it.
The right to form or join a labor
3. SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA V. BLR
SUMMARY: SAMAHAN filed an application
for registration of the name “Samahan ng
Mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” with
the DOLE, but Hanjin filed a petition praying
for the cancellation of registration of
SAMAHAN’s association on the ground that
its members did not fall under any of the
types of workers enumerated in the second
sentence of Article 243. Hanjin filed a
supplemental petition, adding that the
alternative ground that SAMAHAN
committed misrepresentation in connection
with the list of members and/or voters who
took part in the ratification of their
constitution and by-laws in its application for
registration. DOLE Regional Director and CA
ruled to cancel. Main issue is WoN Samahan
can form a worker’ association of employees
in Hanjin. The Court ruled in the affirmative
stating that the right to self-organization
includes the right to form a union, workers’
association, and labor management councils.
In the case at bench, the Court cannot
sanction the opinion of the CA that Samahan
should have formed a union for purposes of
collective bargaining instead of a worker’s
association because the choice belonged to
organization necessarily includes the right to
refuse or refrain from exercising the said
right. It is self-evident that just as no one
should be denied the exercise of a right
granted by law, so also, no one should be
compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
DOCTRINE: As Article 246 (now 252) of the
Labor Code provides, the right to self-
organization includes the right to form, join
or assist labor organizations for the purpose
of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in lawful concerted activities for the
same purpose for their mutual aid and
protection.; The right to form or join a labor
organization necessarily includes the right to
refuse or refrain from exercising the said
right. It is self-evident that just as no one
should be denied the exercise of a right
granted by law, so also, no one should be
compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
4. ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES INK V.
UNDERSECRETARY LAGUESMA
SUMMARY: The supervisory, administrative
personnel, production, accounting and
confidential employees of the ALSI affiliated
with Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino
(Kampil-Katipunan), a national labor intent of the law is clear especially where, as

organization. Kampil-Katipunan filed on in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-
behalf of the “supervisors” union a petition mingling with those employees whom they
for certification election so that it could be directly supervise in their own bargaining

the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of unit.

the supervisory employees. ALSI opposed
Kampil-Katipunan’s petition claiming that 5. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V. TAGAYTAY

under Art. 245 of the Labor Code, Kampil- HIGHLANDS UNION

Katipunan cannot represent the supervisory

employees for collective bargaiing purposes SUMMARY: A petition for certification
because Kampil-Katipunan also represents election was filed by THEU with the Med-

the rank-and-file employees’ union. The Arbiter which was opposed by THIGCI. The
issue in this case is WoN there was a latter argued that that the list of union

violation of the respondent’s right to self- members was fatally defective because: (a) it
organize. included the names and signatures of
The court ruled in the negative. There is no supervisors, resigned, terminated, and AWOL

violation of such a guarantee to the employees; (b) employees of The Country

employees. Club, Inc., a separate corporation from
DOCTRINE: Supervisors are not prohibited THIGCI; and (c) that out of the 192

from forming their own union. What the law signatories to the petition, only 71 were

prohibits is their membership in a labor actual rank-and-file employees. THIGCI also

organization of rank-and-file employees (Art. alleged that some signatures were procured
245, Labor Code) or their joining a national through fraud and it also submitted
federation of rank-and-file employees that handwritten denials and withdrawals of some
includes the very local union which they are of the employees participating. Lastly, they

not allowed to directly join. The prohibition alleged that some signatures were procured
extends to a supervisors' local union through fraud and it also submitted

applying for membership in a national handwritten denials and withdrawals of some

federation the members of which include of the employees participating. On the other
local unions of rank-and-file employees. The hand, THEU asserted that it was already
granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE. disagrees with THIGCI. After a certificate of

Med-Arbiter Bactin upheld the arguments of registration is issued to a union, its legal
THEU, saying that the documents submitted personality cannot be subject to collateral
show that THEU is a legitimate labor attack. It may only be questioned in an

federation and the chapter was duly independent petition for cancellation. Again,
reported as an affiliate chapter. THIGCI for the argument that some signatures were
appealed to the Office of the DOLE Sec and obtained through fraud, THIGCI should have

the latter reversed the Med-Arbiter’s order, filed a petition for cancellation of the

stating that there is a clear absence of certificate of registration, and not to

community or mutuality of interests. THEU invervene in a petition for certification
filed an MR and DOLE Usec Dimalipis-Baldoz election. For the issue regarding the alleged

reversed the aforementioned order, withdrawal of union members, jurisprudence

upholding the statements of the Med- has declared that the best forum for

Arbiter. The issue is W/N THIGCI can determining such retractions is in the
collaterally attack THEU’s legitimacy? No certification election itself.
because THEU is already regognized as a DOCTRINE: Since THEU was already issued a

legtimiate labor union. Art. 245 of the Labor certificate of registration, its personality
Code expressly prohibits supervisory cannot be attacked collaterally.
employees from forming a union with rank-

and-file employees, but it doesn’t state the 6. SAN MIGUEL CORP UNION V. SAN

effect if a rank-and-file union counts MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS

supervisory employees as members, and EMPLOYEES
vice-versa. Jurisprudence has held that a
labor organization composed of both types SUMMARY: SMCE is the incumbent
of employees is not a labor organization at bargaining agent of the bargaining unit of

all. Now, THIGCI argues that before even the three divisions of San Miguel
allowing a certification election, there is a Corporation. SMPP was a registered chapter

need to inquire into the composition of any of PDMP, a registered trade union. SMPP
labor organization whenever its status is filed three petitions to represent the three
challenged based on Art. 245. The SC divisions of San Miguel Corporation, but was
dismissed. SMCE, afterwards, filed a petition
to cancel the registration of SMPP as a
legitimate labor organization, on the
grounds of fraid, falsification, and non-
compliance with registration requirements,
specifically, submitting a list of 20% of the
members of the bargaining unit it seeks to
represent. SMCE also claims that PDMP
cannot make a local chapter as it is a trade
union. The DOLE Regional Director ruled that
PDMP is allowed to make a local chapter, but
SMPP did not follow the 20% requirement.
SMPP appealed to the BLR, and the BLR
ruled that SMPP is not required to comply
with the 20% requirement. The CA affirmed
the ruling of the BLR. The issue before the SC
is whether SMPP is required to submit the
number of employees and names of all its
members comprising at least 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit where it
seeks to operate. YES. although PDMP as a
trade union center is a legitimate labor
organization, it has no power to directly
create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPP cannot
be created under the more lenient
requirements for chartering, but must have
complied with the more stringent rules for
creation and registration of an independent
union, including the 20% membership
requirement.
DOCTRINE: Under the pertinent status and
applicable implementing rules, the power
granted to labor organizations to directly
create a chapter or local through chartering
is given to a federation or national union,
HOWEVER it not expressly given to a trade
union center, thus such is without authority
to charter directly.
7. THE HERITAGE HOTEL V. PINAG-ISANG
GALING AT LAKAS
SUMMARY: In 2000, certain rank and file
employees of the Heritage Hotel Manila
formed Heritage Hotel Employees Union
(HHE union) which was issued a certificate of
registration by DOLE-NCR. The union later
filed for a petition for certification election
which was opposed by Heritage Hotel on the
basis of misrepresentation. The hotel alleges
that the union intentionally omitted the fact
that it was actually a local chapter of a
national union NUWHRAIN. Moreover,
Heritage Hotel filed a petition for
cancellation of the HHE union’s registration
certificate. While the Med-Arbiter granted
HHE’s petition, when the case reached the
CA a writ of injunction was issued against
holding HHE union’s certification election
until the petition for the cancellation of HHE
union’s registration has been resolved with granted a registration certificate, the union

finality. only needed 20% of the bargaining unit or

In 2003, another union was formed called 50 members. Thus, the discrepancy of 90 to
PIGLAS union which was also issued a 128 would not make a difference. Such

registration certificate. Two months later, discrepancy is immaterial.

HHE union filed for a cancellation of their There was also an issue on dual unionism
union registration. PIGLAS union also filed a where Heritage Hotel claimed that one

petition for certification election. This was cannot be a member of two unions. The SC

opposed by Heritage Hotel on the basis that ruled that since HHE union was dissolved.
the members of PIGLAS are the same as Such is moot and academic.
those in HHE, and that the former was made DOCTRINE: The charge that a labor

in order to circumvent the injunction against organization committed fraud and

the latter. Moreover, Heritage Hotel filed a misrepresentation in securing its registration

petition to cancel the union registration on is a serious charge and deserves close
the basis of misrepresentation as can be scrutiny. It is serious because once such
gleaned in documents submiited by PIGLAS charge is proved, the labor union acquires

(See Fact #13). The lower courts dismissed none of the rights accorded to registered
the petition. Hence, this petition for review organizations.
under 45. The issue is W/N there was

mispresentation in the case. The SC ruled NO 8. EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB V.

there isn’t. While there certainly are CA

discrepancies in the number of members
stated in the documents, the discrepancies SUMMARY: On Dec. 6, 2005, about 26 or at
can be explained. While only 90 members least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of
responded in the roll call at the beginning of Eagle Ridge had a meeting where they

the meeting, it cannot be assumed that the organized themselves into a labor union,
number of attendees did not increase as the EREU. They then applied for registration and

meeting went on –as reflected in the this was granted by the DOLE Regional
signature sheet for attendance-- because the Office IV. Afterwards, the union filed a
meeting was 12 hours long. Further, to be petition for certification election. Eagle Ridge
(employer) opposed. First, it opposed the
petition for certification election alleging
misrepresentation, false statements and/or
fraud. It said that (a) the application said 30
members, but in the minutes of the meeting,
there were only 26 members; (b) there was a
discrepancy between the certification issued
by the Union Secretary and the President,
which said that 25 members ratified the
Constitution and by-laws, and the fact that
there were 26 signatures (so may isang
forged daw), (c) and 5 employees executed
affidavits claiming that it was just a drinking
spree and that they were not aware of what
they signed. Then another one executed an
affidavit later on. So Eagle Ridge was saying
that the number of employees now falls
below the 20% threshold. They also filed a
petition for cancellation of certificate of
registration on the same grounds. The DOLE
Regional Director favored Eagle Ridge. BLR
ruled in favor of EREU. The CA denied the
appeal of Eagle Ridge saying that the
allegations were without any basis. The issue
in this case is WoN there was fraud and/or
misrepresentation on the part of the union,
warranting the cancellation of its certificate
of registration. SC held no. The union
submitted the required documents. The
mandatory minimum of 20% membership
was complied with. Discrepancies were
sufficiently explained: the 4 people were
admitted 2 days after the meeting. Thus, as
of the date of application for registration,
there were 30 members. There is also a
distinction between Art. 234(b) and (c). (b)
requires submission of the meetings and the
list of participants. (c) merely requires the
names of all union members comprising the
20%. These are different cause the number
of participants in the meeting does not neet
to be the same number of members in total.
The infirmity with the 4 members was
explained. Any infirmity should be viewed in
favor of valid membership. The difference
with the 25/26 ratifying members was a
typographical error. The affidavits of
retraction were inadmissible as evidence.
And even so, without them, the 20%
threshold would still be met. Lastly, the two
petitions had the same grounds.
DOCTRINE: Art. 234[c] requires the list of
names of all the union members of an
INDEPENDENT UNION comprising at least
20% of the bargaining unit. This should not
be equated with the list of workers who
participated in the organizational meetings
(Art.234 [b]). Subsequent affidavits of
retraction (withdrawal of membership) will
not retroact to the time of application for
registration or even way back to the
organizational meeting.
9. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA V. CHARTER
CHEMICAL
SUMMARY: Petitioner union filed a petition
for certification election among the regular
rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical
and Coating Corporation (respondent) with
the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE,
National Capital Region. On April 14, 1999,
respondent company filed an Answer with
Motion to Dismiss on 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. The Med-
Arbiter agreed with the respondent
company. Though the DOLE disagreed with
the Med-Arbiter on its findings regarding the
documentation requirements and the
inclusion of supervisory employees in the
union, it ruled that the petitioner union did
not file its petition on time. Another union
(Pinag isang lakas manggagawa),
supposedly, had filed a petition for
certification election and its petition has been
decided with finality. The CA upheld the
findings of the Med-Arbiter. Issues: 1.
Whether or not the Unions charter certificate
must be certified under oath? No. Section 1,
D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 requires that a
charter certificate be under oath. However, in
San Miguel Corporation case, which was
decided under D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we
ruled that it was not necessary for the charter
certificate to be certified and attested by the
local/chapter officers, since it does not make
sense to have the local/chapters officers
certify or attest to a document which they
had no hand in the preparation of. 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,
(2) the names of its officers, their addresses,
and its principal office, and (3) its constitution
and by-laws the last two requirements
having been executed under oath by the
proper union officials as borne out by the
records. 2. Whether or not the mingling of
supervisory employees with rank and file
employees nullifies the legal personality of
the union? 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. 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. Petition granted.
DOCTRINE: A Union’s charter certificate need
not be executed under oath. A labor Union’s
personality cannot be collaterally attacked in
a certification election proceeding. 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.
10. YOKOHAMA TIRE PH, INC. V.
YOKOHOMA EMPLOYEES UNION
SUMMARY: YEU filed a petition for
certification election. On the other hand, YTPI
filed a petition for revocation of YEU’s
registration based on alleged
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud
committed by YEU. YTPI alleged, among
others, that YEU fraudulently included the
signature of a certain Pineda in the
organizational documents and that YEU
fraudulently obtained the employees’
signatures by making them believe that they
were signing a petition for increade in the
minimum wage, not a petition for
registration. The Regional Office ruled in
favor of YTPI and held that there was
misrepresentation. On appeal, BLR and CA
both ruled in favor of YEU and held that YEU
did not commit fraud or misrepresentation.
Hence, this petition. The issues are (1) WON
the CA erred in finding that YEU did not
commit fraud or misrepresentation and (2)
WON the CA erred in holding that YTPI had
the burden of proving that YEU committed
fraud and misrepresentation. As regards the
first issue, the SC ruled that the
determination of the existence of fraud or
misrepresentation is a question of fact which
is not reviewable by the SC unless the case
falls under certain exceptions. The case does
not fall under exceptions which would
require the SC to review the facts of the case. those who participated in the organizational

As regards the second issue, the SC held that meeting, the adoption and ratification of its
YTPI, being the one which filed the petition Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election
for the revocation of YEU’s registration, had of officers mainly arguing that in an

the burden of proving that YEU committed organizational meeting of SALAMAT, only 68
fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI had the attendees signed the attendance sheet which
burden of proving the truthfulness of its comprised only 17% of the total number of

accusations—that YEU fraudulently failed to the 396 regular rank-and-file employees

remove Pineda’s signature from the which SALAMAT sought to represent, thus
organizational documents and that YEU failing to comply with the 20% minimum
fraudulently misrepresented that it membership requirement. SALAMAT denied

conducted an election of officers. the charge and countered that the 119 union
DOCTRINE: The charge that a labor members were more than the 20%

organization committed fraud and requirement for union registration. DOLE

misrepresentation in securing its registration Regional Director granted the petition for
is a serious charge and deserves close cancellation. BLR reversed the Order and

scrutiny. It is serious because once such found that Takata’s basis for the alleged
charge is proved, the labor union acquires non-compliance with the minimum
none of the rights accorded to registered membership requirement was the

organizations. Consequently, charges of this attendance of 68 members to the

nature should be clearly established by organizational meeting supposedly

evidence and the surrounding circumstances. comprising only 17% of the total 396 regular
rank-and-file employees. However, the list of
11. TAKATA PH V. BLR employees who participated in the
organizational meeting was a separate and

SUMMARY: Takata filed with the DOLE a distinct requirement from the list of the
Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of names of members comprising at least 20%

Union Registration of SALAMAT on the of the employees in the bargaining unit and
ground of misrepresentation, false statement that there was no requirement for signatures
and fraud with respect to the number of
opposite the names of the union members. Article 234 (b) and (c) provide for separate

CA affirmed. requirements, which must be submitted for

The issue is whether SALAMAT is guilty of union’s registration, and which SALAMAT did
fraud and misrepresentation warranting the submit. Here, the total number of employees

cancellation of the union registration to in the bargaining

which the Court ruled in the negative. Article unit was 396 – 20% of which is 79. SALAMAT
234 of the Labor Code provides for the submitted a document entitled “Pangalan ng

requirements of registration of labor unions. Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” showing the names

It requires, among others, the names of its of 119 employees as union members. Thus,
officers, their addresses, the principal address SALAMAT sufficiently complied even beyond
of the labor organization, the minutes of the the 20% minimum membership requirement.

organizational meetings and the list of the DOCTRINE: For fraud and misrepresentation
workers who participated in such meetings. to be grounds for cancellation of union

Further, it provides that in case the applicant registration under Article 239 of the Labor
is an independent union, the names of all its Code, the nature of the fraud and
members comprising at least twenty percent misrepresentation must be grave and

(20%) of all the employees in the bargaining compelling enough to vitiate the consent of
unit where it seeks to operate. It does not the majority of union members.
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. It is only
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.