Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
DONG SEUNG
INCORPORATED, |
|
G.R. No. 162356 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS, |
|
NACHURA, and |
|
HANS LEO J.
CACDAC, Director |
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
and NAMAWU Local
188 – Dong |
|
|
|
Seung Workers |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
April 14, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the
Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the September
26, 2003 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA), which affirmed the dismissal of the petition of Dong Seung
Incorporated (petitioner) for cancellation of the registration of NAMAWU Local
188-Dong Seung Workers Union (respondent union); and the February 23,
2004 CA Resolution[2] which denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
The facts now in
dispute are as follows:
On July 10, 2000, petitioner filed
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Region IV a Petition[3] for cancellation of the union registration of respondent
union on the
grounds that the List of Officers and Constitution and By-laws which the
respondent union attached to
its application for union registration contain the union secretary's
certification but the same is not under oath, contrary to Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor
Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997;[4] and that, as shown in a Sinumpaang Petisyon,[5] 148 out of approximately 200
employees-members have since denounced respondent union for employing deceit in
obtaining signatures to support its registration application.[6]
After
hearing the petition, DOLE (Region IV) Regional Director Ricardo Martinez, Sr. issued an Order dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
herein petition is granted. Likewise, Charter Certificate [of] NAMAWU-Local 188
is hereby delisted from the roster of legitimate
labor organization[s] in this jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Respondent union appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on
The BLR
gave due course to the appeal and granted the same in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is
hereby GRANTED. The Order of the Regional Director, DOLE-Region IV dated
SO
RESOLVED.[10]
After
its motion for reconsideration[11] was denied by the BLR,[12] petitioner filed with the CA
a Petition for Certiorari,[13] insisting that the BLR acted with grave abuse of
discretion in giving due course to respondent
union’s appeal despite its having been filed out of
time. To prove its claim, petitioner attached a
Certification dated February 8, 2001 issued by Acting Postmaster Edwin O.
Mendoza, stating that “registered letter x x x no. 1062
addressed to Jeorge [sic] Villamarin
was received on December 8, 2000 and delivered on December 8, 2000 and received
by Evelyn Villamarin;”[14] showing that the latter had only until December 18, 2000
to appeal.
The CA dismissed the petition in its herein assailed
Hence, the present petition.
The
Court gave due course to the petition and, in compliance with its Resolution
dated
As may be gleaned from its Memorandum, petitioner assails the CA Decision and
Resolution on the grounds that:
I. The CA erred in affirming the BLR when it
gave due course to respondent’s belated appeal;[15]
II. The CA erred in not finding that the BLR
acted with bias; [16] and
III. The CA erred in sustaining the BLR when it
declared respondent’s union registration valid.[17]
The
Court finds no such reversible error in the CA Decision and Resolution.
On the timeliness of respondent union’s appeal to
the BLR
The BLR found respondent
union’s appeal tardy yet gave due course to it on
account of its inherent merit.[18] The CA found respondent union’s appeal to have “substantially complied with the
requirements provided by law.”[19]
Petitioner insists that, based on the Certification of
Acting Postmaster Mendoza, respondent union had only until December 18, 2000 to appeal for it
received the December 1, 2000 DOLE
Region IV Order as early as December 8, 2000.[20]
The timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue as it
requires a review or evaluation of evidence on when the judgment was actually
received and the appeal filed. The Court
cannot entertain such factual issue in a proceeding under Rule 45 for it does
not try facts nor evaluate evidence,[21] much less in the present case where the only evidence
submitted by petitioner on the issue of timeliness consists of a certification
by Acting Postmaster Mendoza which is of dubious authenticity as it is a plain
photocopy, completely deviod of any marking or note
of authentication. Moreover, the certification is woefully lacking in
material details - such as the exact nature and origin of the letter that was
purportedly sent to Jorge Villamarin and the date it
was received by Evelyn Villamarin - that it could not be reasonably concluded that what
was sent and received was actually the December 1, 2000 DOLE Region IV
Order. Therefore,
the certification alone cannot serve as basis for the reversal of the findings
of the CA.[22]
On the alleged bias of the BLR
Without
elaborating, petitioner also criticizes what it claims to be the personal bias
and self-interest of BLR as shown by its “hasty” resolution of respondent union’s appeal.[23] The Court fails
to see why the BLR’s speedy resolution of an appeal
should be taken against it. For as long
as the BLR observes due process, its proceedings cannot be impugned merely for
being expeditious.[24] It is of record
that the BLR allowed petitioner every opportunity to be heard. In fact, the latter was able to file a motion to dismiss
the appeal and a motion for reconsideration of the
On the validity of respondent union’s
registration
Petitioner
insists that the BLR erred in its interpretation of the requirement that the
union secretary’s certification of all the documents for union registration be
under oath.[25]
The
requirement that the union secretary certify under oath all documents and
papers filed in support of an application for union registration is imposed by Article 235
of the Labor Code, to wit:
Art. 235. Action on application. The
Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within thirty (30) days
from filing.
All
requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary
or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by
its president.
DOLE
Region IV cancelled the registration of respondent union on the ground that the secretary’s certification of
the correctness of the List of Officers and the Constitution and By-laws
attached to the application is not under oath, viz:
Considering that the respondent union failed to
submit its answer or comment to the petition to controvert the allegations that
although it submitted the list of union officers and Constitution and By laws
which was attested to by the president but not duly sworn and subscribed under
oath by the Secretary or Treasurer is a fatal defect that would warrant the withholding of status of
legitimacy to the local union or chapter as held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Progressive Development Corp. vs. Honorable Secretary of Labor and
Employment.[26] (Emphasis
supplied)
In
reversing DOLE Region IV, the BLR cited its Advisory,[27] dated
Pursuant to Rule XVII,
Section 1 of Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997 x x x. [T]he Bureau of Labor Relations is empowered, consistent with the State policy
to promote unionism, to “devise or prescribe such forms as are necessary to
facilitate the process of registration of labor organizations x x x,” including the
chartering of locals or chapters. Accordingly, the Bureau has devised and
transmitted to the Regional Offices the appropriate official registration
forms, particularly the following:
x x x x
5. BLR Reg. Form No. 5-LOC-LO. S.
1998 For Chartering Locals/ Chapters
x x x x
Part I of each of the first seven
forms is a space provided for the notarization of the application x x x. However, considering that applicants are not yet fully
familiar with the forms in spite of orientation and seminar conducted, some
applications have been submitted without using the forms prescribed by the
Bureau. In lieu of submitting a notarized application using the official forms,
some applicants comply with the requirements by having their supporting
documents separately notarized.
To prevent inconvenience to the
public, particularly to the applicants, the Regional Offices are hereby advised that applications
submitted with supporting documents which are separately notarized need not
comply with the notarization requirement under Part I or Part II, as the case
may be, of the prescribed forms. x x x
Accordingly, the absence of notarization under
Part I or Part II of the appropriate forms shall not be a basis for denying
applications where it appears that all the required supporting documents have
already been notarized or attested. (Emphasis supplied)
The BLR
explained that under the foregoing Advisory, the certification issued by
respondent union’s secretary
may be notarized either separately or along with the main application. The BLR
noted that respondent union correctly availed of the second option:
A perusal of the registration records of the
[respondent] revealed that respondent’s registration application was sufficient
in form and substance, having been notarized as provided in the BLR official
forms. (Atty. Manuel E. Robles notarized such application on
8 February 1999 at Cavite City.) All the other
supporting documents to the charter certificate issued by the National Mines
and Allied Workers Union were certified true and correct by the secretary and attested
to by the president.
Thus, from the standpoint of
compliance, [respondent] x x x
submitted
all the documentary requirements for the creation of a local/chapter in
accordance with Section 1, Rule VI, D.O. 9 series of 1997.[28] (Emphasis supplied)
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
Petitioner
cannot rely on the ruling of the Court in Progressive
Development Corporation v. DOLE Secretary[30] as said case is hardly germane to the present case. For one, Progressive
Development Corporation involved a petition for
certification of election,
and not a petition for cancellation of union registration. Thus, the Court merely restrained action on the petition for
certification filed by the local union whose legitimacy was under question, but
did not cancel the registration of said union.
Moreover, the defect in the registration of the said union consisted of
the utter lack of a secretary's certification under oath. On the other hand, in the present case, the
documents filed by respondent union contain the requisite secretary's certification which,
along with the entire application, was found by the BLR to have been duly
notarized.
The
second ground cited by DOLE Region IV in canceling the registration of
respondent union is that the
latter allegedly committed misrepresentation in securing the signatures of its
members:
Considering further
that the respondent failed to refute the “Sinumpaang Petisyon” executed by 148 out of 200 employees of the
petitioner company that they were made to sign a blank sheet of paper
purportedly to be used to request a dialogue with the president of the company
which turned out later the signatures were misused and misrepresented to form a
local union under NAMAWU constitute grave misrepresentation in violation of
par. (A) of Article 239 of the Labor Code as amended,
a valid ground for
cancellation of union registration.[31]
The CA
and BLR, on the other hand, assign no credence to the Sinumpaang Petisyon for it is a mere photocopy,[32] the genuineness and due
execution of which cannot be reasonably ascertained. Moreover, citing Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. Secretary of Labor,[33] the BLR held that it has reason to be
wary of the Sinumpaang Petisyon for the withdrawal of support by the alleged signatories
to the petition may have been “procured through duress, coercion, or for a
valuable consideration.”
The
Court adopts the foregoing observations of the CA and BLR.
Another factor which
militates against the veracity of the allegations in the Sinumpaang Petisyon is the lack of particularities on how, when and where
respondent union perpetrated
the alleged fraud on each member.[34] Such details
are crucial for in the proceedings for cancellation of union registration on
the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, what needs to be established is that the specific act or
omission of the union deprived the complaining employees-members of their right
to choose.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED.
No
costs.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate
Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Arsenio J. Magpale; rollo,
p. 27.
[2]
[3] CA
rollo, p. 16.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Memorandum,
rollo, pp. 142-143.
[16]
[17]
[18] BLR
Decision, CA rollo,
p. 61.
[19] Memorandum,
rollo, p. 135.
[20]
[21]
National Power Corporation v. Degamo,
G.R. No. 164602,
[22] Verceles v. Bureau of Labor
Relations-Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region, G.R. No. 152322,
February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 338, 354; St. James School of Quezon City v. Samahang Manggagawa
sa St. James School of Quezon
City,
G.R. No. 151326, November 23, 2005,
476 SCRA 12, 19.
[23] Petition, rollo, p. 20.
[24] Sarapat v. Salanga, G.R. No. 154110,
[25] Memorandum,
rollo, p. 141.
[26] DOLE
Region IV Order, CA rollo,
p. 42.
[27]
[28]
[29] Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International Communication Corporation,
G.R. No. 135992, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 163,
166-167; Cemco Holdings, Inc. v. National
Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 171815, August 7, 2007, 529
SCRA 355, 372.
[30] G.R. No.
96425,
[31] Rollo, pp. 76-77.
[32] CA rollo, pp. 32-39.
[33] 356 Phil. 141 (1998).
[34]