Heritage Mariwasa

8/12/2019 Heritage Mariwasa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heritage-mariwasa 1/6

G.R. No. 178296 January 12, 2011THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, actin t!rou! it" o#n$r, GRAN% &LA'A HOTEL(OR&ORATION,Petitioner,vs.NATIONAL )NION O* +ORER- IN THE HOTEL, RE-TA)RANT AN% ALLIE%IN%)-TRIE-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA -)&ER/I-OR- (HA&TER N)+HRAINHHM-(, Respondent.D E C I S I O NNA(H)RA, J.:Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeas !CA"dated #a$ %&, '&&( and Resoution dated )une *, '&&+. he assaied Decision affir-ed the

dis-issa of a petition for canceation of union reistration fied /$ petitioner, 0rand Paa 2oteCorporation, owner of 2eritae 2ote #ania, aainst respondent, Nationa 3nion of 4or5ers inthe 2ote, Restaurant and Aied Industries62eritae 2ote #ania Supervisors Chapter!N342RAIN622#SC", a a/or oraniation of the supervisor$ e-po$ees of 2eritae 2ote#ania.he case ste--ed fro- the foowin antecedents7On Octo/er 11, 188(, respondent fied with the Depart-ent of 9a/or and E-po$-ent6NationaCapita Reion !DO9E6NCR" a petition for certification eection.' he #ed6Ar/iter ranted thepetition on :e/ruar$ 1*, 188; and ordered the hodin of a certification eection.% On appea, theDO9E Secretar$, in a Resoution dated Auust 1(, 188;, affir-ed the #ed6Ar/iter<s order andre-anded the case to the #ed6Ar/iter for the hodin of a preeection conference on :e/ruar$ ';,188+. Petitioner fied a -otion for reconsideration, /ut it was denied on Septe-/er '%, 188;.he preeection conference was not hed as initia$ schedued= it was hed a $ear ater, or on:e/ruar$ '&, 188>. Petitioner -oved to archive or to dis-iss the petition due to aeed repeatednon6appearance of respondent. he atter areed to suspend proceedins unti further notice.

he preeection conference resu-ed on )anuar$ '8, '&&&.Su/se?uent$, petitioner discovered that respondent had faied to su/-it to the Bureau of 9a/orReations !B9R" its annua financia report for severa $ears and the ist of its -e-/ers since itfied its reistration papers in 188(. Conse?uent$, on #a$ 18, '&&&, petitioner fied a Petition forCanceation of Reistration of respondent, on the round of the non6su/-ission of the saiddocu-ents. Petitioner pra$ed that respondent<s Certificate of Creation of 9oca@Chapter /ecanceed and its na-e /e deeted fro- the ist of eiti-ate a/or oraniations. It furtherre?uested the suspension of the certification eection proceedins.*

On )une 1, '&&&, petitioner reiterated its re?uest /$ fiin a #otion to Dis-iss or Suspend theCertification Eection Proceedins,( aruin that the dis-issa or suspension of the proceedinsis warranted, considerin that the eiti-ac$ of respondent is serious$ /ein chaened in thepetition for canceation of reistration. Petitioner -aintained that the resoution of the issue ofwhether respondent is a eiti-ate a/or oraniation is crucia to the issue of whether it -a$eercise rihts of a eiti-ate a/or oraniation, which incude the riht to /e certified as the/arainin aent of the covered e-po$ees.

Nevertheess, the certification eection pushed throuh on )une '%, '&&&. Respondent e-eredas the winner.;

On )une '>, '&&&, petitioner fied a Protest with #otion to Defer Certification of Eection Resutsand 4inner,+statin that the certification eection hed on )une '%, '&&& was an eercise in futiit$/ecause, once respondent<s reistration is canceed, it woud no oner /e entited to /e certifiedas the ecusive /arainin aent of the supervisor$ e-po$ees. Petitioner aso cai-ed thatso-e of respondent<s -e-/ers were not ?uaified to oin the union /ecause the$ were eitherconfidentia e-po$ees or -anaeria e-po$ees. It then pra$ed that the certification of theeection resuts and winner /e deferred unti the petition for canceation sha have /een resoved,and that respondent<s -e-/ers who hed confidentia or -anaeria positions /e ecuded fro-the supervisors< /arainin unit.

#eanwhie, respondent fied its Answer > to the petition for the canceation of its reistration. Itaverred that the petition was fied pri-ari$ to dea$ the conduct of the certification eection, therespondent<s certification as the ecusive /arainin representative of the supervisor$e-po$ees, and the co--ence-ent of /arainin neotiations. Respondent pra$ed for thedis-issa of the petition for the foowin reasons7 !a" petitioner is estopped fro- ?uestioninrespondent<s status as a eiti-ate a/or oraniation as it had aread$ reconied respondent assuch durin the preeection conferences= !/" petitioner is not the part$6in6interest, as the union-e-/ers are the ones who woud /e disadvantaed /$ the non6su/-ission of financia reports=!c" it has aread$ co-pied with the reportoria re?uire-ents, havin su/-itted its financiastate-ents for 188;, 188+, 188>, and 1888, its updated ist of officers, and its ist of -e-/ers forthe $ears 188(, 188;, 188+, 188>, and 1888= !d" the petition is aread$ -oot and acade-ic,

considerin that the certification eection had aread$ /een hed, and the -e-/ers had-anifested their wi to /e represented /$ respondent.Citin Nationa 3nion of Ban5 E-po$ees v. #inister of 9a/or, et a.8 and Sa-ahan n#anaawa sa Pacific Pastic v. 2on. 9aues-a, 1& the #ed6Ar/iter hed that the pendenc$ of apetition for canceation of reistration is not a /ar to the hodin of a certification eection. hus,in an Order 11 dated )anuar$ ';, '&&1, the #ed6Ar/iter dis-issed petitioner<s protest, and certifiedrespondent as the soe and ecusive /arainin aent of a supervisor$ e-po$ees.Petitioner su/se?uent$ appeaed the said Order to the DO9E Secretar$. 1' he appea was aterdis-issed /$ DO9E Secretar$ Patricia A. Sto. o-as !DO9E Secretar$ Sto. o-as" in theResoution of Auust '1, '&&'.1%Petitioner -oved for reconsideration, /ut the -otion was asodenied.1*

In the -eanti-e, Reiona Director Ae E. #araan !Reiona Director #araan" of DO9E6NCRfina$ resoved the petition for canceation of reistration. 4hie findin that respondent hadindeed faied to fie financia reports and the ist of its -e-/ers for severa $ears, he,nonetheess, denied the petition, ratiocinatin that freedo- of association and the e-po$ees<

riht to sef6oraniation are -ore su/stantive considerations. 2e too5 into account the fact thatrespondent won the certification eection and that it had aread$ /een certified as the ecusive/arainin aent of the supervisor$ e-po$ees. In view of the foreoin, Reiona Director#araanwhie e-phasiin that the non6co-piance with the aw is not viewed with favorconsidered the /eated su/-ission of the annua financia reports and the ist of -e-/ers assufficient co-piance thereof and considered the- as havin /een su/-itted on ti-e. hedispositive portion of the decision1( dated Dece-/er '8, '&&1 reads742ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the instant petition to deist the Nationa 3nion of 4or5ersin the 2ote, Restaurant and Aied Industries62eritae 2ote #ania Supervisors Chapter fro- thero of eiti-ate a/or oraniations is here/$ DENIED.SO ORDERED.1;

Arieved, petitioner appeaed the decision to the B9R.1+ B9R Director 2ans 9eo Cacdacinhi/ited hi-sef fro- the case /ecause he had /een a for-er counse of respondent.In view of Director Cacdac<s inhi/ition, DO9E Secretar$ Sto. o-as too5 coniance of theappea. In a resoution1> dated :e/ruar$ '1, '&&%, she dis-issed the appea, hodin that the

constitutiona$ uaranteed freedo- of association and riht of wor5ers to sef6oraniationoutweihed respondent<s nonco-piance with the statutor$ re?uire-ents to -aintain its status asa eiti-ate a/or oraniation.Petitioner fied a -otion for reconsideration,18 /ut the -otion was i5ewise denied in aresoution'& dated #a$ %&, '&&%. DO9E Secretar$ Sto. o-as ad-itted that it was the B9R whichhad urisdiction over the appea, /ut she pointed out that the B9R Director had vountari$inhi/ited hi-sef fro- the case /ecause he used to appear as counse for respondent. In order to-aintain the interit$ of the decision and of the B9R, she therefore accepted the -otion to inhi/itand too5 coniance of the appea.Petitioner fied a petition for certiorari with the CA, raisin the issue of whether the DO9ESecretar$ acted with rave a/use of discretion in ta5in coniance of the appea and affir-inthe dis-issa of its petition for canceation of respondent<s reistration.

LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA | 1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_178296_2011.html#fnt1




















































In a Decision dated #a$ %&, '&&(, the CA denied the petition. he CA opined that the DO9ESecretar$ -a$ ea$ assu-e urisdiction over an appea fro- the decision of the ReionaDirector in the event that the Director of the B9R inhi/its hi-sef fro- the case. Accordin to theCA, in the a/sence of the B9R Director, there is no person -ore co-petent to resove the appeathan the DO9E Secretar$. he CA /rushed aside the aeation of /ias and partiait$ on the partof the DO9E Secretar$, considerin that such aeation was not supported /$ an$ evidence.he CA aso found that the DO9E Secretar$ did not co--it rave a/use of discretion when sheaffir-ed the dis-issa of the petition for canceation of respondent<s reistration as a a/ororaniation. Echoin the DO9E Secretar$, the CA hed that the re?uire-ents of reistration ofa/or oraniations are an eercise of the overridin poice power of the State, desined for theprotection of wor5ers aainst potentia a/use /$ the union that recruits the-. hese

re?uire-ents, the CA opined, shoud not /e epoited to wor5 aainst the wor5ers< constitutiona$protected riht to sef6oraniation.Petitioner fied a -otion for reconsideration, invo5in this Court<s ruin in A//ott 9a/s. Phis., Inc.v. A//ott 9a/s. E-po$ees 3nion,'1 which cateorica$ decared that the DO9E Secretar$ has noauthorit$ to review the decision of the Reiona Director in a petition for canceation of unionreistration, and Section *,'' Rue FIII, Boo5 F of the O-ni/us Rues I-pe-entin the 9a/orCode.In its Resoution'% dated )une *, '&&+, the CA denied petitioner<s -otion, statin that the B9RDirector<s inhi/ition fro- the case was a pecuiarit$ not present in the A//ott case, and that suchinhi/ition ustified the assu-ption of urisdiction /$ the DO9E Secretar$.In this petition, petitioner arues that7I.he Court of Appeas serious$ erred in ruin that the 9a/or Secretar$ proper$ assu-ed

urisdiction over Petitioner<s appea of the Reiona Director<s Decision in the CanceationPetition .

A. )urisdiction is conferred on$ /$ aw. he 9a/or Secretar$ had no urisdiction toreview the decision of the Reiona Director in a petition for canceation. Such

urisdiction is conferred /$ aw to the B9R.B. he uniatera inhi/ition /$ the B9R Director cannot ustif$ the 9a/or Secretar$<seercise of urisdiction over the Appea.C. he 9a/or Secretar$<s assu-ption of urisdiction over the Appea without noticevioated Petitioner<s riht to due process.

II.he Court of Appeas rave$ erred in affir-in the dis-issa of the Canceation Petition despitethe -andator$ and une?uivoca provisions of the 9a/or Code and its I-pe-entin Rues. '*

he petition has no -erit.)urisdiction to review the decision of the Reiona Director ies with the B9R. his is cear$provided in the I-pe-entin Rues of the 9a/or Code and enunciated /$ the Court in A//ott. Butas pointed out /$ the CA, the present case invoves a pecuiar circu-stance that was not presentor covered /$ the ruin in A//ott. In this case, the B9R Director inhi/ited hi-sef fro- the case

/ecause he was a for-er counse of respondent. 4ho, then, sha resove the case in his paceGIn A//ott, the appea fro- the Reiona Director<s decision was direct$ fied with the Office of theDO9E Secretar$, and we rued that the atter has no appeate urisdiction. In the instant case, theappea was fied /$ petitioner with the B9R, which, undisputed$, ac?uired urisdiction over thecase. Once urisdiction is ac?uired /$ the court, it re-ains with it unti the fu ter-ination of thecase.'(

hus, urisdiction re-ained with the B9R despite the B9R Director<s inhi/ition. 4hen the DO9ESecretar$ resoved the appea, she -ere$ stepped into the shoes of the B9R Director andperfor-ed a function that the atter coud not hi-sef perfor-. She did so pursuant to her powerof supervision and contro over the B9R.';

Epoundin on the etent of the power of contro, the Court, in Araneta, et a. v. 2on. #.0at-aitan, et a.,'+pronounced that, if a certain power or authorit$ is vested /$ aw upon the

Depart-ent Secretar$, then such power or authorit$ -a$ /e eercised direct$ /$ the President,who eercises supervision and contro over the depart-ents. his principe was incorporated inthe Ad-inistrative Code of 18>+, which defines Hsupervision and controH as incudin theauthorit$ to act direct$ whenever a specific function is entrusted /$ aw or reuation to asu/ordinate.'> App$in the foreoin to the present case, it is cear that the DO9E Secretar$, asthe person eercisin the power of supervision and contro over the B9R, has the authorit$ todirect$ eercise the ?uasi6udicia function entrusted /$ aw to the B9R Director.It is true that the power of contro and supervision does not ive the Depart-ent Secretar$un/rided authorit$ to ta5e over the functions of his or her su/ordinate. Such authorit$ is su/ect tocertain uideines which are stated in Boo5 IF, Chapter >, Section %8!1"!a" of the Ad-inistrativeCode of 18>+.'8 2owever, in the present case, the DO9E Secretar$<s act of ta5in over the

function of the B9R Director was warranted and necessitated /$ the atter<s inhi/ition fro- thecase and the o/ective to H-aintain the interit$ of the decision, as we as the Bureau itsef.H %&

Petitioner insists that the B9R Director<s su/ordinates shoud have resoved the appea, citin theprovision under the Ad-inistrative Code of 18>+ which states, Hin case of the a/sence ordisa/iit$ of the head of a /ureau or office, his duties sha /e perfor-ed /$ the assistanthead.H%1 he provision cear$ does not app$ considerin that the B9R Director was neithera/sent nor sufferin fro- an$ disa/iit$= he re-ained as head of the B9R. hus, to dispe an$suspicion of /ias, the DO9E Secretar$ opted to resove the appea hersef.Petitioner was not denied the riht to due process when it was not notified in advance of the B9RDirector<s inhi/ition and the DO9E Secretar$<s assu-ption of the case. 4e6setted is the ruethat the essence of due process is si-p$ an opportunit$ to /e heard, or, as appied toad-inistrative proceedins, an opportunit$ to epain one<s side or an opportunit$ to see5 areconsideration of the action or ruin co-pained of.%' Petitioner had the opportunit$ to ?uestionthe B9R Director<s inhi/ition and the DO9E Secretar$<s ta5in coniance of the case when itfied a -otion for reconsideration of the atter<s decision. It woud /e we to state that a critica

co-ponent of due process is a hearin /efore an i-partia and disinterested tri/una, for a theee-ents of due process, i5e notice and hearin, woud /e -eaniness if the uti-ate decisionwoud co-e fro- a partia and /iased ude. %% It was precise$ to ensure a fair tria that -oved theB9R Director to inhi/it hi-sef fro- the case and the DO9E Secretar$ to ta5e over his function.Petitioner aso insists that respondent<s reistration as a eiti-ate a/or union shoud /ecanceed. Petitioner posits that once it is deter-ined that a round enu-erated in Artice '%8 ofthe 9a/or Code is present, canceation of reistration shoud foow= it /eco-es the -inisteriadut$ of the Reiona Director to cance the reistration of the a/or oraniation, hence, the use ofthe word Hsha.H Petitioner points out that the Reiona Director has ad-itted in its decision thatrespondent faied to su/-it the re?uired docu-ents for a nu-/er of $ears= therefore, canceationof its reistration shoud have foowed as a -atter of course.4e are not persuaded.

Artices '%> and '%8 of the 9a/or Code read7 AR. '%>. CANCE99AION O: RE0ISRAION= APPEA9he certificate of reistration of an$ eiti-ate a/or oraniation, whether nationa or oca, sha

/e canceed /$ the Bureau if it has reason to /eieve, after due hearin, that the said a/ororaniation no oner -eets one or -ore of the re?uire-ents herein prescri/ed. %*

AR. '%8. 0RO3NDS :OR CANCE99AION O: 3NION RE0ISRAION.he foowin sha constitute rounds for canceation of union reistration7 !d" :aiure to su/-it the annua financia report to the Bureau within thirt$ !%&" da$s after thecosin of ever$ fisca $ear and -isrepresentation, fase entries or fraud in the preparation of thefinancia report itsef= !i" :aiure to su/-it ist of individua -e-/ers to the Bureau once a $ear or whenever re?uired /$the Bureau.%(









































hese provisions ive the Reiona Director a-pe discretion in deain with a petition forcanceation of a union<s reistration, particuar$, deter-inin whether the union sti -eets there?uire-ents prescri/ed /$ aw. It is sufficient to ive the Reiona Director icense to treat theate fiin of re?uired docu-ents as sufficient co-piance with the re?uire-ents of the aw. Aftera, the aw re?uires the a/or oraniation to su/-it the annua financia report and ist of-e-/ers in order to verif$ if it is sti via/e and financia$ sustaina/e as an oraniation so as toprotect the e-po$er and e-po$ees fro- frauduent or f$6/$6niht unions. 4ith the su/-issionof the re?uired docu-ents /$ respondent, the purpose of the aw has /een achieved, thouh/eated$.4e cannot ascri/e a/use of discretion to the Reiona Director and the DO9E Secretar$ inden$in the petition for canceation of respondent<s reistration. he union -e-/ers and, in fact,

a the e-po$ees /eonin to the appropriate /arainin unit shoud not /e deprived of a/arainin aent, -ere$ /ecause of the neience of the union officers who were responsi/efor the su/-ission of the docu-ents to the B9R.9a/or authorities shoud, indeed, act with circu-spection in treatin petitions for canceation ofunion reistration, est the$ /e accused of interferin with union activities. In resovin thepetition, consideration -ust /e ta5en of the funda-enta rihts uaranteed /$ Artice III, Section% of the Constitution, i.e., the rihts of a wor5ers to sef6oraniation, coective /arainin andneotiations, and peacefu concerted activities. 9a/or authorities shoud /ear in -ind thatreistration confers upon a union the status of eiti-ac$ and the conco-itant riht and privieesranted /$ aw to a eiti-ate a/or oraniation, particuar$ the riht to participate in or as5 forcertification eection in a /arainin unit.%; hus, the canceation of a certificate of reistration isthe e?uivaent of snuffin out the ife of a a/or oraniation. :or without such reistration, it oses6 as a rue 6 its rihts under the 9a/or Code.%+

It is worth -entionin that the 9a/or Code<s provisions on canceation of union reistration andon reportoria re?uire-ents have /een recent$ a-ended /$ Repu/ic Act !R.A." No. 8*>1, An Act

Strenthenin the 4or5ers< Constitutiona Riht to Sef6Oraniation, A-endin for the PurposePresidentia Decree No. **', As A-ended, Otherwise Jnown as the 9a/or Code of thePhiippines, which apsed into aw on #a$ '(, '&&+ and /eca-e effective on )une 1*, '&&+. hea-end-ent souht to strenthen the wor5ers< riht to sef6oraniation and enhance thePhiippines< co-piance with its internationa o/iations as e-/odied in the Internationa 9a/ourOraniation !I9O" Convention No. >+,%> pertainin to the non6dissoution of wor5ers<oraniations /$ ad-inistrative authorit$.%8 hus, R.A. No. 8*>1 a-ended Artice '%8 to read7

AR. '%8. 0rounds for Canceation of 3nion Reistration.he foowin -a$ constituterounds for canceation of union reistration7

!a" #isrepresentation, fase state-ent or fraud in connection with the adoption orratification of the constitution and /$6aws or a-end-ents thereto, the -inutes ofratification, and the ist of -e-/ers who too5 part in the ratification=!/" #isrepresentation, fase state-ents or fraud in connection with the eection ofofficers, -inutes of the eection of officers, and the ist of voters=!c" Fountar$ dissoution /$ the -e-/ers.

R.A. No. 8*>1 aso inserted in the 9a/or Code Artice '*'6A, which provides7 AR. '*'6A. Reportoria Re?uire-ents.he foowin are docu-ents re?uired to /e su/-ittedto the Bureau /$ the eiti-ate a/or oraniation concerned7

!a" Its constitution and /$6aws, or a-end-ents thereto, the -inutes of ratification, andthe ist of -e-/ers who too5 part in the ratification of the constitution and /$6aws withinthirt$ !%&" da$s fro- adoption or ratification of the constitution and /$6aws ora-end-ents thereto=!/" Its ist of officers, -inutes of the eection of officers, and ist of voters within thirt$!%&" da$s fro- eection=!c" Its annua financia report within thirt$ !%&" da$s after the cose of ever$ fisca $ear=and!d" Its ist of -e-/ers at east once a $ear or whenever re?uired /$ the Bureau.

:aiure to co-p$ with the a/ove re?uire-ents sha not /e a round for canceation of unionreistration /ut sha su/ect the errin officers or -e-/ers to suspension, epusion fro--e-/ership, or an$ appropriate penat$.I9O Convention No. >+, which we have ratified in 18(%, provides that Hwor5ers< and e-po$ers<oraniations sha not /e ia/e to /e dissoved or suspended /$ ad-inistrative authorit$.H heI9O has epressed the opinion that the canceation of union reistration /$ the reistrar of a/orunions, which in our case is the B9R, is tanta-ount to dissoution of the oraniation /$ad-inistrative authorit$ when such -easure woud ive rise to the oss of ea personait$ of theunion or oss of advantaes necessar$ for it to carr$ out its activities, which is true in our

urisdiction. Athouh the I9O has aowed such -easure to /e ta5en, provided that udiciasafeuards are in pace, i.e., the riht to appea to a udicia /od$, it has nonetheess re-inded its

-e-/ers that dissoution of a union, and canceation of reistration for that -atter, invoveserious conse?uences for occupationa representation. It has, therefore, dee-ed it prefera/e ifsuch actions were to /e ta5en on$ as a ast resort and after ehaustin other possi/iities withess serious effects on the oraniation. *&

he aforesaid a-end-ents and the I9O<s opinion on this -atter serve to fortif$ our ruin in thiscase. 4e therefore ?uote with approva the DO9E Secretar$<s rationae for den$in the petition,thus7It is undisputed that appeee faied to su/-it its annua financia reports and ist of individua-e-/ers in accordance with Artice '%8 of the 9a/or Code. 2owever, the eistence of thisround shoud not necessari$ ead to the canceation of union reistration. Artice '%8reconies the reuator$ authorit$ of the State to eact co-piance with reportin re?uire-ents.Ket there is -ore at sta5e in this case than -ere$ -onitorin union activities and re?uirinperiodic docu-entation thereof.he -ore su/stantive considerations invove the constitutiona$ uaranteed freedo- ofassociation and riht of wor5ers to sef6oraniation. Aso invoved is the pu/ic poic$ to pro-ote

free trade unionis- and coective /arainin as instru-ents of industria peace andde-ocrac$.1avvphi1 An over$ strinent interpretation of the statute overnin canceation ofunion reistration without reard to surroundin circu-stances cannot /e aowed. Otherwise, itwoud ead to an unconstitutiona appication of the statute and e-ascuation of pu/ic poic$o/ectives. 4orse, it can render nuator$ the protection to a/or and socia ustice causes thatpervades the Constitution and the 9a/or Code.#oreover, su/-ission of the re?uired docu-ents is the dut$ of the officers of the union. It woud/e unreasona/e for this Office to order the canceation of the union and penaie the entireunion -e-/ership on the /asis of the neience of its officers. In Nationa 3nion of Ban5E-po$ees vs. #inister of 9a/or, 96(%*&;, 1* Dece-/er 18>1, 11& SCRA '8;, the Supre-eCourt rued7

As apt$ rued /$ respondent Bureau of 9a/or Reations Director Norie7 Hhe rihts of wor5ers tosef6oraniation finds enera and specific constitutiona uarantees. Such constitutionauarantees shoud not /e iht$ ta5en -uch ess nuified. A heath$ respect for the freedo- ofassociation de-ands that acts i-puta/e to officers or -e-/ers /e not easi$ visited with capita

punish-ents aainst the association itsef.H At an$ rate, we note that on 18 #a$ '&&&, appeee had su/-itted its financia state-ent for the$ears 188;61888. 4ith this su/-ission, appeee has su/stantia$ co-pied with its dut$ tosu/-it its financia report for the said period. o rue different$ woud /e to precude the union,after havin faied to -eet its periodic o/iations pro-pt$, fro- ta5in appropriate -easures tocorrect its o-issions. :or the record, we do not view with favor appeee<s ate su/-ission.Punctuait$ on the part of the union and its officers coud have prevented this petition. *1

42ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the Court of Appeas Decision dated #a$ %&, '&&( andResoution dated )une *, '&&+ are A::IR#ED.SO ORDERED.



















G.R. No. 1817 %$c$34$r 21, 2009MARI+A-A -IAM (ERAMI(-, IN(., Petitioner,vs.THE -E(RETAR5 O* THE %E&ARTMENT O* LAOR AN%EM&LO5MENT, (HIE* O* THE )REA) O* LAOR RELATION-,%E&ARTMENT O* LAOR AN% EM&LO5MENT, REGIONAL%IRE(TOR O* %OLE REGIONAL O**I(E N)MER I/A -AMAHANNG MGA MANGGAGA+A -A MARI+A-A -IAM (ERAMI(-, IN(.

-MM-(IN%E&EN%ENT, Respondents.D E C I S I O NNA(H)RA, J.:his is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rue *( of the Rues ofCourt, see5in to annu the Decision'dated Dece-/er '&, '&&+ and theResoution% dated )une ;, '&&> of the Court of Appeas in CA60.R. SP No.8>%%'.he antecedent facts are as foowsOn #a$ *, '&&(, respondent Sa-ahan N #a #anaawa Sa #ariwasaSia- Cera-ics, Inc. !S##SC6Independent" was issued a Certificate ofReistration* as a eiti-ate a/or oraniation /$ the Depart-ent of 9a/orand E-po$-ent !DO9E", Reion IF6A.

On )une 1*, '&&(, petitioner #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. fied a Petitionfor Canceation of 3nion Reistration aainst respondent, cai-in that theatter vioated Artice '%*( of the 9a/or Code for not co-p$in with the'&L re?uire-ent, and that it co--itted -assive fraud and-isrepresentation in vioation of Artice '%8; of the sa-e code. he casewas doc5eted as Case No. RO*&&6&(&;6A36&&*.On Auust ';, '&&(, the Reiona Director of DO9E IF6A issued an Orderrantin the petition, revo5in the reistration of respondent, and deistin itfro- the roster of active a/or unions.

Arieved, respondent appeaed to the Bureau of 9a/or Reations !B9R".In a Decision+ dated )une 1*, '&&;, the B9R ranted respondent<s appeaand disposed as foows

42ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the appea /$ Sa-ahan n#anaawa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. !S##SC6Independent" ishere/$ 0RANED, and the Decision dated '; Auust '&&( /$ DO9E6Reion6IF6A Director #ai-o B. 9i- is here/$ REFERSED and SE

ASIDE. Sa-ahan n #anaawa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc.!S##SC6Independent", under Reistration Certificate No. RO*&&6'&&(&(63R6&&', re-ains in the roster of eiti-ate a/or oraniations.SO DECIDED.>

Petitioner fied a #otion for Reconsideration /ut the B9R denied it in aResoution8 dated :e/ruar$ ', '&&+.Petitioner souht recourse with the Court of Appeas !CA" throuh aPetition for Certiorari= /ut the CA denied the petition for ac5 of -erit.Petitioner<s -otion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was i5ewisedenied, hence, this petition /ased on the foowin roundsReview of the :actua :indins of the Bureau of 9a/or Reations, adoptedand confir-ed /$ the 2onora/e Court of Appeas is warranted=

he 2onora/e Court of Appeas serious$ erred in ruin that the affidavitsof recantation cannot /e iven credence=he 2onora/e Court of Appeas serious$ erred in ruin that privaterespondent union co-pied with the '&L -e-/ership re?uire-ent= andhe 2onora/e Court of Appeas serious$ erred when it rued that privaterespondent union did not co--it -isrepresentation, fraud or fasestate-ent.1&

he petition shoud /e denied.he petitioner insists that respondent faied to co-p$ with the '&L union-e-/ership re?uire-ent for its reistration as a eiti-ate a/ororaniation /ecause of the disaffiiation fro- the tota nu-/er of union-e-/ers of 1&' e-po$ees who eecuted affidavits recantin their union

-e-/ership.It is, thus, i-perative that we peruse the affidavits appearin to have /eeneecuted /$ these affiants.he affidavits unifor-$ state

A5o, MMMMMMMMMMMMM, Piipino, -a$ sapat na uan, reuar na e-pe$ado/ian Ran5 :ie sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc., Bo. San Antonio, Sto.o-as, Batanas, -atapos na -a5apanu-pa n naaa$on sa /atas a$-aa$a at 5usan oo/ na nasasaad n -a su-usunod7

1. A5o a$ napiitan at niinan sa pasapi sa Sa-ahan n -a#anaawa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. o S##SC6Independent sa 5a/ia n a5in pa6aainanan='. A5in u/os na pinasisihan an a5in papir-a sa sipi n

sa-ahan, at handa a5on tu-ai5od sa anu-an 5asuatan naa5in naadaan sa 5adahianan na hindi an5op sa a5in pananawan -a -un5ahi o adhi5ain n sa-ahan.

SA JA3NAKAN NAN0 9A2A, a5o a$ u-ada n a5in panaanna$on i5a6MMMM n MMMMMM, '&&( dito sa 9aawian n Batanas, Ba$ann Sto. o-as.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Nasasaa$sa$


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/dec2009/gr_183317_2009.html#fnt1























Evident$, these affidavits were written and prepared in advance, and thepro for-a affidavits were read$ to /e fied out with the e-po$ees< na-esand sinatures.he first co--on aeation in the affidavits is a decaration that, in spite ofhis hesitation, the affiant was forced and deceived into oinin therespondent union. It is worth$ to note, however, that the affidavit does not-ention the identit$ of the peope who aeed$ forced and deceived theaffiant into oinin the union, -uch ess the circu-stances that constituted

such force and deceit. Indeed, not on$ was this aeation couched in ver$enera ter-s and sweepin in nature, /ut -ore i-portant$, it was notsupported /$ an$ evidence whatsoever.he second aeation ostensi/$ /ares the affiant<s reret for oininrespondent union and epresses the desire to a/andon or renee fro-whatever aree-ent he -a$ have sined reardin his -e-/ership withrespondent.Si-p$ put, throuh these affidavits, it is -ade to appear that the affiantsrecanted their support of respondent<s appication for reistration.In appreciatin affidavits of recantation such as these, our ruin in 9aSuerte Ciar and Ciarette :actor$ v. Director of the Bureau of 9a/orReations11 is enihtenin, vi.

On the second issuewhether or not the withdrawa of %1 union -e-/ersfro- NA3 affected the petition for certification eection insofar as the %&Lre?uire-ent is concerned, 4e reserve the Order of the respondent Directorof the Bureau of 9a/or Reations, it appearin undisputa/$ that the %1union -e-/ers had withdrawn their support to the petition /efore the fiinof said petition. It woud /e otherwise if the withdrawa was -ade after thefiin of the petition for it woud then /e presu-ed that the withdrawa wasnot free and vountar$. he presu-ption woud arise that the withdrawawas procured throuh duress, coercion or for vaua/e consideration. Inother words, the distinction -ust /e that withdrawas -ade /efore the fiinof the petition are presu-ed vountar$ uness there is convincin proof tothe contrar$, whereas withdrawas -ade after the fiin of the petition are

dee-ed invountar$.he reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawa or retraction is-ade /efore the fiin of the petition, the na-es of e-po$ees supportinthe petition are supposed to /e hed secret to the opposite part$. 9oica$,an$ such withdrawa or retraction shows vountariness in the a/sence ofproof to the contrar$. #oreover, it /eco-es apparent that such e-po$eeshad not iven consent to the fiin of the petition, hence the su/scriptionre?uire-ent has not /een -et.

4hen the withdrawa or retraction is -ade after the petition is fied, thee-po$ees who are supportin the petition /eco-e 5nown to the oppositepart$ since their na-es are attached to the petition at the ti-e of fiin.herefore, it woud not /e unepected that the opposite part$ woud usefou -eans for the su/ect e-po$ees to withdraw their support.1'

In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were eecuted after theidentities of the union -e-/ers /eca-e pu/ic, i.e., after the union fied apetition for certification eection on #a$ '%, '&&(, since the na-es of the

-e-/ers were attached to the petition. he purported withdrawa ofsupport for the reistration of the union was -ade after the docu-entswere su/-itted to the DO9E, Reion IF6A. he oica concusion,therefore, foowin urisprudence, is that the e-po$ees were not tota$free fro- the e-po$er<s pressure, and so the vountariness of thee-po$ees< eecution of the affidavits /eco-es suspect.It is i5ewise nota/e that the first /atch of '( pro for-a affidavits showsthat the affidavits were eecuted /$ the individua affiants on different datesfro- #a$ ';, '&&( unti )une %, '&&(, /ut the$ were a sworn /efore anotar$ pu/ic on )une >, '&&(.here was aso a second set of standardied affidavits eecuted ondifferent dates fro- #a$ ';, '&&( unti )u$ ;, '&&(. 4hie these ++

affidavits were notaried on different dates, (; of these were notaried on)une >, '&&(, the ver$ sa-e date when the first set of '( was notaried.Considerin that the first set of '( affidavits was su/-itted to the DO9E on)une 1*, '&&(, it is surprisin wh$ petitioner was a/e to su/-it the secondset of affidavits on$ on )u$ 1', '&&(.

Accordin$, we cannot ive fu credence to these affidavits, which wereeecuted under suspicious circu-stances, and which contain aeationsunsupported /$ evidence. At /est, these affidavits are sef6servin. he$possess no pro/ative vaue.

A retraction does not necessari$ neate an earier decaration. :or thisreason, retractions are oo5ed upon with disfavor and do not auto-atica$ecude the oriina state-ent or decaration /ased soe$ on the

recantation. It is i-perative that a deter-ination /e first -ade as to which/etween the oriina and the new state-ents shoud /e iven weiht oraccorded /eief, app$in the enera rues on evidence. In this case,inas-uch as the$ re-ain /are aeations, the purported recantationsshoud not /e uphed.1%

Nevertheess, even assu-in the veracit$ of the affidavits of recantation,the eiti-ac$ of respondent as a a/or oraniation -ust /e affir-ed.4hie it is true that the withdrawa of support -a$ /e considered as aresination fro- the union, the fact re-ains that at the ti-e of the union<s










appication for reistration, the affiants were -e-/ers of respondent andthe$ co-prised -ore than the re?uired '&L -e-/ership for purposes ofreistration as a a/or union. Artice '%* of the 9a/or Code -ere$ re?uiresa '&L -ini-u- -e-/ership durin the appication for union reistration. Itdoes not -andate that a union -ust -aintain the '&L -ini-u--e-/ership re?uire-ent a throuhout its eistence.1*1avvphi1Respondent asserts that it had a tota of 1+% union -e-/ers at the ti-e itappied for reistration. wo na-es were repeated in respondent<s ist and

had to /e deducted, /ut the tota woud sti /e 1+1 union -e-/ers.:urther, out of the four na-es aeed to /e no oner connected withpetitioner, on$ two na-es shoud /e deeted fro- the ist since Diana#otia and .4. A-utan resined fro- petitioner on$ on #a$ 1&, '&&(and #a$ 1+, '&&(, respective$, or after respondent<s reistration hadaread$ /een ranted. hus, the tota union -e-/ership at the ti-e ofreistration was 1;8. Since the tota nu-/er of ran56and6fie e-po$ees atthat ti-e was ('>, 1;8 e-po$ees woud /e e?uivaent to %'L of the totaran56and6fie wor5ers co-pe-ent, sti ver$ -uch a/ove the -ini-u-re?uired /$ aw.:or the purpose of de6certif$in a union such as respondent, it -ust /eshown that there was -isrepresentation, fase state-ent or fraud in

connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and /$6awsor a-end-ents thereto= the -inutes of ratification= or, in connection withthe eection of officers, the -inutes of the eection of officers, the ist ofvoters, or faiure to su/-it these docu-ents toether with the ist of thenew$ eected6appointed officers and their posta addresses to the B9R.1(

he /are fact that two sinatures appeared twice on the ist of those whoparticipated in the oraniationa -eetin woud not, to our -ind, provide avaid reason to cance respondent<s certificate of reistration. hecanceation of a union<s reistration dou/tess has an i-pairin di-ensionon the riht of a/or to sef6oraniation. :or fraud and -isrepresentation to/e rounds for canceation of union reistration under the 9a/or Code, thenature of the fraud and -isrepresentation -ust /e rave and co-pein

enouh to vitiate the consent of a -aorit$ of union -e-/ers.In this case, we aree with the B9R and the CA that respondent coud nothave possi/$ co--itted -isrepresentation, fraud, or fase state-ents. heaeed faiure of respondent to indicate with -athe-atica precision thetota nu-/er of e-po$ees in the /arainin unit is of no -o-ent,especia$ as it was a/e to co-p$ with the '&L -ini-u- -e-/ershipre?uire-ent. Even if the tota nu-/er of ran56and6fie e-po$ees ofpetitioner is ('>, whie respondent decared that it shoud on$ /e *((, it

sti cannot /e denied that the atter woud have -ore than co-pied withthe reistration re?uire-ent.42ERE:ORE, the petition is DENIED. he assaied Dece-/er '&, '&&+Decision and the )une ;, '&&> Resoution of the Court of Appeas are

A::IR#ED. Costs aainst petitioner.SO ORDERED.






Documents

Heritage Mariwasa