THIRD DIVISION
|
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., Petitioner, - versus - THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF DOLE REGIONAL OFFICE NUMBER IV-A & SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MARIWASA
SIAM CERAMICS, INC. (SMMSC-INDEPENDENT), Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 183317
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and Promulgated: December
21, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Decision[2]
dated
The
antecedent facts are as follows—
On
May 4, 2005, respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics,
Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration[4] as
a legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Region IV-A.
On
On
Aggrieved,
respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
In
a Decision[7]
dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appeal by Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) is hereby GRANTED, and the Decision dated
SO DECIDED.[8]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it in a Resolution[9]
dated
Petitioner
sought recourse with the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari; but the CA denied the
petition for lack of merit.
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was likewise denied, hence, this
petition based on the following grounds—
Review of the Factual Findings of the Bureau
of Labor Relations, adopted and confirmed by the Honorable Court of Appeals is
warranted[;]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously
erred in ruling that the affidavits of recantation cannot be given credence[;]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously
erred in ruling that private respondent union complied with the 20% membership
requirement[; and]
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously
erred when it ruled that private respondent union did not commit
misrepresentation, fraud or false statement.[10]
The
petition should be denied.
The
petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with the 20% union
membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization because
of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees
who executed affidavits recanting their union membership.
It is, thus, imperative that we
peruse the affidavits appearing to have been executed by these affiants.
The affidavits uniformly state—
Ako,
_____________, Pilipino, may sapat na gulang, regular na empleyado bilang Rank
& File sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., Bo.
1.
Ako ay napilitan at nilinlang sa pagsapi sa Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. o SMMSC-Independent sa kabila ng aking
pag-aalinlangan[;]
2. Aking lubos na pinagsisihan ang aking
pagpirma sa sipi ng samahan, at handa ako[ng] tumalikod sa anumang kasulatan na
aking nalagdaan sa kadahilanan na hindi angkop sa aking pananaw ang mga
mungkahi o adhikain ng samahan.
SA KATUNAYAN NANG LAHAT, ako ay lumagda ng
aking pangalan ngayong ika-____ ng ______, 2005 dito sa Lalawigan ng Batangas,
Bayan ng Sto. Tomas.
____________________
Nagsasalaysay
Evidently,
these affidavits were written and prepared in advance, and the pro forma affidavits were ready to be
filled out with the employees’ names and signatures.
The first common allegation in the
affidavits is a declaration that, in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was forced
and deceived into joining the respondent union.
It is worthy to note, however, that the affidavit does not mention the
identity of the people who allegedly forced and deceived the affiant into
joining the union, much less the circumstances that constituted such force and
deceit. Indeed, not only was this
allegation couched in very general terms and sweeping in nature, but more
importantly, it was not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
The second allegation ostensibly
bares the affiant’s regret for joining respondent union and expresses the desire
to abandon or renege from whatever agreement he may have signed regarding his membership
with respondent.
Simply put, through these affidavits,
it is made to appear that the affiants recanted their support of respondent’s
application for registration.
In appreciating affidavits of
recantation such as these, our ruling in La
Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations[11] is enlightening, viz.—
On
the second issue—whether or not the withdrawal of 31 union members from NATU
affected the petition for certification election insofar as the 30% requirement
is concerned, We reserve the Order of the respondent Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations, it appearing undisputably that the 31 union members had
withdrawn their support to the petition before the filing of said
petition. It would be otherwise if the
withdrawal was made after the filing of the petition for it would then be
presumed that the withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The presumption would arise that the
withdrawal was procured through duress, coercion or for valuable consideration. In other words, the distinction must be that
withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary
unless there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made
after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary.
The
reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made
before the filing of the petition, the names of employees supporting the
petition are supposed to be held secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction shows
voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that such
employees had not given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the
subscription requirement has not been met.
When
the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is filed, the employees
who are supporting the petition become known to the opposite party since their
names are attached to the petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it would not be unexpected that
the opposite party would use foul means for the subject employees to withdraw
their support.[12]
In
the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities
of the union members became public, i.e.,
after the union filed a petition for certification election on
It
is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 pro forma affidavits shows that the affidavits were executed by the
individual affiants on different dates from
There was also a second set of
standardized affidavits executed on different dates from
Considering that the first set of 25
affidavits was submitted to the DOLE on
Accordingly,
we cannot give full credence to these affidavits, which were executed under
suspicious circumstances, and which contain allegations unsupported by
evidence. At best, these affidavits are self-serving. They possess no probative value.
A
retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. For this reason, retractions are looked upon
with disfavor and do not automatically exclude the original statement or
declaration based solely on the recantation.
It is imperative that a determination be first made as to which between
the original and the new statements should be given weight or accorded belief,
applying the general rules on evidence.
In this case, inasmuch as they remain bare allegations, the purported
recantations should not be upheld.[13]
Nevertheless,
even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of
respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal of
support may be considered as a resignation from the union, the fact remains that
at the time of the union’s application for registration, the affiants were
members of respondent and they comprised more than the required 20% membership
for purposes of registration as a labor union.
Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership
during the application for union registration.
It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum
membership requirement all throughout its existence.[14]
Respondent
asserts that it had a total of 173 union members at the time it applied for
registration. Two names were repeated in
respondent’s list and had to be deducted, but the total would still be 171
union members. Further, out of the four
names alleged to be no longer connected with petitioner, only two names should
be deleted from the list since Diana Motilla and T.W. Amutan resigned from
petitioner only on May 10, 2005 and May 17, 2005, respectively, or after
respondent’s registration had already been granted. Thus, the total union membership at the time
of registration was 169. Since the total
number of rank-and-file employees at that time was 528, 169 employees would be
equivalent to 32% of the total rank-and-file workers complement, still very
much above the minimum required by law.
For
the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that
there was 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; or, in connection with the election of officers,
the minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to
submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed
officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.[15]
The bare fact that two signatures
appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the organizational
meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondent’s
certificate of registration. The
cancellation of a union’s registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on
the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds
for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the
fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR
and the CA that respondent could not have possibly committed misrepresentation,
fraud, or false statements. The alleged
failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the total number
of employees in the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able
to comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if the total number of rank-and-file
employees of petitioner is 528, while respondent declared that it should only be
455, it still cannot be denied that the latter would have more than complied
with the registration requirement.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The assailed
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
MARIANO
C.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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
* Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-34.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; id. at 354-374.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 110.
[5] ART. 234. REQUIREMENTS OF REGISTRATION
Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
x x x x
(c) 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
[6] ART. 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;
x x x x
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud
in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together
with the list of the newly-elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses
within thirty (30) days from election.
(Emphasis supplied.)
[7] Rollo, pp. 70-77.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] G.R. No. L-55674,
[12]
[13] Philippine Long Distance Company
v. The Late Romeo F. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701,
[14] However, this does not prevent another union within the same company from challenging the status of the union as the legitimate labor organization authorized to represent the interests of the employees with the management.
[15] Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of
Labor Relations, G.R. No. 155395,