G.R. No. 178296 January 12, 2011 THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, actin t!rou !

it" o#n$r, GRAN% &LA'A HOTEL (OR&ORATION,Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL )NION O* +OR,ER- IN THE HOTEL, RE-TA)RANT AN% ALLIE% IN%)-TRIE-.HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA -)&ER/I-OR- (HA&TER 0N)+HRAIN. HHM-(1, Respondent. DECISION NA(H)RA, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appea s !CA" dated #a$ %&, '&&( and Reso ution dated )une *, '&&+. ,he assai ed Decision affir-ed the dis-issa of a petition for cance ation of union re.istration fi ed /$ petitioner, 0rand P a1a 2ote Corporation, owner of 2erita.e 2ote #ani a, a.ainst respondent, Nationa 3nion of 4or5ers in the 2ote , Restaurant and A ied Industries62erita.e 2ote #ani a Supervisors Chapter !N342RAIN622#SC", a a/or or.ani1ation of the supervisor$ e-p o$ees of 2erita.e 2ote #ani a. ,he case ste--ed fro- the fo owin. antecedents7 On Octo/er 11, 188(, respondent fi ed with the Depart-ent of 9a/or and E-p o$-ent6Nationa Capita Re.ion !DO9E6NCR" a petition for certification e ection. ' ,he #ed6Ar/iter .ranted the petition on :e/ruar$ 1*, 188; and ordered the ho din. of a certification e ection. % On appea , the DO9E Secretar$, in a Reso ution dated Au.ust 1(, 188;, affir-ed the #ed6Ar/iter<s order and re-anded the case to the #ed6Ar/iter for the ho din. of a pree ection conference on :e/ruar$ ';, 188+. Petitioner fi ed a -otion for reconsideration, /ut it was denied on Septe-/er '%, 188;. ,he pree ection conference was not he d as initia $ schedu ed= it was he d a $ear ater, or on :e/ruar$ '&, 188>. Petitioner -oved to archive or to dis-iss the petition due to a e.ed repeated non6appearance of respondent. ,he atter a.reed to suspend proceedin.s unti further notice. ,he pree ection conference resu-ed on )anuar$ '8, '&&&. Su/se?uent $, petitioner discovered that respondent had fai ed to su/-it to the Bureau of 9a/or Re ations !B9R" its annua financia report for severa $ears and the ist of its -e-/ers since it fi ed its re.istration papers in 188(. Conse?uent $, on #a$ 18, '&&&, petitioner fi ed a Petition for Cance ation of Re.istration of respondent, on the .round of the non6su/-ission of the said docu-ents. Petitioner pra$ed that respondent<s Certificate of Creation of 9oca @Chapter /e cance ed and its na-e /e de eted fro- the ist of e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ations. It further re?uested the suspension of the certification e ection proceedin.s. * On )une 1, '&&&, petitioner reiterated its re?uest /$ fi in. a #otion to Dis-iss or Suspend the ACertification E ectionB Proceedin.s, ( ar.uin. that the dis-issa or suspension of the proceedin.s is warranted, considerin. that the e.iti-ac$ of respondent is serious $ /ein. cha en.ed in the petition for cance ation of re.istration. Petitioner -aintained that the reso ution of the issue of whether respondent is a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation is crucia to the issue of whether it -a$ eCercise ri.hts of a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation, which inc ude the ri.ht to /e certified as the /ar.ainin. a.ent of the covered e-p o$ees. Neverthe ess, the certification e ection pushed throu.h on )une '%, '&&&. Respondent e-er.ed as the winner.; On )une '>, '&&&, petitioner fi ed a Protest with #otion to Defer Certification of E ection Resu ts and 4inner,+statin. that the certification e ection he d on )une '%, '&&& was an eCercise in futi it$ /ecause, once respondent<s re.istration is cance ed, it wou d no on.er /e entit ed to /e certified as the eCc usive /ar.ainin. a.ent of the supervisor$ e-p o$ees. Petitioner a so c ai-ed that so-e of respondent<s -e-/ers were not ?ua ified to Doin the union /ecause the$ were either confidentia e-p o$ees or -ana.eria e-p o$ees. It then pra$ed that the certification of the e ection resu ts and winner /e deferred unti the petition for cance ation sha have /een reso ved, and that respondent<s -e-/ers who he d confidentia or -ana.eria positions /e eCc uded frothe supervisors< /ar.ainin. unit.

#eanwhi e, respondent fi ed its Answer> to the petition for the cance ation of its re.istration. It averred that the petition was fi ed pri-ari $ to de a$ the conduct of the certification e ection, the respondent<s certification as the eCc usive /ar.ainin. representative of the supervisor$ e-p o$ees, and the co--ence-ent of /ar.ainin. ne.otiations. Respondent pra$ed for the dis-issa of the petition for the fo owin. reasons7 !a" petitioner is estopped fro- ?uestionin. respondent<s status as a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation as it had a read$ reco.ni1ed respondent as such durin. the pree ection conferences= !/" petitioner is not the part$6in6interest, as the union -e-/ers are the ones who wou d /e disadvanta.ed /$ the non6su/-ission of financia reports= !c" it has a read$ co-p ied with the reportoria re?uire-ents, havin. su/-itted its financia state-ents for 188;, 188+, 188>, and 1888, its updated ist of officers, and its ist of -e-/ers for the $ears 188(, 188;, 188+, 188>, and 1888= !d" the petition is a read$ -oot and acade-ic, considerin. that the certification e ection had a read$ /een he d, and the -e-/ers had -anifested their wi to /e represented /$ respondent. Citin. Nationa 3nion of Ban5 E-p o$ees v. #inister of 9a/or, et a . 8 and Sa-ahan n. #an..a.awa sa Pacific P astic v. 2on. 9a.ues-a, 1& the #ed6Ar/iter he d that the pendenc$ of a petition for cance ation of re.istration is not a /ar to the ho din. of a certification e ection. ,hus, in an Order11 dated )anuar$ ';, '&&1, the #ed6Ar/iter dis-issed petitioner<s protest, and certified respondent as the so e and eCc usive /ar.ainin. a.ent of a supervisor$ e-p o$ees. Petitioner su/se?uent $ appea ed the said Order to the DO9E Secretar$. 1' ,he appea was ater dis-issed /$ DO9E Secretar$ Patricia A. Sto. ,o-as !DO9E Secretar$ Sto. ,o-as" in the Reso ution of Au.ust '1, '&&'. 1%Petitioner -oved for reconsideration, /ut the -otion was a so denied.1* In the -eanti-e, Re.iona Director A eC E. #araan !Re.iona Director #araan" of DO9E6NCR fina $ reso ved the petition for cance ation of re.istration. 4hi e findin. that respondent had indeed fai ed to fi e financia reports and the ist of its -e-/ers for severa $ears, he, nonethe ess, denied the petition, ratiocinatin. that freedo- of association and the e-p o$ees< ri.ht to se f6or.ani1ation are -ore su/stantive considerations. 2e too5 into account the fact that respondent won the certification e ection and that it had a read$ /een certified as the eCc usive /ar.ainin. a.ent of the supervisor$ e-p o$ees. In view of the fore.oin., Re.iona Director #araanEwhi e e-phasi1in. that the non6co-p iance with the aw is not viewed with favorE considered the /e ated su/-ission of the annua financia reports and the ist of -e-/ers as sufficient co-p iance thereof and considered the- as havin. /een su/-itted on ti-e. ,he dispositive portion of the decision1( dated Dece-/er '8, '&&1 reads7 42ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the instant petition to de ist the Nationa 3nion of 4or5ers in the 2ote , Restaurant and A ied Industries62erita.e 2ote #ani a Supervisors Chapter fro- the ro of e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ations is here/$ DENIED. SO ORDERED.1; A..rieved, petitioner appea ed the decision to the B9R. 1+ B9R Director 2ans 9eo Cacdac inhi/ited hi-se f fro- the case /ecause he had /een a for-er counse of respondent. In view of Director Cacdac<s inhi/ition, DO9E Secretar$ Sto. ,o-as too5 co.ni1ance of the appea . In a reso ution1> dated :e/ruar$ '1, '&&%, she dis-issed the appea , ho din. that the constitutiona $ .uaranteed freedo- of association and ri.ht of wor5ers to se f6or.ani1ation outwei.hed respondent<s nonco-p iance with the statutor$ re?uire-ents to -aintain its status as a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation. Petitioner fi ed a -otion for reconsideration, 18 /ut the -otion was i5ewise denied in a reso ution'& dated #a$ %&, '&&%. DO9E Secretar$ Sto. ,o-as ad-itted that it was the B9R which had Durisdiction over the appea , /ut she pointed out that the B9R Director had vo untari $ inhi/ited hi-se f fro- the case /ecause he used to appear as counse for respondent. In order to -aintain the inte.rit$ of the decision and of the B9R, she therefore accepted the -otion to inhi/it and too5 co.ni1ance of the appea . Petitioner fi ed a petition for certiorari with the CA, raisin. the issue of whether the DO9E Secretar$ acted with .rave a/use of discretion in ta5in. co.ni1ance of the appea and affir-in. the dis-issa of its petition for cance ation of respondent<s re.istration.
LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA |1

In a Decision dated #a$ %&, '&&(, the CA denied the petition. ,he CA opined that the DO9E Secretar$ -a$ e.a $ assu-e Durisdiction over an appea fro- the decision of the Re.iona Director in the event that the Director of the B9R inhi/its hi-se f fro- the case. Accordin. to the CA, in the a/sence of the B9R Director, there is no person -ore co-petent to reso ve the appea than the DO9E Secretar$. ,he CA /rushed aside the a e.ation of /ias and partia it$ on the part of the DO9E Secretar$, considerin. that such a e.ation was not supported /$ an$ evidence. ,he CA a so found that the DO9E Secretar$ did not co--it .rave a/use of discretion when she affir-ed the dis-issa of the petition for cance ation of respondent<s re.istration as a a/or or.ani1ation. Echoin. the DO9E Secretar$, the CA he d that the re?uire-ents of re.istration of a/or or.ani1ations are an eCercise of the overridin. po ice power of the State, desi.ned for the protection of wor5ers a.ainst potentia a/use /$ the union that recruits the-. ,hese re?uire-ents, the CA opined, shou d not /e eCp oited to wor5 a.ainst the wor5ers< constitutiona $ protected ri.ht to se f6or.ani1ation. Petitioner fi ed a -otion for reconsideration, invo5in. this Court<s ru in. in A//ott 9a/s. Phi s., Inc. v. A//ott 9a/s. E-p o$ees 3nion, '1 which cate.orica $ dec ared that the DO9E Secretar$ has no authorit$ to review the decision of the Re.iona Director in a petition for cance ation of union re.istration, and Section *,'' Ru e FIII, Boo5 F of the O-ni/us Ru es I-p e-entin. the 9a/or Code. In its Reso ution'% dated )une *, '&&+, the CA denied petitioner<s -otion, statin. that the B9R Director<s inhi/ition fro- the case was a pecu iarit$ not present in the A//ott case, and that such inhi/ition Dustified the assu-ption of Durisdiction /$ the DO9E Secretar$. In this petition, petitioner ar.ues that7 I. ,he Court of Appea s serious $ erred in ru in. that the 9a/or Secretar$ proper $ assu-ed Durisdiction over Petitioner<s appea of the Re.iona Director<s Decision in the Cance ation Petition C C C. A. )urisdiction is conferred on $ /$ aw. ,he 9a/or Secretar$ had no Durisdiction to review the decision of the Re.iona Director in a petition for cance ation. Such Durisdiction is conferred /$ aw to the B9R. B. ,he uni atera inhi/ition /$ the B9R Director cannot Dustif$ the 9a/or Secretar$<s eCercise of Durisdiction over the Appea . C. ,he 9a/or Secretar$<s assu-ption of Durisdiction over the Appea without notice vio ated Petitioner<s ri.ht to due process. II. ,he Court of Appea s .rave $ erred in affir-in. the dis-issa of the Cance ation Petition despite the -andator$ and une?uivoca provisions of the 9a/or Code and its I-p e-entin. Ru es. '* ,he petition has no -erit. )urisdiction to review the decision of the Re.iona Director ies with the B9R. ,his is c ear $ provided in the I-p e-entin. Ru es of the 9a/or Code and enunciated /$ the Court in A//ott. But as pointed out /$ the CA, the present case invo ves a pecu iar circu-stance that was not present or covered /$ the ru in. in A//ott. In this case, the B9R Director inhi/ited hi-se f fro- the case /ecause he was a for-er counse of respondent. 4ho, then, sha reso ve the case in his p aceG In A//ott, the appea fro- the Re.iona Director<s decision was direct $ fi ed with the Office of the DO9E Secretar$, and we ru ed that the atter has no appe ate Durisdiction. In the instant case, the appea was fi ed /$ petitioner with the B9R, which, undisputed $, ac?uired Durisdiction over the case. Once Durisdiction is ac?uired /$ the court, it re-ains with it unti the fu ter-ination of the case.'( ,hus, Durisdiction re-ained with the B9R despite the B9R Director<s inhi/ition. 4hen the DO9E Secretar$ reso ved the appea , she -ere $ stepped into the shoes of the B9R Director and perfor-ed a function that the atter cou d not hi-se f perfor-. She did so pursuant to her power of supervision and contro over the B9R.'; ECpoundin. on the eCtent of the power of contro , the Court, in Araneta, et a . v. 2on. #. 0at-aitan, et a .,'+pronounced that, if a certain power or authorit$ is vested /$ aw upon the

Depart-ent Secretar$, then such power or authorit$ -a$ /e eCercised direct $ /$ the President, who eCercises supervision and contro over the depart-ents. ,his princip e was incorporated in the Ad-inistrative Code of 18>+, which defines Hsupervision and contro H as inc udin. the authorit$ to act direct $ whenever a specific function is entrusted /$ aw or re.u ation to a su/ordinate.'> App $in. the fore.oin. to the present case, it is c ear that the DO9E Secretar$, as the person eCercisin. the power of supervision and contro over the B9R, has the authorit$ to direct $ eCercise the ?uasi6Dudicia function entrusted /$ aw to the B9R Director. It is true that the power of contro and supervision does not .ive the Depart-ent Secretar$ un/rid ed authorit$ to ta5e over the functions of his or her su/ordinate. Such authorit$ is su/Dect to certain .uide ines which are stated in Boo5 IF, Chapter >, Section %8!1"!a" of the Ad-inistrative Code of 18>+.'8 2owever, in the present case, the DO9E Secretar$<s act of ta5in. over the function of the B9R Director was warranted and necessitated /$ the atter<s inhi/ition fro- the case and the o/Dective to H-aintain the inte.rit$ of the decision, as we as the Bureau itse f.H %& Petitioner insists that the B9R Director<s su/ordinates shou d have reso ved the appea , citin. the provision under the Ad-inistrative Code of 18>+ which states, Hin case of the a/sence or disa/i it$ of the head of a /ureau or office, his duties sha /e perfor-ed /$ the assistant head.H%1 ,he provision c ear $ does not app $ considerin. that the B9R Director was neither a/sent nor sufferin. fro- an$ disa/i it$= he re-ained as head of the B9R. ,hus, to dispe an$ suspicion of /ias, the DO9E Secretar$ opted to reso ve the appea herse f. Petitioner was not denied the ri.ht to due process when it was not notified in advance of the B9R Director<s inhi/ition and the DO9E Secretar$<s assu-ption of the case. 4e 6sett ed is the ru e that the essence of due process is si-p $ an opportunit$ to /e heard, or, as app ied to ad-inistrative proceedin.s, an opportunit$ to eCp ain one<s side or an opportunit$ to see5 a reconsideration of the action or ru in. co-p ained of. %' Petitioner had the opportunit$ to ?uestion the B9R Director<s inhi/ition and the DO9E Secretar$<s ta5in. co.ni1ance of the case when it fi ed a -otion for reconsideration of the atter<s decision. It wou d /e we to state that a critica co-ponent of due process is a hearin. /efore an i-partia and disinterested tri/una , for a the e e-ents of due process, i5e notice and hearin., wou d /e -eanin. ess if the u ti-ate decision wou d co-e fro- a partia and /iased Dud.e. %% It was precise $ to ensure a fair tria that -oved the B9R Director to inhi/it hi-se f fro- the case and the DO9E Secretar$ to ta5e over his function. Petitioner a so insists that respondent<s re.istration as a e.iti-ate a/or union shou d /e cance ed. Petitioner posits that once it is deter-ined that a .round enu-erated in Artic e '%8 of the 9a/or Code is present, cance ation of re.istration shou d fo ow= it /eco-es the -inisteria dut$ of the Re.iona Director to cance the re.istration of the a/or or.ani1ation, hence, the use of the word Hsha .H Petitioner points out that the Re.iona Director has ad-itted in its decision that respondent fai ed to su/-it the re?uired docu-ents for a nu-/er of $ears= therefore, cance ation of its re.istration shou d have fo owed as a -atter of course. 4e are not persuaded. Artic es '%> and '%8 of the 9a/or Code read7 AR,. '%>. CANCE99A,ION O: RE0IS,RA,ION= APPEA9 ,he certificate of re.istration of an$ e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation, whether nationa or oca , sha /e cance ed /$ the Bureau if it has reason to /e ieve, after due hearin., that the said a/or or.ani1ation no on.er -eets one or -ore of the re?uire-ents herein prescri/ed. %* AR,. '%8. 0RO3NDS :OR CANCE99A,ION O: 3NION RE0IS,RA,ION. ,he fo owin. sha constitute .rounds for cance ation of union re.istration7 CCCC !d" :ai ure to su/-it the annua financia report to the Bureau within thirt$ !%&" da$s after the c osin. of ever$ fisca $ear and -isrepresentation, fa se entries or fraud in the preparation of the financia report itse f= CCCC !i" :ai ure to su/-it ist of individua -e-/ers to the Bureau once a $ear or whenever re?uired /$ the Bureau.%(
LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA |2

,hese provisions .ive the Re.iona Director a-p e discretion in dea in. with a petition for cance ation of a union<s re.istration, particu ar $, deter-inin. whether the union sti -eets the re?uire-ents prescri/ed /$ aw. It is sufficient to .ive the Re.iona Director icense to treat the ate fi in. of re?uired docu-ents as sufficient co-p iance with the re?uire-ents of the aw. After a , the aw re?uires the a/or or.ani1ation to su/-it the annua financia report and ist of -e-/ers in order to verif$ if it is sti via/ e and financia $ sustaina/ e as an or.ani1ation so as to protect the e-p o$er and e-p o$ees fro- fraudu ent or f $6/$6ni.ht unions. 4ith the su/-ission of the re?uired docu-ents /$ respondent, the purpose of the aw has /een achieved, thou.h /e ated $. 4e cannot ascri/e a/use of discretion to the Re.iona Director and the DO9E Secretar$ in den$in. the petition for cance ation of respondent<s re.istration. ,he union -e-/ers and, in fact, a the e-p o$ees /e on.in. to the appropriate /ar.ainin. unit shou d not /e deprived of a /ar.ainin. a.ent, -ere $ /ecause of the ne. i.ence of the union officers who were responsi/ e for the su/-ission of the docu-ents to the B9R. 9a/or authorities shou d, indeed, act with circu-spection in treatin. petitions for cance ation of union re.istration, est the$ /e accused of interferin. with union activities. In reso vin. the petition, consideration -ust /e ta5en of the funda-enta ri.hts .uaranteed /$ Artic e IIII, Section % of the Constitution, i.e., the ri.hts of a wor5ers to se f6or.ani1ation, co ective /ar.ainin. and ne.otiations, and peacefu concerted activities. 9a/or authorities shou d /ear in -ind that re.istration confers upon a union the status of e.iti-ac$ and the conco-itant ri.ht and privi e.es .ranted /$ aw to a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation, particu ar $ the ri.ht to participate in or as5 for certification e ection in a /ar.ainin. unit.%; ,hus, the cance ation of a certificate of re.istration is the e?uiva ent of snuffin. out the ife of a a/or or.ani1ation. :or without such re.istration, it oses 6 as a ru e 6 its ri.hts under the 9a/or Code. %+ It is worth -entionin. that the 9a/or Code<s provisions on cance ation of union re.istration and on reportoria re?uire-ents have /een recent $ a-ended /$ Repu/ ic Act !R.A." No. 8*>1, An Act Stren.thenin. the 4or5ers< Constitutiona Ri.ht to Se f6Or.ani1ation, A-endin. for the Purpose Presidentia Decree No. **', As A-ended, Otherwise Jnown as the 9a/or Code of the Phi ippines, which apsed into aw on #a$ '(, '&&+ and /eca-e effective on )une 1*, '&&+. ,he a-end-ent sou.ht to stren.then the wor5ers< ri.ht to se f6or.ani1ation and enhance the Phi ippines< co-p iance with its internationa o/ i.ations as e-/odied in the Internationa 9a/our Or.ani1ation !I9O" Convention No. >+, %> pertainin. to the non6disso ution of wor5ers< or.ani1ations /$ ad-inistrative authorit$. %8 ,hus, R.A. No. 8*>1 a-ended Artic e '%8 to read7 AR,. '%8. 0rounds for Cance ation of 3nion Re.istration.E,he fo owin. -a$ constitute .rounds for cance ation of union re.istration7 !a" #isrepresentation, fa se state-ent or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and /$6 aws or a-end-ents thereto, the -inutes of ratification, and the ist of -e-/ers who too5 part in the ratification= !/" #isrepresentation, fa se state-ents or fraud in connection with the e ection of officers, -inutes of the e ection of officers, and the ist of voters= !c" Fo untar$ disso ution /$ the -e-/ers. R.A. No. 8*>1 a so inserted in the 9a/or Code Artic e '*'6A, which provides7 AR,. '*'6A. Reportoria Re?uire-ents.E,he fo owin. are docu-ents re?uired to /e su/-itted to the Bureau /$ the e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation concerned7 !a" Its constitution and /$6 aws, or a-end-ents thereto, the -inutes of ratification, and the ist of -e-/ers who too5 part in the ratification of the constitution and /$6 aws within thirt$ !%&" da$s fro- adoption or ratification of the constitution and /$6 aws or a-end-ents thereto= !/" Its ist of officers, -inutes of the e ection of officers, and ist of voters within thirt$ !%&" da$s fro- e ection= !c" Its annua financia report within thirt$ !%&" da$s after the c ose of ever$ fisca $ear= and !d" Its ist of -e-/ers at east once a $ear or whenever re?uired /$ the Bureau.

:ai ure to co-p $ with the a/ove re?uire-ents sha not /e a .round for cance ation of union re.istration /ut sha su/Dect the errin. officers or -e-/ers to suspension, eCpu sion fro-e-/ership, or an$ appropriate pena t$. I9O Convention No. >+, which we have ratified in 18(%, provides that Hwor5ers< and e-p o$ers< or.ani1ations sha not /e ia/ e to /e disso ved or suspended /$ ad-inistrative authorit$.H ,he I9O has eCpressed the opinion that the cance ation of union re.istration /$ the re.istrar of a/or unions, which in our case is the B9R, is tanta-ount to disso ution of the or.ani1ation /$ ad-inistrative authorit$ when such -easure wou d .ive rise to the oss of e.a persona it$ of the union or oss of advanta.es necessar$ for it to carr$ out its activities, which is true in our Durisdiction. A thou.h the I9O has a owed such -easure to /e ta5en, provided that Dudicia safe.uards are in p ace, i.e., the ri.ht to appea to a Dudicia /od$, it has nonethe ess re-inded its -e-/ers that disso ution of a union, and cance ation of re.istration for that -atter, invo ve serious conse?uences for occupationa representation. It has, therefore, dee-ed it prefera/ e if such actions were to /e ta5en on $ as a ast resort and after eChaustin. other possi/i ities with ess serious effects on the or.ani1ation. *& ,he aforesaid a-end-ents and the I9O<s opinion on this -atter serve to fortif$ our ru in. in this case. 4e therefore ?uote with approva the DO9E Secretar$<s rationa e for den$in. the petition, thus7 It is undisputed that appe ee fai ed to su/-it its annua financia reports and ist of individua -e-/ers in accordance with Artic e '%8 of the 9a/or Code. 2owever, the eCistence of this .round shou d not necessari $ ead to the cance ation of union re.istration. Artic e '%8 reco.ni1es the re.u ator$ authorit$ of the State to eCact co-p iance with reportin. re?uire-ents. Ket there is -ore at sta5e in this case than -ere $ -onitorin. union activities and re?uirin. periodic docu-entation thereof. ,he -ore su/stantive considerations invo ve the constitutiona $ .uaranteed freedo- of association and ri.ht of wor5ers to se f6or.ani1ation. A so invo ved is the pu/ ic po ic$ to pro-ote free trade unionis- and co ective /ar.ainin. as instru-ents of industria peace and de-ocrac$.1avvphi1 An over $ strin.ent interpretation of the statute .overnin. cance ation of union re.istration without re.ard to surroundin. circu-stances cannot /e a owed. Otherwise, it wou d ead to an unconstitutiona app ication of the statute and e-ascu ation of pu/ ic po ic$ o/Dectives. 4orse, it can render nu.ator$ the protection to a/or and socia Dustice c auses that pervades the Constitution and the 9a/or Code. #oreover, su/-ission of the re?uired docu-ents is the dut$ of the officers of the union. It wou d /e unreasona/ e for this Office to order the cance ation of the union and pena i1e the entire union -e-/ership on the /asis of the ne. i.ence of its officers. In Nationa 3nion of Ban5 E-p o$ees vs. #inister of 9a/or, 96(%*&;, 1* Dece-/er 18>1, 11& SCRA '8;, the Supre-e Court ru ed7 As apt $ ru ed /$ respondent Bureau of 9a/or Re ations Director Norie 7 H,he ri.hts of wor5ers to se f6or.ani1ation finds .enera and specific constitutiona .uarantees. C C C Such constitutiona .uarantees shou d not /e i.ht $ ta5en -uch ess nu ified. A hea th$ respect for the freedo- of association de-ands that acts i-puta/ e to officers or -e-/ers /e not easi $ visited with capita punish-ents a.ainst the association itse f.H At an$ rate, we note that on 18 #a$ '&&&, appe ee had su/-itted its financia state-ent for the $ears 188;61888. 4ith this su/-ission, appe ee has su/stantia $ co-p ied with its dut$ to su/-it its financia report for the said period. ,o ru e different $ wou d /e to prec ude the union, after havin. fai ed to -eet its periodic o/ i.ations pro-pt $, fro- ta5in. appropriate -easures to correct its o-issions. :or the record, we do not view with favor appe ee<s ate su/-ission. Punctua it$ on the part of the union and its officers cou d have prevented this petition. *1 42ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the Court of Appea s Decision dated #a$ %&, '&&( and Reso ution dated )une *, '&&+ are A::IR#ED. SO ORDERED.

LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA

|3

G.R. No. 182217 %$c$34$r 21, 2009 MARI+A-A -IAM (ERAMI(-, IN(., Petitioner, vs. THE -E(RETAR5 O* THE %E&ARTMENT O* LA6OR AN% EM&LO5MENT, (HIE* O* THE 6)REA) O* LA6OR RELATION-, %E&ARTMENT O* LA6OR AN% EM&LO5MENT, REGIONAL %IRE(TOR O* %OLE REGIONAL O**I(E N)M6ER I/.A 7 -AMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGA+A -A MARI+A-A -IAM (ERAMI(-, IN(. 0-MM-(.IN%E&EN%ENT1, Respondents. DECISION NA(H)RA, J.: ,his is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Ru e *( of the Ru es of Court, see5in. to annu the Decision 'dated Dece-/er '&, '&&+ and the Reso ution% dated )une ;, '&&> of the Court of Appea s in CA60.R. SP No. 8>%%'. ,he antecedent facts are as fo owsE On #a$ *, '&&(, respondent Sa-ahan N. #.a #an..a.awa Sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. !S##SC6Independent" was issued a Certificate of Re.istration* as a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation /$ the Depart-ent of 9a/or and E-p o$-ent !DO9E", Re.ion IF6A. On )une 1*, '&&(, petitioner #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. fi ed a Petition for Cance ation of 3nion Re.istration a.ainst respondent, c ai-in. that the atter vio ated Artic e '%*( of the 9a/or Code for not co-p $in. with the '&L re?uire-ent, and that it co--itted -assive fraud and -isrepresentation in vio ation of Artic e '%8 ; of the sa-e code. ,he case was doc5eted as Case No. RO*&&6&(&;6A36&&*. On Au.ust ';, '&&(, the Re.iona Director of DO9E IF6A issued an Order .rantin. the petition, revo5in. the re.istration of respondent, and de istin. it fro- the roster of active a/or unions. A..rieved, respondent appea ed to the Bureau of 9a/or Re ations !B9R". In a Decision+ dated )une 1*, '&&;, the B9R .ranted respondent<s appea and disposed as fo owsE 42ERE:ORE, pre-ises considered, the appea /$ Sa-ahan n. #an..a.awa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. !S##SC6Independent" is here/$ 0RAN,ED, and the Decision dated '; Au.ust '&&( /$ DO9E6 Re.ion6IF6A Director #aCi-o B. 9i- is here/$ REFERSED and SE, ASIDE. Sa-ahan n. #an..a.awa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. !S##SC6Independent", under Re.istration Certificate No. RO*&&6'&&(&(6 3R6&&', re-ains in the roster of e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ations. SO DECIDED.>

Petitioner fi ed a #otion for Reconsideration /ut the B9R denied it in a Reso ution8 dated :e/ruar$ ', '&&+. Petitioner sou.ht recourse with the Court of Appea s !CA" throu.h a Petition for Certiorari= /ut the CA denied the petition for ac5 of -erit. Petitioner<s -otion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was i5ewise denied, hence, this petition /ased on the fo owin. .roundsE Review of the :actua :indin.s of the Bureau of 9a/or Re ations, adopted and confir-ed /$ the 2onora/ e Court of Appea s is warrantedA=B ,he 2onora/ e Court of Appea s serious $ erred in ru in. that the affidavits of recantation cannot /e .iven credenceA=B ,he 2onora/ e Court of Appea s serious $ erred in ru in. that private respondent union co-p ied with the '&L -e-/ership re?uire-entA= andB ,he 2onora/ e Court of Appea s serious $ erred when it ru ed that private respondent union did not co--it -isrepresentation, fraud or fa se state-ent.1& ,he petition shou d /e denied. ,he petitioner insists that respondent fai ed to co-p $ with the '&L union -e-/ership re?uire-ent for its re.istration as a e.iti-ate a/or or.ani1ation /ecause of the disaffi iation fro- the tota nu-/er of union -e-/ers of 1&' e-p o$ees who eCecuted affidavits recantin. their union -e-/ership. It is, thus, i-perative that we peruse the affidavits appearin. to have /een eCecuted /$ these affiants. ,he affidavits unifor- $ stateE A5o, MMMMMMMMMMMMM, Pi ipino, -a$ sapat na .u an., re.u ar na e-p e$ado /i an. Ran5 N :i e sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc., Bo. San Antonio, Sto. ,o-as, Batan.as, -atapos na -a5apanu-pa n. naaa$on sa /atas a$ -a a$a at 5usan. oo/ na na.sasaad n. -.a su-usunod7 1. A5o a$ napi itan at ni in an. sa pa.sapi sa Sa-ahan n. -.a #an..a.awa sa #ariwasa Sia- Cera-ics, Inc. o S##SC6 Independent sa 5a/i a n. a5in. pa.6aa in an.anA=B '. A5in. u/os na pina.sisihan an. a5in. pa.pir-a sa sipi n. sa-ahan, at handa a5oAn.B tu-a i5od sa anu-an. 5asu atan na a5in. na a.daan sa 5adahi anan na hindi an.5op sa a5in. pananaw an. -.a -un.5ahi o adhi5ain n. sa-ahan. SA JA,3NAKAN NAN0 9A2A,, a5o a$ u-a.da n. a5in. pan.a an n.a$on. i5a6MMMM n. MMMMMM, '&&( dito sa 9a awi.an n. Batan.as, Ba$an n. Sto. ,o-as. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Na.sasa a$sa$
LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA |4

Evident $, these affidavits were written and prepared in advance, and the pro for-a affidavits were read$ to /e fi ed out with the e-p o$ees< na-es and si.natures. ,he first co--on a e.ation in the affidavits is a dec aration that, in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was forced and deceived into Doinin. the respondent union. It is worth$ to note, however, that the affidavit does not -ention the identit$ of the peop e who a e.ed $ forced and deceived the affiant into Doinin. the union, -uch ess the circu-stances that constituted such force and deceit. Indeed, not on $ was this a e.ation couched in ver$ .enera ter-s and sweepin. in nature, /ut -ore i-portant $, it was not supported /$ an$ evidence whatsoever. ,he second a e.ation ostensi/ $ /ares the affiant<s re.ret for Doinin. respondent union and eCpresses the desire to a/andon or rene.e frowhatever a.ree-ent he -a$ have si.ned re.ardin. his -e-/ership with respondent. Si-p $ put, throu.h these affidavits, it is -ade to appear that the affiants recanted their support of respondent<s app ication for re.istration. In appreciatin. affidavits of recantation such as these, our ru in. in 9a Suerte Ci.ar and Ci.arette :actor$ v. Director of the Bureau of 9a/or Re ations11 is en i.htenin., vi1.E On the second issueEwhether or not the withdrawa of %1 union -e-/ers fro- NA,3 affected the petition for certification e ection insofar as the %&L re?uire-ent is concerned, 4e reserve the Order of the respondent Director of the Bureau of 9a/or Re ations, it appearin. undisputa/ $ that the %1 union -e-/ers had withdrawn their support to the petition /efore the fi in. of said petition. It wou d /e otherwise if the withdrawa was -ade after the fi in. of the petition for it wou d then /e presu-ed that the withdrawa was not free and vo untar$. ,he presu-ption wou d arise that the withdrawa was procured throu.h duress, coercion or for va ua/ e consideration. In other words, the distinction -ust /e that withdrawa s -ade /efore the fi in. of the petition are presu-ed vo untar$ un ess there is convincin. proof to the contrar$, whereas withdrawa s -ade after the fi in. of the petition are dee-ed invo untar$. ,he reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawa or retraction is -ade /efore the fi in. of the petition, the na-es of e-p o$ees supportin. the petition are supposed to /e he d secret to the opposite part$. 9o.ica $, an$ such withdrawa or retraction shows vo untariness in the a/sence of proof to the contrar$. #oreover, it /eco-es apparent that such e-p o$ees had not .iven consent to the fi in. of the petition, hence the su/scription re?uire-ent has not /een -et.

4hen the withdrawa or retraction is -ade after the petition is fi ed, the e-p o$ees who are supportin. the petition /eco-e 5nown to the opposite part$ since their na-es are attached to the petition at the ti-e of fi in.. ,herefore, it wou d not /e uneCpected that the opposite part$ wou d use fou -eans for the su/Dect e-p o$ees to withdraw their support.1' In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were eCecuted after the identities of the union -e-/ers /eca-e pu/ ic, i.e., after the union fi ed a petition for certification e ection on #a$ '%, '&&(, since the na-es of the -e-/ers were attached to the petition. ,he purported withdrawa of support for the re.istration of the union was -ade after the docu-ents were su/-itted to the DO9E, Re.ion IF6A. ,he o.ica conc usion, therefore, fo owin. Durisprudence, is that the e-p o$ees were not tota $ free fro- the e-p o$er<s pressure, and so the vo untariness of the e-p o$ees< eCecution of the affidavits /eco-es suspect. It is i5ewise nota/ e that the first /atch of '( pro for-a affidavits shows that the affidavits were eCecuted /$ the individua affiants on different dates fro- #a$ ';, '&&( unti )une %, '&&(, /ut the$ were a sworn /efore a notar$ pu/ ic on )une >, '&&(. ,here was a so a second set of standardi1ed affidavits eCecuted on different dates fro- #a$ ';, '&&( unti )u $ ;, '&&(. 4hi e these ++ affidavits were notari1ed on different dates, (; of these were notari1ed on )une >, '&&(, the ver$ sa-e date when the first set of '( was notari1ed. Considerin. that the first set of '( affidavits was su/-itted to the DO9E on )une 1*, '&&(, it is surprisin. wh$ petitioner was a/ e to su/-it the second set of affidavits on $ on )u $ 1', '&&(. Accordin. $, we cannot .ive fu credence to these affidavits, which were eCecuted under suspicious circu-stances, and which contain a e.ations unsupported /$ evidence. At /est, these affidavits are se f6servin.. ,he$ possess no pro/ative va ue. A retraction does not necessari $ ne.ate an ear ier dec aration. :or this reason, retractions are oo5ed upon with disfavor and do not auto-atica $ eCc ude the ori.ina state-ent or dec aration /ased so e $ on the recantation. It is i-perative that a deter-ination /e first -ade as to which /etween the ori.ina and the new state-ents shou d /e .iven wei.ht or accorded /e ief, app $in. the .enera ru es on evidence. In this case, inas-uch as the$ re-ain /are a e.ations, the purported recantations shou d not /e uphe d.1% Neverthe ess, even assu-in. the veracit$ of the affidavits of recantation, the e.iti-ac$ of respondent as a a/or or.ani1ation -ust /e affir-ed. 4hi e it is true that the withdrawa of support -a$ /e considered as a resi.nation fro- the union, the fact re-ains that at the ti-e of the union<s
LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA |5

app ication for re.istration, the affiants were -e-/ers of respondent and the$ co-prised -ore than the re?uired '&L -e-/ership for purposes of re.istration as a a/or union. Artic e '%* of the 9a/or Code -ere $ re?uires a '&L -ini-u- -e-/ership durin. the app ication for union re.istration. It does not -andate that a union -ust -aintain the '&L -ini-u-e-/ership re?uire-ent a throu.hout its eCistence.1*1avvphi1 Respondent asserts that it had a tota of 1+% union -e-/ers at the ti-e it app ied for re.istration. ,wo na-es were repeated in respondent<s ist and had to /e deducted, /ut the tota wou d sti /e 1+1 union -e-/ers. :urther, out of the four na-es a e.ed to /e no on.er connected with petitioner, on $ two na-es shou d /e de eted fro- the ist since Diana #oti a and ,.4. A-utan resi.ned fro- petitioner on $ on #a$ 1&, '&&( and #a$ 1+, '&&(, respective $, or after respondent<s re.istration had a read$ /een .ranted. ,hus, the tota union -e-/ership at the ti-e of re.istration was 1;8. Since the tota nu-/er of ran56and6fi e e-p o$ees at that ti-e was ('>, 1;8 e-p o$ees wou d /e e?uiva ent to %'L of the tota ran56and6fi e wor5ers co-p e-ent, sti ver$ -uch a/ove the -ini-ure?uired /$ aw. :or the purpose of de6certif$in. a union such as respondent, it -ust /e shown that there was -isrepresentation, fa se state-ent or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and /$6 aws or a-end-ents thereto= the -inutes of ratification= or, in connection with the e ection of officers, the -inutes of the e ection of officers, the ist of voters, or fai ure to su/-it these docu-ents to.ether with the ist of the new $ e ected6appointed officers and their posta addresses to the B9R.1( ,he /are fact that two si.natures appeared twice on the ist of those who participated in the or.ani1ationa -eetin. wou d not, to our -ind, provide a va id reason to cance respondent<s certificate of re.istration. ,he cance ation of a union<s re.istration dou/t ess has an i-pairin. di-ension on the ri.ht of a/or to se f6or.ani1ation. :or fraud and -isrepresentation to /e .rounds for cance ation of union re.istration under the 9a/or Code, the nature of the fraud and -isrepresentation -ust /e .rave and co-pe in. enou.h to vitiate the consent of a -aDorit$ of union -e-/ers. In this case, we a.ree with the B9R and the CA that respondent cou d not have possi/ $ co--itted -isrepresentation, fraud, or fa se state-ents. ,he a e.ed fai ure of respondent to indicate with -athe-atica precision the tota nu-/er of e-p o$ees in the /ar.ainin. unit is of no -o-ent, especia $ as it was a/ e to co-p $ with the '&L -ini-u- -e-/ership re?uire-ent. Even if the tota nu-/er of ran56and6fi e e-p o$ees of petitioner is ('>, whi e respondent dec ared that it shou d on $ /e *((, it

sti cannot /e denied that the atter wou d have -ore than co-p ied with the re.istration re?uire-ent. 42ERE:ORE, the petition is DENIED. ,he assai ed Dece-/er '&, '&&+ Decision and the )une ;, '&&> Reso ution of the Court of Appea s are A::IR#ED. Costs a.ainst petitioner. SO ORDERED.

LABOR CASE HERITAGE-MARIWASA

|6