Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sec of Labor and Employment, et.

al. (G.R. No. 183317December 21, 2009)

Facts:
 On May 2005, private respondent Samahan Ng Mga
Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa SiamCeramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate
labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Region IV-A.
 On June 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed
a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against private
respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the Labor
Code for not complying with the 20% requirement and that
it committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of
Article 239 of the same code.
 The Regional Director of DOLE IVA issued an Order granting
the petition, revoking the registration of respondent, and delisting it
from the roster of active labor unions. SMMSC-Independent appealed
to the Bureau of Labor Relations.
 BLR ruled in favor of the respondent, thus, they remain in the
roster of legitimate labor organizations.
 The petitioner appealed and insisted that private respondent
failed to comply with the 20% union membership requirement for its
registration as a legitimate labor organization because of
the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
Issues: 1) Was there failure to comply with the 20%
union membership requirement?
2) Did the withdrawal of 31 union members affect the petition for certifi
cation electioninsofar as the 30% requirement is concerned?
Ruling:
 No.While it is true that the withdrawal of support may be consi
dered as a resignation fromthe union, the fact remains that at the
time of the union’s application for registration, the affiants were
members of respondent and they comprised more than the required
20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union.
 Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20%minimum
membership during the application for union registration. It does not
mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership
requirement all throughout its existence.
 On the second issue, it appears undisputedly that the 31 unio
n members had withdrawntheir support to the petition before the filing
of said petition.
 The distinction must be that withdrawals made before the
filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there is convincing
proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the
petition is deemed involuntary.
 Therefore, following jurisprudence, the employees were not
totally free from the employer’s pressure and so the voluntariness of
the employee’s execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.
 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 ofunion registration under the Labor Code, the nature
of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling
enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members

SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA–

LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI
NG ALYANSA (SAMMA–LIKHA) V. SAMMA
CORPORATION March 13, 2009

Facts: Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma Lakas sa

Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMALIKHA) filed a
petition for certification election on July 24, 2001.
 It claimed that: (1) it was a local chapter of the LIKHA
Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE;
(2) it sought to represent all the rank-and-file employees of
respondent Samma Corporation; (3) there was no other legitimate
labor organization representing these rank-and-file employees; (4)
respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement
and (5) no certification or consent election had been conducted within
the employer unit for the last 12 months prior to the filing of the
petition.
 Samma Corp. moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing
that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality; (2)
petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to
attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had a prohibited
mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
 Med-Arbiter’s Ruling Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the
following grounds: (1) lack of legal personality for failure to attach the
certificate of registration purporting to show its legal personality; (2)
prohibited mixture of rank-andfile and supervisory employees and (3)
failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping. Petitioner moved
for MR.
 The Regional Director of DOLE forwarded the case to the
Secretary of Labor.
 During pendency of the petition, Samma Corp. filed a
petition for cancellation of petitioner’s union registration in the DOLE
Regional Office IV. Sec. of Labor’s Ruling Reversed the order of the
med-arbiter.
 SOL ruled that the legal personality of a union cannot be
collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an independent
petition for cancellation of registration. Thus, he directed the holding of
a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of
respondent, subject to the usual pre-election conference and
inclusion-exclusion proceedings.
 Meanwhile, Director of DOLE revoked the charter certificate of
SAMMA-LIKHA as local chapter of LIKHA Federation on the ground of
prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and
noncompliance with the attestation clause under paragraph 2 of
Article 235 of the Labor Code.
 CA’s Ruling CA reversed SOL’s decision. CA held that
Administrative Circular No. 04-94 which required the filing of a
certificate of non-forum shopping applied to petitions for certification
election. It also ruled that the Secretary of Labor erred in granting the
appeal despite the lack of proof of service on respondent.
 Lastly, it found that petitioner had no legal standing to file the
petition for certification election because its members were a mixture
of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

Issues:
1. Whether a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a
petition for certification election. – NO
2. Whether SAMMA LIKHA had the legal personality to file the petition
for certification election. – NO.
Ruling:
1. REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF NONFORUM SHOPPING
IS NOT REQUIRED IN A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION
ELECTION.
 The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers
to complaints, counter-claims, crossclaims, petitions or applications
where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding
the claim for relief of the complainant, claimant, petitioner or applicant.
 A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition,
is not litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-
finding character.
 Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of
misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an inquisitorial
nature.
 The Board's functions are not judicial in nature, but are
merely of an investigative character. The object of the proceedings is
not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs nor asserted
deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of proper
bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and
choice of the employees in respect of the selection of a
bargaining representative.
 Under the omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code as
amended by D.O. No. 9, the PCE is supposed to be filed in the
Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the
employer or where the bargaining unit is principally situated. The rules
further provide that where two or more petitions involving the same
bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, the same shall be
automatically consolidated. Hence, the filing of multiple suits and the
possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely happen in this proceeding
and, if it does, will be easy to discover.

2. LEGAL PERSONALITY OF PETITIONER

 The erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the
union of rank-and-file employees was not a ground to impugn its
legitimacy as a legitimate labor organization which had the right to file
a petition for certification election.
 LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation. With
certificates of registration issued in their favor, they are clothed with
legal personality as legitimate labor organizations.
 Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to
collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation of certificate of registration.
 Unless petitioners union registration is cancelled in
independent proceedings, it shall continue to have all the rights of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to petition for
certification election.
 Samma Corp. filed a petition for cancellation of the
registration of petitioner on December 14, 2002. In a resolution dated
April 14, 2003, petitioners charter certificate was revoked by the
DOLE.
 But on May 6, 2003, petitioner moved for the reconsideration
of this resolution.
 Neither of the parties alleged that this resolution revoking
petitioners charter certificate had attained finality.
 However, in this petition, petitioner
prayed that its charter certificate be reinstated in the roster of active
legitimate labor organizations.
 The proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration
are independent of those of a petition for certification election. This
case originated from the latter. If it is shown that petitioner’s legal
personality had already been revoked or cancelled with finality in
accordance with the rules, then it is no longer a legitimate labor
organization with the right to petition for a certification election.
 A FINAL NOTE - Respondent, as employer, had been the
one opposing the holding of a certification election among its rank
and-file employees. This should not be the case. We have already
declared that, in certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it
has no right or material interest to assail the certification election.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Petitioner,
vs. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008
FACTS:
 KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a
Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the
bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of
respondent.
 Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality
because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory
employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to
submit its books of account contravened the ruling of the
Court in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment
ISSUE:
(1) whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election in view of the amendment brought about by D.O.
9, series of 1997, which deleted the phraseology in the old rule
that “the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and file employee
shall not include the supervisory employees and/or security guards;”
(2) whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can
be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through
a motion to dismiss filed by an employer such as Kawashima Textile
Manufacturing Phils., Inc.
HELD:
 The petition is imbued with merit. The key to the closure that
petitioner seeks could have been Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 [AN
ACT ORGANIZATION, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES] Sections 8
and 9.
 However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007;
hence, it applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after
said date.
 As the petition for certification election subject matter of the
present petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000,28 R.A. No.
9481 cannot apply to it.
 There may have been curative labor legislations that were
given retrospective effect, but not the aforecited provisions of
R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and interests already
vested would be impaired in the process.
 Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by
KFWU of the petition for certification election on January 24, 2000 are
R.A. No. 6715, amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
442 (Labor Code),as amended, and the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 6715,34 as amended by Department Order
No. 9, series of 1997.
 One area of contention has been the composition of the
membership of a labor organization, specifically whether there is a
mingling of supervisory and rank and-file employees and how such
questioned mingling affects its legitimacy.
 Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition
against the questioned mingling in one labor organization, viz: Sec.
18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows “Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial
employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory
employees.
 Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or
form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be
eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of
their own.”
 Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715
omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the
prohibition would bring about on the legitimacy of a
labor organization.
 Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was
brought to the fore in Toyota, the Court, citing Article
245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715,
held: Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed
of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate
labor organization.
 Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of
rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the
rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file
a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective
bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting
of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the
composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor
organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor
Code
 In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list
contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory
employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to
purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status
of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess
the requisite personality to file a petition for certification
election.
 But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended
Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9,
series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules).
 Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of
the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules – that the petition for certification
election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees
has not been mingled with supervisory employees – was removed.
 Consequently, the Court reinstates that of the DOLE
granting the petition for certification election of KFWU.

II. Now to the second issue of whether an employer

like respondent may collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor
organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for
certification election.

 Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an

employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election;
such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the
purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
employees in their collective bargaining
with the employer. The choice of their representative is
the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer
cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with,
much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an
appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
participating in a petition for certification election are actually
managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block
the certification election. The employer’s only right in the proceeding is
to be notified or informed thereof.
 The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing
rules have buttressed that policy even more. Petition is GRANTED.

LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS V. KILUSANG

MANGGAGAWA NG LEGEND February 23, 2011
FACTS: On June 6, 2001, KML filed with the Med-Arbitrater
a Petition for Certification Election. KML alleged that it is a
legitimate labor organization of the rank and file employees of Legend
International Resorts Limited (LEGEND).
 LEGEND moved to dismiss the petition alleging that KML is
not a legitimate labor organization because its membership is a
mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees in violation of
Article 245 of the Labor Code.
 LEGEND also claimed that KML committed acts of
fraud and misrepresentation when it made it appear that
certain employees attended its general membership
meeting on April 5, 2001 when in reality some of them were
either at work; have already resigned as of March 2001; or
were abroad.
 In its Comment, KML argued that even if 41 of
its members are indeed supervisory employees and therefore
excluded from its membership, the certification election could still
proceed because the required number of the total rank and file
employees necessary for certification purposes is still sustained. KML
also claimed that its legitimacy as a labor union could not be
collaterally attacked in the certification election proceedings but only
through a separate and independent action for cancellation of union
registration.
 Finally, as to the alleged acts of misrepresentation, KML
asserted that LEGEND failed to
substantiate its claim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the legitimacy of the legal

personality of KML may be collaterally attacked in a petition
for certification election?

HELD: No. the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML

cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification
election proceeding.
 This is in consonance with our ruling in Laguna Autoparts
Manufacturing Corporation v. Office of the Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment that such legal personality may not be subject
to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted
particularly for the purpose of assailing it.
 The Court further held therein that to raise the issue of the
respondent unions legal personality is not proper in this case.
 The pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief,
that the respondent union acquired a legal personality cannot be
challenged in a petition for certification election.
 The discussion of the Secretary of Labor and Employment on
this point is also enlightening. Section 5, Rule V of D.O. 9 is instructive
on the matter.
 It provides that the legal personality of a union cannot be the
subject of collateral attack in a petition for certification election, but
may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation
of union registration.
 This has been the rule since NUBE v. Minister of Labor, 110
SCRA 274 (1981). What applies in this case is the principle that once
a union acquires a legitimate status as a labor organization, it
continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or
revoked in an independent action for cancellation. The legal
personality of a legitimate labor organization cannot be subject to a
collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter.
 The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization
shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the
date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of
registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject
to a collateral attack.
 In may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the
Implementing Rules.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner,
GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORP v. NATIONAL UNION OF
WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS
CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC) G.R. No. 178296 January 12,
2011

DOCTRINE:
Non-filing of reportorial requirements is not a ground for cancellation
of union registration.
FACTS:
 Respondent filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment- National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) a petition for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered
the holding of a certification election.
 On appeal, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s
order and remanded the case to the Med-Arbiter for the holding of a
pre-election conference. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
but it was denied.
 Subsequently, petitioner discovered that respondent had
failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
its annual financial report for several years and the list of its members
since it filed its registration papers in 1995.
 Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration of respondent, on the ground of the nonsubmission of the
said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondent’s 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. Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through
on June 23, 2000. Respondent emerged as the winner.
 On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with Motion to
Defer Certification of Election Results and Winner, stating that the
certification election held on June 23, 2000 was an exercise in futility
because, once respondent’s registration is cancelled, it would no
longer be entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of
the supervisory employees.
 Meanwhile, respondent filed its Answer to the petition for the
cancellation of its registration. It averred that the petition was filed
primarily to delay the conduct of the certification election, the
respondent’s certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the supervisory employees, and the commencement of bargaining
negotiations.
 Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition for
cancellation for the following reasons: (a) petitioner is estopped from
questioning respondent’s 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: pendency of a petition for cancellation of
registration is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.
 Thus, in an Order dated January 26, 2001, the Med-Arbiter
dismissed petitioner’s protest, and certified respondent as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory employees.
In the meantime, Regional Director Alex E. Maraan (Regional Director
Maraan) of DOLE-NCR finally resolved the petition for cancellation of
registration. While emphasizing that the non-compliance with the law
is not viewed with favor—considered the belated submission of the
annual financial reports and the list of members as sufficient
compliance thereof and considered them as having been submitted on
time.
 DOLE SEC: Denied petitioner’s MR (jurisdiction belongs to
the BLR, but the BLR director in this case inhibited himself, thus the
DOLE Sec took cognizance of the appeal)
 CA: DOLE sec did not commit grave abuse of discretion when
she took cognizance of the case because in the absence of the BLR
Director, there is no person more competent to resolve the appeal
than the DOLE Secretary.
 Further, it affirmed DOLE’s ruling 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.

ISSUE: Is the non-filing of reportorial requirements a ground for

cancellation of union registration?

SC RULING:
 No. Articles 238-239 give the Regional Director ample
discretion in dealing with a petition for cancellation of a
union’s 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.
 We cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Regional
Director and the DOLE Secretary in denying the petition
for cancellation of respondent’s registration.
 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.
 It is worth mentioning that the Labor Code’s 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.
 ART. 242-A. Reportorial Requirements.—The following are
documents required to be submitted to the
Bureau by the legitimate labor organization concerned: 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.
DHL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION UNITED RANK AND FILE
ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE PHILIPPINES WORKERS
(DHL-URFA-FFW), BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG DHL
PHILIPPINES CORPORATION G.R. NO. 152094; JULY 22, 2004

Facts:
 A certification election was conducted among the regular rank
and file employees in the main office and the regional branches of
DHL Philippines Corporation on November 25, 1997. The contending
choices were petitioner and "no union."
 However, on December 19, 1997, a petition for the
nullification for the certification election was filed by the
respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation
(BUKLOD) with the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the ground of fraud and deceit,
particularly by misrepresenting to the employees that it was an
independent union even if it was an affiliate of the Federation of Free
Workers (FFW).
 Those who found out withdrew their membership and formed
BUKLOD, whose Certificate of Registration was issued by DOLE on
December 23, 1997.
 Come January 19, 1998, petitioner received 546 votes and
"no union" garnering 348 votes, and was certified by the election
officer as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees of the corporation.
 The Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the
November 25, 1997 certification election and ordered the conduct of a
new one with respondent as one of the choices, alongside petitioner
and “no choice.” This decision was reversed by DOLE Undersecretary
Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz. Upon reaching the Court of Appeals, it
held that the withdrawal of 704 out of 894 members of the petitioner
union was a valid impetus to hold a new certification
election.

Issue: Is the certification election valid?

Ruling:
 The Petition lacks merit.
 The petitioner hinges the validity of the decision of the
election officer on the fact that no protest for the misrepresentation
was filed during the election or within 5 days from the close thereof.
 However, the Court held that “when the med-arbiter admitted
and gave due course to respondent’s Petition for nullification of the
election proceedings, the election officer should have deferred issuing
the Certification of the results thereof. Section 13 of the Implementing
Rules cannot strictly be applied to the present case.”
 Respondents voted in favor of the petitioner because it
was their desire to have an independent union.
 However, this misrepresentation caused them to disaffiliate
and form a new union. Upon filing the application but prior the
issuance of a certificate of registration, the respondent already filed its
petition to nullify the certification election. This was opposed by
petitioner on the ground that there was no certificate issued to
respondent yet.
 However, the court held that “because such certificate was
issued in favor of the latter [respondent] four days after the filing of the
Petition, on December 23, 1997, the misgivings of the
former were brushed aside by the med-arbiter.
 Indeed,
the fact that respondent was not yet a duly registered
labor organization when the Petition was filed is of no
moment, absent any fatal defect in its application for
registration.”
 Moreover, the respondents did not sleep on their rights.
“Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities
regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken against
them.
 Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the
welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an
opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor
organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this
opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioner’s officers in the
present case, the employees were prevented from making an
intelligent and independent choice.”
 Lastly, the Court held that “a certification election may be set
aside for misstatements made during the campaign, where 1) a
material fact has been misrepresented in the campaign; 2) an
opportunity for reply has been lacking; and 3) the misrepresentation
has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in
the election.”
 The misrepresentation was committed by the officers of the
petitioner, and petitioner cannot claim that there was sufficient time
between the said misrepresentation and election to ascertain the truth
of petitioner’s statements. Petition denied.