Law School Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

[1] Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015 | G. NO. 211145| October 14, 2015FACTS: Petitioner Samahan, filed an application for registration of its name "Samahan ng mga Manggagawa saHanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE. Attached to the application were the list of names of the a...

Description

[1] Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015 | G.R. NO. 211145| October 14, 2015 FACTS: Petitioner Samahan, filed an application for registration of its name "Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE. Attached to the application were the list of names of the association's officers and members (120 listed members), copies of their Constitution and By-laws. DOLE-Pampanga issued the corresponding certificate of registration in favor of Petitioner. Respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines (Hanjin), filed for the cancellation of Petitioner’s registration on the ground that its members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249). Further, Respondent opined that members of Samahan have definite employers, hence, they should have formed a union instead of a workers' association. DOLE Regional Director ruled in favor of the Respondent. Aggrieved, Petitioner appealed to Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). BLR reversed the ruling of the Regional Director. It stated that the law clearly afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including those without definite employers. Repondent filed its MR. BLR affirmed its earlier Decision, but directed Petitioner to remove the words "Hanjin Shipyard" from its name. Unsatisfied, Petitioner filed a petition before the CA. CA held that Petitioner’s registration as a legitimate workers' association was contrary to the provisions of Article 243 of the Labor Code. It stressed that only 57 out of the 120 members were actually working in Hanjin. Hence, this Petition for review on certiorari filed by Petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in ruling that Petitioner Samahan cannot form a worker’s association of employees in Hanjin, and instead should have formed a union YES HELD: SC ruled that the right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers' association belongs to workers themselves. Further, the right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising the said right. Also inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection. The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law. Respondent posits that the members of Samahan have definite employers, hence, they should have formed a union instead of a workers' association. SC disagrees. There is no provision in the Labor Code that states that

employees with definite employers may form, join or assist unions only. SC also disagreed with Respondent's position that Petitioner’s members cannot form the association because they are not covered by the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249). The said provision should be read together with Rule 2 of Department Order (D.O.) No. 40-03, Series of 2003, which provides: RULE II COVERAGE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Section 1. Policy. — It is the policy of the State to promote the free and responsible exercise of the right to selforganization through the establishment of a simplified mechanism for the speedy registration of labor unions and workers associations, determination of representation status and resolution of inter/intra-union and other related labor relations disputes. Only legitimate or registered labor unions shall have the right to represent their members for collective bargaining and other purposes. Workers' associations shall have the right to represent their members for purposes other than collective bargaining. Section 2. Who may join labor unions and Workers' associations. — All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises, including employees of government owned or controlled corporations without original charters established under the Corporation Code, as well as employees of religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining: provided, however, that supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor union of the rank-and-file employees but may form, join or assist separate labor unions of their own. Managerial employees shall not be eligible to form, join or assist any labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining. Alien employees with valid working permits issued by the Department may exercise the right to self-organization and join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining if they are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers, as certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs. For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization. All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes except collective bargaining. Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing implementing rules which provides that workers, with definite employers, cannot form or join a workers' association for mutual aid and protection. Thus, SC agrees with Petitioner’s argument that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies with the workers

themselves, and whether they have definite employers or not.

[2] SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHIL. V. SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION-PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO | G.R. No. 171153| 12 September 2007 FACTS: Petitioner (SMCEU-PTGWO) is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), namely, the San Miguel Corporate Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP), in all offices and plants of SMC, including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna. It had been the certified bargaining agent for 20 years (1987 to 1997). Respondent (SMPPEU–PDMP) is a registered chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). ● Respondent was issued Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). ● Respondent then filed with Med-Arbiter of DOLE-NCR three separate petitions for certification election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. All were dismissed on the ground that the petitions fragmented a single bargaining unit. ● Petitioner filed with DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent’s registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. Petitioner alleged that: ● Respondent committed fraud and falsification and non-compliance to registration requirement. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a), (b) and (c) and 234(c) of the Labor Code. ● PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a trade union center, hence, it cannot directly create a local or chapter. ● DOLE-NCR Regional Director Lim dismissed the allegations and ruled that respondent is allowed to directly create a local or chapter. However, it found that respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. ● Respondent then appealed to the BLR, which declared that, as a chartered local union, petitioner is not 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. ● Further, although PDMP is considered as a trade union center, it is a holder of Registration Certificate issued by the BLR, giving it the status of a legitimate labor organization. On this basis, PDMP can charter or create a local, in accordance with the provisions of DO No. 9. ● Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the assailed decision and resolution. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether Respondent is a legitimate labor organization, having been created via chartering by PDMP (NO) HELD: Respondent is not a legitimate labor organization. The court ruled that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter. Although PDMP as a trade union

center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to directly create a local or chapter, such as Respondent. Thus, Respondent 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. There is no legal justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering. Article 234-A of the Labor Code does not mention a "trade union center." Additionally, even in the most recent amendment of the implementing rules, 54 there was no mention of a trade union center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter. If the law’s intent were otherwise, the law could have so easily and conveniently included “trade union centers” in identifying the labor organizations allowed to charter a chapter or local. Since 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, then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly. Petitioners argue that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, thus cannot form a charter. The Court held that the personality of a labor organization cannot be attacked collaterally. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules. Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234 (c) of the Labor Code. The Court ruled that this requirement pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association or group of unions or workers. However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently. When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, 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, as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter. As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration through fraud and misrepresentation, this Court finds that the imputations are not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof to declare that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting. This Court emphasizes that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of the case are devoid of such evidence. In sum, although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP 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.

[3] The Heritage Hotel Manila v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (Piglas-Heritage)| G.R. NO. 177024 | October 30, 2009 FACTS: Year 2000: Rank and file employees of herein Petitioner formed and registered with DOLE a union named as “HHE Union” or Heritage Hotel Employees Union. When HHE Union filed a petition for certification of election, Petitioner opposed on the basis of misrepresentation: HHE Union did not disclose its affiliation with a national union. Nevertheless, the petition for certification of election was granted. However, on Appeal, CA issued an injunction (which eventually became final) against HHE’s certification election. Year 2003: the same employees formed and registered with DOLE another union named as PIGLAS (herein respondents). Thereafter, HHE Union was dissolved and filed a petition for cancellation of registration. When respondent PIGLAS filed a petition for certification of election, Petitioner, once again, opposed and filed for the cancellation of registration on the basis of misrepresentation, false information (the discrepancies in the number of employees); that initially the list of members was 100; minutes says 90 employees attended; Signature Sheet for attendance and constitution bore 128 signatures. Nevertheless, DOLE denied the petitioner's petition to cancel registration. BLR affirmed. Hence, the present case. ISSUE: Whether or not the union made a fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration; and Whether or not "dual unionism" is a ground for canceling a union's registration. HELD: Whether or not the union made a fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration - NO. The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. 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. The meeting lasted 12 hours (11am - 11pm); There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late attendees. At any rate, the Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should be completely dovetail. Whether or not "dual unionism" is a ground for canceling a union's registration. - NO 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. Petition is DENIED.

[4] EAGLE RIDGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB v. CA | G.R. NO. 178989 | March 18, 2010 FACTS: ● On December 6, 2005, 26 employees of Eagle Ridge organized themselves into Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU), elected officers and ratified their constitution and by-laws. ● EREU applied for registration indicating a total of 30 union members before the DOLE, which granted the application. ● EREU filed a petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club. ● The petition for certification election was opposed by Eagle Ridge. Eagle Ridge filed a petition for cancellation ascribing misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the Union, and the election of its officers. ● ARGUMENTS: ○ EAGLE RIDGE contentions: ■ Eagle Ridge alleged that EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members, when the minutes of its meeting showed it had only 26 members. ■ This was exacerbated by the discrepancy between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president that 25 members had ratified the constitution and the by-laws and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures, making one signature a forgery. ■ Moreover, Eagle Ridge contended that five employees had manifested to withdraw from the union. Their withdrawal, Eagle Ridge maintained, effectively reduced the union membership to 20 or 21, which was below the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code. ○ EREU (union) contentions: ■ EREU countered alleging that the discrepancies are not real because four additional employees joined the union prior to the filing of its application, the understatement by one member who ratified the constitution and by-was was a typographical error, and the retraction of the 5 union members cannot be given credence. ISSUE: W/N there was fraud, misrepresentation and/or false statement which warrant cancellation of certificate of registration of EREU - NO HELD: No Fraud in the Application ● Eagle Ridge cites the grounds provided under Art. 239 (a) and (c)1 of the Labor Code for its petition

1 Art. 239 Grounds for cancellation of registration a) Misrepresentation, false statements 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 xxx c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election.

for cancellation of the EREU’s registration. ● On the other hand, the Union asserts bona fide compliance with the registration requirement under Art. 2342, explaining the seeming discrepancies between the number of employees who participated in the organizational meeting and the total number of union members at the time it filed its registration, as well as the typographical error in its certification. ● The records failed to show any misrepresentation, false statement or fraud committed by EREU to merit cancellation of its registration. ○ FIRST, the Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the meeting, the election of its officers, and the adoption of the Union’s constitution and by-laws. It submitted the following: 1) minutes of its organizational meeting , showing 26 founding members who elected its officers by secret ballot; 2) list of rank-and-file employees who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures 3) the list of rank-and-file employees who ratified the union’s constitution and bylaws showing the very same list as those who attended the meetings and election of officers except the four additional employees without their signature. 4) Union’s constitution and by-laws 5) List of officers and addresses 6) List of union members showing a total of 30 members; 7) Sworn statement of the union’s elected president and secretary. All the documents were accompanied by Certifications by the union secretary attested to by the union president. ● SECOND, members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied for registration. Therefore, it complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art. 234 (C). ● THIRD, Union sufficiently explained the discrepancy between the number of those who attended the organizational meeting showing 26 employees and the list showing 30. The difference due to the additional four members admitted after the organizational meetings. Consequently, the total number of union members was 30, which was truthfully indicated in its application for registration. The Union already had 30 members when it applied for registration, for the admission of new members is neither prohibited by law nor concealed in its application for registration. ● FOURTH, Eagle Ridge assails the inclusion of the four members for not complying with the sine qua non requirements for union member applications under the Union’s constitution and by-laws. Any see...