FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246091. August 20, 2019.]
CITRA MINA SEAFOOD CORP. [NOW CITRA MINA CANNING CORP.], REPRESENTED BY JANNAH KRYSTIA H. LU, petitioner, vs.ATTY. BENJO SANTOS M. BENAVIDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY, AS DIRECTOR IV OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, SAMAHANG UNITED WORKERS OF CITRA MINA GROUP OF COMPANIES UNION [UWCMGCU], REPRESENTED BY JUMARY P. AREVALO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246091 (Citra Mina Seafood Corp. [now Citra Mina Canning Corp.], represented by Jannah Krystia H. Lu vs. Atty. Benjo Santos M. Benavidez, in his capacity, as Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment, Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union [UWCMGCU], represented by Jumary P. Arevalo)
This instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court arose from the suit filed by Citra Mina Seafoods Corp. (Citra Mina) to cancel the certificate of registration of Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union (Union) with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Facts of the Case
On August 4, 2013, Citra Mina received a Letter 2 from the Union requesting for its recognition as the sole bargaining agent of the rank and file employees. Said letter, however, failed to attach several documentary requirements such as the minutes of organizational meeting, articles of incorporation, constitution and by-laws, and list of members constituting at least 20% of the rank and file employees that the organization wishes to represent. In response, Citra Mina requested the Union for the foregoing documents. 3
Meanwhile, the Union filed a complaint for labor dispute against Citra Mina before the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB). Pending proceedings, the Union conducted a strike vote and commenced picketing and strike on November 13, 2013. As a result, Citra Mina filed a petition with DOLE seeking the cancellation of registration of the Union on the grounds of misrepresentation, false statements and fraud under Article 239 (a) 4 of the Labor Code, 5 and failure to provide documentary requirements for its registration as a labor organization. 6
Citra Mina argued that the Union misrepresented in its registration that it shall act as the bargaining agent of the employees from the company "Citra Mina Group of Companies." 7 However, there is no such company. To claim representation of rank and file employees of a non-existent company is to commit fraud. Citra Mina and its sister companies, who were petitioner-intervenors a quo, are separate and independent legal entities. The Union, therefore, cannot represent workers from different companies due to lack of commonality of interest. Further, inclusion of employees of different employers in a single union is illegal and improper.
In an Order 8 dated February 19, 2014, Regional Director Ofelia Domingo Ceso, III ruled in favor of Citra Mina and ordered the delisting of the Union from the roster of legitimate labor unions. The Regional Director held that two or more corporations cannot be considered as one bargaining unit. Citra Mina Group of Companies is not an employer unit but a group of employer units with several bargaining units. The corporations composing of Citra Mina Group of Companies are distinct and have separate legal personalities. The Regional Director held that the Union is fully aware of the composition of Citra Mina Groups of Companies, thus, the Union misrepresented in its application for registration, among other documents, that Citra Mina Group of Companies is its employer. The Union defrauded its members by registering a union in a non-appropriate bargaining unit. Further, the employees do not share a mutual interest within a given employer unit. The Regional Director held that "even assuming that the corporations' businesses are related and the employees of petitioner were transferred to [a sister company], it is not a basis for ignoring their separate personalities." 9
The Union appealed said decision with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). In a Decision 10 dated May 30, 2014, the BLR reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Director. The BLR held that using the name "Citra Mina Group of Companies" by the Union in its registration documents does not constitute misrepresentation, false statement or fraud to warrant de-registration. The name of the employer need not be couched with exact precision so long as the mistake is unintentional or in good faith. The BLR finds that there was no malice in using "Citra Mina Group of Companies." There is no requirement that the name of the union should specifically reflect the company's name or the workplace. The BLR held that a "confluence of events" made the employees think that the sister companies are officially the Citra Mina Group of Companies. For starters, the sister companies would hold themselves out as "Citra Mina Groups of Companies," through signboards, letter head of the Quality and Food Safety Management System Organizational Structure, letter head of notice of personnel action, company profile of one of the sister companies, and employee identification cards (ID). There were also incidents of transfer of regular employees of petitioner Citra Mina in the same compound with other sister companies, and assignment of more or less 50 production regular workers to another sister company. Thus, the Union simply made a mistake in the use of "Citra Mina Groups of Companies" in its registration documents. The BLR held that for a petition for de-registration under the ground of misrepresentation to prosper, the nature of fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of the majority of union members and to deceive the issuing authority, such that without the misrepresentation, the certificate of registration would not have been issued. 11 The BLR further held in its Resolution 12 dated July 28, 2015 that, should the use of "Citra Mina Groups of Companies" affect the good will or misinform the workers joining the organization, the remedy is not to cancel the union's registration but to amend the name. The BLR also held that comingling of union members who belong to another bargaining unit is also not a ground to cancel union registration. "Union registration is one thing, bargaining is another. The issue of appropriateness of bargaining unit is not an issue in union registration but in representation and collective bargaining." 13 The BLR emphasized that fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration are serious charges and deserve close scrutiny. Charges of such nature must be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
Aggrieved by the decision, Citra Mina filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the BLR Decision in its Decision 14 dated May 10, 2018. The CA held that fraud or misrepresentation is neither grave or compelling. The Union used the name "Citra Mina Group of Companies" to identify its employer because that is what is stated in the company employees' ID. Reliance of the Union with regard to the propriety of the usage of the name is understandable and in good faith. Citra Mina as the issuer of the company ID's and other documents which the Union relied on, essentially estops Citra Mina from claiming that the corporate name "Citra Mina Group of Companies" is a false one. The CA held that the findings of the BLR is adequately supported by substantial evidence and that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion. 15
Thus, Citra Mina files the instant petition with this Court.
Petitioner Citra Mina reiterates that the Union is aware that Citra Mina Group of Companies is composed of several, independent companies. Contrary to the discussion of the BLR as affirmed by the CA, misrepresentation is immediately apparent in the name used by the Union and goes "deeply into [the] creation of the labor organization." 16 The "Union represented to their members that they can represent all of the employees of [Citra Mina and its sister companies.] [S]uch representation is already fraudulent as [the Union] made it appear to its members that it can represent all of the employees of four different corporate legal entities by making it appear that all four [companies] are allegedly just one company." 17 Citra Mina argues that since the Union fraudulently misrepresented their membership, "it can be said that there was already misrepresentation and fraud in the adoption of their Constitution." 18 That the Union purposely withheld to present the documents surrounding its registration in order to conceal its defects, particularly, the comingling of employees from different groups, i.e., rank and file employees, security personnel and supervisory employees. Treating it as a single bargaining unit is arbitrary and untenable considering that there are four corporate personalities. Judicial precedents have explained that there is grave abuse of discretion to treat two companies as a single bargaining unit when the companies indubitably are distinct entities. Finally, Citra Mina reiterates that Citra Mina Group of Companies does not have legal personality. 19
The Union claims that its registration to represent employees of the "Citra Mina Group of Companies" is proper considering that the sister companies have held themselves out to the public as such group of companies through the issued employees' IDs, signboards, letterhead in the notices, letterhead of the Quality and Food Safety Management System Organizational Structure and company profile, assignment of more or less 50 Citra Mina employees, and geographical location of the sister companies in one compound.
The foregoing incidents cited by the Union should not be the sole basis to uphold the Union's registration as representative of the employees from multiple-employers. What is also important is to pass "[t]he basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit[, which] is the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial mutual, interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining." 20 From Citra Mina's allegations, the Union has disqualified members coming from different sectors or classifications of employees, particularly, the commingling of security personnel, rank and file and supervisory employees. This runs contrary to the definition of an appropriate bargaining unit. Thus, the Union must prove that it represents a communal interest among its members who belong in the same classification or grouping of employees. Albeit that the Union's members may come from different employers which compose Citra Mina Group of Companies, what is more important is that there is a communal or mutual representation of interests of the employees from the same group or class. "The more solid the employees are, the stronger is their bargaining capacity." 21
In line with protecting the constitutional right of workers to self-organization, 22 this Court considers it more prudent that instead of delisting outright the Union from the roster of legitimate labor organizations, the appropriate recourse would be to allow the Union to show proof that its members (1) belong in the same grouping or class of employees, and (2) have communal or mutual interests, which is the backbone of an appropriate bargaining unit.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to REMAND the instant case to the Bureau of Labor Relations for receipt of evidence of the Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union's representation of its members to show that the same is an appropriate bargaining unit.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J.andGesmundo, J.,both on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-25.
2.Id. at 45.
3.Id. at 47.
4. Art. 247 [239]. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. — The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
xxx xxx xxx
5. Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered). A Decree Instituting a Labor Code Thereby Revising and Consolidating Labor and Social Laws to Afford Protection to Labor, Promote Employment and Human Resources Development and Insure Industrial Peace Based on Social Justice.
6.Rollo, p. 15.
7.Id. at 18.
8. Penned by Regional Director Ofelia B. Domingo, Ceso III; id. at 48-52.
9.Id. at 51.
10. Penned by Officer-in-Charge Atty. Benjo Santos M. Benavidez; id. at 54-63.
11.Id. at 60-62.
12.Id. at 64-67.
13.Id. at 66.
14. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Walter S. Ong, concurring; id. at 30-39.
15.Id. at 38-39.
16.Id. at 20.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 21.
19.Id. at 16-24.
20.Lee v. Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination, 800 Phil. 228, 242-243 (2016).
21.Id. at 243.
22. CONSTITUTION, Art. XIII, Sec. 3.