EDEN GLADYS ABARIA, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR involve similar factual circumstances and identical or related issues.
d identical or related issues. G.R. No.
RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR.,J.:
FACTS:
The consolidated petitions before us involve the legality of mass termination of
hospital employees who participated in strike and picketing activities.
In a letter addressed to Nava, Ernesto Canen, Jr., Jesusa Gerona, Hannah Bongcaras,
Emma Remocaldo, Catalina Alsado and Albina Baz, Atty. Alforque suspended their
union membership for serious violation of the Constitution and By-Laws.
Upon the request of Atty. Alforque, MCCHI granted one-day union leave with pay
for 12 union members.The next day, several union members led by Nava and her
group launched a series of mass actions such as wearing black and red
armbands/headbands, marching around the hospital premises and putting up
placards, posters and streamers.For their continued picketing activities despite the
said warning, more than 100 striking employees were dismissed.Unfazed, the
striking union members held more mass actions. With the volatile situation adversely
affecting hospital operations and the condition of confined patients, MCCHI filed a
petition for injunction. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued.
Thereafter, several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice were
filed by the terminated employees against MCCHI, Rev. Iyoy, UCCP and members
of the Board of Trustees of MCCHI.
Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. Belarmino rendered his decision dismissing the
complaints for unfair labor practice. Complainants appealed to the Commission,
which affirmed the Labor Arbiter.
Complainants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) (Cebu Station) via a
petition for certiorari. CAs Eighth Division dismissed the petition on the ground that
out of 88 petitioners only 47 have signed the certification against forum shopping.
InG.R. No. 196156, MCCHI/VCMC prayed for the annulment of Resolution of the
CA, for this Court to declare the dismissal of respondents Yballe, et al. as valid and
legal and to reinstate the Resolution of the NLRC.
G.R. No. 187861 was consolidated with G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778 as they
196156 was later also consolidated with the aforesaid cases.
ISSUE:Whether or not respondents are illegally dismissed?
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is sustained.
LABOR LAW
Records of the NCMB and DOLE Region 7 confirmed that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had
not registered as a labor organization, having submitted only its charter certificate as
an affiliate or local chapter of NFL.Not being a legitimate labor organization,
NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights granted to a legitimate labor
organization under Art. 242.
Aside from the registration requirement, it is only the labor organization designated
or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit which is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining, as provided in Art. 255.NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not
the labor organization certified or designated by the majority of the rank-and-file
hospital employees to represent them in the CBA negotiations but the NFL, as
evidenced by CBAs concluded in 1987, 1991 and 1994.
Even assuming that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had validly disaffiliated from its mother
union, NFL, it still did not possess the legal personality to enter into CBA
negotiations. A local union which is not independently registered cannot, upon
disaffiliation from the federation, exercise the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations; thus, it cannot file a petition for certification
election.Besides, the NFL as the mother union has the right to investigate members
of its local chapter under the federations Constitution and By-Laws, and if found
guilty to expel such members.MCCHI therefore cannot be faulted for deferring
action on the CBA proposal submitted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL in view of the union
leaderships conflict with the national federation. We have held that the issue of
disaffiliation is an intra-union disputewhich must be resolved in a different forum in
an action at the instance of either or both the federation and the local union or a rival
labor organization, not the employer.
LABOR LAW
The above provision makes a distinction between workers and union officers who
participate in an illegal strike: an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for
mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he or she committed
illegal acts during a strike. A union officer, on the other hand, may be terminated
from work when he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, and like other
workers, when he commits an illegal act during a strike.
Considering their persistence in holding picketing activities despite the declaration
by the NCMB that their union was not duly registered as a legitimate labor
organization and the letter from NFLs legal counsel informing that their acts
constitute disloyalty to the national federation, and their filing of the notice of strike
and conducting a strike vote notwithstanding that their union has no legal personality
to negotiate with MCCHI for collective bargaining purposes, there is no question that
NAMA-MCCH-NFL officers knowingly participated in the illegal strike. The CA
therefore did not err in ruling that the termination of union officers Perla Nava,
Catalina Alsado, Albina Baz, Hannah Bongcaras, Ernesto Canen, Jesusa Gerona and
Guillerma Remocaldo was valid and justified.
LABOR LAW
Separation pay is made an alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement in certain
circumstances, like: (a) when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the
passage of a long period of time or because of the realities of the situation; (b)
reinstatement is inimical to the employer's interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer
feasible; (d) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved; (e)
the employer is prejudiced by the workers continued employment; (f) facts that make
execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or (g) strained relations between
the employer and employee.
HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. PINAGKAISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG
MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS)
October 30, 2009 |Abad, J. | Right to Self-Organization
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY:The employer, Heritage Hotel Manila, filed a petition to revoke the
registration of its rank and file employees’ union because it allegedly committed
fraud and misrepresentation. The Court held that the employer failed to prove that
the labor union committed fraud and misrepresentation, it being necessary to prove
more than a mere sudden dovetail in numbers.
DOCTRINE:The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the
number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely
dovetail. As long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and
regular and constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to
have complied with the registration requirements
FACTS:
 Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel
Manila) 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 registrationto this union.
 Subsequently, the HHE union filed a petition for certification election 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 companys supervisors union was
already affiliated with it. Thus, the company also filed a petition for the
cancellation of the HHE unions registration certificate
 MA: granted the HHE unions petition for certification election.
 Petitioner company appealed the decision to the Secretary of Labor but the latter
denied the appeal.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
 CA: Issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE unions
certification election, effective until the petition for cancellation of that unions
registration shall have been resolved with finality.
 The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union
withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court
 On December 10, 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company
 held a meeting and formed another union, the respondent Pinag-IsangGaling at
Lakas ng mgaManggagawasa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union).
 This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR 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.
 On September 4, 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for
certification election that petitioner company also opposed, alleging that the new
unions officers and members were also those who comprised the old union.
o 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 companys opposition, however, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition
for certification election
 On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed a petition to cancel the union
registration of respondent PIGLAS union
 The company claimed that the documents submitted with the unions application
for registration bore false information:
o The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union
members
o The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the
meeting on December 10, 2003
o The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the
signature of 127 members who ratified the unions Constitution and By-
Laws
o The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that
meeting.
 Petitioner company: 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.
o The minutes reported that only 90 employees attended the meeting.
o 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were members of the
defunct HHE union.
o 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 companys petition to cancel
respondent PIGLAS unions registration for the reason that the discrepancies in
the number of members stated in the applications supporting documents were
not material and did not constitute misrepresentation.
o 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
 BLR: affirmed the ruling of the DOLE-NCR.
o PIGLAS unions 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.
o Thus, the union could not be accused of misrepresentation since it did
not pad its membership to secure registration.
o As for the issue of dual unionism: moot and academicbecause of the
dissolution of the old union and the cancellation of its certificate of
registration
 Petitioner company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals,assailing the order of the BLR. But the latter court dismissed the
petition, not being accompanied by material documents and portions of the
record
 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
 Hence, the company filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
RULING: Petition is denied.
Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for
union registration—NO
 Court agrees with DOLE-NCR and BLR that the PIGLAS union did not commit
fraud and misrepresentation for its application
 Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members
involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the unions
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
 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 unions 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.
 LC and its implementing rules 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
unions registration.
 But 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
 Here, the PIGLAS unions supporting documents reveal the unmistakable
yearning of petitioner companys rank and file employees to organize. This
yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.
 Arbiter for the holding of pre-election conference. Petition filed MR but it was
Whether or not dual unionism is a ground for cancelling a union’s
registration—NO
 The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS unions members were also members
of the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the
new unions 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, petitioners arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and
academic.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE
HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
January 12, 2011 | Nachura, J. | Cancellation of Registration
Digester: Castro, RachelAnn
SUMMARY:Respondent filed for certification election but failed to submit financial
statements for 1996-1999. Eventually, despite petitioner’s opposition, respondent
won the election. Petitioner filed for cancellation of registration of respondent union
but Med-Arbiter and SOLE (stepping into the shoes of BLR because BLR inhibited
himself) ruled in favor of respondent. CA also ruled in favor of respondent. SC
affirmed CA.
DOCTRINE: The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of
snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses -
as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code. Also, according to ILO 87: “Dissolution
of a union, and cancellation of registration for that matter, involve serious
consequences for occupational representation. It is therefore preferable if such
actions were to be taken only as a last resort and after exhausting other possibilities
with less serious effects on the organization.”
FACTS:
 Respondent filed with DOLE-NCR a petition for certification election.Med-
Arbiter granted petition and ordered the holding of a certification election. On
appeal, SOLE affirmed Med-Arbiter’s order and remanded the case to Med-
denied.
 The pre-election conference was not held as initially scheduled; it was held a
year later, or on February 20, 1998. Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the
petition due to alleged repeated non-appearance of respondent. The latter agreed
to suspend proceedings until further notice. The pre-election conference
resumed on January 29, 2000.
 Petitioner discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the BLR its annual
financial report for several years and the list of its members since it filed its
registration papers in 1995. So, on May 19, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-submission
of the said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondents’ Certificate of
Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of
legitimate labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of the
certification election proceedings.
 On June 1, 2000, petitioner reiterated its request by filing a Motion to Dismiss or
Suspend the [Certification Election] Proceedings, arguing that the dismissal or
suspension of the proceedings is warranted, considering that the legitimacy of
respondent is seriously being challenged in the petition for cancellation of
registration.
 Petitioner maintained that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent is a
legitimate labor organization is crucial to the issue of whether it may exercise
rights of a legitimate labor organization, which include the right to be certified
as the bargaining agent of the covered employees.
 Certification election pushed through and respondent was the winner.
 On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with Motion to Defer Certification of
Election Results and Winner: the certification election held on June 23, 2000
was an exercise in futility because, once respondents registration is cancelled, it
would no longer be entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
the supervisory employees; some of respondents members were not qualified to
join the union because they were either confidential employees or managerial
employees. Prayers: that the certification of the election results and winner be
deferred until the petition for cancellation shall have been resolved, and that
respondents’ members who held confidential or managerial positions be
excluded from the supervisors bargaining unit.
 Respondents: The petition was filed primarily to delay the conduct of the
certification election, the respondents’ certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the supervisory employees, and the commencement of
bargaining negotiations. Prayers: the dismissal of the petition for the following
reasons: (a) petitioner is estopped from questioning respondents status as a
legitimate labor organization as it had already recognized respondent as such
during the pre-election conferences; (b) petitioner is not the party-in-interest, as
the union members are the ones who would be disadvantaged by the non-
submission of financial reports; (c) it has already complied with the reportorial
requirements, having submitted its financial statements for 1996, 1997, 1998,
and 1999, its updated list of officers, and its list of members for the years 1995,
1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999; (d) the petition is already moot and academic,
considering that the certification election had already been held, and the
members had manifested their will to be represented by respondent.
 Med-Arbiter: the pendency of a petition for cancellation of registration is not a
bar to the holding of a certification election – petition dismissed
 SOLE: dismissed appeal
 Regional Director Maraan: While finding that respondent had indeed failed to
file financial reports and the list of its members for several years, nonetheless,
petition was deniedbecause freedom of association and the employees right to
self-organization are more substantive considerations, taking into account the
fact that respondent won the certification election and that it had already been
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. In view
of the foregoing, while emphasizing that the non-compliance with the law is not
viewed with favor, the belated submission of the annual financial reports and the
list of members is considered as sufficient compliance thereof and considered
them as having been submitted on time.
 BLR inhibited himself from the case on appeal.
 SOLE dismissed the appeal: the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
association and right of workers to self-organization outweighed respondents
noncompliance with the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a
legitimate labor organization.
 Petitioner filed petition for certiorari before the CA. CA: he DOLE Secretary
may legally assume jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the
Regional Director in the event that the Director of the BLR inhibits himself from
the case. The requirements of registration of labor organizations are an exercise
of the overriding police power of the State, designed for the protection of
workers against potential abuse by the union that recruits them. These
requirements should not be exploited to work against the workers
constitutionally protected right to self-organization. CA also said that Abbott
ruling is not applicable because, in the case at bar, the BLR inhibited himself.
RULING:CA decision and resolution AFFIRMED.
Whether SOLE has jurisdiction over appeal – YES
 Jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR Directors inhibition. When
the DOLE Secretary resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of
the BLR Director and performed a function that the latter could not himself
perform. She did so pursuant to her power of supervision and control over the
BLR.
Whether respondents’ registration should be cancelled – NO
Petitioner: Once it is determined that a ground enumerated in Article 239 of the
Labor Code is present, cancellation of registration should follow; it becomes the
ministerial duty of the Regional Director to cancel the registration of the labor
organization, hence, the use of the word shall.
 Articles 238 and 239 give the Regional Director ample discretion in dealing with
a petition for cancellation of a unions’ registration, particularly, determining
whether the union still meets the requirements prescribed by law. It is sufficient
to give the Regional Director license to treat the late filing of required
documents as sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law. After all,
the law requires the labor organization to submit the annual financial report and
list of members in order to verify if it is still viable and financially sustainable as
an organization so as to protect the employer and employees from fraudulent or
fly-by-night unions. With the submission of the required documents by
respondent, the purpose of the law has been achieved, though belatedly.
 The union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit should not be deprived of a bargaining agent, merely because of
the negligence of the union officers who were responsible for the submission of
the documents to the BLR.
 Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in treating petitions
for cancellation of union registration, lest they be accused of interfering with
union activities. In resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities
should bear in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of
legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a
legitimate labor organization, particularly the right to participate in or ask for
certification election in a bargaining unit.
 The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out
the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as a rule -
its rights under the Labor Code.
 The Labor Codes provisions on cancellation of union registration and on
reportorial requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers Constitutional Right to Self-
Organization, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, which lapsed
into law on May 25, 2007 and became effective on June 14, 2007. The
amendment sought to strengthen the workers right to self-organization and
enhance the Philippines compliance with its international obligations as
embodied in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No.
87, pertaining to the non-dissolution of workers organizations by administrative
authority: “ARTICLE 242-A: …Failure to comply with the above requirements
shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the
erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any
appropriate penalty. ”
 According to ILO 87: (which we have ratified in 1953)Workers and employers
organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative
authority. The cancellation of union registration by the registrar of labor unions,
which in our case is the BLR, is tantamount to dissolution of the organization by
administrative authority when such measure would give rise to the loss of legal
personality of the union or loss of advantages necessary for it to carry out its
activities, which is true in our jurisdiction. Dissolution of a union, and
cancellation of registration for that matter, involve serious consequences for
occupational representation. It is therefore preferable if such actions were to be
taken only as a last resort and after exhausting other possibilities with less
serious effects on the organization..
DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS, INC., petitioner versus BIGKIS
MANGGAGAWA SA DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 192648
March 15, 2017
FACTS:
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly-organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines. De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center and
De Ocampo Memorial College. Under the aforementioned institution is Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Medical Center a union which was granted Union
Registration No. on September 26, 2003. Another permit was issued for Bigkis
Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated December 5, 2003; Union
Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter No. NCR-l 2-CC-002-2003,
declaring that they are legitimate organization.
A Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the Department of
Labor and Employment - National Capital Region was filed by De Ocampo against
Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. dated March 4, 2004.
Stating in the petition the grounds of revocation of registration 1.) Misrepresentation
of declaring the officers and members 2.) Mixed membership of rank file 3.)
Inappropriate bargaining unit.
A Comment-Opposition was then filed by BMDOMSI, denying De Ocampo's
allegations and claiming that the latter only wants to impede the formation of the
union.
A decision of Acting Regional Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad III of the DOLE-NCR
ruled that BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation by making it appear that the
bargaining unit is composed of faculty and technical employees, dated July 26, 2004.
The respondents then filed an appeal to Bureau of Labor Relations. On December 29,
2004, a decision was released by BLR reversing the Regional Director's finding of
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in BMDOMSI’s application for
registration.
According to BLR the petitioner failed to present proof to support its allegation of
mixed membership within respondent union. Certiorari was filed by the petitioner to
the CA seeking to annul and set aside the BLR Decision as well as the Resolution
dated January 24, 2005 denying its motion for reconsideration. CA affirmed the
Decision of the BLR. It ruled that there was no misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud in the application for registration. The respondents were able to substantiate
that there have been no misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes
of the general membership meeting BMDOMSI Union, and the list of members who
attended the meeting and ratified the union constitution and by-laws, are in truth
employees of the school, though some service the hospital.
Although, the CA observed that the members of the union, who are from academic,
non-academic, and general services, do not perform work of the same nature and
these factors dictate the separation of the categories of employees for purposes of
collective bargaining, the CA reasoned that such lack of mutuality and commonality
of interest of the union members is not among the grounds for cancellation of union
registration under Article 247 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not De Ocampo Bigkis Manggagawa ng De Ocampo Memorial School,
Inc. Union Registration should be revoked
HELD:
No. The respondents did not violate any regulation for them to have grounds for
cancelation of their Union Registration. BMDOMSI Union was able to testify to the
court that there were no misrepresentation, mixed membership and inappropriate
bargaining unit in their union. The CA ruled the according to Article 247 of the
Labor Code provides: Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. The
following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
1.) 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;
2.)Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
3.) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
The petitioner was not able to establish to the court the violation alleged to the
respondents, wherefore CA decision favored for BMDOMSI, and declaring the
petition denied for lack of merit.
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, Petitioner,
vs.
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY
ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1assails the January 8, 2013 Decision2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari3in CA-G.R. SP
No. 114122, and its subsequent June 27, 2013 Resolution 4denying herein petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration. 5
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner Asian Institute of Management (AIM) is a duly registered non-stock, non-
profit educational institution. Respondent Asian Institute of Management Faculty
Association (AFA) is a labor organization composed of members of the AIM faculty,
duly registered under Certificate of Registration No. NCR-UR-12-4076-2004.
On May 16, 2007, respondent filed a petition for certification election6 seeking to
represent a bargaining unit in AIM consisting of forty (40) faculty members. The
case was docketed as DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007. Petitioner opposed
the petition, claiming that respondent's members are neither rank-and-file nor
supervisory, but rather, managerial employees.7
On July 11, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's
certificate of registration8 - docketed as DOLE Case No. NCROD-0707-001-
LRD - on the grounds of misrepresentation in registration and that respondent is
composed of managerial employees who are prohibited from organizing as a union.
On August 30, 2007, the Med-Arbiter in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007
issued an Order9 denying the petition for certification election on the ground that
AIM' s faculty members are managerial employees. This Order was appealed by
respondent before the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), 10 who reversed foe same via a February 20, 2009 Decision 11 and May 4,
2009 Resolution, 12 decreeing thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by the Asian Institute of Management Faculty
Association (AIMFA) is GRANTED. The Order dated 30 August 2007 of DOLE-
NCR Mediator-Arbiter Michael T. Parado is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, let the entire records of the case be remanded to DOLEN CR for the
conduct of a certification election among the faculty members of the Asian Institute
of Management (AIM), with the following choices:
1. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION
(AIMFA); and
2. No Union.
SO ORDERED.13
Meanwhile, in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-0707-001-LRD, an Order14 dated February
16, 2009 was issued by DOLE-NCR Regional Director Raymundo G. Agravante
granting AIM's petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration and
ordering its delisting from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. 1bis Order
was appealed by respondent before the Bureau labor Relations15 (BLR), which, in a
December 29, 2009 Decision,16 reversed the same and ordered respondent's retention
in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The BLR held that the grounds relied
upon in the petition for cancellation are not among the grounds authorized under
Article 239 of the Labor Code, 17 and that respondent's members are not managerial
employees. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but was rebuffed in a March 18, 2010
Resolution. 18
CA-G.R. SP No.109487 and G.R. No.197089
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, questioning the DOLE
Secretary's February 20, 2009 Decision and May 4, 2009 Resolution relative to
DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007, or respondent's petition for certification
election. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 109487, the petition is based on the
arguments that 1) the bargaining unit within AIM sought to be represented is
composed of managerial employees who are not eligible to join, assist, or form any
labor organization, and 2) respondent is not a legitimate labor organization that may
conduct a certification election.
On October 22, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision19 containing the following
pronouncement:
AIM insists that the members of its tenure-track faculty are managerial employees,
and therefore, ineligible to join, assist or form a labor organization. It ascribes grave
abuse of discretion on SOLE20 for its rash conclusion that the members of said
tenure-track faculty are not managerial employees solely because the faculty's
actions are still subject to evaluation, review or final approval by the board of
trustees ("BOT'). AIM argues that the BOT does not manage the day-to-day affairs,
nor the making and implementing of policies of the Institute, as such functions are
vested with the tenure-track faculty.
We agree.
Article 212(m) of the Labor Code defines managerial employees as:
'ART. 212. Definitions. – x x x
(m) 'Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those
who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions
if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of
the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book.'
There are, therefore, two (2) kinds of managerial employees under Art. 212(m) of the
Labor Code. Those who 'lay down x x x management policies', such as the Board of
Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend,
lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees'.
xxxx
On its face, the SOLE's opinion is already erroneous because in claiming that the
'test of 'supervisory' or 'managerial status' depends on whether a person possesses
authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article
212(m) of the Labor Code and Section l(m) of its Implementing Rules', he obviously
was referring to the old definition of a managerial employee. Such is evident in his
use of 'supervisory or managerial status', and reference to 'Section l(m) of its
Implementing Rules'. For presently, as aforequoted in Article 212(m) of the Labor
Code and as amended by Republic Act 6715 which took effect on March 21, 1989, a
managerial employee is already different from a supervisory employee. x x x
xxxx
In further opining that a managerial employee is one whose 'authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment', a description which fits now a supervisory employee under Section l(t),
Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, it then follows
that the SOLE was not aware of the change in the law and thus gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in concluding that AIM's 'tenure-
track' faculty are not managerial employees.
SOLE further committed grave abuse of discretion when it concluded that said
tenure-track faculty members are not managerial employees on the basis of a
'footnote' in AIM's Policy Manual, which provides that 'the policy[-] making
authority of the faculty members is merely recommendatory in nature
considering that the faculty standards they formulate are still subject to evaluation,
review or final approval by the [AIM]'s Board of Trustees'. x x x
xxxx
Clearly, AIM's tenure-track faculty do not merely recommend faculty
standards.1âwphi1 They 'determine all faculty standards', and are thus managerial
employees. The standards' being subjected to the approval of the Board of Trustees
would not make AIM's tenure-track faculty non-managerial because as earlier
mentioned, managerial employees are now of two categories: (1) those who 'lay
down policies', such as the members of the Board of Trustees, and (2) those
who 'execute management policies (etc.)’, such as AIM's tenure-track faculty.
xxxx
It was also grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE when he opined that
AIM' s tenure-track faculty members are not managerial employees, relying on an
impression that they were subjected to rigid observance of regular hours of work as
professors. x x x
xxxx
More importantly, it behooves the SOLE to deny AFA's appeal in light of the
February 16, 2009 Order of Regional Director Agravante delisting AFA from
the roster of legitimate labor organizations. For, only legitimate labor
organizations are given the right to be certified as sole and exclusive bargaining
agent in an establishment.
xxxx
Here, the SOLE committed grave abuse of discretion by giving due course to AFA's
petition for certification election, despite the fact that: (1) AFA's members are
managerial employees; and (2) AFA is not a legitimate labor organization. 'These
facts rendered AFA ineligible, and without any right to file a petition for certification
election, the object of which is to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of qualified AIM employees.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
February 20, 2009 and Resolution dated May 4, 2009 are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Order dated August 30, 2007 of Mediator-Arbiter Parado is
hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.21 (Emphasis in the original)
Respondent sought reconsideration, but was denied. It thus instituted a Petition for
Review on Certiorari before this Court on July 4, 2011. The Petition, docketed as
G.R. No. 197089, remains pending to date.
The Assailed Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Meanwhile, relative to DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-0707-001-LRD or petitioner
AIM's petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration, petitioner
filed on May 24, 20 l 0 a Petition for Certiorari22before the CA, questioning the
BLR's December 29, 2009 decision and March 18, 2010 resolution. The petition,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114122, alleged that the BLR committed grave abuse
of discretion in granting respondent's appeal and affirming its certificate of
registration notwithstanding that its members are managerial employees who may
not join, assist, or form a labor union or organization.
On January 8, 2013, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, stating as follows:
The petition lacks merit
xxxx
It is therefore incumbent upon the Institute to prove that the BLR committed grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Decision.1âwphi1 Towards this end,
AIM must lay the basis by showing that any of the grounds provided under Article
239 of the Labor Code, exists, to wit:
Article 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The following may
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;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Article 238 of the Labor Code provides that the enumeration of the grounds for
cancellation of union registration, is exclusive; in other words, no other grow1ds for
cancellation is acceptable, except for the three (3) grounds stated in Article 239. The
scope of the grounds for cancellation has been explained-
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.
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 andmisrepresentation must
be grave and compelling enough to
vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.23
In this regard, it has also been held that:
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. 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.24
A cursory reading of the Petition shows that AIM did NOT allege any specific act of
fraud or misrepresentation committed by AFA. What is clear is that the Institute
seeks the cancellation of the registration of AFA based on Article 245 of the Labor
Code on the ineligibility of managerial employees to form or join labor unions.
Unfortunately for the petitioner, even assuming that there is a violation of Article
245, such violation will not result in the cancellation of the certificate of registration
of a labor organization.
It should be stressed that a Decision had already been issued by the DOLE in the
Certification Election case; and the Decision ordered the conduct of a certification
election among the faculty members of the Institute, basing its directive on the
finding that the members of AFA were not managerial employees and are therefore
eligible to form, assist and join a labor union. As a matter of fact, the certification
election had already been held on October 16, 2009, albeit the results have not yet
been resolved as inclusion/exclusion proceedings are still pending before the DOLE.
The remedy available to the Institute is not the instant Petition, but to question the
status of the individual union members of the AFA in the inclusion/exclusion
proceedings pursuant to Article 245-A of the Labor Code, which reads:
Article 245-A. Effect of inclusion as members of employees outside the bargaining
unit. - The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit
shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said
employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said
union.
Petitioner insists that Article 245-A is not applicable to this case as all AF A
members are managerial employees. We are not persuaded.
The determination of whether any or all of the members of AFA should be
considered as managerial employees is better left to the DOLE because,
It has also been established that in the determination of whether or not certain
employees are managerial employees, this Court accords due respect and therefore
sustains the findings of fact made by quasi-judicial agencies which are supported by
substantial evidence considering their expertise in their respective fields. 25
From the discussion, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner foiled to prove that the
BLR committed grave abuse of discretion; consequently, the Petition must fail.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of
public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-C-19-3-6-09 (NCR-OD-
0707-001) are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.26 (Emphasis in the original)
Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA via its
June 27, 2013 Resolution. Hence, the instant Petition.
In a November 10, 2014 Resolution,27 the Court resolved to give due course to the
Petition.
Issue
Petitioner claims that the CA seriously erred in affirming the dispositions of the BLR
and thus validating the respondent's certificate of registration notwithstanding the
fact that its members are all managerial employees who are disqualified from
joining, assisting, or forming a labor organization.
Petitioner's Arguments
Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that the DOLE-NCR
Regional Director's February 16, 2009 Order granting AIM's petition for cancellation
of respondent's certificate of registration and ordering its delisting from the roster of
legitimate labor organizations be reinstated instead, petitioner maintains in its
Petition and Reply28that respondent's members are all managerial employees; that the
CA erred in declaring that even if respondent's members are all managerial
employees, this alone is not a ground for cancellation of its certificate of registration;
that precisely, the finding in DOLE Case No. NCR-ODM- 0705-007, which the CA
affirmed in CA-G.R. SP No. 109487, is that respondent's members are managerial
employees; that respondent's declaration that its members are eligible to join, assist,
or form a labor organization is an act of misrepresentation, given the finding in CA-
G.R. SP No. 109487 that they are managerial employees; and that the grounds for
cancellation of union registration enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code are
not exclusive.
Respondent's Arguments
In its Comment,29 respondent maintains that the CA was right to treat petitioner’s
case for cancellation of its union registration with circumspection; that petitioner's
ground for filing the petition for cancellation is not recognized under Article 239;
that petitioner's accusation of misrepresentation is unsubstantiated, and is being
raised for the first time at this stage; that its members are not managerial employees;
and that petitioner's opposition to respondent's attempts at self-organization
constitutes harassment, oppression, and violates the latter's rights under the Labor
Code and the Constitution.
On the basis of the ruling in the above-cited case, it can be said that petitioner was
correct in filing a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration.
Petitioner's sole ground for seeking cancellation of respondent's certificate of
registration - that its members are managerial employees and for this reason, its
registration is thus a patent nullity for being an absolute violation of Article 245 of
the Labor Code which declares that managerial employees are ineligible to join any
labor organization --- is, in a sense, an accusation that respondent is guilty of
misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not managerial
employees.
However, the issue of whether respondent's members are managerial employees is
still pending resolution by way of petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No.
197089, which is the culmination of all proceedings in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-
M-0705-007 -- where the issue relative to the nature of respondent's membership was
first raised by petitioner itself and is there fiercely contested. The resolution of this
issue cannot be pre-empted; until it is determined with finality in G.R. No. l 97089,
the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds
alleged by petitioner cannot be resolved. As a matter of courtesy and in order to
avoid conflicting decisions, We must await the resolution of the petition in G.R. No.
197089.
x x x If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the
judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a
former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and
conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated
in the first suit. x x x Identity of cause of action is not required, but merely identity
of issues.31 (Citation omitted)
WHEREFORE, considering that the outcome of this case depends on the resolution
of the issue relative to the nature of respondent's membership pending in G.R. No.
197089, this case is ordered CONSOLIDATED with G.R. No. 197089.
SO ORDERED.

Our Ruling

In Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Sto. Tomas,30this Court declared that "[i]n
case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure
for an employer like petitioner is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the
union's certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under the circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code, as amended."