Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. PIGLAS-HERITAGE! !

!
October 30, 2009! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Topic in Syllabus: Cancellation of Union Certificate of Registration

G.R. No. 177024


ABAD, J.

Summary: PIGLAS filed for certification election which was opposed by Heritage Hotel on the
grounds that the documents submitted bore false information and that the union was merely an
alter ego of the old union, enjoined from holding a certification election. The SC held that the
charge of fraud and misrepresentation by a labor union is a serious charge which must be clearly
established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The discrepancies in PIGLASs
documents could be clearly explained thus the petition for cancellation of registration was denied.

Facts:
- The Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE) of rank and file employees of Heritage
Hotel Manila (HH) filed a petition for certification election.
- HH opposed and filed a petition for the cancellation of HHEs union registration
alleging that the union misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when it was
really a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and
Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). HHE intentionally omitted disclosure of its affiliation
with NUWHRAIN because the companys supervisors union was already affiliated
with it.
- MA: granted HHEs petition for certification election
- Sec. of Labor: denied HHs appeal
- CA: issued writ of injunction against holding HHEs certification election effective until
the petition for cancellation of that unions registration shall have been resolved with
finality.
- Certain rank and file employees of HH held a meeting and formed another union, the
Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (PIGLAS)
- DOLE-NCR issued registration certificate.
- Members of the first union, the HHE union, adopted a resolution for its dissolution and
filed a petition for cancellation of union registration.
- PIGLAS filed petition for certification election
- HH opposed alleging that the new unions officers and members were also those who
comprised the old union and that the employees involved formed PIGLAS to
circumvent the CAs injunction against the holding of the certification election sought
by the former union.
- MA: granted petition for certification election
- HH filed a petition to cancel union registration of PIGLAS
- DOLE-NCR: denied petition to cancel union registration
- BLR: affirmed DOLE-NCR
- CA: dismissed petition
Petitioners Arguments:
- Documents submitted with the unions application for registration bore the following
false information:
- List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members;
- Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting on December
10, 2003
- Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003 bore the signature of 127
members who ratified the unions Constitution and By- Laws
- Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting

Javellana, Maria Yolanda A. !

CASE NO. 30

- 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.
- 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were members of the former HHE union
which violated the policy against dual unionism and showed that the new union was
merely an alter ego of the old.
Issue:
WON PIGLAS committed fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union
registration - NO
Ratio:
- 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. Charges of this nature should be clearly established by
evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
- 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.
- 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.
- Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. Here, 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.
- 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.

Javellana, Maria Yolanda A. !

CASE NO. 30