Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 172699 July 27, 2011
ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING an RECOR!ING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
"ON. CIRIACO LAGUN#A!, $n %$& 'a(a'$)y a& R*+$onal !$,*')o,, Na)$onal
Ca($)al R*+$on, !*(a,)-*n) o. La/o, an E-(loy-*n)0 an "ON. "ANS
LEO J. CAC!AC, $n %$& 'a(a'$)y a& !$,*')o, o. 1u,*au o. La/o, R*la)$on&,
!*(a,)-*n) o. La/o, an E-(loy-*n), Public Respondents.
NAG2A2AISANG SAMA"AN NG MANGGAGA3A NG ELECTROMAT43ASTO,
Private Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
1RION, J.:
e resolve the present petition for revie! on certiorari
"
assailin# the decision
$
and
the resolution
%
of the Court of &ppeals 'C&( dated )ebruar* %, $++, and Ma* "",
$++,, respectivel*, rendered in C& -.R. SP No. .%./0.
1he &ntecedents
1he private respondent Na#2a2aisan# Sa3ahan n# Man##a#a!a n# Electro3at4
asto 'union(, a charter a5liate of the or2ers &dvocates for Stru##le,
1ransfor3ation and Or#ani6ation '&S1O(, applied for re#istration !ith the 7ureau
of 8abor Relations '78R(. Supportin# the application !ere the follo!in# docu3ents9
'"( copies of its rati:ed constitution and b*4la!s 'C78(; '$( 3inutes of the C78<s
adoption and rati:cation; '%( 3inutes of the or#ani6ational 3eetin#s; '/( na3es and
addresses of the union o5cers; '=( list of union 3e3bers; ',( list of ran24and4:le
e3plo*ees in the co3pan*; '0( certi:cation of non4e>istence of a collective
bar#ainin# a#ree3ent 'C7&( in the co3pan*; '.( resolution of a5liation !ith
&S1O, a labor federation; '?( &S1O<s resolution of acceptance; '"+( Charter
Certi:cate; and '""( Veri:cation under oath.
1he 78R thereafter issued the union a Certi:cation of Creation of 8ocal Chapter
'e@uivalent to the certi:cate of re#istration of an independent union(, pursuant to
Depart3ent Order No. 'D.O.( /+4+%.
/
On October ", $++%, the petitioner Electro3at Manufacturin# and Recordin#
Corporation 'co3pan*( :led a petition for cancellation of the union<s re#istration
certi:cate, for the union<s failure to co3pl* !ith &rticle $%/ of the 8abor Code. It
ar#ued that D.O. /+4+% is an unconstitutional di3inution of the 8abor Code<s union
re#istration re@uire3ents under &rticle $%/.
On Nove3ber $0, $++%, &ctin# Director Ciriaco &. 8a#un6ad of the Depart3ent of
8abor and E3plo*3ent 'DO8E(4National Capital Re#ion dis3issed the petition.
=
In the appeal b* the co3pan*, 78R Director Aans 8eo B. Cacdac a5r3ed the
dis3issal.
,
1he co3pan* thereafter sou#ht relief fro3 the C& throu#h a petition for
certiorari, contendin# that the 78R co33itted #rave abuse of discretion in a5r3in#
the union<s re#istration despite its non4co3pliance !ith the re@uire3ents for
re#istration under &rticle $%/ of the 8abor Code. It assailed the validit* of D.O. /+4
+% !hich a3ended the rules of 7oo2 V '8abor Relations( of the 8abor Code. It
posited that the 78R should have strictl* adhered to the union re#istration
re@uire3ents under the 8abor Code, instead of rel*in# on D.O. /+4+% !hich it
considered as an invalid a3end3ent of the la! since it reduced the re@uire3ents
under &rticle $%/ of the 8abor Code. It 3aintained that the 78R should not have
#ranted the union<s re#istration throu#h the issuance of a Certi:cation of Creation
of 8ocal Chapter since the union sub3itted onl* the Charter Certi:cate issued to it
b* &S1O.
1he C& Decision
In its decision rendered on )ebruar* %, $++,,
0
the C& 1enth Division dis3issed the
petition and a5r3ed the assailed 78R rulin#. It brushed aside the co3pan*<s
obCection to D.O. /+4+%, and its sub3ission that D.O. /+4+% re3oved the safet*
3easures a#ainst the co33ission of fraud in the re#istration of unions. It noted that
Dthere are su5cient safe#uards found in other provisions of the 8abor Code to
prevent the sa3e.D
.
In an* event, it pointed out that D.O. /+4+% !as issued b* the
DO8E pursuant to its rule43a2in# po!er under the la!.
?
1he co3pan* 3oved for reconsideration, ar#uin# that the union<s re#istration
certi:cate !as invalid as there !as no sho!in# that &S1O, the labor federation to
!hich the union is a5liated, had at least ten '"+( locals or chapters as re@uired b*
D.O. /+4+%. 1he C& denied the 3otion,
"+
holdin# that no such re@uire3ent is found
under the rules. Aence, the present petition.
1he Case for the Petitioner
1he co3pan* see2s a reversal of the C& rulin#s, throu#h its sub3issions 'the
petition
""
and the 3e3orandu3
"$
(, on the #round that the C& seriousl* erred and
#ravel* abused its discretion in a5r3in# the re#istration of the union in accordance
!ith D.O. /+4+%. Speci:call*, it assails as unconstitutional Section $'E(, Rule III of
D.O. /+4+% !hich provides9
1he report of creation of a chartered local shall be acco3panied b* a charter
certi:cate issued b* the federation or national union indicatin# the creation or
establish3ent of the chartered local.
1he co3pan* points out that D.O. /+4+% delisted so3e of the re@uire3ents under
&rticle $%/ of the 8abor Code for the re#istration of a local chapter. &rticle $%/
states9
&R1. $%/. Re@uire3ents of Re#istration.
"%
&n* applicant labor or#ani6ation,
association or #roup of unions or !or2ers shall ac@uire le#al personalit* and shall be
entitled to the ri#hts and privile#es #ranted b* la! to le#iti3ate labor or#ani6ations
upon issuance of the certi:cate of re#istration based on the follo!in# re@uire3ents9
'a( )ift* pesos 'P=+.++( re#istration fee;
'b( 1he na3es of its o5cers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor
or#ani6ation, the 3inutes of the or#ani6ational 3eetin#s and the list of the !or2ers
!ho participated in such 3eetin#s;
'c( 1he na3es of all its 3e3bers co3prisin# at least t!ent* percent '$+E( of all the
e3plo*ees in the bar#ainin# unit !here it see2s to operate;
'd( If the applicant union has been in e>istence for one or 3ore *ears, copies of its
annual :nancial reports; and
'e( )our '/( copies of the constitution and b*4la!s of the applicant union, 3inutes of
its adoption or rati:cation, and the list of the 3e3bers !ho participated in it.
1he co3pan* contends that the enu3eration of the re@uire3ents for union
re#istration under the la! is e>clusive and should not be di3inished, and that the
sa3e re@uire3ents should appl* to all labor unions !hether the* be independent
labor or#ani6ations, federations or local chapters. It adds that in 3a2in# a diFerent
rule for local chapters, D.O. /+4+% e>panded or a3ended &rticle $%/ of the 8abor
Code, resultin# in an invalid e>ercise b* the DO8E of its dele#ated rule43a2in#
po!er. It thus posits that the union<s certi:cate of re#istration !hich !as issued Din
violation of the letters of &rticle $%/ of the 8abor CodeD
"/
is void and of no eFect,
and that the C& co33itted #rave abuse of discretion !hen it a5r3ed the union<s
e>istence.
1he Case for the Gnion
In a Resolution dated Banuar* ",, $++.,
"=
the Court directed union board 3e3ber
&le> EspeCo, in lieu of union President Roberto 7eltran !hose present address could
not be veri:ed, to furnish the Court a cop* of the union co33entHopposition to the
co3pan*<s 3otion for reconsideration dated )ebruar* $$, $++, in C& -.R. SP No.
.%./0, !hich the union adopted as its co33ent on the present petition.
",
1hrou#h this co33entHopposition,
"0
the union sub3its that the co3pan* failed to
sho! that the C& co33itted reversible error in upholdin# the re#istration certi:cate
issued to it b* the 78R. Citin# Castillo v. National 8abor Relations Co33ission,
".
it
stressed that the issuance of the certi:cate b* the DO8E a#encies !as supported b*
substantial evidence, !hich should be entitled to #reat respect and even :nalit*.
1he Court<s Rulin#
e resolve the core issue of !hether D.O. /+4+% is a valid e>ercise of the rule4
3a2in# po!er of the DO8E.
e rule in the a5r3ative. Earlier in Pro#ressive Develop3ent Corporation v.
Secretar*, Depart3ent of 8abor and E3plo*3ent,
"?
the Court encountered a si3ilar
@uestion on the validit* of the old Section %, Rule II, 7oo2 V of the Rules
I3ple3entin# the 8abor Code
$+
!hich stated9
Gnion a5liation; direct 3e3bership !ith a national union. 4 1he a5liate of a labor
federation or national union 3a* be a local or chapter thereof or an independentl*
re#istered union.
a( 1he labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certi:cate
indicatin# the creation or establish3ent of a local or chapter, cop* of !hich shall be
sub3itted to the 7ureau of 8abor Relations !ithin thirt* '%+( da*s fro3 issuance of
such charter certi:cate.
> > > >
e( 1he local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and
3aintain a constitution and b*4la!s, set of o5cers and boo2s of accounts. )or
reportin# purposes, the procedure #overnin# the reportin# of independentl*
re#istered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.
Interpretin# these provisions of the old rules, the Court said that b* force of la!,
$"

the local or chapter of a labor federation or national union beco3es a le#iti3ate
labor or#ani6ation upon co3pliance !ith Section %, Rule II, 7oo2 V of the Rules
I3ple3entin# the 8abor Code, the onl* re@uire3ent bein# the sub3ission of the
charter certi:cate to the 78R. )urther, the Court noted that Section % o3itted
several re@uire3ents !hich are other!ise re@uired for union re#istration, as follo!s9
"( 1he re@uire3ent that the application for re#istration 3ust be si#ned b* at least
$+E of the e3plo*ees in the appropriate bar#ainin# unit;
$( 1he sub3ission of o5cers< addresses, principal address of the labor or#ani6ation,
the 3inutes of or#ani6ation 3eetin#s and the list of the !or2ers !ho participated in
such 3eetin#s;
%( 1he sub3ission of the 3inutes of the adoption or rati:cation of the constitution
and b*4la!s and the list of the 3e3bers !ho participated in it.
$$
Not!ithstandin# these o3issions, the Court upheld the #overn3ent<s i3ple3entin#
polic* e>pressed in the old rules !hen it declared in Pro#ressive Develop3ent I
Gndoubtedl*, the intent of the la! in i3posin# lesser re@uire3ents in the case of a
branch or local of a re#istered federation or national union is to encoura#e the
a5liation of a local union !ith a federation or national union in order to increase the
local union<s bar#ainin# po!ers respectin# ter3s and conditions of labor.
$%
It !as this sa3e Section % of the old rules that D.O. /+4+% :ne4tuned !hen the
DO8E a3ended the rules on 7oo2 V of the 8abor Code, thereb* 3odif*in# the
#overn3ent<s i3ple3entin# polic* on the re#istration of locals or chapters of labor
federations or national unions. 1he co3pan* no! assails this particular a3end3ent
as an invalid e>ercise of the DO8E<s rule43a2in# po!er.
e disa#ree. &s in the case of D.O. ? '!hich introduced the above4cited Section % of
the old rules( in Pro#ressive Develop3ent, D.O. /+4+% represents an e>pression of
the #overn3ent<s i3ple3entin# polic* on trade unionis3. It builds upon the old
rules b* further si3plif*in# the re@uire3ents for the establish3ent of locals or
chapters. &s in D.O. ?, !e see nothin# contrar* to the la! or the Constitution in the
adoption b* the Secretar* of 8abor and E3plo*3ent of D.O. /+4+% as this
depart3ent order is consistent !ith the intent of the #overn3ent to encoura#e the
a5liation of a local union !ith a federation or national union to enhance the local<s
bar#ainin# po!er. If chan#es !ere 3ade at all, these !ere those 3ade to reco#ni6e
the distinctions 3ade in the la! itself bet!een federations and their local chapters,
and independent unions; local chapters see3in#l* have lesser re@uire3ents
because the* and their 3e3bers are dee3ed to be direct 3e3bers of the
federation to !hich the* are a5liated, !hich federations are the ones subCect to the
strict re#istration re@uire3ents of the la!.1avvphi1
In an* case, the local union in the present case has 3ore than satis:ed the
re@uire3ents the petitioner co3plains about; speci:call*, the union has sub3itted9
'"( copies of the rati:ed C78; '$( the 3inutes of the C78<s adoption and rati:cation;
'%( the 3inutes of the or#ani6ational 3eetin#s; '/( the na3es and addresses of the
union o5cers; '=( the list of union 3e3bers; ',( the list of ran24and4:le e3plo*ees
in the co3pan*; '0( a certi:cation of non4e>istence of a C7& in the co3pan*; '.( the
resolution of a5liation !ith &S1O and the latter<s acceptance; and '?( their
Charter Certi:cate. 1hese sub3issions !ere properl* veri:ed as re@uired b* the
rules. In su3, the petitioner has no factual basis for @uestionin# the union<s
re#istration, as even the re@uire3ents for re#istration as an independent local have
been substantiall* co3plied !ith.
e, thus, :nd no co3pellin# Custi:cation to nullif* D.O. /+4+%. Si#ni:cantl*, the
Court declared in another case9
$/
Pa#palain cannot also alle#e that Depart3ent Order No. ? is violative of public
polic*. > > > J1Khe sole function of our courts is to appl* or interpret the la!s. It does
not for3ulate public polic*, !hich is the province of the le#islative and e>ecutive
branches of #overn3ent. It cannot, thus, be said that the principles laid do!n b*
the Court in Pro#ressive and Protection 1echnolo#* constitute public polic* on the
3atter. 1he* do, ho!ever, constitute the Court<s interpretation of public polic*, as
for3ulated b* the e>ecutive depart3ent throu#h its pro3ul#ation of rules
i3ple3entin# the 8abor Code. Ao!ever, this public polic* has itself been chan#ed
b* the e>ecutive depart3ent, throu#h the a3end3ents introduced in 7oo2 V of the
O3nibus Rules b* Depart3ent Order No. ?. It is not for us to @uestion this chan#e in
polic*, it bein# a !ell4established principle be*ond @uestion that it is not !ithin the
province of the courts to pass Cud#3ents upon the polic* of le#islative or e>ecutive
action.
1his state3ent is as true then as it is no!.
In li#ht of the fore#oin#, !e :nd no 3erit in the appeal.
AERE)ORE, pre3ises considered, !e DENL the petition for lac2 of 3erit. 1he
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of &ppeals are &))IRMED. Costs
a#ainst the petitioner Electro3at Manufacturin# and Recordin# Corporation.
SO ORDERED.