Republic of thePhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONS.S.
VENTURES INTERNATIONAL,G.R. No.
161690INC.,Petitioner,Present:QUISUMBING,J., Chairperson,- versus
-YNARES-SANTIAGO,*CARPIO MORALES,TINGA, andVELASCO, JR.,JJ.S.S.
VENTURES LABOR UNION(SSVLU) and DIR. HANS LEOPromulgated:CACDAC, in
His capacity asDirector of the Bureau of LaborJuly 23,
2008Relations
(BLR),Respondents.x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xD
E C I S I O NVELASCO, JR.,J.:Petitioner S.S. Ventures
International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA-registered export firm with
principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA-Bataan Export Zone,
Mariveles,Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports
shoes.Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union), on the other
hand, is a labor organization registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) under Certificate of Registration No.
RO300-00-02-UR-0003.OnMarch 21, 2000, theUnionfiled with
DOLE-Region III a petition
forcertificationelectioninbehalfoftherank-and-fileemployeesof
Ventures.Fivehundredfortytwo(542)signatures, 82 of which belong
to______________________* Additional member as per Special Order
No. 509 datedJuly 1, 2008.terminated Ventures employees, appeared
on the basic documents supporting the petition.OnAugust 21, 2000,
Ventures filed a Petition[1]to cancel theUnions certificate of
registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article 239(a) of
the Labor Code.[2]Docketed as Case No. RO300-0008-CP-002 of the
same DOLE regional office, the petition alleged the following:(1)
The Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more
or less 82 former employees no longer connected with Ventures in
its list of members who attended the organizational meeting and in
the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws held on
January 9, 2000 in Mariveles, Bataan; and the Union forged the
signatures of these 82 former employees to make it appear they took
part in the organizational meeting and adoption and ratification of
the constitution;(2) TheUnionmaliciously twice entered the
signatures of three persons namely: Mara Santos, Raymond
Balangbang, and Karen Agunos;(3) No organizational meeting and
ratification actually took place; and(4) TheUnions application for
registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file
employees of Ventures, or 418 of the total 2,197-employee
complement.Since more or less 82 of the 500[3]signatures were
forged or invalid, then the remaining valid signatures would only
be418, which is very much short of the439 minimum (2197 total
employees x 20% = 439.4) required by the Labor Code.[4]In itsAnswer
with Motion to Dismiss,[5]the Union denied committing the imputed
acts of fraud or forgery and allegedthat: (1) the organizational
meeting actually took place on January 9, 2000 at the Shoe City
basketball court in Mariveles; (2) the 82 employees adverted to in
Ventures petitionwere qualified Union members for, although they
have been ordered dismissed, the one-year prescriptive period to
question their dismissal had not yet lapsed; (3) it had complied
with the 20%-member registration requirement since it had 542
members; and (4) the double signatures were inadvertent human
error.In its supplemental reply memorandum[6]filed onMarch 20,
2001, with attachments, Ventures cited other instances of fraud and
misrepresentation, claiming that the affidavits executed by 82
alleged Union members show that they were deceived into signing
paper minutes or were harassed to signing their attendance in the
organizational meeting. Ventures added that some employees signed
the affidavits denying having attended such meeting.In a Decision
datedApril 6, 2001, Regional Director Ana C. Dione of DOLE-Region
III found for Ventures, the dispositive portion of which
reads:Viewed in the light of all the foregoing, this office hereby
grants the petition.WHEREFORE, this office resolved to CANCEL
Certificate of Registration No. [RO300-00-02-UR-0003] dated28
February 2000of respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union-Independent.So
Ordered.[7]Aggrieved, theUnioninterposed a motion for
reconsideration, a recourse which appeared to have been forwarded
to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).Although it would later find
this motion to have been belatedly filed, the BLR, over the
objection of Ventures which filed aMotion to Expunge, gave it due
course and treated it as an appeal.Despite Venturesmotion to
expunge the appeal,[8]the BLR Director rendered onOctober 11, 2002a
decision[9]in BLR-A-C-60-6-11-01, granting theUnions appeal and
reversing the decision of Dione.Thefalloof the BLRs decision
reads:WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of
Director Ana C. Dione dated6 April 2001is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.S.S. Ventures Labor Union-Independent shall remain in the
roster of legitimate labor organizations.SO ORDERED.[10]Ventures
sought reconsideration of the above decision but was denied by the
BLR.Ventures then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 74749. OnOctober 20, 2003, the CA rendered a
Decision,[11]dismissing Ventures petition.Ventures motion for
reconsideration met a similar fate.[12]Hence, this petition for
review under Rule 45, petitioner Ventures raising the following
grounds:I.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
DISREGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY
THE PETITIONER SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT UNION PERPETRATED FRAUD,
FORGERY, MISREPRESENTATION AND MISSTATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADOPTION AND RATIFICATION OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS, AND IN
THE PREPARATION OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS WHO TOOK PART IN THE ALLEGED
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING BY HOLDING THAT:A.THE 87 AFFIDAVITS OF
ALLEGED UNION MEMBERS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT.B.THE INCLUSION OF
THE 82 EMPLOYEES IN THE LIST OF ATTENDEES TO THE JANUARY 9, 2000
MEETING IS AN INTERNAL MATTER WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORKERS RIGHT
TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (OF) THIS
OFFICE (PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE) AND THE
PETITIONER.II.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
IGNORING AND DISREGARDING THE BLATANT PROCEDURAL LAPSES OF THE
RESPONDENT UNION IN THE FILING OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND APPEAL.A.BY GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTUNIONDESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED
BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD.B.BY ADMITTING THE APPEAL FILED BY
ATTY. ERNESTO R. ARELLANO AND HOLDING THAT THE SAME DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE FORUM SHOPPING UNDER SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO.
28-91.III.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY,
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
INVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND ILO
CONVENTION NO. 87 TO JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE FRAUD,MISREPRESENTATION,
MISSTATEMENTS AND FORGERY COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTUNION.[13]The
petition lacks merit.The right to form, join, or assist a union is
specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3[14]of the
Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the
Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged.
Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate
labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by
law to such organization. While a certificate of registration
confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to
participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining
unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be
decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is
divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization.[15]Among
the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts
enumerated in Art. 239(a)[16]of the Labor Code, such as fraud and
misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification
of the unions constitution and like documents.The Court, has in
previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to
show that the union includes ineligible employees in its
membership.It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation,
false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for
registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto
and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws,
among other documents.[17]Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR
and the CA in finding that there was no fraud or misrepresentation
on the part of theUnionsufficient to justify cancellation of its
registration.In this regard, Ventures makes much of,first, the
separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who, in gist,
alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the
attendance sheet of the organizational meeting.We are not
persuaded.As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA,these mostly
undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001,
or seven months after it filed its petition for cancellation of
registration, partake of the nature of withdrawal of union
membership executed after the Unions filing of a petition for
certification election on March 21, 2000.We have in precedent
cases[18]said that the employees withdrawal from a labor union made
before the filing of the petition for certification election is
presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such
petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the
same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a
petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate
such petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal
cannot work to nullify the registration of the union?Upon this
light, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did
not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the
affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary
weight.It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration or the
recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the
corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the BLR. Far
from it.After a labor organization has filed the necessary
registration documents, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check
if the requirements under Art. 234[19]of the Labor Code have been
sedulously complied with.[20]If the unions application is infected
by falsification and like serious irregularities, especially those
appearing on the face of the application and its attachments, a
union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor
organization.Prescinding from these considerations, the issuance to
the Union of Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003
necessarily implies that its application for registration and the
supporting documents thereof areprima faciefree from any vitiating
irregularities.Second, Ventures draws attention to the inclusion of
82 individuals to the list of participants in theJanuary 9,
2000organizational meeting. Ventures submits that the 82, being no
longer connected with the company, should not have been counted as
attendees in the meeting and the ratification proceedings
immediately afterwards.The assailed inclusion of the said 82
individuals to the meeting and proceedings adverted to is not
really fatal to theUnions cause for, as determined by the BLR, the
allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation
with respect to these individuals are without basis.[21]The Court
need not delve into the question of whether these 82 dismissed
individuals were still Union members qualified to vote and affix
their signature on its application for registration and supporting
documents. Suffice it to say that, as aptly observed by the CA, the
procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and the
determination of who are qualified or disqualified to be members
are matters internal to the union and flow from its right to
self-organization.To our mind, the relevancy of the 82 individuals
active participation in theUnions organizational meeting and the
signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of
determining whether or not theUnion, even without the 82, would
still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires to be
submitted, to wit:Art. 234.Requirements of Registration.Any
applicant labor organization x x x 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:x x x x(c) The
names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%)
of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate.The BLR, based on its official records, answered the poser
in the affirmative. Wrote the BLR:It is imperative to look into the
records of respondent union with this Bureau pursuant to our role
as a central registry of union and CBA records under Article 231 of
the Labor Code and Rule XVII of the rules implementing Book V of
the Labor Code, as amended x x x.In its union records on file with
this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of [542] members
x x x.This number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it
1,928 or 2,202 employees in the establishment.Even subtracting the
82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within 440 or
20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees.Whatever
misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed
employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion
proceedings during a pre-election conference x x x.The issue
surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of
membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union
registration. (Emphasis added.)The bare fact that three signatures
twice appeared on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid
reason to cancel Certificate of Registration No.
RO300-00-02-UR-0003. As theUniontenably explained without rebuttal
from Ventures, the double entries are no more than normal human
error, effected without malice.Even the labor arbiter who found for
Ventures sided with theUnionin its explanation on the absence of
malice.[22]The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has
an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization.
Accordingly, we can accord concurrence to the following apt
observation of the BLR: [F]or 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.[23]In its Comment, the Union points out
that for almost seven (7) years following the filing of its
petition, no certification election has yet been conducted among
the rank-and-file employees.If this be the case,the delay has gone
far enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. The CA is
right when it said that Ventures should not interfere in the
certification election by actively and persistently opposing the
certification election of theUnion.A certification election is
exclusively the concern of employees and the employer lacks the
legal personality to challenge it.[24]In fact, jurisprudence frowns
on the employers interference in a certification election for such
interference unduly creates the impression that it intends to
establish a company union.[25]Ventures allegations on forum
shopping and the procedural lapse supposedly committed by the BLR
in allowing a belatedly filed motion for reconsideration need not
detain us long.Suffice it to state that this Court has consistently
ruled that the application of technical rules of procedure in labor
cases may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial
justice.[26]So it must be in this case.WHEREFORE, the petition
isDENIED. The Decision and Resolution datedOctober 20,
2003andJanuary 19, 2004, respectively, of the CA areAFFIRMED.S.S.
Ventures Labor Union shall remain in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations, unless it has in the meantime lost its legitimacy
for causes set forth in the Labor Code.Costs against
petitioner.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R.
No. 196276 June 4, 2014TAKATA (PHILIPPINES)
CORPORATION,Petitioner,vs.BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG
LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT),Respondents.D E C I S I O
NPERALTA,J.:Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed
by petitioner TAKATA Philippines Corporation assailing the
Decision1dated December 22, 2010 and the Resolution2dated March 28,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406.On July 7,
2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Regional Office a Petition3for Cancellation of the
Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent Samahang Lakas
Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMA1) on the ground that the latter is
guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect
to the number of those who participated in the organizational
meeting, the adoption and ratification of its Constitution and
By-Laws, and in the election of its officers. It contended that in
the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of respondent, only 68
attendees signed the attendance sheet, and which number comprised
only 17% of the total number of the 396 regular rank- and-file
employees which respondent sought to represent, and hence,
respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum membership
requirement. Petitioner insisted that the document "Pangalan ng mga
Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no signatures of the alleged 119 union
members; and that employees were not given sufficient information
on the documents they signed; that the document "Sama-Samang
Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not submitted at the time of the filing of
respondent's application for union registration; that the 119 union
members were actually only 117; and, that the total number of
petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as
respondent claimed.4Respondent denied the charge and claimed that
the 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement for union
registration. The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa
Unyon" which it presented in its petition for certification
election5supported their claim of 119 members. Respondent also
contended that petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal
personality as it agreed to a certification election and actively
participated in the pre-election conference of the certification
election proceedings.6Respondent argued that the union members were
informed of the contents of the documents they signed and that the
68 attendees to the organizational meeting constituted more than
50% of the total union membership, hence, a quo rumexisted for the
conduct of the said meeting.7On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional
Director, Atty. Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., issued a
Decision8granting the petition for cancellation of respondent's
certificate of registration, the dispositive portion of which
reads:WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, the petition is
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the respondent Union Certificate of
Registration No. RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG, dated May 19, 2009 is
hereby REVOCKED (sic) and /or CANCELLED pursuant to paragraph (a)
& (b), Section 3, Rule XIV of Department Order No. 40-03 and
the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng TAKATA (SALAMAT) is hereby
delisted from the roll of legitimate labor organization of this
office.9In revoking respondent's certificate of registration, the
Regional Director found that the 68 employees who attended the
organizational meeting was obviously less than 20% of the total
number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent
sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration
requirement; that the attendance sheet which contained the
signatures and names of the union members totalling to 68
contradicted the list of names stated in the document denominated
as "Pangalan ng mga Kasaping Unyon." The document "Sama-Samang
Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not attached to the application for
registration as it was only submitted in the petition for
certification election filed by respondent at a later date. The
Regional Director also found that the proceedings in the
cancellation of registration and certification elections are two
different and entirely separate and independent proceedings which
were not dependent on each other.Dissatisfied, respondent, through
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Paralegal Officer, Domingo
P. Mole, filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal10with the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR). However, on September 28,2009,
respondent, through its counsels, Attys.Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr.
and Jehn Louie W. Velandrez, filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal
Entry of Appearance11to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which the
latter eventually referred to the BLR. Petitioner filed an
Opposition to the Appeals12praying for their dismissal on the
ground of forum shopping as respondent filed two separate appeals
in two separate venues; and for failing to avail of the correct
remedy within the period; and that the certificate of registration
was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and falsification.In its
Answer,13respondent claimed that there was no forum shopping as
BMP's Paralegal Officer was no longer authorized to file an appeal
on behalf of respondent as the latter's link with BMP was already
terminated and only the Union President was authorized to file the
appeal; and that it complied with Department Order No. 40-03.On
December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's Appeal Memorandum
with Formal Entry of Appearance and petitioner's Answer, the BLR
rendered its Decision14reversing the Order of the Regional
Director, the decretal portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, the appeal
is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of Regional Director Ricardo S.
Martinez, Sr., dated 27 August 2009, is hereby REVERSEDand SET
ASIDE.Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng TAKATA (SALAMAT)
shall remain in the roster of labor organizations.15In reversing,
the BLR found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent
deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the number of
rank-and-file employees. It pointed out petitioner's basis for the
alleged noncompliance with the minimum membership requirement for
registration was the attendance of 68 members to the May 1, 2009
organizational meeting supposedly comprising only 17% of the total
396 regular rank-and-file employees. However, the BLR found that
the list of employees who participated in the organizational
meeting was a separate and distinct requirement from the list of
the names of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in
the bargaining unit; and that there was no requirement for
signatures opposite the names of the union members; and there was
no evidence showing that the employees assailed their inclusion in
the list of union members.Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the BLR in a Resolution16dated
January 8, 2010.Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.After the submission of the parties'
respective pleadings, the case was submitted for decision.On
December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed decision which
denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution
dated March 29, 2011.Hence this petition for review filed by
petitioner raising the following issues, to wit:THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR AND NOT FINDING ANY VIOLATION BY
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) OF THE RULE ON FORUM
SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF TWO VERIFIED APPEALS FOR AND ITS BEHALF.
BOTH OF THE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BY PUBLIC
RESPONDENT BLR, ON GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION OF SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) WAS
COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN
THE REGISTRATION OF SALAMAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS TAINTED
WITH FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSIFICATION. SALAMAT DID NOT
POSSESS THE REQUIREDNUMBER OF MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITS
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, HENCE, IT SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY OF
MISREPRESENTATION, AND FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH.17Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that
respondent had filed two separate appeals with two different
representations at two different venues, in violation of the rule
on multiplicity of suits and forum shopping, and instead of
dismissing both appeals, the appeal erroneously filed before the
Labor Secretary was the one held validly filed, entertained and
even granted; that it is not within the discretion of BLR to choose
which between the two appeals should be entertained, as it is the
fact of the filing of the two appeals that is being prohibited and
not who among the representatives therein possessed the
authority.We are not persuaded.We find no error committed by the CA
in finding that respondent committed no forum shopping. As the CA
correctly concluded, to wit:It is undisputed that BMP Paralegal
Officer Domingo P. Mole was no longer authorized to file an appeal
on behalf of union SALAMAT and that BMP was duly informed that its
services was already terminated. SALAMAT even submitted before the
BLR its "Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009" terminating the services of BMP
and revoking the representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any of the
pending cases being handled by him on behalf of the union. So,
considering that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no
longer authorized to file an appeal when it filed the Notice and
Memorandum of Appeal to DOLE Regional Office No. IV-A, the same can
no longer be treated as an appeal filed by union SALAMAT. Hence,
there is no forum shopping to speak of in this case as only the
Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance filed by Atty.
Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty. Jehn Louie W. Velandrez is
sanctioned by SALAMAT.18Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was
not specifically authorized by respondent, such appeal is
considered to have not been filed at all. It has been held that "if
a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not
authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed.An
unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect."19Respondent through its authorized representative filed
its Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance before the
Labor Secretary, and not with the BLR. As the appeal emanated from
the petition for cancellation of certificate of registration filed
with the Regional Office, the decision canceling the registration
is appealable to the BLR, and not with the Labor Secretary.
However, since the Labor Secretary motu propio referred the appeal
with the BLR, the latter can now act on it. Considering that Mole's
appeal with the BLR was not deemed filed, respondents appeal,
through Banzuela and Associates, which the Labor Secretary referred
to the BLR was the only existing appeal with the BLR for
resolution. There is, therefore, no merit to petitioner's claim
that BLR chose the appeal of Banzuela and Associates over Mole's
appeal.The case of Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. v. Abbott
Laboratories Employees Union20cited by petitioner is not at all
applicable in this case as the issue therein is the authority of
the Labor Secretary to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
over decision of the Regional Director in cases involving
cancellations of certificate of registration of labor unions. We
found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Secretary of
Labor in not acting on therein petitioner's appeal. The decision of
the Bureau of Labor Relations on cases brought before it on appeal
from the Regional Director are final and executory. Hence, the
remedy of the aggrieved party is to seasonably avail of the special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and the Rules of Court. In
this case, after the Labor Secretary motu propio referred
respondent's appeal filed with it to the BLR which rendered its
decision reversing the Regional Director, petitioner went directly
to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.As to the
second issue, petitioner seeks the cancellation of respondent's
registration on grounds offraud and misrepresentation bearing on
the minimum requirement of the law as to its membership,
considering the big disparity in numbers, between the
organizational meeting and the list of members, and so misleading
the BLR that it obtained the minimum required number of employees
for purposes of organization and registration.We find no merit in
the arguments.Art. 234 of the Labor Code provides:ART. 234.
Requirements of Registration. - A federation, national union or
industry or trade union center or an independent union shall
acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon
issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following
requirements:(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00)registration fee;(b) The names
of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and
the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;(c) In
case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;(d) If
the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and(e) Four copies of the
constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its
adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it."And after the issuance of the certificate of
registration, the labor organization's registration could be
assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings
in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code. And the
cancellation of union certificate of registration and the grounds
thereof are as follows:ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration. -
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor
organization, whether national or local, may be cancelled by the
Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article
239 hereof.ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union
Registration. - The following may constitute grounds for
cancellation of union registration:(a) Misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification
of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes
of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the
ratification;(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election
of officers, and the list of voters;(c) Voluntary dissolution by
the members.Petitioner's charge that respondent committed
misrepresentation and fraud in securing its certificate of
registration is a serious charge and must be carefully evaluated.
Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting
circumstances and evidence.21We find no evidence on record to
support petitioner's accusation.Petitioner's allegation of
misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim that during the
organizational meeting on May 1, 2009, only 68 employees attended,
while respondent claimed that it has 119 members as shown in the
document denominated as "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon;" hence,
respondent misrepresented on the 20% requirement of the law as to
its membership.We do not agree.It does not appear in Article 234
(b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational
meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
In fact, even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Code does not so provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that
requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty
percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it
seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to
the employees membership in the union and not to the list of
workers who participated in the organizational meeting. Indeed,
Article 234 (b) and (c) provide for separate requirements, which
must be submitted for the union's registration, and which
respondent did submit. Here, the total number of employees in the
bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of which was about 79. Respondent
submitted a document entitled "Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon"
showing the names of 119 employees as union members, thus
respondent sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum
membership requirement. Respondent also submitted the attendance
sheet of the organizational meeting which contained the names and
signatures of the 68 union members who attended the meeting.
Considering that there are 119 union members which are more than
20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit, and since the law
does not provide for the required number of members to attend the
organizational meeting, the 68 attendees which comprised at least
the majority of the 119 union members would already constitute a
quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the
Constitution and By-laws of the union. There is, therefore, no
basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the
cancellation of respondent's union registration. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the nature of the
fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to
vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.22Petitioner'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.23In fact, we note that not one of those listed in the
document denominated as "Pangalan ng Mga Kasaping Unyon" had come
forward to deny their membership with respondent. Notably, it had
not been rebutted that the same union members had signed the
document entitled "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi," thus,
strengtheningtheir desire to be members of the respondent
union.Petitioner claims that in the list of members, there was an
employee whose name appeared twice and another employee who was
merely a project employee. Such could not be considered a
misrepresentation in the absence of showing that respondent
deliberately did so for the purpose of increasing their union
membership. In fact, even if those two names were not included in
the list of union members, there would still be 117 members which
was still more than 20% of the 396 rank-and-file employees.As to
petitioner's argument that the total number of its employees as of
May 1, 2009 was 470, and not396 as respondent claimed, still the
117 union members comprised more than the 20% membership
requirement for respondent's registration.In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics
v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,24we
said:For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent,
it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement
or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers, the
minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure
to submit these documents together with the list of the newly
elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the
BLR.The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of
those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to
our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondents certificate
of registration. The cancellation of a unions registration
doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to
self-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.1wphi1In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that
respondent could not have possibly committed misrepresentation,
fraud, or false statements. The alleged failure of respondent to
indicate with mathematical precision the total number of employees
in the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able
to comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if the
total number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while
respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be
denied that the latter would have more than complied with the
registration requirement.25WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated December 22, 2010
and the Resolution dated March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R.
No. 169717 March 16, 2011SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS
(SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO-Union
President,Petitioner,vs.CHARTER CHEMICAL and COATING
CORPORATION,Respondent.D E C I S I O NDEL CASTILLO,J.:The right to
file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor
organization provided that it complies with the requirements of law
for proper registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in
a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of
rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a
legitimate labor organization. We apply these principles to this
case.This Petition for Review onCertiorariseeks to reverse and set
aside the Court of Appeals March 15, 2005 Decision1in CA-G.R. SP
No. 58203, which annulled and set aside the January 13, 2000
Decision2of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in
OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) and the September 16, 2005
Resolution3denying petitioner unions motion for
reconsideration.Factual AntecedentsOn February 19, 1999, Samahang
Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the
Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a
petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent
company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National
Capital Region.On April 14, 1999, respondent company filed an
Answer with Motion to Dismiss4on the ground that petitioner union
is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1) failure to
comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the
inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner
union.5Med-Arbiters RulingOn April 30, 1999, Med-Arbiter Tomas F.
Falconitin issued a Decision6dismissing the petition for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union
is not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter
Certificate, "Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization," and
"Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon
at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas" were not executed under oath and
certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union
president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code7in relation
to Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, series of
1997. The union registration was, thus, fatally defective.The
Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner
union consisted of 12 batchman, mill operator and leadman who
performed supervisory functions. Under Article 245 of the Labor
Code, said supervisory employees are prohibited from joining
petitioner union which seeks to represent the rank-and-file
employees of respondent company.As a result, not being a legitimate
labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file a
petition for certification election for the purpose of collective
bargaining.Department of Labor and Employments RulingOn July 16,
1999, the DOLE initially issued a Decision8in favor of respondent
company dismissing petitioner unions appeal on the ground that the
latters petition for certification election was filed out of time.
Although the DOLE ruled, contrary to the findings of the
Med-Arbiter, that the charter certificate need not be verified and
that there was no independent evidence presented to establish
respondent companys claim that some members of petitioner union
were holding supervisory positions, the DOLE sustained the
dismissal of the petition for certification after it took judicial
notice that another union,i.e.,Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation, previously filed a
petition for certification election on January 16, 1998. The
Decision granting the said petition became final and executory on
September 16, 1998 and was remanded for immediate implementation.
Under Section 7, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, a motion
for intervention involving a certification election in an
unorganized establishment should be filed prior to the finality of
the decision calling for a certification election. Considering that
petitioner union filed its petition only on February 14, 1999, the
same was filed out of time.On motion for reconsideration, however,
the DOLE reversed its earlier ruling. In its January 13, 2000
Decision, the DOLE found that a review of the records indicates
that no certification election was previously conducted in
respondent company. On the contrary, the prior certification
election filed by Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical
and Coating Corporation was, likewise, denied by the Med-Arbiter
and, on appeal, was dismissed by the DOLE for being filed out of
time. Hence, there was no obstacle to the grant of petitioner
unions petition for certification election,viz:WHEREFORE, the
motion for reconsideration is herebyGRANTEDand the decision of this
Office dated 16 July 1999 isMODIFIEDto allow the certification
election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter
Chemical and Coating Corporation with the following choices:1.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical-Solidarity of Unions in the
Philippines for Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER); and2. No
Union.Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional
Office of origin for the immediate conduct of a certification
election, subject to the usual pre-election conference.SO
DECIDED.9Court of Appeals RulingOn March 15, 2005, the CA
promulgated the assailed Decision, viz:WHEREFORE,the petition is
herebyGRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated January
13, 2000 and February 17, 2000 are hereby [ANNULLED]andSET ASIDE.SO
ORDERED.10In nullifying the decision of the DOLE, the appellate
court gave credence to the findings of the Med-Arbiter that
petitioner union failed to comply with the documentation
requirements under the Labor Code. It, likewise, upheld the
Med-Arbiters finding that petitioner union consisted of both
rank-and-file and supervisory employees. Moreover, the CA held that
the issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked
collaterally in a petition for certification election and the
infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied
through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a pre-election
conference pursuant to the ruling inToyota Motor Philippines v.
Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union.11Thus,
considering that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization, it has no legal right to file a petition for
certification election.IssuesIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction in granting the respondent [companys] petition
forcertiorari(CA G.R. No. SP No. 58203) in spite of the fact that
the issues subject of the respondent company[s] petition was
already settled with finality and barred from being
re-litigated.IIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of rank-and-file
and supervisory employee[s] of petitioner [unions] membership is
[a] ground for the cancellation of petitioner [unions] legal
personality and dismissal of [the] petition for certification
election.IIIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in
holding that the alleged failure to certify under oath the local
charter certificate issued by its mother federation and list of the
union membership attending the organizational meeting [is a ground]
for the cancellation of petitioner [unions] legal personality as a
labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for
certification election.12Petitioner Unions ArgumentsPetitioner
union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal
personality to file the subject petition for certification election
is barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE. In this
decision, the DOLE ruled that petitioner union complied with all
the documentation requirements and that there was no independent
evidence presented to prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in petitioner union. After the promulgation
of this Decision, respondent company did not move for
reconsideration, thus, this issue must be deemed settled.Petitioner
union further argues that the lack of verification of its charter
certificate and the alleged illegal composition of its membership
are not grounds for the dismissal of a petition for certification
election under Section 11, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of 1997,
as amended, nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a unions
registration under Section 3, Rule VIII of said issuance. It
contends that what is required to be certified under oath by the
local unions secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local
unions president are limited to the unions constitution and
by-laws, statement of the set of officers, and the books of
accounts.Finally, the legal personality of petitioner union cannot
be collaterally attacked but may be questioned only in an
independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section 5, Rule
V, Book IV of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the
doctrine enunciated inTagaytay Highlands International Golf Club
Incoprorated v. Tagaytay Highlands Empoyees
Union-PTGWO.13Respondent Companys ArgumentsRespondent company
asserts that it cannot be precluded from challenging the July 16,
1999 Decision of the DOLE. The said decision did not attain
finality because the DOLE subsequently reversed its earlier ruling
and, from this decision, respondent company timely filed its motion
for reconsideration.On the issue of lack of verification of the
charter certificate, respondent company notes that Article 235 of
the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of
Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, expressly
requires that the charter certificate be certified under oath.It
also contends that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization because its composition is a mixture of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in violation of Article 245 of the
Labor Code. Respondent company maintains that the ruling inToyota
Motor Philippines vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor
Union14continues to be good case law. Thus, the illegal composition
of petitioner union nullifies its legal personality to file the
subject petition for certification election and its legal
personality may be collaterally attacked in the proceedings for a
petition for certification election as was done here.Our RulingThe
petition is meritorious.The issue as to the legal personality of
petitioner union is not barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the
DOLE.A review of the records indicates that the issue as to
petitioner unions legal personality has been timely and
consistently raised by respondent company before the Med-Arbiter,
DOLE, CA and now this Court. In its July 16, 1999 Decision, the
DOLE found that petitioner union complied with the documentation
requirements of the Labor Code and that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of
supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership.
Nonetheless, the petition for certification election was dismissed
on the ground that another union had previously filed a petition
for certification election seeking to represent the same bargaining
unit in respondent company.Upon motion for reconsideration by
petitioner union on January 13, 2000, the DOLE reversed its
previous ruling. It upheld the right of petitioner union to file
the subject petition for certification election because its
previous decision was based on a mistaken appreciation of
facts.15From this adverse decision, respondent company timely moved
for reconsideration by reiterating its previous arguments before
the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union has no legal personality to
file the subject petition for certification election.The July 16,
1999 Decision of the DOLE, therefore, never attained finality
because the parties timely moved for reconsideration. The issue
then as to the legal personality of petitioner union to file the
certification election was properly raised before the DOLE, the
appellate court and now this Court.The charter certificate need not
be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or treasurer
and attested to by its president.Preliminarily, we must note that
Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 948116which took effect on
June 14, 2007.17This law introduced substantial amendments to the
Labor Code. However, since the operative facts in this case
occurred in 1999, we shall decide the issues under the pertinent
legal provisions then in force (i.e., R.A. No. 6715,18amending Book
V of the Labor Code, and the rules and regulations19implementing
R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9,20series of 1997) pursuant
to our ruling inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines,
Inc.21In the main, the CA ruled that petitioner union failed to
comply with the requisite documents for registration under Article
235 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. It agreed with
the Med-Arbiter that the Charter Certificate, Sama-samang Pahayag
ng Pagsapi at Authorization, and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa
Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang
Batas were not executed under oath. Thus, petitioner union cannot
be accorded the status of a legitimate labor organization.We
disagree.The then prevailing Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing
Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997,
provides:Section 1.Chartering and creation of a local chapter A
duly registered federation or national union may directly create a
local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau
two (2) copies of the following:(a) A charter certificate issued by
the federation or national union indicating the creation or
establishment of the local/chapter;(b) The names of the
local/chapters officers, their addresses, and the principal office
of the local/chapter; and(c) The local/chapters constitution and
by-laws provided that where the local/chapters constitution and
by-laws [are] the same as [those] of the federation or national
union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing
supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the
Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by
its President.As readily seen, the Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi
at Authorization and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang
Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas are not
among the documents that need to be submitted to the Regional
Office or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor
organization. As to the charter certificate, the above-quoted rule
indicates that it should be executed under oath. Petitioner union
concedes and the records confirm that its charter certificate was
not executed under oath. However, inSan Miguel Corporation (Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San
Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW
(MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW),22which was decided under the auspices of
D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we ruled InSan Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg
Feed Plant v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 356 (1996), the Court ruled
that it wasnot necessaryfor the charter certificate to be certified
and attested by the local/chapter officers.Id.While this ruling was
based on the interpretation of the previous Implementing Rules
provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments, we believe
thatthe same doctrine obtains in this case. Considering that the
charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union
and not the local/chapter,it does not make sense to have the
local/chapters officersx x xcertify or attest to a document which
they had no hand in the preparation of.23(Emphasis supplied)In
accordance with this ruling, petitioner unions charter certificate
need not be executed under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired
the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of
(1) its charter certificate,24(2) the names of its officers, their
addresses, and its principal office,25and (3) its constitution and
by-laws26 the last two requirements having been executed under oath
by the proper union officials as borne out by the records.The
mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner
union does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization.The CA found that petitioner union has for its
membership both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. However,
petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit consisting
of rank-and-file employees. Under Article 24527of the Labor Code,
supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor
organization of rank-and-file employees. Thus, the appellate court
ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a legitimate labor
organization pursuant toToyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor
Philippines Corporation Labor
Union28(hereinafterToyota).Preliminarily, we note that petitioner
union questions the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter, as upheld
by the appellate court, that 12 of its members, consisting of
batchman, mill operator and leadman, are supervisory employees.
However, petitioner union failed to present any rebuttal evidence
in the proceedings below after respondent company submitted in
evidence the job descriptions29of the aforesaid employees. The job
descriptions indicate that the aforesaid employees exercise
recommendatory managerial actions which are not merely routinary
but require the use of independent judgment, hence, falling within
the definition of supervisory employees under Article 212(m)30of
the Labor Code. For this reason, we are constrained to agree with
the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that petitioner
union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees.Nonetheless, the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory
employees in petitioner union does not divest it of its status as a
legitimate labor organization. The appellate courts reliance
onToyotais misplaced in view of this Courts subsequent ruling
inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines,
Inc.31(hereinafterKawashima). InKawashima, we explained at length
how and why theToyotadoctrine no longer holds sway under the
altered state of the law and rules applicable to this case,viz:R.A.
No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the
prohibition [on the co-mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees] would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor
organization.It was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No.
6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) which supplied the deficiency by
introducing the following amendment to Rule II (Registration of
Unions):"Sec. 1.Who may join unions.- x x xSupervisory employees
and security guards shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or
form separate labor organizations of their own; Provided, that
those supervisory employees who are included in an existing
rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x x. (Emphasis supplied) and
Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the
Omnibus Rules,viz:"Sec. 1.Where to file. - A petition for
certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which
has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The
petition shall be in writing and under oath.Sec. 2.Who may file. -
Any legitimate labor organization or the employer, when requested
to bargain collectively, may file the petition.The petition, when
filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among
others:x x x x(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be
the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise require; and
provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit of the
rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory employees
and/or security guards.(Emphasis supplied)By that provision, any
questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly
registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a
petition for certification election.Thus, when the issue of the
effect of mingling was brought to the fore inToyota,the Court,
citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715,
held:"Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization
composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no
labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be
a legitimate labor organization. Not being one,an organization
which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees
cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for
certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.It
becomes necessary, therefore,anterior to the granting of an order
allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition
of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor
organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor
Code.x x x xIn the case at bar, as respondent union's membership
list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory
employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to
purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the
status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot
possess the requisite personality to file a petition for
certification election." (Emphasis supplied)InDunlop, in which the
labor organization that filed a petition for certification election
was one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership
included rank-and-file employees, the Court reiterated that such
labor organization had no legal right to file a certification
election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for
as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members.It
should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election
involved inToyotaandDunlopwere filed on November 26, 1992 and
September 15, 1995, respectively; hence, the 1989 Rules was applied
in both cases.But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997
(1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under
Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules that the petition for
certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of
rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory
employees was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules
requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit, thus:Rule
XICertification Electionsx x x xSec. 4.Forms and contents of
petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and
shall contain, among others, the following: x x x (c) The
description of the bargaining unit.InPagpalain Haulers, Inc. v.
Trajano,the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997
Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved
therein was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, to wit:"Section. 1.Chartering and
creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or
national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to
the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the
following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or
national union indicating the creation or establishment of the
local/chapter; (b) the names of the local/chapter's officers, their
addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and (c)
the local/ chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where
the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of
the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated
accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be
certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the
local/chapter and attested to by its President."which does not
require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter
submit a list of its members.Then cameTagaytay Highlands Int'l.
Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWOin which
the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a
labor organization and its right to file a petition for
certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu,
the Court abandoned the view inToyotaandDunlopand reverted to its
pronouncement inLopezthat while there is a prohibition against the
mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor
organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects
thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has
been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its
legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of
its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of
the Labor Code.InSan Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products
Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging
Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW,the
Court explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not
require a local or chapter to provide a list of its members, it
would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or
chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual
members.More to the point isAir Philippines Corporation v. Bureau
of Labor Relations,which involved a petition for cancellation of
union registration filed by the employer in 1999 against a
rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of mixed membership:
the Court therein reiterated its ruling inTagaytay Highlandsthat
the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the
grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances
enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor
Code.All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481,the 1997
Amended Omnibus Rules, as interpreted by the Court inTagaytay
Highlands,San MiguelandAir Philippines,had already set the tone for
it.ToyotaandDunlopno longer hold swayin the present altered state
of the law and the rules.32[Underline supplied]The applicable law
and rules in the instant case are the same as those
inKawashimabecause the present petition for certification election
was filed in 1999 when D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, was still in
effect. Hence,Kawashimaapplies with equal force here. As a result,
petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate
labor organization even if some of its members were supervisory
employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for
certification election.The legal personality of petitioner union
cannot be collaterally attacked by respondent company in the
certification election proceedings.Petitioner union correctly
argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked
in the certification election proceedings. As we explained
inKawashima:Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an
employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification
election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which
organization will represent the employees in their collective
bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is
the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have
any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less
oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from
it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in
a petition for certification election are actually managerial
employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the
certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding
is to be notified or informed thereof.The amendments to the Labor
Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even
more.33WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED. The March 15, 2005
Decision and September 16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203 areREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The January 13,
2000 Decision of the Department of Labor and Employment in
OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) isREINSTATED.No pronouncement as
to costs.SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME
COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 179146 July 23, 2013HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC
SCHOOL,Petitioner,vs.HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,
and PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC
SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION
(HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS),Respondents.D E C I S I O NPERALTA,J.:Assailed
in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure are the April 18, 2007 Decision1and July
31, 2007 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
76175, which affirmed the December 27, 2002 Decision3and February
13, 2003 Resolution4of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment (SOLE) that set aside the August 10, 2002 Decision5of
the Med-Arbiter denying private respondents petition for
certification election.The factual antecedents are as follows:On
May 31, 2002, a petition for certification election was filed by
private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis Holy
Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union
(HCCS-TELUPIGLAS), alleging that: PIGLAS is a legitimate labor
organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) representing HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS; HCCS is a private
educational institution duly registered and operating under
Philippine laws; there are approximately one hundred twenty (120)
teachers and employees comprising the proposed appropriate
bargaining unit; and HCCS is unorganized, there is no collective
bargaining agreement or a duly certified bargaining agent or a
labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the proposed bargaining unit within one year prior to the
filing of the petition.6Among the documents attached to the
petition were the certificate of affiliation with Pinag-Isang Tinig
at Lakas ng Anakpawis Kristiyanong Alyansa ng Makabayang Obrero
(PIGLAS-KAMAO) issued by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR),
charter certificate issued by PIGLASKAMAO, and certificate of
registration of HCCS-TELU as a legitimate labor organization issued
by the DOLE.7In its Comment8and Position Paper,9petitioner HCCS
consistently noted that it is a parochial school with a total of
156 employees as of June 28, 2002, broken down as follows:
ninety-eight (98) teaching personnel, twenty-five (25) non-teaching
academic employees, and thirty-three (33) non-teaching non-academic
workers. It averred that of the employees who signed to support the
petition, fourteen (14) already resigned and six (6) signed twice.
Petitioner raised that members of private respondent do not belong
to the same class; it is not only a mixture of managerial,
supervisory, and rank-and-file employees as three (3) are
vice-principals, one (1) is a department head/supervisor, and
eleven (11) are coordinators but also a combination of teaching and
non-teaching personnel as twenty-seven (27) are non-teaching
personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord with Article
24510of the Labor Code, private respondent is an illegitimate labor
organization lacking in personality to file a petition for
certification election, as held in Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
Union;11and an inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community
or mutuality of interest, as ruled in Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.),
Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment12and De La Salle
University Medical Center and College of Medicine v.
Laguesma.13Private respondent, however, countered that petitioner
failed to substantiate its claim that some of the employees
included in the petition for certification election holds
managerial and supervisory positions.14Assuming it to be true, it
argued that Section 11 (II),15Rule XI of DOLE Department Order
(D.O.) No. 9, Series of 1997, provided for specific instances in
which a petition filed by a legitimate organization shall be
dismissed by the Med-Arbiter and that "mixture of employees" is not
one of those enumerated. Private respondent pointed out that
questions pertaining to qualifications of employees may be threshed
out in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings prior to the conduct of
the certification election, pursuant to Section 2,16Rule XII of
D.O. No. 9. Lastly, similar to the ruling in In Re: Globe Machine
and Stamping Company,17it contended that the will of petitioners
employees should be respected as they had manifested their desire
to be represented by only one bargaining unit. To back up the
formation of a single employer unit, private respondent asserted
that even if the teachers may receive additional pay for an
advisory class and for holding additional loads, petitioners
academic and non-academic personnel have similar working
conditions. It cited Laguna College v. Court of Industrial
Relations,18as well as the case of a union in West Negros College
in Bacolod City, which allegedly represented both academic and
non-academic employees.On August 10, 2002, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann
L. Daquigan denied the petition for certification election on the
ground that the unit which private respondent sought to represent
is inappropriate. She resolved:A certification election proceeding
directly involves two (2) issues namely: (a) the proper composition
and constituency of the bargaining unit; and (b) the validity of
majority representation claims. It is therefore incumbent upon the
Med-Arbiter to rule on the appropriateness of the bargaining unit
once its composition and constituency is questioned.Section 1 (q),
Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules defines a "bargaining unit" as
a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given
employer unit comprised of all or less than all of the entire body
of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or
geographical grouping within such employer unit. This definition
has provided the "community or mutuality of interest" test as the
standard in determining the constituency of a collective bargaining
unit. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining
units acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights. The application of this test
may either result in the formation of an employer unit or in the
fragmentation of an employer unit.In the case at bar, the employees
of petitioner, may, as already suggested, quite easily be
categorized into (2) general classes: one, the teaching staff; and
two, the non-teaching-staff. Not much reflection is needed to
perceive that the community or mutuality of interest is wanting
between the teaching and the non-teaching staff. It would seem
obvious that the teaching staff would find very little in common
with the non-teaching staff as regards responsibilities and
function, working conditions, compensation rates, social life and
interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, etc. These are plain
and patent realities which cannot be ignored. These dictate the
separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of
collective bargaining. (University of the Philippines vs.
Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451)19Private respondent appealed before
the SOLE, who, on December 27, 2002, ruled against the dismissal of
the petition and directed the conduct of two separate certification
elections for the teaching and the non-teaching personnel, thus:We
agree with the Med-Arbiter that there are differences in the nature
of work, hours and conditions of work and salary determination
between the teaching and non-teaching personnel of petitioner.
These differences were pointed out by petitioner in its position
paper. We do not, however, agree with the Med-Arbiter that these
differences are substantial enough to warrant the dismissal of the
petition. First, as pointed out by private respondent,
"inappropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented
is not a ground for the dismissal of the petition." In fact, in the
cited case of University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja,
supra, the Supreme Court did not order the dismissal of the
petition but ordered the conduct of a certification election,
limiting the same among the non-academic personnel of the
University of the Philippines.It will be recalled that in the U.P.
case, there were two contending unions, the Organization of
Non-Academic Personnel of U.P. (ONAPUP) and All U.P. Workers Union
composed of both academic and nonacademic personnel of U.P. ONAPUP
sought the conduct of certification election among the
rank-and-file non-academic personnel only while the all U.P.
Workers Union sought the conduct of certification election among
all of U.P.s rank-and-file employees covering academic and
nonacademic personnel. While the Supreme Court ordered a separate
bargaining unit for the U.P. academic personnel, the Court,
however, did not order them to organize a separate labor
organization among themselves. The All U.P. Workers Union was not
directed to divest itself of its academic personnel members and in
fact, we take administrative notice that the All U.P. Workers Union
continue to exist with a combined membership of U.P. academic and
non-academic personnel although separate bargaining agreements is
sought for the two bargaining units. Corollary, private respondent
can continue to exist as a legitimate labor organization with the
combined teaching and non-teaching personnel in its membership and
representing both classes of employees in separate bargaining
negotiations and agreements.WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Med-Arbiter dated 10 August 2002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
In lieu thereof, a new order is hereby issued directing the conduct
of two certification elections, one among the non-teaching
personnel of Holy Child Catholic School, and the other, among the
teaching personnel of the same school, subject to the usual
pre-election conferences and inclusion-exclusion proceedings, with
the following choices:A. Certification Election Among Petitioners
Teaching Personnel:1. Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and
Employees Labor Union; and2. No Union.B. Certification Election
Among Petitioners Non-Teaching Personnel:1. Holy Child Catholic
School Teachers and Employees Labor Union; and2. No
Union.Petitioner is hereby directed to submit to the Regional
Office of origin within ten (10) days from receipt of this
Decision, a certified separate list of its teaching and
non-teaching personnel or when necessary a separate copy of their
payroll for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of this
Decision.20Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration21which,
per Resolution dated February 13, 2003, was denied. Consequently,
petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction.22The CA resolved to defer action on the prayer for TRO
pending the filing of private respondents Comment.23Later, private
respondent and petitioner filed their Comment24and
Reply,25respectively.On July 23, 2003, petitioner filed a motion
for immediate issuance of a TRO, alleging that Hon. Helen F.
Dacanay of the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE was set to
implement the SOLE Decision when it received a summons and was
directed to submit a certified list of teaching and non-teaching
personnel for the last three months prior to the issuance of the
assailed Decision.26Acting thereon, on August 5, 2003, the CA
issued the TRO and ordered private respondent to show cause why the
writ of preliminary injunction should not be
granted.27Subsequently, a Manifestation and Motion28was filed by
private respondent, stating that it repleads by reference the
arguments raised in its Comment and that it prays for the immediate
lifting of the TRO and the denial of the preliminary injunction.
The CA, however, denied the manifestation and motion on November
21, 200329and, upon motion of petitioner,30granted the preliminary
injunction on April 21, 2005.31Thereafter, both parties filed their
respective Memorandum.32On April 18, 2007, the CA eventually
dismissed the petition. As to the purported commingling of
managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees in private
respondents membership, it held that the Toyota ruling is
inapplicable because the vice-principals, department head, and
coordinators are neither supervisory nor managerial employees. It
reasoned:x x x While it may be true that they wield power over
other subordinate employees of the petitioner, it must be stressed,
however, that their functions are not confined with
policy-determining such as hiring, firing, and disciplining of
employees, salaries, teaching/working hours, other monetary and
non-monetary benefits, and other terms and conditions of
employment. Further, while they may formulate policies or
guidelines, nonetheless, such is merely recommendatory in nature,
and still subject to review and evaluation by the higher
executives, i.e., the principals or executive officers of the
petitioner. It cannot also be denied that in institutions like the
petitioner, company policies have already been pre-formulated by
the higher executives and all that the mentioned employees have to
do is carry out these company policies and standards. Such being
the case, it is crystal clear that there is no improper commingling
of members in the private respondent union as to preclude its
petition for certification of (sic) election.33Anent the alleged
mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel, the CA agreed with
petitioner that the nature of the formers work does not coincide
with that of the latter. Nevertheless, it ruled that the SOLE did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition
for certification election, since it directed the conduct of two
separate certification elections based on Our ruling in University
of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja.34A motion for
reconsideration35was filed by petitioner, but the CA denied the
same;36hence, this petition assigning the alleged errors as
follows:I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
RULING IN THE CASE OF TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS.
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION (268 SCRA 573)
DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE AT BAR DESPITE THE [COMMINGLING] OF BOTH
SUPERVISORY OR MANAGERIAL AND RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES IN THE
RESPONDENT UNION;IITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS
CONFLICTING RULING ALLOWING THE CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
BY UPHOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT UNION REPRESENTED A BARGAINING
UNIT DESPITE ITS OWN FINDINGS THAT THERE IS NO MUTUALITY OF
INTEREST BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT UNION APPLYING THE TEST
LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
FERRER-CALLEJA (211 SCRA 451).37We deny.Petitioner claims that the
CA contradicted the very definition of managerial and supervisory
employees under existing law and jurisprudence when it did not
classify the vice-principals, department head, and coordinators as
managerial or supervisory employees merely because the policies and
guidelines they formulate are still subject to the review and
evaluation of the principal or executive officers of petitioner. It
points out that the duties of the vice-principals, department head,
and coordinators include the evaluation and assessment of the
effectiveness and capability of the teachers under them; that such
evaluation and assessment is independently made without the
participation of the higher Administration of petitioner; that the
fact that their recommendation undergoes the approval of the higher
Administration does not take away the independent nature of their
judgment; and that it would be difficult for the vice-principals,
department head, and coordinators to objectively assess and
evaluate the performances of teachers under them if they would be
allowed to be members of the same labor union.On the other hand,
aside from reiterating its previous submissions, private respondent
cites Sections 9 and 1238of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 to
buttress its contention that petitioner has no standing to oppose
the petition for certification election. On the basis of the
statutory provisions, it reasons that an employer is not a
party-in-interest in a certification election; thus, petitioner
does not have the requisite right to protect even by way of
restraining order or injunction.First off, We cannot agree with
private respondents invocation of R.A. No. 9481. Said law took
effect only on June 14, 2007; hence, its applicability is limited
to labor representation cases filed on or after said
date.39Instead, the law and rules in force at the time private
respondent filed its petition for certification election on May 31,
2002 are R.A. No. 6715, which amended Book V of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 442 (the Labor Code), as amended, and the Rules and
Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9,
which was dated May 1, 1997 but took effect on June 21,
1997.40However, note must be taken that even without the express
provision of Section 12 of RA No. 9481, the "Bystander Rule" is
already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been
consistently held in a number of cases that a certification
election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the
employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of
the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in
the certification process ceases and becomes merely a
bystander.41The employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute
the election and has no right to interfere at all therein.42This is
so since any uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may
give rise to the suspicion that it is batting for a company
union.43Indeed, the demand of the law and policy for an employer to
take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections is based
on the rationale that the employees bargaining representative
should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of the
management; that, to be effective, the bargaining representative
must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.44Now,
going back to petitioners contention, the issue of whether a
petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground
that the labor organizations membership allegedly consists of
supervisory and rank-and-file employees is actually not a novel
one. In the 2008 case of Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg.,
Philippines, Inc.,45wherein the employer-company moved to dismiss
the petition for certification election on the ground inter alia
that the union membership is a mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees, this Court had conscientiously discussed the
applicability of Toyota and Dunlop in the context of R.A. No. 6715
and D.O. No. 9, viz.:It was in R.A. No. 875, under Section 3, that
such questioned mingling was first prohibited, to wit:Sec. 3.
Employees' right to self-organization. - Employees shall have the
right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed
as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of employees under their supervision but may form
separate organizations of their own. (Emphasis supplied)Nothing in
R.A. No. 875, however, tells of how the questioned mingling can
affect the legitimacy of the labor organization. Under Section 15,
the only instance when a labor organization loses its legitimacy is
when it violates its duty to bargain collectively; but there is no
word on whether such mingling would also result in loss of
legitimacy. Thus, when the issue of whether the membership of two
supervisory employees impairs the legitimacy of a rank-and-file
labor organization came before the Court En Banc in Lopez v.
Chronicle Publication Employees Association, the majority
pronounced:It may be observed that nothing is said of the effect of
such ineligibility upon the union itself or on the status of the
other qualified members thereof should such prohibition be
disregarded. Considering that the law is specific where it intends
to divest a legitimate labor union of any of the rights and
privileges granted to it by law, the absence of any provision on
the effect of the disqualification of one of its organizers upon
the legality of the union, may be construed to confine the effect
of such ineligibility only upon the membership of the supervisor.
In other words, the invalidity of membership of one of the
organizers does not make the union illegal, where the requirements
of the law for the organization thereof are, nevertheless,
satisfied and met. (Emphasis supplied)Then the Labor Code was
enacted in 1974 without reproducing Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875. The
provision in the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is Article 290, which
is deafeningly silent on the prohibition against supervisory
employees mingling with rank-and-file employees in one labor
organization. Even the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the
Labor Code (Omnibus Rules) merely provides in Section 11, Rule II,
thus:Sec. 11. Supervisory unions and unions of security guards to
cease operation. - All existing supervisory unions and unions of
security guards shall, upon the effectivity of the Code, cease to
operate as such and their registration certificates shall be deemed
automatically cancelled. However, existing collective agreements
with such unions, the life of which extends beyond the date of
effectivity of the Code shall be respected until their expiry date
insofar as the economic benefits granted therein are
concerned.Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the
definition of managerial employees shall become eligible to join or
assist the rank and file organization. The determination of who are
managerial employees and who are not shall be the subject of
negotiation between representatives of supervisory union and the
employer. If no agreement s reached between the parties, either or
both of them may bring the issue to the nearest Regional Office for
determination. (Emphasis supplied)The obvious repeal of the last
clause of Sec. 3, R.A. No. 875 prompted the Court to declare in
Bulletin v. Sanchez that supervisory employees who do not fall
under the category of managerial employees may join or assist in
the formation of a labor organization for rank-and-file employees,
but they may not form their own labor organization.While amending
certain provisions of Book V of the Labor Code, E.O. No. 111 and
its implementing rules continued to recognize the right of
supervisory employees, who do not fall under the category of
managerial employees, to join a rank- and-file labor
organization.Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition
against the questioned mingling in one labor organization,
viz.:Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:Art. 245. Ineligibility of
managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of
supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to
join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own (Emphasis supplied)Unfortunately, just
like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted s