10. YOKOHAMA v.

YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations, false statements or
[G.R. No. 163532. March 10, 2010.] fraud in connection with the election of its o􏰁cers, or with the minutes of the
By: EAY III election of o􏰁cers, or in the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c), Labor
Topic: Labor Organizations and Registration of Unions Code. But, as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, and We fully
Petitioner: YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC agree with him, the petitioner simply failed to discharge its burden.
Respondent: YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION  YTPI, being the one which 􏰁led the petition for the revocation of YEU's registration,
Ponente: CARPIO, J. had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI
had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations — that YEU fraudulently
FACTS failed to remove Pineda's signature from the organizational documents and that YEU
1. Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor organization of the rank-and-􏰁le fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.
employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (YTPI).  The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in
2. YEU was registered as a legitimate labor union on 10 September 1999. securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious
3. YEU filed before the Regional O􏰁ce a petition for certi􏰁cation election. because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights
4. YTPI filed before the Regional O􏰁ce a petition dated 24 January 2000 for the accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be
revocation of YEU's registration. clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
5. YTPI alleged that YEU violated Article 239 (a) 8 of the Labor Code
(1) YEU fraudulently included the signature of a certain Ronald O. Pineda Facts on the Fraud and Misrepresentation in the Case
(Pineda) in the organizational documents;  Anent whether an election of o􏰁cers was conducted or not, the petitioner relied
(2) Pineda was not aware of any election of union o􏰁cers; largely on the a􏰁davit of Pineda to substantiate its claim that no election of o􏰁cers
(3) YEU fraudulently obtained the employees' signatures by making them was held by the union.
believe that they were signing a petition for a 125% increase in the  However, respondent BLR Director accorded greater credence to Pineda's
minimum wage, not a petition for registration; handwritten statement, wherein he made references to at least 2 meetings he had
(4) the employees did not belong to a single bargaining unit; and attended during which he had signed the organizational documents, than to Pineda's
(5) YEU fraudulently stated in its organizational meeting minutes that its later affidavit, whereby he denied any knowledge of the holding of an election.
second vice president was Bernard David, not Bernardo David.
6. the Regional O􏰁ce granted the 24 January 2000 petition. The Regional O􏰁ce held WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 16 January 2004 Decision and 12 May
that YEU committed misrepresentation: 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65460.
(1) YEU failed to remove Pineda's signature from the organizational
documents despite instructions to do so; and
(2) YEU declared that it conducted an election of union officers when, in truth,
it did not.
7. YEU appealed the 18 December 2000 Decision to the BLR. the BLR reversed the 18
December 2000 Decision.
8. YTPI 􏰁led before the BLR an MR - denied
9. YTPI certiorari in the CA - denied

ISSUE: W/N YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation
- YES

RATIO:
Burden of Proof
 YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation
 The cancellation of union registration at the employer's instance, while permitted,
must be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong
to a legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such
membership will not be denied to the employees.
 As the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to present
proof su􏰁cient to warrant the cancellation. The petitioner was thus expected to