THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA G.R. No. 177024
(OWNED
AND OPERATED BY
GRAND
PLAZA HOTEL
CORPORATION)
Petitioner, Present:
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Carpio,*
Chico-Nazario,**
Brion, and
Abad, JJ.
PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS
NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
HERITAGE
(PIGLAS-HERITAGE),
Respondent. October 30, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case
is about a company’s objections to the registration of its rank and file union
for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration.
The Facts and the Case
Sometime
in 2000, certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila (petitioner
company) formed the “Heritage Hotel Employees Union” (the HHE union). The Department of Labor and Employment-National
Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) later issued a certificate of registration[1] to
this union.
Subsequently,
the HHE union filed a petition for certification election[2] that
petitioner company opposed. The company
alleged that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union,
when it was, in truth, a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel
and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). The company claimed that the HHE union intentionally
omitted disclosure of its affiliation with NUWHRAIN because the company’s supervisors
union was already affiliated with it.[3] Thus, the company also filed a petition for
the cancellation of the HHE union’s registration certificate.[4]
Meanwhile,
the Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union’s petition for certification election.[5] Petitioner company appealed the decision to
the Secretary of Labor but the latter denied the appeal.[6] The Secretary also denied petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration, prompting the company to file a petition for certiorari[7] with
the Court of Appeals.
On
October 12, 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against the
holding of the HHE union’s certification election, effective until the petition
for cancellation of that union’s registration shall have been resolved with
finality.[8] The decision of the Court of Appeals became
final when the HHE union withdrew the petition for review that it filed with
this Court.[9]
On
December 10, 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting
and formed another union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga
Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union). This union applied for registration with the
DOLE-NCR[10] and got
its registration certificate on February 9, 2004. Two months later, the members of the first
union, the HHE union, adopted a resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union then filed a petition for
cancellation of its union registration.[11]
On
September 4, 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election[12] that
petitioner company also opposed, alleging that the new union’s officers and
members were also those who comprised the old union. According to the company, the employees
involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals’ injunction
against the holding of the certification election sought by the former union. Despite the company’s opposition, however, the
Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election.[13]
On December 6, 2004 petitioner company
filed a petition to cancel the union registration of respondent PIGLAS union.[14] The company claimed that the documents
submitted with the union’s application for registration bore the following false
information:
(a)
The List of
Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members;[15]
(b)
The Organizational
Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting on December 10, 2003;[16]
(c)
The Attendance
Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the signature of 127 members who
ratified the union’s Constitution and By-Laws;[17]
and
(d)
The Signature
Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting.[18]
Petitioner
company alleged that the misrepresentation was evidenced by the discrepancy in
the number of union members appearing in the application and the list as well
as in the number of signatories to the attendance and signature sheets. The minutes reported that only 90 employees
attended the meeting. The company
further alleged that 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were members of the defunct
HHE union. This, according to the
company, violated the policy against dual unionism and showed that the new
union was merely an alter ego of the old.
On
February 22, 2005 the DOLE-NCR denied the company’s petition to cancel
respondent PIGLAS union’s registration for the reason that the discrepancies in
the number of members stated in the application’s supporting documents were not
material and did not constitute misrepresentation. As for the charge of dual unionism, the same is
not a ground for canceling registration. It merely exposed a union member to a possible
charge of disloyalty, an internal matter. Here, the members of the former union simply
exercised their right to self-organization and to the freedom of association
when they subsequently joined the PIGLAS union.[19]
On
appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relation (BLR) affirmed the ruling of the DOLE-NCR.
It reasoned that respondent PIGLAS
union’s organization meeting lasted for 12 hours. It was possible for the number of attendees to
have increased from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed. Besides, with a total of 250 employees in the
bargaining unit, the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20 percent
membership requirement. Thus, the union
could not be accused of misrepresentation since it did not pad its membership
to secure registration.
As
for the issue of dual unionism, it has become moot and academic, said the BLR, because
of the dissolution of the old union and the cancellation of its certificate of registration.[20]
Petitioner
company filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals,[21]
assailing the order of the BLR. But the
latter court dismissed the petition, not being accompanied by material
documents and portions of the record.[22] The company filed a motion for reconsideration,
attaching parts of the record that were deemed indispensable but the court
denied it for lack of merit.[23] Hence, the company filed this petition for
review under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
The petition presents the following
issues:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
dismissing the petition for certiorari
before it for failure of petitioner company to attach certain material portions
of the record;
2. Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation
in its application for union registration; and
3. Whether or not “dual unionism” is a
ground for canceling a union’s registration.
The Rulings of the Court
First.
While the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the company’s petition initially
for failure to attach material portions of the record, the court should have bended
back a little when petitioner company subsequently attached those missing
materials to its motion for reconsideration. As a general rule, petitions for certiorari that lack copies of essential
pleadings and portions of the record may be dismissed but this rule has not
been regarded as absolute. The omission
may be cured.[24]
The
Court of Appeals has three courses of action when the annexes to the petition are
insufficient. It may dismiss the petition,[25] require
the submission of the relevant documents, or order the filing of an amended
petition with the required pleadings or documents. A petition lacking in essential pleadings or
portions of the record may still be given due course, or reinstated if earlier
dismissed, upon subsequent submission of the necessary documents or to serve
the higher interest of justice.[26]
Second.
Since a remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for a determination
of the substantive issues will only result in more delays and since these
issues have been amply argued by the opposing sides in the various pleadings
and documents they submitted to this Court, the case may now be resolved on the
merits.
Did
respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application
for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that it did not.
Except for the evident discrepancies as
to the number of union members involved as these appeared on the documents that
supported the union’s application for registration, petitioner company has no
other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. But those discrepancies alone cannot
be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained
in these documents.
The
charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in
securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is
proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered
organizations. Consequently, charges of
this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding
circumstances.[27]
Here,
the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the
various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to labor
authorities can be explained. While it appears in the minutes of the December
10, 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll
call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128
as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the
meeting hall was locked up to exclude late attendees.
There
is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127
members ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance
sheet. It cannot be assumed that all
those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. Any member had the right to hold out and
refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process.
At
any rate, the Labor Code[28]
and its implementing rules[29]
do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in
question should completely dovetail. For
as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and
the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to
have complied with registration requirements.
Petitioner
company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit the names of
all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the
bargaining unit. Yet the list it submitted
named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets
reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. This omission, said the
company, amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation
of the union’s registration.
But,
as the labor authorities held, this discrepancy is immaterial. A comparison of
the documents shows that, except for six members, the names found in the subject
list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. Notably, the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS
union sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees
were required to unionize. Here, the
union more than complied with such requirement.
Labor
laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would
affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.[30] Here, the PIGLAS union’s supporting documents
reveal the unmistakable yearning of petitioner company’s rank and file
employees to organize. This yearning should
not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.
Third.
The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union’s members were also
members of the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for
canceling the new union’s registration. The right of any person to join an
organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join
another one. Besides, HHE union is
dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate
of registration had already been cancelled. Thus, petitioner’s arguments on
this point may also be now regarded as moot and academic.
WHEREFORE,
the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26, 2006.
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, per Special Order No. 757 dated October 12, 2009.
** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, per Special Order No. 759 dated October 12, 2009.
[1] Rollo, p. 58.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65033.
[8] Rollo, pp. 137-147.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97237.
[22] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[23]
[24] Air
Philippines Corporation v.
[25] Last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
[26] Suan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150819, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 760, 767-768.
[27] San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 125, 144.
[28] The pertinent Labor Code provision states:
ART. 234. REQUIREMENTS FOR 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:
(a)
Fifty (P50.00) registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
(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;
(d) If the union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and
(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it.
[29] Rule 3, Section 2.A of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 states that an application for registration of an independent labor union must be accompanied by the following:
1) the name of the applicant labor union, its principal address, the name of its officers and their respective addresses, approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, with a statement that it is not reported as a chartered local of any federation or national union;
2) the minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list of employees who participated in the said meeting(s);
3) the name of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit;
4) the annual financial reports if the applicant has been in existence for one or more years, unless it has not collected any amount from the members, in which case a statement to this effect shall be included in the application;
5) the applicant’s constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption and ratification and the list of the members who participated in it. The list of ratifying members shall be dispensed with where the constitution and by-laws was ratified or adopted during the organizational meeting. In such a case, the factual circumstances of the ratification shall be recorded in the minutes of the organizational meeting(s).
[30] San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW, G.R. No. 152356, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 107, 127.