Sun Ever Light Philippines, Inc. v. Sun Ever Light Philippines Labor Union-Independent

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171588. October 21, 2015.]

SUN EVER LIGHT PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,vs. SUN EVER LIGHT PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 21, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 171588 — SUN EVER LIGHT PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, v. SUN EVER LIGHT PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT, respondent. — The Court resolves to NOTE the letter dated September 1, 2015 of Teresa P. Gajo, Records Officer III, Officer-in-Charge, Archives Section, Court of Appeals, transmitting the Court of Appeals rollo in CA-G.R. SP No. 87089 with 512 pages, with thereto attached Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari and original records.

In this appeal, the employer continues its challenge against the respondent's juridical existence as a labor organization by assailing the adverse decision promulgated on November 23, 2005 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 87089 entitled Sun Ever Light Philippines, Inc., versus Hon. Hans Leo Cacdac, in his capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and Sun Ever Light Philippines Labor Union-Independent, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal of its petition for the cancellation of the respondent's registration as a labor organization.

But first, let us review the factual and procedural antecedents.

After applying for registration as a legitimate labor organization on March 5, 2002, 2 and being granted Certificate of Registration No. RO400-200203-UR-003, 3 respondent Sun Ever Light Philippines Labor Union-Independent filed on March 18, 2002 its petition for certification election as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the petitioner's rank-and-file employees. As expected, the petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that the petition did not comply with the requirements under Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997, of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On August 5, 2002, the Med-Arbiter granted the petitioner's motion to dismiss, but, on appeal, DOLE Secretary Patricia S. Sto. Tomas reversed the Med-Arbiter. The petitioner assailed the reversal by petition for certiorari in the CA. 4 aICcHA

Meanwhile, the petitioner initiated the cancellation of the respondent's registration on January 28, 2004, citing as grounds that: (a) the respondent, although established for rank-and-file employees, included two supervisory employees as members; (b) fraud attended the ratification of the respondent's constitution and by-laws; (c) no organizational meeting took place among the respondent's members; and (d) failure to submit the respondent's book of accounts for 2003. 5 On May 15, 2004, DOLE Regional Director Maximo B. Lim denied the petition for cancellation. 6 Thus, the petitioner appealed the denial, but on July 1, 2004 Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirmed the ruling of Regional Director Lim, 7 stating that the petitioner did not establish the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation; and that the mixture of supervisors with rank-and-file employees did not affect the legitimacy of the respondent as a labor union. On September 14, 2004, Director Cacdac denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, observing that the lack of verification or attestation on the documents was a merely formal defect that did not constitute a ground for the cancelation of the respondent's registration under Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, the governing law at the time of the petitioner's registration. 8 Again, the petitioner went to the CA by petition for certiorari (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 87089) to challenge the adverse outcome of the petition for cancellation.

On November 23, 2005, 9 the CA promulgated its assailed decision by dismissing the petition for certiorari. It declared that the respondent, having been validly issued the certificate of registration, had already acquired juridical personality that could not be assailed collaterally; that the inclusion of supervisory employees among the membership of the union was not a ground for the cancellation of the union registration unless the inclusion amounted to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239, Labor Code; and that the petitioner did not show that the respondent had committed fraud and misrepresentation, or that the functions discharged by union members Melanie De Leon and Rocela Dominguez as sub-group leader and line leader, respectively, had been supervisory in nature. 10

Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, 11 the petitioner appeals, insisting as follows:

I

. . . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE RAISED BY PETITIONER AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE UNION, BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION UNDER ARTICLE 235 OF THE LABOR CODE, AS IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 1, RULE IV, BOOK V, DOLE DEPARTMENT ORDER 40-03 ISSUED BY DOLE, WHICH ARE GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN THAT —

(A) ALL THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HAVE NEITHER CERTIFICATION UNDER OATH BY THE SECRETARY OR TREASURER NOR ANY ATTESTATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT UNION WHEN THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE BLRC, NOR UP TO THIS TIME, TO WIT:

(1) LAGDA NG SUPORTA SA SERTIPIKASON . . .;

(2) MGA LAGDA NG REGULAR NA MANGGAGAWA SA SUN EVER LIGHT PHILS., INC. NA DUMALO SA PULONG PANGKALAHATAN . . .;

(3) SALIGANG BATAS AT ALITUNTUNIN NG SUN EVER LIGHT PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT (COMBINED ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION AND BY-LAWS OF THE UNION) . . .

(4) KATITIKAN NG PULONG PANGKALAHATAN, OFFICIALS IN THE LIST/ADDRESS (MINUTES OF ORGANIZATION MEETING) . . .

(B) THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE UNION IS NOT RELIABLE AND IS DEEMED NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW AND IMPLEMENTING RULES;

II

. . . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT UNION IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REGISTRATION, INCLUDING NON-DISCLOSURE OR CONCEALMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING, DEFRAUDING, OR CAUSING ANOTHER TO RELY ON IT DETRIMENTALLY, ESTABLISHED AND OUTLINED IN THIS PETITION

III

. . . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT TWO (2) EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT RANK-AND-FILE UNION WERE SUPERVISORS, WHICH AMOUNTED TO MISREPRESENTATION, AND THEIR MIXED MEMBERSHIP OF SAID UNION [sic] IS A GROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF RESPONDENT UNION 12

The petitioner insists that the requirement under Article 235 13 of the Labor Code for the verification and attestation of the documents accompanying the union's application was not a mere formal requisite but was indispensable to the acquisition of legitimacy by a labor organization; 14 that the requirement for the accompanying documents to be verified under oath had always been imposed under Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, and Article 235 of the Labor Code; that the financial statement submitted by the respondent did comply with the generally accepted accounting principles, and was thus unreliable; 15 and that the respondent was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in the conduct of the general assembly and the ratification of its constitution and by-laws. 16 EHaASD

The respondent counters that: (a) the lack of verification or attestation was not a ground for cancellation of union registration under Department Order No. 9, series of 1997; 17(b) the petitioner engaged in speculation in alleging that the respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation; (c) the affidavit of its president stated that the date indicated as the date of the general assembly had been the result of typographical error; 18 and (d) the positions occupied by De Leon and Dominguez were not supervisory in nature because they did not require the use of independent judgment. 19

The issue to be resolved is whether the registration of the respondent could be cancelled based on: (a) its failure to submit verified documents in support of and attached to its application for union registration; (b) the commingling or mixture of supervisory employees with rank-and-file employees; and (c) fraud and misrepresentation having been allegedly committed during the general assembly and the ratification of its constitution and by-laws.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritless.

First of all, the petitioner's insistence that all the documents accompanying the application for registration should be certified under oath pursuant to Article 235 of the Labor Code did not support its contention that the registration of the respondent as a labor union was fatally defective. We have held in Dong Seung Incorporated v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 20 indeed, that the notarization of the union's application for registration extended to the supporting attachments submitted by the labor union, viz.:

Indeed, all that Article 235 requires is that the secretary's certification be under oath. It does not prescribe a specific manner of its notarization. Based on its interpretation of Article 235, the BLR, in its October 14, 1998 Advisory, allows for the wholesale notarization of a union's application for registration and recognizes the effects thereof even on the attachments, including the secretary's certification. This is a reasonable interpretation considering that the form of notarization contemplated in said Advisory adequately serves the purpose of Article 235, which is to forestall fraud and misrepresentation. More importantly, such interpretation of the BLR is accorded great weight by the Court for it is said agency which is vested with authority and endowed with expertise to implement the law in question. 21

It appears that the respondent's application for union registration was undoubtedly notarized. 22 As such, the notarization, as attested to by its president, 23 extended to the accompanying documents that the petitioner alleged to be unverified. 24

Secondly, the petitioner's assertion, that the mixture of supervisory and rank and file employees invalidated the respondent union's registration, is unwarranted. Considering that the rule prevailing at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election shall determine whether or not commingling will result in the cancellation of a labor organization's registration, 25 the applicable rule when the respondent union filed its petition for certification election on March 28, 2002 was DOLE Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997, which removed the requirement for indicating in the petition for certification election that there was no commingling of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in the membership of the labor union. It is significant to note that DOLE Department Order No. 9 did not include mixture or commingling as a ground for cancelling the registration of a labor union. Accordingly, the mixture or commingling of rank-and-file and supervisory employees had no bearing on the legitimacy of the respondent as a labor union, unless the mixture or commingling constituted misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 26 of the Labor Code. 27

Thirdly, the petitioner's allegations of fraud and misrepresentation during the conduct of the general assembly and the ratification of the respondent's constitution and by-laws, being undeniably speculative, should be dismissed. Worthy of emphasis is that fraud and misrepresentation, to be considered as grounds for the cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of the majority of the members. 28 This standard demands that the petitioner as the party alleging fraud and misrepresentation must clearly establish its allegations by competent evidence. 29 Yet, the petitioner failed in this regard.

Finally, the BLR does not exercise merely ministerial functions in the registration of a labor union. As pointed out in S.S. Ventures International, Inc. v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union, 30 it becomes mandatory on the part of the BLR to determine whether the requirements under Article 234 of the Labor Code have been complied with by the applicant labor organization. The issuance by the BLR of the certificate of registration in favor of the applicant labor union necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities. 31 In the absence of proof that the BLR was remiss in discharging its duty, therefore, the legitimacy of respondent Sun Ever Light Philippines Labor Union remains indisputable. DaIAcC

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 23, 2005; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."PEREZ, J., on official business; VELASCO, JR., J., acting member per S.O. No. 2253 dated October 14, 2015.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 51-59; penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (later Presiding Justice) and Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. concurring.

2. Id. at 154.

3. Id. at 252.

4. Id. at 53.

5. Id. at 53-54.

6. Id. at 126-130.

7. Id. at 122-125.

8. Id. at 119-120.

9. Supra note 1.

10. Id. at 58.

11. Rollo, pp. 61-62.

12. Id. at 15-17.

13. Now Article 242 pursuant to Republic Act No. 10151 (See DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015).

14. Rollo, pp. 20-29.

15. Id. at 31-33.

16. Id. at 39-40.

17. Id. at 258.

18. Id. at 262-267.

19. Id. at 268-270.

20. G.R. No. 162356, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 211.

21. Id. at 220.

22. Rollo, p. 154 (The application for registration attested by the respondent's president was notarized on March 5, 2002 by Atty. Fernando M. Alonzo).

23. Id.

24. Id. at 155-173 (the accompanying documents were, namely: the Lagda ng Suporta sa Sertipikasyon; Mga Lagda ng Regular na Manggagawa sa Sun Ever Light Phils., Inc. na Dumalo sa Pulong Pangkalahatan; Saligang Batas at Alituntunin ng Sun Ever Light Philippine Labor-Union Independent; and Katitikan ng Pulong Pangkalahatan).

25. Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 386, 397.

26. Supra note 13.

27. Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003, 395 SCRA 699, 709.

28. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 706, 716.

29. Heritage Hotel Manila (Owned and Operated by Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation) v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (PIGLAS-HERITAGE), G.R. No. 177024, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 789, 796.

30. G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 435.

31. Id. at 444.