in the
same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, the action partakes
the nature of a collateral attack. Hence, in the absence of any independent
action for cancellation of registration against either APSOTEU or ALU,
and unless and until their registrations are cancelled, each continues to
possess a separate legal personality. The CSBTIRFU and CSBTISU are
therefore affiliated with distinct and separate federations, despite the
commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU.
 Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union acquires
legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly registered
federation or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in accordance
with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A local union does not owe its
existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct
voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation
does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the
mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives
rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter.
Hence, local unions are considered principals of the latter. Hence, local unions are
considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. As
such principals, the unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.
 A word of caution though, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory
employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union of rank-and-file
employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but
they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of
interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-
and-file or where the supervisors’ labor union would represent conflicting interests,
a local supervisors’ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national
federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively
participates in the union activity within the company. Thus, the limitation is not
confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The
prohibition extends to a supervisors’ local union applying for membership in a
national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file
employees.
 In the instant case, the national federations that exist as separate entities to which
the rank-and-file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated with, do have a
common set of officers. In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation,
actively participates in the CSBTISU while ALU, the rank-and-file federation,
actively participates in the CSBTIRFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of
interest among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the
federation of supervisory unions. For as long as they are affiliated with the
APSOTEU and ALU, the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet
the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not
separately petition for certification elections.
 The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise is to
increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of
labor. When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a
supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented. Labor
organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to organize themselves for
the purpose of leveling the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of
workingmen and to keep open the corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it
for themselves.
NOTES:
 Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules. - Where to
file application; procedure.—Any national labor organization or labor federation or local union
may file an application for registration with the Bureau or the Regional Office where the
applicant’s principal offices is located. The Bureau or the Regional Office shall immediately process
and approve or deny the application. In case of approval, the Bureau or the Regional Office shall
issue the registration certificate within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the application,
together with all the requirements for registration as hereinafter provided.
 Section 1, Rule III of Book V, as amended by Department Order No. 9. -
Where to file applications.—The application for registration of any federation, national or
industry union or trade union center shall be filed with the Bureau. Where the application is filed
with the Regional Office, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Bureau within forty-eight
(48) hours from filing thereof, together with all the documents supporting the registration.
The applications for registration of an independent union shall be filed with and acted upon
by the Regional Office where the applicant’s principal office is located ….
 Section 5, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules. - Effect of registration.—
The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot
thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but maybe questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with these Rules.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY, DOLE, MED- ARBITER EDGARDO DELA CRUZ, AND
PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN)-TUCP
February 4, 1992| Gutierrez, Jr., J. | Action on Application; Denial of Registration
Digester: Agustin, Chrissete C.
SUMMARY: Kilusan-TUCP filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of PDC alleging that it is a legitimate labor org and
its local chapter, PDEU was issued a charter certificate. PDC filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the Union did not comply with the requirements of the registration.
The Court held that the Union failed to comply with all the mandatory requirements of
the registration, and thus denial was proper.
DOCTRINE: Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon
registration with the BLR, under Arts. 234 and 235. But when an unregistered union
becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned
requirements for registration are no longer required. The intent of the law in imposing
lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national
union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union
in order to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions
of labor.A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon
submission of the following to the BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its
issuance by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws,
a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified
under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter,
and attested to by its president. 
Absent compliance with these mandatory
requirements, the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor
organization.
FACTS:
 On June 19,1990, respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa
(KILUSAN)-TUCP (Kilusan) filed with the DOLE a petition for certification
election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a
legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development
Employees Union, was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1153.
 Kilusan claimed that there was no existing CBA and that no other legitimate labor
organization existed in the bargaining unit.
 Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss dated July 11, 1990 contending that the
local union failed to comply with Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the submission of: (a)
the constitution and by-laws; (b) names, addresses and list of officers and/or
members; and (c) books of accounts.
 On July 16,1990, Kilusan submitted a rejoinder to PDC's motion to dismiss
claiming that it had submitted the necessary documentary requirements for
registration, such as the constitution and by-laws of the local union, and the list of
officers/members with their addresses. Kilusan further averred that no books of
accounts could be submitted as the local union was only recently organized.
 In its “Supplemental Position Paper” dated September 3, 1990, the petitioner
insisted that upon verification with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), it found
that the alleged minutes of the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list
of members did not bear the corresponding signatures of the purported members,
and the constitution and by-laws did not bear the signatures of the members and
was not duly subscribed. It argued that the private respondent therefore failed to
substantially comply with the registration requirements provided by the rules.
Additionally, it prayed that Med-Arbiter Edgardo dela Cruz inhibit himself from
handling the case for the reason that he allegedly had prejudged the same.
 MA: Held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements for the
formation of a chapter. He further stated that mere issuance of the charter
certificate by the federation was sufficient compliance with the rules. Considering
that the establishment is unorganized, he maintained that a certification election
should be conducted to resolve the question of representation.
 PDC filed for MR (which was treated as an appeal to the SOLE).
 USEC of DOLE: The same was merely a “reiteration of the issues already
ventilated in the proceedings before the Med-Arbiter specifically, the matter
involving the formal organization of the chapter.”
 PDC filed for MR – DENIED
 In an order dated February 25, 1991, the Court resolved to issue a TRO enjoining
the public respondents from carrying out the assailed resolution and orders or from
proceeding with the certification election.
RULING: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution and orders of respondents
Med-Arbiter and Secretary of Labor and Employment, respectively, are hereby SET
ASIDE. The temporary restraining order dated February 25, 1991 is made permanent.
Whether the denial of the registration was proper – YES
Arguments:
 PDC: That a labor organization (such as the Kilusan) may not validly invest the
status of legitimacy upon a local or chapter through the mere expedient of issuing a
charter certificate and submitting such certificate to the BLR. It posits that such
local or chapter must at the same time comply with the requirement of submission
 of duly subscribed constitution and by laws, list of officers and books of accounts.
PDC points out that the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted
were not duly subscribed. Likewise, the petitioner claims that the mere filing of the
aforementioned documents is insufficient; that there must be due recognition or
acknowledgment accorded to the local or chapter by the BLR through a certificate
of registration or any communication emanating from it.
 OSG: Avers that there was substantial compliance with the requirements for the
formation of a chapter. Moreover, SolGen invokes Article 257 which mandates the
automatic conduct by the Med-Arbiter of a certification election in any
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent.
COURT:
 The holding of a certification election is based on a statutory policy that cannot be
circumvented.
 The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice in a determination
where everything is open to their sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and
misrepresentation is eliminated.
 But while Article 257 cited by the SolGen 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.
Article 242 enumerates the exclusive rights of a legitimate labor organization
among which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.
 Meanwhile, Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as "any labor
organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof."
Rule I, Section 1(j), Book V of the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate
labor organization as "any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and
includes any branch, local or affiliate thereof."
 Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon registration with the
BLR. Under Article 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; 
 the foregoing differentiation is the fact that a local or chapter need not be
(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; 
 aforementioned provisions of Section 3.
(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty 20% percent of
all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
(d) If the applicant has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its
annual financial reports; and 
 least 20% of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit;
(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, the
minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who
participated in it.”
 And under Article 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.”
 Moreover, section 4 of Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules requires that
the application should be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit and be accompanied by a sworn statement of the
applicant union that there is no certified bargaining agent or, where there is an
existing collective agreement duly submitted to the DOLE, that the application is
filed during the last sixty (60) days of the agreement.
 But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation,
some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required.
The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V
of the Implementing Rules, the relevant portions of which are cited below:
“SEC. 3. Union affiliation; direct membership with national union.—An affiliate of a labor
federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently
registered union.
(a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter
certificate indicating the creation or establishment of a local or chapter,
copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within
thirty (30) days from issuance of such charter certificate. 

(b) An independently registered union shall be considered an affiliate of a
labor federation or national union after submission to the Bureau of the
contract or agreement of affiliation within thirty (30) days after its
execution. 
xxx xxx xxx 

(c) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and
maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and books of accounts.
For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of
independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be
observed."
 Paragraph (a) refers to a local or chapter of a federation which did not
undergo the rudiments of registration while paragraph (b) refers to an
independently registered union which affiliated with a federation. Implicit in
independently registered. By force of law (in this case, Article 212[h]), such local or
chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with the
 Thus, several requirements that are otherwise required for union registration are
omitted, to wit:
(1) The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at


(2) The submission of officers' addresses, principal address of the labor
organization, the minutes of organizational meetings and the list of the
workers who participated in such meetings; 

 (3) The submission of the minutes of the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by laws and the list of the members who participated in
it. 
 there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation
 Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a
branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the
affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase
the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.
 The petitioner maintains that the documentary requirements prescribed in Section
3(c), namely: the constitution and bylaws, set of officers and books of accounts,
must follow the requirements of law. Petitioner PDC calls for the similar
application of the requirement for registration in Article 235 that all requisite
documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of
the organization and attested to by the president.
 In the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted to the
BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president, were not certified under oath by
the secretary.
 In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the submitted
documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the
case may be, and attested to by the president is apparent. The submission of the
required documents (and payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's
basis for approval of the application for registration. Upon approval, the labor
union acquires legal personality and is entitled to all the rights and privileges
granted by the law to a legitimate labor organization. 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 a 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.
 In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are
found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again
quote as follows:
“(c) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and
maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For
reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions,
federations or national unions shall be observed.”
 Since the “procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions”
refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained in Article 235,
paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books
of accounts submitted by the local and chapter must likewise comply with these
requirements. The same rationale for requiring the submission of duly subscribed
documents upon union registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover,
requirements because, as previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to
independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the formation
of a local or chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater bargaining power
upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy of providing preventive
measures against the commission of fraud.
 A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon
submission of the following to the BLR:
1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor
federation or national union, and 

2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the
books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or
treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by
its president. 

 Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter
does not become a legitimate labor organization.
 In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the
required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
 We observe that, as borne out by the facts in this case, the formation of a local or
chapter becomes a handy tool for the circumvention of union registration
requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards, it becomes a convenient device
for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or union on
unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness which
is basic to free unionism. The records show that on June 16, 1990, Kilusan met
with several employees of the petitioner. Excerpts of the “Minutes of the
Organizational/General Membership Meeting of Progressive Development
Employees Union (PDEU)­ Kilusan”, are quoted below:
“The meeting was formally called to order by Bro. Jose V. Paningao, KILUSAN
secretary for organization by explaining to the general membership the importance
of joining a union. He explained to the membership why they should join a union,
and briefly explained the ideology of the Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa-TUCP
as a democratically based organization and then read the proposed Constitution
and By-Laws, after which said Constitution and By-Laws was duly and unanimously
ratified after some clarification.
Bro. Jose Parungao was also unanimously voted by the group to act as the
chairman of the COMELEC in holding the organizational election of officers of
the Union.
Bro. Parungao, officially opened the table for the nomination of candidates after
which the election of officers followed by secret balloting and the following were
the duly elected officers.”
 The foregoing shows that Kilusan took the initiative and encouraged the formation
of a union which automatically became its chapter. On June 18,1990, Kilusan
issued a charter certificate in favor of PDEU-KILUSAN. It can be seen that
Kilusan was moving very fast.
 On June 19,1990, or just three days after the organizational meeting, Kilusan filed a
petition for certification election accompanied by a copy each of the charter
certificate, constitution and by-laws and minutes of the organizational meeting. Had
the local union filed an application for registration, the petition for certification
election could not have been immediately filed. The applicant union must first
comply with the “20% signature” requirement and all the other requisites
enumerated in Article 234. Moreover, since under Article 235 the BLR shall act on
any application for registration within thirty (30) days from its filing, the likelihood
is remote that, assuming the union complied with all the requirements, the
application would be approved on the same day it was filed.
We are not saying
that the scheme used by the respondents is per se illegal for precisely, the law
allows such strategy. 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.
 It may likewise be argued that it was Kilusan (the mother union) and not the local
union which filed the petition for certification election and, being a legitimate labor
organization, Kilusan has the personality to file such petition.
 At this juncture, it is important to clarify the relationship between the mother union
and the local union. In the case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton
Mills Inc., the Court held that the mother union, acting for and in behalf of its
affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of
the association, free to serve the common interest of all its members subject only to
the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the association. Thus,
where as in this case the petition for certification election was filed by the
federation which is merely an agent; the petition is deemed to be filed by the
chapter, the principal, which must be a legitimate labor organization. The chapter
cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the mother union.
 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.
SMC – MANDAUE PACKAGING PRODUCTS PLANT v MANDAUE
PACKING PRODUCTS PLANTS – SMC PACKAGING PRODUCTS – SMC
MONTHLIES RANK-AND-FILE UNION-FFW
August 16, 2005 | Tinga, J. | Effect of Registration; Non-Registration; Acquisition of
Legal Personality
Digester: Angat, Christine Joy F.
SUMMARY: SMC Monthlies Rank-and-File Union, identifying themselves as an
affiliate of Federation of Free Workers (FFW), filed a PCE, and in accordance thereto,
submitted the necessary requirements. The Company opposed the petition on the
ground that they are not a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE. The
union then again submitted the said documents, but this time, for union registration. A
certificate of union registration was issued in favor of said union. The Med-Arbiter,
deciding on the company’s motion to dismiss the PCE, ruled in favor the company,
holding that the union had yet to acquire legal personality when it filed its PCE. DOLE
reversed, hence the instant petition. The Court held that the union acquired legal
personality at the same time that they filed their PCE. The Court relied on the
Implementing Rules, as amended by D.O. 9, (the implementing rules enforced at the
time of the filing of the PCE), which provided that it is the submission of the necessary
requirements that vests the local/chapter’s legal personality. Notwithstanding the fact
that the submission was for PCE and not for union registration, the Court ruled in favor
of the union, stating that labor laws should be construed in favor of labor, especially as
to not defeat their right to self-organization.
DOCTRINE: The Labor Code provides for the requirements for union registration,
but it is the Implementing Rules which provide for the procedure. Under D.O. 9 which
amended the Implementing Rules, if the union is a local/chapter, it is not the issuance
of the union certificate but the submission of the requirements that vests the
local/chapter its legal personality. If, on the other hand, it is a federation or national
union, it is the issuance of the union certificate which vests that union its legal
personality. Such union certificate will be issued after evaluation of the requirements by
the BLR or Regional Office, which should last only until 30 days.
However, under D.O. 40 which again amended the rules, the local/chapter, now called
chartered local, acquires legal personality upon the issuance of the charter certificate by
the duly registered federation or national union. The union, however, is required to
report the creation of the chartered local to the Regional Office.
Once the national union or federation acquires legal personality upon the issuance of its
certificate or registration, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack.
When a local/chapter applies for registration, matters raised against the personality of
the federation or national union itself should not be acted upon, owing to the preclusion
of collateral attack.
FACTS:
 June 15, 1998: the SMC Monthlies Rank-and-file Union, identifying themselves as
an affiliate of Federation of Free Workers (FFW), filed a petition for certification
election (PCE) with the DOLE Regional Office.
In compliance with the requirements, the ff. were attached to the petition:
o Charter Certificate issued by FFW on June 5, 1998, certifying that Union was a
duly certified local chapter of FFW
o Copy of the Union’s Constitution, prepared by the Union Secretary and its
President
o List of Union’s officers and their addresses, prepared by the Secretary and
attested by its President
 o Certification that the Union had just been organized and no amount had yet registration of an applicant labor organization and its chapter, however, it is the
been collected from its members, as signed by the Treasurer and attested by Implementing Rules which lay down the procedure for their registration. In the last
the President decade, however, this rule has undergone several amendments. It should be noted
o List of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of Mandaue Packaging that the procedure for registration differs if the applicant is a labor organization or
Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant just a local/chapter thereof.
 July 27, 1998: SMC Mandaue Packing Products Plant filed a motion to dismiss the Implementing Rules, Implementing Rules, as Implementing Rule, as
union’s petition on the ground that the said union is not listed or included in the Book V, Rule II, Sec. 3 amended by D.O. 9 amended by D.O. 40
roster of legitimate labor organizations based on the certification issued by DOLE, (before 1997) (June 21, 1997) (February 17, 2003)
thus it cannot file a petition for certification election A local chapter becomes A local chapter becomes How a chartered local
 July 29, 1998: the union submitted the same requirements it attached to its PCE, a LLO only upon a LLO upon submission becomes a LLO:
but this time, to comply with the requirements for a creation of a local chapter. The submission of the ff. to by the duly registered (1) Duly registered
next day, July 30, a Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter was issued in favor of the BLR: federation or national federation or national
the union. (1) Charter certificate, to union to the Regional union issues charter
 Meanwhile, in response to the company’s motion to dismiss the PCE, the union be submitted within Office or to the Bureau 2 certificate
filed a Position paper stating that it complied with all the necessary requirements 30 days from its copies of the ff.: (2) Duly registered
for the conduct of a certification election, and the ground relied upon in the instant issuance from the (1) Charter certificate federation or national
motion was a mere technicality. federation or national issued by the union reports to
The company, on the other hand, commented that the union was not considered a union federation or regional office the
legitimate labor organization at the time they filed their PCE. Further, the union’s (2) Documents certified national union creation of such
representation that it consists of rank-and-file employees is questionable under oath by (2) Documents certified chartered local
considering that two of its officers were considered as supervisory employees. Secretary or under oath by
 Company then filed a petition to cancel the union registration on ground of alleged Treasurer and Secretary or
fraud, misrepresentation, and false statement in describing itself as a union of rank attested by President: Treasurer and
and file employees when two of its officers were occupying supervisory positions. a. Constitution and attested by President:
This petition was denied and such denial was subsequently affirmed by the CA and bylaws a. Constitution and
SC. b. Statement of set bylaws, or an
of officers indication that it
 In the meantime, the Med-Arbiter, in deciding on the issue of the PCE, granted the
c. Book of is adopting the
company’s motion and dismissed the union’s PCE, on the ground that the union
accounts constitution/by-
was not a legitimate labor organization when it filed a PCE.
laws of the
 On appeal, DOLE reversed the Med-Arbiter: federation/natio
o It ruled that the union automatically acquired legal personality when it nal union
submitted all the required documents (notwithstanding that the submission b. Statement of set
was for the purposes of filing a PCE) of officers and
o The issue on whether two of the union’s officers were supervisory employees principal office
is a matter that can be threshed out in the pre-election conferences where the of the
list of the qualified voters is to be determine. local/chapter
 Hence, the instant petition. (not stated in the case) Local/Chapter’s legal Chartered local’s legal
personality is acquired personality is acquired
RULING: Petition denied. from date of filing of upon issuance of the
complete documents charter certificate by the
Whether SMC Monthlies Rank-and-File Union is already a legitimate labor duly registered federation
organization when it filed the PCE – YES. or national union
Background on the Applicable Law
 Under the Labor Code, only legitimate labor organizations (LLO) may file petition  The rules provide for a less stringent procedure in a registration of a local or
for certification election. The Labor Code provides for the requirements for chapter than that of a federation or national union. This is in order to increase
 the local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of
labor. Moreover, the less onerous procedure is because the local/chapter relies
in part on the legal personality of the federation or national union, which in
turn, had already undergone evaluation and approval from the BLR.
o In fact, before it can be recognized as an LLO, the federation has to establish
proof of affiliation of at least 10 locals or chapters which are fully recognized
as the collective bargaining agent in the establishment or industry in which
they operate.
 Once the national union or federation acquires legal personality upon the issuance
of its certificate or registration, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral
attack. When a local/chapter applies for registration, matters raised against the
personality of the federation or national union itself should not be acted upon,
owing to the preclusion of collateral attack.
Application in this case
 In this case, respondent union is a local/chapter, not a federation or national union.
Since the PCE was filed in 1998, the Implementing Rules, as amended by D.O. 9
should govern the resolution of this petition. Under D.O. 9, the legal personality of
the local/chapter is vested upon the submission of the complete documentary
requirements.
 Thus, it is not on July 30, when the Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter was
issued, that the union acquired its legal personality. It is on July 15, when they
first submitted their documents to the Regional Office, that they acquired
legal personality.
o It may be argued that the first submission was not for purposes of union
registration but for purposes of PCE, thus when they filed a PCE, the union
did not yet possess any legal personality. However, owing to the circumstances,
the Court ruled that respondent acquired the requisite legal personality at
the same time it filed the PCE.
 While the union did not strictly conform with procedure provided for in D.O. 9,
these deviations were not fatal as to defeat their rights. Labor laws are generally
construed liberally in favor of labor, especially if doing so affirms the
constitutionally granted right to self-organization
o It was not the federation, FFW, who submitted the documentary requirements
to the Regional Office; it only issued a charter certificate in favor of the union.
However, even though it was not the federation who submitted the
documents, the same were submitted by the local/chapter, and this submission
is what operates to vest legal personality on the local/chapter.
 The rationale behind the requirement that it is the federation/national
union that submits said documents is that the creation of the
local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federation/national union,
and not of any other entity. However, it is no good reason to deny legal
personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter when it is evident
that the federation/national union itself has already established the
local/chapter by virtue of its issuance of a Charter Certificate.
o Likewise, the union did not submit a separate bylaws, not does it appear that it
ever intended to prepare a set thereof. There was also no indication that they
were adopting the bylaws of FFW. However, a review of the union’s
constitution reveals that the Constitution itself is sufficiently comprehensive in
establishing the necessary rules for the union’s operation. The constitution
already provides for the key provisions needed to be included in the bylaws.
Thus, it would be feasible to overlook the requirement for bylaws.
 Bylaws has traditionally been defined as regulations, ordinances, rules or
laws adopted by an association or corporation for its internal
governance, including the rules for routine matters such as calling
meetings and the like.
Whether two officers of the union were supervisory employees– NO.
 The Court need not decide on this issue since this is already settled as a result of
the denial of the independent petition for cancellation filed by the company against
the union. The said petition was denied since there was no sufficient evidence to
show that the two officers were supervisory employees.
o Emmanuel Rossell, one of the two, undertakes the filing out of evaluation
reports on the performance of mechanics, which in turn are used as a basis for
reclassification. Given a ready and standard form to accomplish, coupled with
the nature of the evaluation, his functions are more routinary than
recommendatory and hardly leave room for independent judgment.
o In the case of Nathan Bathan, his functions include giving recommendations
on disciplinary actions which are given weight by the management. While this
makes him qualify as a supervisory employee, this may be outweighed by his
other functions which were not specified in the evidence.
o Assuming Bathan is a supervisory employee, this does not prove the existence
of fraud, false statement or misrepresentation. There is no proof to show that
Bathan or the union intended to mislead the company. Good faith is presumed
in all representations.
 While the instant petition concerns the PCE, while the other case concerns the
petition for cancellation, the company raises the issue of alleged supervisory
employees in a rank-and-file union. That matter has already been settled in the
final disposition of the petition for cancellation, and thus cannot be unsettled by
reason of the present petition.
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. v. HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA & ILAW
AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA
October 10, 1996| Hermosisima, Jr., J. | Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization
Digester: Aspi, Maria Margarita
SUMMARY: IBM filed for a petition for certification election among the monthly-paid
employees of SMFI. The petition was granted. SMFI appealed to the SOLE alleging that
the Med-Arbiter erred in directing the conduct of certification election considering that
the local or chapter of IBM at SMFI is still not a legitimate labor organization with a
right to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in SMFI's establishment based on
two grounds: (1) the authenticity and due execution of the Charter Certificate submitted
by IBM in favor of its local at SMFI cannot yet be ascertained as it is still not known
who is the legitimate and authorized representative of the IBM Federation who may
validly issue said Charter Certificate; and (2) a group of workers or a local union shall
acquire legal personality only upon the issuance of a Certificate of Registration by the
BLR, which IBM at SMFI did not possess. The Court held that IBM at SMFI is a
legitimate labor organization because at the time of the filing of the subject petition by
IBM, for and in behalf of its local affiliate IBM at SMFI, the latter has been clothed with
the status and/or character of a legitimate labor organization. This is so, because IMB
submitted to the BLR, this Department, the following documents: charter certificate,
constitution and by-laws, names and addresses of the union officers and certification of
the union's secretary on the non- availability of the union's Books of Accounts. Said
documents (expect the charter certificate) are certified under oath and attested to by the
local union's secretary and President, respectively.
DOCTRINE: Ordinarily, a labor organization attains the status of legitimacy only
upon the issuance in its name of a Certificate of Registration by the BLR. However,
when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of
the requirements for registration are no longer required. The requirements are (1)
charter certificate, and (2) constitution and by-laws, statement of set of officers, books
of account, all certified and attested to. The satisfaction of these requirements by the
local/chapter shall vest upon it the status of legitimacy with all its concomitant statutory
privileges, one of which is the right to be certified as the SEBA of all employees within
an appropriate bargaining unit.
FACTS:
 A petition for certification election among the monthly-paid employees of the San
Miguel Food, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feeds Plant (SMFI) was filed by private respondent
labor federation Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM) before Med-Arbiter Achilles
V. Manit, alleging that it is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the
DOLE.
 SMFI, herein petitioner, employs roughly 75 monthly paid employees, almost all of
whom support the present petition.
 It was submitted in said petition that there has been no certification election
conducted in SMFI to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent thereat for
the past two years and that the proposed bargaining unit, which is SMFI's monthly
paid employees, is an unorganized one. It was also stated therein that IBM (has
already complied with the mandatory requirements for the creation of its local or
affiliate in SMFI's establishment.
 SMFI filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that a similar petition
remains pending between the same parties for the same cause of action before
Med-Arbiter Achilles V. Manit. Both petitions involved the same parties, cause of
action and relief being prayed for, which is the issuance of an order by the
Med-Arbiter allowing the conduct for a certification election in SMFI's
establishment. The contention is that the judgment that may be rendered in the
first petition would be determinative of the outcome of the second petition.
 IBM filed its Opposition to SMFI's Motion to Dismiss contending that the case
referred to by SMFI had already been resolved, wherein IBM's first petition for
certification election was denied mainly due to IBM's failure to comply with certain
mandatory requirements of the law.
 IBM argues that there having been no similar petition pending before Med-Arbiter
Manit, another petition for certification election may be refiled as soon as the said
requirements are met. These requirements were finally satisfied before the second
petition for certification election was brought. The second petition for certification
was granted.
 SMFI appealed to the SOLE alleging that the Med-Arbiter erred in directing the
conduct of certification election considering that the local or chapter of IBM at
SMFI is still not a legitimate labor organization with a right to be certified as the
exclusive bargaining agent in SMFI's establishment based on two grounds: (1) the
authenticity and due execution of the Charter Certificate submitted by IBM in favor
of its local at SMFI cannot yet be ascertained as it is still not known who is the
legitimate and authorized representative of the IBM Federation who may validly
issue said Charter Certificate; and (2) a group of workers or a local union shall
acquire legal personality only upon the issuance of a Certificate of Registration by
the BLR under Art. 234 of the LC, which IBM at SMFI did not possess.
 Public respondent Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma, by authority of the
SOLE, denied SMFI’s appeal. MR also denied.
RULING: Petition DENIED.
Whether IBM at SMFI is a legitimate labor organization – YES.
 Petitioner: IBM at SMFI is not a legitimate labor organization notwithstanding the
fact that it is a local or chapter of the IBM Federation. This is so because under
Art. 234 of the Labor Code, any labor organization shall acquire legal personality
only upon the issuance of the Certificate of Registration by the BLR  the Court
does not agree.
 A legitimate labor organization as "any labor organization duly registered with the
DOLE, and includes any branch or local thereof."
 It is important to determine whether or not a particular labor organization is
legitimate since legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law
which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be
certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. These rights are
found under Art. 242 of the LC (See Notes).
 When does a labor organization acquire legitimacy? Ordinarily, a labor
organizations attains the status of legitimacy only upon the issuance in its name of a
Certificate of Registration by the BLR pursuant to Art. 234 and 235 of the LC (See
Notes).
 The foregoing procedure (Art. 234 and 235) is not the only way by which a labor
union may become legitimate. When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local
or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for
registration are no longer required. Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code governs the procedure for union affiliation:
Sec. 3. Union Affiliation: Direct Membership with National Union. — An affiliate of a labor
federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered
union.
 (a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicating the
creation or establishment of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the BLR
within 30 days from issuance of such charter certificate.
(b) An independently registered union shall be considered an affiliate of a labor federation or
national union after submission to the BLR of the contract or agreement of affiliation within 30
days after its execution.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a
constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national
unions shall be observed.
 Paragraph (a) refers to a local or chapter of a federation which did not undergo the
rudiments of registration while paragraph (b) refers to an independently registered
union which affiliated with a federation. Implicit in the foregoing differentiation is
the fact that a local or chapter need not be independently registered. By force of
law, such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance
with the aforementioned provisions of Section 3 (a) and (e), without having to be
issued a Certificate of Registration in its favor by the BLR.
 Progressive Development Corporation v. SOLE: A local or chapter therefore becomes a
legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: 1)
A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or
national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of
officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the
secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to
by its president. Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local
or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization.
 Corollarily, the satisfaction of all these requirements by the local or chapter shall
vest upon it the status of legitimacy with all its concomitant statutory privileges,
one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
 A close scrutiny of the records shows that at the time of the filing of the subject
petition by IMB, for and in behalf of its local affiliate IBM at SMFI, the latter has
been clothed with the status and/or character of a legitimate labor organization.
This is so, because IMB submitted to the BLR, this Department, the following
documents: charter certificate, constitution and by-laws, names and addresses of
the union officers and certification of the union's secretary on the non- availability
of the union's Books of Accounts. Said documents (expect the charter certificate)
are certified under oath and attested to by the local union's secretary and President,
respectively.
 SMFI: There is non-compliance with the requirement as to the charter certificate
which must be submitted to the BLR within 30 days from its issuance by the labor
federation. The validity and authenticity of the same cannot yet be ascertained as its
is still not known who is the legitimate and authorized representative of the IBM
Federation who may validly issue said charter certificate in favor of its local, IBM at
SMFI.
 The Court agrees with the position of Laguesma and the Solicitor General: the
contention of SMFI that unless and until the issue on who is the legitimate national
president of the IBM is resolved, IBM cannot claim that is has a valid charter
certificate necessary for it to acquire legal personality is untenable. The resolution
of the said issue will not in any way affect the validity of the charter certificate
issued by the IBM in favor of the local union. It must be borne in mind that the
said charter certificate was issued by the IBM in its capacity as a labor organization,
a juridical entity which has a separate and distinct legal personality from its
members. When as in this case, there is no showing that the Federation acting as a
separate entity is questioning the legality of the issuance of the said charter
certificate, the legality of the issuance of the same in favor of the local union is
presumed.
 SMFI: the Charter Certificate submitted by the private respondent was defective in
that it was not certified under oath and attested to by the organization's secretary
and President.  wrong.
 Progressive Development Corporation v. SOLE: What is required to be certified under
oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local's president are the
"constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of
accounts" of the organization. The charter certificate issued by the mother union
need not be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the
local's president.
 Finally, the certification election sought to be stopped by petitioner is, as of now,
fait accompli. The monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SMFI have already
articulated their choice as to who their collective bargaining agent should be. In the
certification election, the SMFI workers chose IBM at SMFI to be their sole and
exclusive bargaining agent.
NOTES:
Art. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. — A legitimate labor organization
shall have the right:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining;
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purpose of collective bargaining;
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with his annual audited
financial statement, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been
duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days
before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the
collective bargaining negotiation;
(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization
and its members; (e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its
members, including cooperative, housing welfare and other projects not contrary to law.
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.
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.
JERRY E. ACEDERA, ANTONIO PARILLA, et al. v. INTERNATIONAL
CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. (ICTSI), NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and HON. COURT OF APPEALS
January 13, 2013 | Carpio-Morales, J. | Rights of a Legitimate Labor Organization
Digester: Batac, Jeffrey
SUMMARY: The employees union APCWU filed a complaint against its employer,
ICTSI, in relation to a dispute about the divisor to be used in the computation of wages.
Fearing that APCWU was not handling the case as diligently as it should on account of
the union's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI, some officers and members of
the union (Acedera, et al.) filed a motion to intervene. The Court held that there was no
need to intervene because Acedera, et al. were already well represented by APCWU.
Acedera, et al. also failed to prove fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of
APCWU.
. APCWU.
DOCTRINE: A union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the
purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. For a member of a union to be
permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith
on the part of the union must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record;
mere assertions do not suffice.
FACTS:
 Beginning September 1990, the CBA between International Container Terminal
Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter (APCWU) contained
a provision, which read: "The regular working days in a week shall be five (5) days
on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be scheduled by the COMPANY,
upon seven (7) days prior notice unless any of this day is declared a special
holiday."
 In accordance with the above-quoted provision of the CBA, the employees' work
week was reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however,
continued using the pre-CBA 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the
employees.
 In November 1990, the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board
(RTWPB) in NCR decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers and
employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower. The then president of APCWU,
together with some union members, thus requested the ICTSI's HR
Department/Personnel Manager to compute the actual monthly increase in the
employees' wages by multiplying the mandated increase by 365 days and dividing
the product by 12 months.
 Heeding the proposal and following the implementation of the new wage order,
ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in determining
the daily wage of its employees and other consequential compensation, even if the
employees' work week consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA.
 In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its on-call
employees. This prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike which
included as cause of action not only the retrenchment of the employees but also
ICTSI's use of 365 days as divisor in the computation of wages. The dispute
respecting the retrenchment was resolved by a compromise settlement. However,
the dispute respecting the computation of wages was referred to the LA.
 On February 26, 1997, APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees
similarly situated, filed with the LA a complaint against ICTSI. But the LA
dismissed the complaint due to APCWU's failure to file its position paper.
 The dismissal of the complaint prompted herein petitioners (Acedera, et al.), all of
whom were ICTSI employees and APCWU officers/members, to file a motion to
revive the case, which was granted. Subsequently, Acedera, et al. filed a Complaint-
in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene before the LA.
 LA ruling: (a) Correct divisor should be 250 days; (b) Acedera, et al.'s motion to
intervene was denied because herein petitioners were already well represented by
 NLRC ruling: (a) LA ruling on divisor reversed; correct divisor should still be 365
days; (b) affirmed the denial of Acedera, et al.'s Motion to Intervene.
 CA ruling: (a) NLRC ruling on divisor affirmed; (b) Acedera, et al.'s appeal re:
Motion to Intervene denied because: (1) Acedera, et al. were already well
represented by their employees union, APCWU; (2) only Acedera signed the
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; and (3) Acedera, et al. have not presented any
meritorious argument that would justify the reversal of the Decision of the NLRC.
 Hence, the instant petition.
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether Acedera, et al. can intervene in the case against ICTSI even though the
former were already represented by their union, APCWU. – NO.
 The reason why Acedera, et al. wanted to intervene was because they were afraid
that APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently on account of the latter's
alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI.
 Pursuant to Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Acedera, et al. stressed
that they have complied with the requisites for intervention because (1) they were
the ones who stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of any
judgment that may be rendered in this case, (2) no undue delay or prejudice would
result from their intervention since their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion
for Intervention was filed while the LA was still hearing the case and before any
decision thereon was rendered, and (3) it was not possible for them to file a
separate case as they would be guilty of forum shopping because the only forum
available for them was the LA.
 But according to the Court, Acedera, et al.'s petition must necessarily be denied on
account of their failure to prove APCWU's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with
ICTSI, as well as their failure to consider the rule on representation.
 Section 3 of the ROC: "Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended
by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall
be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in
interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules."
 A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article
242(a) of the Labor Code, which provides that a union may act as the
representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This
authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing
the provisions of the CBA. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity for and
in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated, the title of
the case filed by it at the LA so expressly states.
 For a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a representative action,
fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be
proven. It must be based on facts borne on record; mere assertions do not suffice.
 In the present case, there was neither fraud nor collusion. The dismissal of the case
before the LA, the NLRC, and the CA did not by itself show the existence of fraud
or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. Acedera, et al. also
failed to substantiate their allegations.
NOTES:
BAPTISTA v. VILLANUEVA
July 31, 2013 | Mendoza, J. | Rights of Legitimate Labor Organizations
Digester: Bathan, Lizzie
SUMMARY: Petitioners filed a complaint before the executive board of RPN, as well
as petitions for audit against the Union before the DOLE. This became grounds for
their expulsion from the union, pursuant to its Constitution and By-Laws. They were
subsequently terminated from employment, pursuant to the CBA with RPN. The LA
ruled for the petitioners and held the respondents guilty of ULP. The NLRC reversed
and affirmed by the CA and SC and ruled that the respondents did not commit unfair
labor practice. The Court found that the petitioners’ expulsion from the union was not a
deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to organize, but was triggered by the
commission of an act, expressly sanctioned by the union’s Constitution and By-Laws.
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Art. 248 and 249 (now 259 and 260), the prohibited acts
must necessarily relate to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance
of a CBA. Absent the said vital elements, the acts complained, although seemingly
unjust, would not constitute ULP.
FACTS:
 Apr. 26, 2005 – Petitioners (former union members of Radio Philippines Network
Employees Union, a legitimate labor organization and the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of RPN, a government-sequestered
corporation involved in commercial radio and television broadcasting affairs) filed a
complaint for impeachment of their union president Reynato Siozon, before
the executive board of RPN, which was eventually abandoned. They re-lodged the
complaint and included all the union officers and members of RPNEU before the
DOLE, as well as petitions for audit from 2000-2004.
 May 26 & 27, ‘05 – 2 written complaints were filed against Petitioners for alleged
violation of the union’s Constitution and By-Laws.
 Sept. 19, ‘05 – A different group of union members filed a complaint against
Petitioners before the Chairman of RPNEU’s Committee on Grievance and
Investigation (the Committee) on the grounds of violation of RPNEU Constitution
and By-Laws: Art. IX, Sec. 2.2 for joining or forming a union outside the 60-day
period and Art. IX, Sec. 2.5 for urging or advocating that a member start an action
in any court of justice or external investigative body against the Union or its officer
without first exhausting all internal remedies open to him or available in accordance
with the CBL. All cases were then consolidated.
 Petitioners received a memorandum of notice from Salinas (Chairman of the
Committee), telling them to answer and attend a hearing. Petitioners denied the
allegations and contested the procedure adopted by the Committee in its
investigation.
 Nov. 9, ‘05 – The Committee recommended to the RPNEU’s Board of Directors
the expulsion of the petitioners from the union.
 Dec. 29, ‘05 – Petitioners were notified that they would be expelled effective
January 2, 2006.
 Petitioners wrote to RPNEU’s President and BOD that that their expulsion was an
ultra vires act because the Committee failed to observe the basic elements of due
process because they were not given the chance to physically confront and examine
their complainants.
 Jan. 24, ‘06 – RPNEU’s officers informed their company of the expulsion and
requested the management to serve them notices of termination from employment
in compliance with their CBA’s union security clause (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the CBA).
 Feb. 17, ‘06 – RPN HRD Manager Angeles informed petitioners of the termination
of their employment, enforcing the current CBA.
 Petitioners filed 3 complaints for ULP against the respondents, questioning the
legality of their expulsion from the union and their subsequent termination from
employment.
 LA – ruled in favor of the petitioners. Respondents guilty of ULP under Art. 249
(a) & (b) of the Labor Code. Only the union officers of RPNEU could be held
responsible for ULP and exonerated 6 who were mere union members. Ordered
the reinstatement of petitioners as bona fide members of RPNEU.
 NLRC – reversed and dismissed the ULP complaint for lack of merit. The
Petitioners filed a suit calling for the impeachment of the officers and members of
the Executive Board of RPNEU without first resorting to internal remedies
available under its own Constitution and By-Laws. Reinstatement improper because
the legality of the membership expulsion was not raised in the proceedings i.e.
beyond the LA’s jurisdiction. MR denied.
 CA affirmed. The termination of employment by virtue of a union security clause
was recognized in this jurisdiction. Said practice fortified the union and averted
disunity in the bargaining unit with the duration of the CBA. Petitioners were
accorded due process before they were removed from office. They were given the
opportunity to explain their case by submitting letters containing their arguments.
 CA MR: Petitioners were expelled for “urging or advocating that a member start an
action in any court of justice or external investigative body against the Union or any
of its officer, without first exhausting all internal remedies open to him or available
in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws of Union.”
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether the respondents committed ULP – NO.
 The primary concept of ULP is embodied in Art. 247 (now 258). It related to the
commission of acts that transgress the workers’ right to organize. Pursuant to Art.
248 & 249 (now 259 & 260), the prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the
workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Absent
the said vital elements, the acts complained, although seemingly unjust,
would not constitute ULP.
 Petitioners argue that the respondents are guilty of violating pars. (a) & (b) of Art.
249 and that the procedure that should have been followed by the respondents in
resolving the charges against them was Art. XVII, Settlement of Internal Disputes
of their Constitution and By-Laws, specifically, Sec. 2, requiring members to put
their grievance in writing to be submitted to their union president, who shall strive
to have the parties settle their differences amicably. Any form of grievance would
be referred only to the committee upon failure of the parties to settle amicably.
 SC: based on RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws, the charges were not mere
internal squabbles, but violations that demand proper investigation. If proven, it
would constitute grounds for their expulsion from the union. As such, Art. X,
Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process of RPNEU’s Constitution and By-
Laws3 was correctly applied under the circumstances.
 For a charge of ULP against a labor organization to prosper, the burden of proving
it rests upon the party alleging it by the requisite quantum of evidence. Substantial
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is
required. It is indubitable that all the prohibited acts constituting ULP should
materially relate to the workers’ right to self-organization. Unfortunately,
petitioners failed to discharge said burden. They were not able to establish how
they were restrained or coerced by their union in a way that curtailed their right to
self-organization.
Whether petitioners’ right to examine the complainants and the supposed
charges against them were violated – NO.
 Any procedural flaw in the proceedings before the Committee was deemed cured
when petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. In administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person
so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or
as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
 Mere absence of a one-on-one confrontation between the petitioners and their
complainants does not automatically affect the validity of the proceedings before
the Committee. Not all cases need a trial-type hearing. Here, what is indispensable
is that a party be given the right to explain one’s side, which was adequately
afforded to the petitioners.
 Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their
constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize
their administration and activities and to formulate their programs.
Whether the expulsion of the petitioners from the labor union was proper – YES.
3 SECTION 1. Charge against any member or officer of the Union shall be submitted to the
Board of Directors (BOD) in writing, which shall refer the same, if necessary, to the committee
on Grievance and Investigation. The Committee shall hear any charge and subsequently, forward
its finding and recommendation to the BOD. The BOD has the power to approv[e] or nullify the
recommendation of the Committee on Grievance and Investigation based on the merit of the
appeal.
 RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws expressly mandate that before a party is
allowed to seek intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have
availed of all the internal remedies within the organization. Petitioners were found
to have violated the provisions of the union’s Constitution and By-Laws when they
filed petitioners for impeachment against their union officers and for audit before
the DOLE without first exhausting all internal remedies available within their
organization. This act is a ground for expulsion from union membership. Their
expulsion from the union was not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their
right to organize, but was triggered by the commission of an act, expressly
sanctioned by the union’s Constitution and By-Laws.
EDEN GLADYS ABARIA et. al., petitioners vs. NLRC
December 7, 2011| J. Villarama, Jr |
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY: Petitioners were an offshoot of the official labor organization of the
respondent MCCHI. They were not duly registered with the DOLE but they insisted
that a proposed CBA be negotiated with them. When they were denied, they conducted
an illegal strike and were later dismissed. The SC ruled that the dismissal was valid for
the lack of legal personality to hold a strike and the series of illegal activities committed
during the strike
DOCTRINE: The Labor Code requires that a labor organization be duly registered
with the DOLE and likewise be designated or selected by the majority of the employees
in an appropriate collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive representative of the
employees. Otherwise, they lack the legal personality to conduct concerted activities
FACTS:
 National Federation of Labor (NFL) was the exclusive bargaining
representative of the rank-and-file employees of the Metro Cebu Community
Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI). The parties entered into several CBAs, one of which
was Perla Nava, President of Nagkahiusang Namumuo sa MCCH NAMA-
MCCH-NFL.
 Nava wrote MCCHI expressing their desire to renew the CBA and that several
employees be allowed to avail a one-day union leave. MCCHI however
returned the proposal because Nava first needed to get the endorsement of the
legal counsel of NFL which was the official bargaining representative of the
employees.
 Nava was informed that their proposed CBA was never referred to the NFL,
neither was it authorized by the legal counsel for collective bargaining
negotiations.
 At one point, MCCHI attempted to take over the union office but Nava and
her group protested and insisted that management directly negotiate with them
for a new CBA. However, it was later discovered that Nava’s group was not
recognized by the NFL and that they were loyal to another bargaining unit so
their union membership was suspended for violation of the by-laws.
 Several days later, Nava and her group launched mass attacks such as wearing
black and red armbands/headbands, marching around the hospital with
placards and streamers. They were also reported to have uttered slanderous
and scurrilous words against the hospital and threatening other workers,
forcing them to join the strike,
 MCCHI demanded that they submit a written explanation why they should not
be terminated for participating in illegal activities amounting to strike.
Meanwhile, they were placed under preventive suspension.
 The DOLE eventually issued certification confirming that NAMA-MCCH-
NFL was not a registered labor organization and that only its Charter
Certificate was recorded. Again, a written explanation was demanded but Nava
refused to comply.
 NAMA-MCCH-NFL filed a Notice of Strike but was denied by the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board for want of legal personality. Despite this,
Nava still conducted a strike which was approved by a majority of the union
members.
 MCCHI sent termination letters to the union leaders and 100 members who
participated in the strike. The striking union members continued to hold mass
actions, blocking the entrance and exit to the hospital, barring patients from
entering, directing them to go to another hospital, and intimidating and
harassing the other employees. One security guard was even reportedly
stabbed by one of the sympathizers.
 As a result, MCCHI suffered heavy losses so it filed a petition for injunction in
the NLRC, which granted a TRO and later a Permanent injunction was issued.
Their structures and obstructions were subsequently demolished by the Cebu
local government.
 Nava and her group filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice.
LA:
 Complaints were dismissed for lack of basis and declared the activities illegal
because NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a legitimate labor organization. The
termination of the union leaders were upheld as valid but MCCH was directed
to grant separation pay (1/2 month per year of service).
CA:
 Dismissed the petition because only 47 of the 88 petitioners signed the
certification against forum shopping but later reinstated the case only as to the
47 signatories.
 The complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice was likewise
dismissed but 4 complainants were ordered to be reinstated with backwages
RULING: Petition denied.
W/N the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure of all the
petitioners to sign the certification of non-forum shopping (NO)
 When all of the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest invoke a
common cause of action, the signature of only one of them in the certification
substantially complies with the rule.
 The court deemed the 47 signatories as substantial compliance since all of
them invoked a common cause of action as a collective body and raising only
one argument.
W/N MCCHI is guilty of unfair labor practice (NO)
 Art. 248 (g) of the LC makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
violate the duty to bargain collectively.
 Art. 253 also provides that when a collective bargaining agreement has been
finalized, neither party shall terminate or modify the agreement during its
lifetime.
 The DOLE confirmed that NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a registered labor
organization and was therefore not entitled to the rights granted to a legitimate
labor organization under Art. 242 (a, b).
 It is only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive representative of
the employees.
 Although a local union may disaffiliate from the national federation, NAMA-
MCCH-NFL did not comply with the requisites for a valid disaffiliation from
NFL (during the last 60 days of the previous CBA) and simply demanded that
MCCHI directly negotiate with them.
 The petition they passed around for signatures in support of their contention
only showed that it was in support of the proposed terms and conditions, not
that NAMA was being designated as the official bargaining unit.
 MCCH cannot be faulted for not acting on NAMA’s proposal because of the
conflict with the NFL since it was not a legitimate labor organization and
cannot demand that MCCHI bargain with them.
W/N the striking and picketing activities conducted by the union officers and
members were illegal (YES)
 Although Article 263 of the LC grants workers the right to engage in
concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining, NAMA was not duly
registered at the time it filed a notice of strike. Thus, it could not legally
represent the union members.
 Also, only a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike which must be approved by the majority of the membership in the
bargaining unit (f).
 Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules (Section 6) also mandates that a
certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a strike.
 The strike was illegal due to the commission of prohibited activities such as:
1) Violence, coercion, intimidation and harassment against non-participating
employees; and
2) Blocking of free ingress to and egress from the hospital, including
preventing patients and their vehicles from entering the hospital and other
employees from reporting to work, the putting up of placards with a
statement advising incoming patients to proceed to another hospital
because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest.
 The prolonged work stoppage caused disruption of hospital operations and
heavy financial losses which lasted for almost 5 months.
Consequences:
 Art. 264 states that any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal
strike or any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his
employees
 A union officer may be terminated from work but a worker can only be
terminated if there is proof that he committed illegal acts.
 The officers in this case were identified to have participated and knowingly
participated in the strike despite the fact that their union was not duly
registered and several notices.
 With respect to the union members who merely participated, their dismissal
was deemed illegal.
 Petitioners cited several cases and invoked the doctrine of stare decisis as
regards the reinstatement of workers who were not proved to have committed
illegal acts during the strike. However, this doctrine is not immutable as the
court, after re-examination, may change its decision.
Back wages:
 The court applied the principle of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” for
the grant of back wages. The only exception is if a worker was prevented from
doing so even though he was willing and ready to work.
 In the case at bar, the union members who participated in the strike were
warned by management that NAMA was not legitimate but despite this, they
continued which resulted in work stoppage and could have eventually brought
MCCHI into bankruptcy.
 They also did not show that they suffered loss of earnings as a result of the
employer’s unjustified acts, if any hence back wages should be denied the
employees who participated in the illegal activites to the great detriment of the
employer.
Separation pay and Atty’s fees:
 15 years had already lapsed since the filing of the complaint and in view of the
strained relations that followed and the replacements eventually hired by
MCCHI, as well as the fact that many of the petitioners were already old, sickly
or incapacitated, separation pay is appropriate.
 Some of the petitioners also entered into compromise agreements with
MCCHI.
  They are also entitled to attorney’s fees, having been compelled to litigate
pursuant ot Article 2208 (2) of the Civil Code in the amount of P50,000.
HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. PINAGKAISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG
MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS)
October 30, 2009 |Abad, J. | Right to Self-Organization
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY: The employer, Heritage Hotel Manila, filed a petition to revoke the
registration of its rank and file employees’ union because it allegedly committed fraud
and misrepresentation. The Court held that the employer failed to prove that the labor
union committed fraud and misrepresentation, it being necessary to prove more than a
mere sudden dovetail in numbers.
DOCTRINE: The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the
number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely
dovetail. As long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular
and constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have
complied with the registration requirements
FACTS:
 Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel
Manila) formed the Heritage Hotel Employees Union (the HHE union).
 The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-
NCR) later issued a certificate of registration to this union.
 Subsequently, the HHE union filed a petition for certification election that
petitioner company opposed. 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 Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied
Industries (NUWHRAIN).
 The company claimed that the HHE union intentionally omitted disclosure of its
affiliation with NUWHRAIN because the companys supervisors union was already
affiliated with it. Thus, the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the
HHE unions registration certificate
 MA: granted the HHE unions petition for certification election.
 Petitioner company appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor but the latter
denied the appeal.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
 CA: Issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE unions certification
election, effective until the petition for cancellation of that unions registration shall
have been resolved with finality.
 The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union withdrew
the petition for review that it filed with this Court
 On December 10, 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held
a meeting and formed another union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas
ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union).
 This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR and got its registration
certificate on February 9, 2004. Two months later, the members of the first union,
the HHE union, adopted a resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union then
filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.
 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.
o According to the company, the employees involved formed the PIGLAS
union to circumvent the Court of Appeals injunction against the holding
of the certification election sought by the former union.
 Despite the companys opposition, however, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition
for certification election
 On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed a petition to cancel the union
registration of respondent PIGLAS union
 The company claimed that the documents submitted with the unions application
for registration bore false information:
o The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union
members
o The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting
on December 10, 2003
o The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the
signature of 127 members who ratified the unions Constitution and By-
Laws
o The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that
meeting.
 Petitioner company: the misrepresentation was evidenced by the discrepancy in the
number of union members appearing in the application and the list as well as in the
number of signatories to the attendance and signature sheets.
o The minutes reported that only 90 employees attended the meeting.
o 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were members of the defunct
HHE union.
o This, according to the company, violated the policy against dual unionism
and showed that the new union was merely an alter ego of the old.
 On February 22, 2005 the DOLE-NCR denied the companys petition to cancel
respondent PIGLAS unions registration for the reason that the discrepancies in the
number of members stated in the applications supporting documents were not
material and did not constitute misrepresentation.
o As for the charge of dual unionism, the same is not a ground for canceling
registration. It merely exposed a union member to a possible charge of
disloyalty, an internal matter. Here, the members of the former union
simply exercised their right to self-organization and to the freedom of
association when they subsequently joined the PIGLAS union
 BLR: affirmed the ruling of the DOLE-NCR.
o PIGLAS unions organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. It was possible
 for the number of attendees to have increased from 90 to 128 as the
meeting progressed. Besides, with a total of 250 employees in the
bargaining unit, the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20
percent membership requirement.
o Thus, the union could not be accused of misrepresentation since it did not
pad its membership to secure registration.
o As for the issue of dual unionism: moot and academic because of the
dissolution of the old union and the cancellation of its certificate of
registration
 Petitioner company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing
the order of the BLR. But the latter court dismissed the petition, not being
accompanied by material documents and portions of the record
 The company filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching parts of the record that
were deemed indispensable but the court denied it for lack of merit
 Hence, the company filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
RULING: Petition is denied.
Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for
union registration—NO
 Court agrees with DOLE-NCR and BLR that the PIGLAS union did not commit
fraud and misrepresentation for its application
 Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved
as these appeared on the documents that supported the unions application for
registration, petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged
misrepresentation.
 But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent
misrepresented the information contained in these documents.
 The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in
securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious
because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights
accorded to registered organizations.
 Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and
the surrounding circumstances
 Here, the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in
the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to
labor authorities can be explained.
 While it appears in the minutes of the December 10, 2003 organizational meeting
that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be
assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature
sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late attendees.
 There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127
members ratified the unions constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the
attendance sheet. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the
constitution and by-laws. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from
ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process.
 LC and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members
appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. For as
long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular
and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is
deemed to have complied with registration requirements
 Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit
the names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the
bargaining unit. Yet the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding
that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128
employees. This omission, said the company, amounted to material
misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the unions registration.
 But this discrepancy is immaterial. A comparison of the documents shows that,
except for six members, the names found in the subject list are also in the
attendance and signature sheets. Notably, the bargaining unit that respondent
PIGLAS union sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. Only 20 percent of
this number or 50 employees were required to unionize. Here, the union more than
complied with such requirement.
 Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would
affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization
 Here, the PIGLAS unions supporting documents reveal the unmistakable yearning
of petitioner companys rank and file employees to organize. This yearning should
not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.

Whether or not dual unionism is a ground for cancelling a union’s registration—
NO
 The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS unions members were also members of
the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the new
unions registration.
 The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that
organization and join another one. Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to
exist and its certificate of registration had already been cancelled. Thus, petitioners
arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and academic.

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE
HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
January 12, 2011 | Nachura, J. | Cancellation of Registration
Digester: Castro, Rachel Ann
SUMMARY: Respondent filed for certification election but failed to submit financial
statements for 1996-1999. Eventually, despite petitioner’s opposition, respondent won
the election. Petitioner filed for cancellation of registration of respondent union but
Med-Arbiter and SOLE (stepping into the shoes of BLR because BLR inhibited
himself) ruled in favor of respondent. CA also ruled in favor of respondent. SC affirmed
CA.
DOCTRINE: 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. Also, according to ILO 87: “Dissolution of a
union, and cancellation of registration for that matter, involve serious consequences for
occupational representation. It is therefore preferable if such actions were to be taken
only as a last resort and after exhausting other possibilities with less serious effects on
the organization.”
FACTS:
 Respondent filed with DOLE-NCR a petition for certification election. Med-
Arbiter granted petition and ordered the holding of a certification election. On
appeal, SOLE affirmed Med-Arbiter’s order and remanded the case to Med-Arbiter
for the holding of pre-election conference. Petition filed MR but it was denied.
 The pre-election conference was not held as initially scheduled; it was held a year
later, or on February 20, 1998. Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the
petition due to alleged repeated non-appearance of respondent. The latter agreed to
suspend proceedings until further notice. The pre-election conference resumed on
January 29, 2000.
 Petitioner discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the BLR its annual
financial report for several years and the list of its members since it filed its
registration papers in 1995. So, on May 19, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-submission
of the said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondents’ Certificate of Creation
of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate
labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of the certification election
proceedings.
 On June 1, 2000, petitioner reiterated its request by filing a Motion to Dismiss or
Suspend the [Certification Election] Proceedings, arguing that the dismissal or
suspension of the proceedings is warranted, considering that the legitimacy of
respondent is seriously being challenged in the petition for cancellation of
registration.
 Petitioner maintained that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent is a
legitimate labor organization is crucial to the issue of whether it may exercise rights
of a legitimate labor organization, which include the right to be certified as the
bargaining agent of the covered employees.
 Certification election pushed through and respondent was the winner.
 On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with Motion to Defer Certification of
Election Results and Winner: the certification election held on June 23, 2000 was
an exercise in futility because, once respondents registration is cancelled, it would
no longer be entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisory employees; some of respondents members were not qualified to join
the union because they were either confidential employees or managerial
employees. Prayers: that the certification of the election results and winner be
deferred until the petition for cancellation shall have been resolved, and that
respondents’ members who held confidential or managerial positions be excluded
from the supervisors bargaining unit.
 Respondents: The petition was filed primarily to delay the conduct of the
certification election, the respondents’ certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the supervisory employees, and the commencement of bargaining
negotiations. Prayers: the dismissal of the petition for the following reasons: (a)
petitioner is estopped from questioning respondents status as a legitimate labor
organization as it had already recognized respondent as such during the pre-election
conferences; (b) petitioner is not the party-in-interest, as the union members are the
ones who would be disadvantaged by the non-submission of financial reports; (c) it
has already complied with the reportorial requirements, having submitted its
financial statements for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, its updated list of officers, and
its list of members for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999; (d) the petition
is already moot and academic, considering that the certification election had already
been held, and the members had manifested their will to be represented by
respondent.
 Med-Arbiter: the pendency of a petition for cancellation of registration is not a bar
to the holding of a certification election – petition dismissed
 SOLE: dismissed appeal
 Regional Director Maraan: While finding that respondent had indeed failed to file
financial reports and the list of its members for several years, nonetheless, petition
was denied because freedom of association and the employees right to self-
organization are more substantive considerations, taking into account the fact that
respondent won the certification election and that it had already been certified as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. In view of the
foregoing, while emphasizing that the non-compliance with the law is not viewed
with favor, the belated submission of the annual financial reports and the list of
members is considered as sufficient compliance thereof and considered them as
having been submitted on time.
 BLR inhibited himself from the case on appeal.
 SOLE dismissed the appeal: the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association
and right of workers to self-organization outweighed respondents noncompliance
 with the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a legitimate labor
organization.
 Petitioner filed petition for certiorari before the CA. CA: he DOLE Secretary may
legally assume jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the Regional
Director in the event that the Director of the BLR inhibits himself from the case.
The requirements of registration of labor organizations are an exercise of the
overriding police power of the State, designed for the protection of workers against
potential abuse by the union that recruits them. These requirements should not be
exploited to work against the workers constitutionally protected right to self-
organization. CA also said that Abbott ruling is not applicable because, in the case at
bar, the BLR inhibited himself.
RULING: CA decision and resolution AFFIRMED.
Whether SOLE has jurisdiction over appeal – YES
 Jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR Directors inhibition. When
the DOLE Secretary resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of the
BLR Director and performed a function that the latter could not himself perform.
She did so pursuant to her power of supervision and control over the BLR.
Whether respondents’ registration should be cancelled – NO
Petitioner: Once it is determined that a ground enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code is present,
cancellation of registration should follow; it becomes the ministerial duty of the Regional Director to
cancel the registration of the labor organization, hence, the use of the word shall.
 Articles 238 and 239 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.
 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.
 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.
 The Labor Codes provisions on cancellation of union registration and on
reportorial requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amending
for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines, which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 and became effective
on June 14, 2007. The amendment sought to strengthen the workers right to self-
organization and enhance the Philippines compliance with its international
obligations as embodied in the International Labour Organization (ILO)
Convention No. 87, pertaining to the non-dissolution of workers organizations by
administrative authority: “ARTICLE 242-A: …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. ”
 According to ILO 87: (which we have ratified in 1953) Workers and employers
organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative
authority. The cancellation of union registration by the registrar of labor unions,
which in our case is the BLR, is tantamount to dissolution of the organization by
administrative authority when such measure would give rise to the loss of legal
personality of the union or loss of advantages necessary for it to carry out its
activities, which is true in our jurisdiction. Dissolution of a union, and cancellation
of registration for that matter, involve serious consequences for occupational
representation. It is therefore preferable if such actions were to be taken only as a
last resort and after exhausting other possibilities with less serious effects on the
organization..

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC., petitioner versus BIGKIS
MANGGAGAWA SA DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 192648
March 15, 2017
FACTS:
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly-organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines. De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center and
De Ocampo Memorial College. Under the aforementioned institution is Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Medical Center a union which was granted Union
Registration No. on September 26, 2003. Another permit was issued for Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated December 5, 2003; Union
Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter No. NCR-l 2-CC-002-2003,
declaring that they are legitimate organization.
A Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor
and Employment - National Capital Region was filed by De Ocampo against Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated March 4, 2004. Stating in the
petition the grounds of revocation of registration 1.) Misrepresentation of declaring the
officers and members 2.) Mixed membership of rank file 3.) Inappropriate bargaining
unit.
A Comment-Opposition was then filed by BMDOMSI, denying De Ocampo's
allegations and claiming that the latter only wants to impede the formation of the union.
A decision of Acting Regional Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad III of the DOLE-NCR
ruled that BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation by making it appear that the
bargaining unit is composed of faculty and technical employees, dated July 26, 2004.
The respondents then filed an appeal to Bureau of Labor Relations. On December 29,
2004, a decision was released by BLR reversing the Regional Director's finding of
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in BMDOMSI’s application for registration.
According to BLR the petitioner failed to present proof to support its allegation of
mixed membership within respondent union. Certiorari was filed by the petitioner to
the CA seeking to annul and set aside the BLR Decision as well as the Resolution dated
January 24, 2005 denying its motion for reconsideration. CA affirmed the Decision of
the BLR. It ruled that there was no misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in the
application for registration. The respondents were able to substantiate that there have
been no misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes of the general
membership meeting BMDOMSI Union, and the list of members who attended the
meeting and ratified the union constitution and by-laws, are in truth employees of the
school, though some service the hospital.
Although, the CA observed that the members of the union, who are from academic,
non-academic, and general services, do not perform work of the same nature and these
factors dictate the separation of the categories of employees for purposes of collective
bargaining, the CA reasoned that such lack of mutuality and commonality of interest of
the union members is not among the grounds for cancellation of union registration
under Article 247 of the Labor Code.
Whether or not De Ocampo Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial
School, Inc. Union Registration should be revoked—NO
HELD:
No. The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to have grounds for
cancelation of their Union Registration. BMDOMSI Union was able to testify to the
court that there were no misrepresentation, mixed membership and inappropriate
bargaining unit in their union. The CA ruled the according to Article 247 of the Labor
Code provides: Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. The
following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
1.) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
2.)Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
The petitioner was not able to establish to the court the violation alleged to the
respondents, wherefore CA decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the petition
denied for lack of merit.