THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL

CORPORATION) vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA

HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE)

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

Abad, J.:

DOCTRINES: The Labor Code 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.
Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.
The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization
and join another one.

FACTS: The Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE) was formed in 2000 by certain rank and file
employees of herein petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila, to which the Department of Labor and
Employment-National Capital Region issued a certificate of registration. HHE filed a petition for
certification election which petitioner opposed on the ground that HHE misrepresented itself to be an
independent union, when in fact it was a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and
Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). It was also alleged that such omitted disclosure was
intentional because petitioner’s supervisors union was already affiliated with it. Petitioner also filed a
petition to cancel the union’s registration certificate. The Med-Arbiter nevertheless granted HHE’s
petition for certification election.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor but it was denied as well as its motion for
reconsideration, prompting petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA
issued a writ of injunction against the holding of HHE’s certification election until the petition for
cancellation of its registration shall have been resolved with finality.
In 2003, another union, herein respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa
Heritage Manila (PIGLAS), was formed by certain rank and file employees of petitioner at a meeting.
PIGLAS was issued its registration certificate by the DOLE-NCR in 2004. HHE later on adopted a
resolution for its dissolution and then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.
PIGLAS filed a petition for certification election which petitioner opposed alleging that the new
union’s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. Petitioner likewise alleged
that PIGLAS was formed to circumvent the CA’s injunction earlier issued. The Med-Arbiter nevertheless
granted the petition for certification election.
Petitioner filed a petition to cancel PIGLAS’ registration, claiming that the documents submitted
with the union’s application for registration bore the following false information:
(a) The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members;
(b) The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting on
December 10, 2003;
(c) The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the signature of
127 members who ratified the union’s Constitution and By-Laws; and
(d) The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting.
Petitioner alleged that the misrepresentation was evidenced by the discrepancy in the number of
union members appearing in the application and the list as well as the number of signatories to the
attendance and signature sheets. The minutes reported only 90 employees attended the meeting. Petitioner
also alleged that 33 members of PIGLAS were members of HHE, which is in violation of the policy
against dual unionism.
 DOLE-NCR denied petitioner’s petition to cancel PIGLAS’ registration because the discrepancies
in the number of members in the application’s supporting documents were not material and did not
constitute misrepresentation. The dual unionism is also not a ground for canceling registration, since the
members of HHE simply exercised their right to self-organization and freedom of association when they
joined PIGLAS. The Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the DOLE-NCR, by reasoning that PIGLAS’
organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. Thus, it was possible for the number of attendees to have
increased as the meeting progressed. Besides, the union only needed 50 members of the total of 250
employees in the bargaining unit to comply with the 20% membership requirement. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals but it was denied as well as petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union
registration
(2) Whether or not dual unionism is a ground for canceling a union’s registration.

HELD: (1) NO. Petitioner has no evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. The discrepancies alone
cannot be taken as indication that PIGLAS misrepresented the information contained in these documents.
Charges of fraud and misrepresentation should be clearly established by evidence and surrounding
circumstances because once it is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered
organizations.
The discrepancies can be explained. While it appears that in the minutes of the December 10,
2003 organizational meeting, 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 11:00am to 11:00pm. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked
up to exclude late attendees. As to the fact that only 127 members ratified the union’s constitution and by-
laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet, it cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of
such. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply
ignore the process. The Labor Code 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.
The discrepancy in the list of members (showing only 100 members) and the signature and
attendance sheets (showing 127 or 128 members) submitted is immaterial. A comparison of the
documents shows that except for six members, the names found in the list are also in the attendance and
signature sheets. PIGLAS more than complied with the 20% requirement since only 50 employees out of
250 employees in the bargaining unit were required to unionize.
Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. PIGLAS union’s supporting documents reveal
the unmistakable yearning of petitioner company’s rank and file employees to organize. This yearning
should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.
(2) NO. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that
organization and join another one. HHE union ceased to exist, its certificate of registration being already
cancelled.
Thus, the petition is denied.