PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
A. POLICY
LC, Art. 218A(b) - To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for
the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and
development;
(c) – To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and
united labor movement
(g) – To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-
making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare
B. DEFINITIONS
1. LABOR ORGANIZATION
LC, Art. 219(g) – "Labor organization" means any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment.
Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (cc) – "Registration Proceedings" refer to proceedings
involving the application for registration of labor organizations.
2. UNION
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (zz) – WALANG GANITO
3. WORKERS ASSOCIATION
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (ccc) – WALANG GANITO
4. LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION
LC Art. 219 (h) – "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor
organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (ee) – "Hearing Officers" are officers
appointed/designated in the Regional Office and authorized to hear and
decide cases under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6715 and whose
decision is appealable to the Commission.
5. LEGITIMATE WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (ff) – "Union Accounts Examiners" are officials in
the Bureau or the Industrial Relations Division in the Regional Office
empowered to audit books of accounts of the union.
29 Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja
G.R. No. 83190. August 4, 1992.
Topic: Legitimate workers’ association
PETITION to review the resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
FACTS
 A group of deck officers and marine engineers on board vessels plying
Cebu and other ports organized themselves into an association and
registered the same as a non-stock corporation known as Cebu
Seamen’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) with the SEC. Later, on, the same
group registered its association with the Bureau of Labor Relations as a
labor union known as the Seamen’s Association of the Philippines,
Incorporated (SAPI).
 SAPI had an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation which will expire on 31 December. In
consonance with the CBA said company has been remitting union dues
to said union until February, when a group claiming to be new officers
of the union (under supervision of the SEC), went to the company and
claimed that they are entitled to the remittance and custody of such
union dues.
 26 May, another group headed by Nacua, claiming as the duly elected
set of officers of the union, filed a complaint, for and on behalf of the
union, against the Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) as
represented by Gabayoyo.
 CSAI alleged that Nacua who represented the union had been expelled
for lawful causes; and, that its set of officers headed by Gabayoyo has
the lawful right to the remittance and custody of the union dues.
Furthermore, it alleged that the SEC, not the Med-Arbiter, has
jurisdiction over the dispute as provided under P.D. No. 902-A; that
there can neither be a complainant nor respondent in the instant case
as the parties involved are one and the same labor union.
 Med-Arbiter: denying the motion but directing the Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation to remit the already checked-off union dues to CSAI
through its officers. On motion for reconsideration, the Med-Arbiter
reversed its original ruling.
1
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
 Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR): affirmed the decision of the Med-
Arbiter. The Gabayoyo group appealed to the Office of the Secretary,
Department of Labor, which appeal was considered as a motion for
reconsideration of the BLR’s decision. The said appeal/motion for
consideration was denied for lack of merit.
ISSUE
 Whether or not the Med-Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case. – YES.
 Who is entitled to the collection and custody of the union dues? – SAPI,
represented by Nacua.
HELD
Jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter
 There is no doubt that the controversy between the aforesaid two sets
of officers is an intra-union dispute. Both sets of officers claim to be
entitled to the release of the union dues collected by the company with
whom it had an existing CBA.
 Article 226 of the Labor Code vests upon the Bureau of Labor Relations
and Labor Relations Division the original and exclusive authority and
jurisdiction to act on all inter-union and intra-union disputes.
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter originally, and the Director on appeal,
correctly assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.
Entitlement to union dues
 CSAI, the corporation, was already inoperational before the controversy
in this case arose. In fact, the SEC ordered the CSAI to show cause why
its certificate of registration should not be revoked for continuous
inoperation. There is nothing in the records which would show that
CSAI answered said showcause order.
 Also, before the controversy, Nacua was elected president of the labor
union, SAPI. It had an existing CBA with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation.
Before the end of the term of Nacua, some members of the union which
included Gabayoyo showed signs of discontentment with the leadership
of Nacua. This break-away group revived the corporation CSAI and
issued an undated resolution expelling Nacua from the association.
 The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation, however, has not affected
her membership with the labor union. As such, whatever acts the
Gabayoyo group had done in the corporation do not bind the labor
union. Moreover, Gabayoyo cannot claim leadership of the labor group
by virtue of his having been elected as a president of the dormant
corporation CSAI.
 Public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations correctly ruled on the
basis of the evidence presented by the parties that SAPI, the legitimate
labor union, registered with its office, is not the same association as
CSAI, the corporation, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code are
concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter association is entitled
to the release and custody of union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other
shipping companies with whom it had an existing CBA. As correctly
held by public respondent:
 “It is undisputed from the records that the election of the so-called set
of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo was conducted under the
supervision of the SEC, presumably in accordance with its constitution
and by-laws as well as the articles of incorporation of respondent CSAI,
and the Corporation Code. That had been so precisely on the honest
belief of the participants therein that they were acting in their capacity
as members of the said corporation. That being the case, the
aforementioned set of officers is of the respondent corporation and not
of the complainant union. It follows, then, that any proceedings and
actions taken by said set of officers cannot, in any manner, affect the
union and its members.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.
6. COMPANY UNION
LC, Art. 219(i) – "Company union" means any labor organization whose
formation, function or administration has been assisted by any act defined
as unfair labor practice by this Code.
Art. 259 – Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for
an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the
formation or administration of any labor organization, including the
giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters
2
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
C. UNION RATIONALE
30 Guijarno v. CIR
FACTS:
1. 3 ULP cases for unlawful dismissal allegedly based on legitimate union
activity were filed against Central Santos Lopez Co. and United Sugar
Workers Union (USWU)
2. The Company alleged that
a. In view of a closed-shop provision in the then existing CBA, Central
assumed it had to dismiss them
b. The only reason for the dismissal is because it was asked by the
USWU – based on the provision that those laborers who are no
longer members of good standing in the union may be dismissed by
the company (Central) if dismissal is sought by the union (USWU)
c. That the Company just followed its obligation under the CBA
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal was justifiable under the closed-shop
provision of the CBA. NO.
RATIO:
 Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co. : a closed-shop provision in
a collective bargaining agreement is not to be given a retroactive effect so as
to preclude its being applied to employees already in the service
 Workers unorganized are weak; workers organized are strong. Necessarily
then, they join labor unions. To further increase the effectiveness of such
organizations, a closed-shop has been allowed. It could happen, though, that
such a stipulation which assures further weight to a labor union at the
bargaining table could be utilized against minority groups or individual
members thereof. There are indications that such a deplorable situation did
so manifest itself in this case
 Power in a collectivity could be the means of crushing opposition and
stifling the voices of those who are in dissent. The right to join others of like
persuasion is indeed valuable. An individual by himself may feel inadequate
to meet the exigencies of life or even to express his personality without the
right to association being vitalized. It could happen though that whatever
group may be in control of the organization may simply ignore his most-
cherished desires and treat him as if he counts for naught. The antagonism
between him and the group becomes marked. Dissatisfaction if given
expression may be labeled disloyalty. In the labor field, the union under
such circumstances may no longer be a haven of refuge, but indeed as much
of a potential foe as management itself. Precisely with the Anakan doctrine,
such an undesirable eventuality has been sought to be minimized, if not
entirely avoided
 Reinstatement was ordered but it was the labor union that was held liable
for the back wages. That is a rule dictated by fairness because management,
in this case respondent Central Santos Lopez Company, Inc., would not have
taken the action it did had it not been for the insistence of the labor union
seeking to give effect to its interpretation of a closed-shop provision
D. GOVERNMENT REGULATION
1. UNION REGISTRATION:
a. Definition
IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(qq) – WALANG GANITO
31 PAFLU vs Secretary of Labor
1. Registrar of Labor Relations issued a notice of hearing for the cancellation
of the certificate of registration of SSS Employees Association (SSSEA)
because
a. They did not furnish the Bureau of Labor Relations reports on the
finances of the union; and did not submit the names, addresses of the
officers of the union thus violating RA 875.
b. On the date of hearing, no one appeared from SSSEA. But the next day,
Assistant Sec. of SSSEA submitted SSSEA’s affidavits, the list of the
newly-elected officers, and amended constitution and by-laws of SSSEA
2. The Registrar still cancelled the Registration Certificate of SSSEA. They filed
an MR, so the Registrar gave them time to file the list of officers (old not
newly-elected), and the affidavits of certain officers
3. Pending such MR, SSSEA filed an action questioning RA 875 Sec. 23 for
violating their freedom of assembly and association. Because said provision
requires registration of labor organizations in order to attain legal
personality.
a. That it delegates judicial power to administrative agencies
3
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
b. That it violates the UDHR
c. Said provision is deemed repealed by ILO Convention 87
WON said provision is constitutional
1. The provision does not violate the freedom of assembly and association
a. The freedom to form associations may be exercised with or without
said registration. The registration is merely a condition to acquire legal
personality and possession of rights and privileges granted to labor
organizations
b. The Constitution does not guarantee these legal personality rights to
labor organizations, and said rights are statutory in nature
c. for the possession and exercise of which registration is required to
protect both labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors
who pose as organizers – THUS, a valid exercise of police power
d. the obligation to submit financial statements, as a condition for the non-
cancellation of a certificate of registration, is a reasonable regulation for
the benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the
same generally solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes
collects, on behalf of its members, huge amounts of money due to them
or to the organizations
2. said provision does not violate the UDHR and ILO Convention 87
a. said conventions provide that workers shall have the right to establish
and join labor organizations of their choosing without previous
authorization; that the unions shall not be suspended/ dissolved by
administrative agencies
b. there is no incompatibility – the cancellation of SSSEA’s certificate did
not suspend or dissolve the union; only its juridical personality, which
is statutory in nature would be affected
3. Requirements for registration:
a. Copy of the constitution and by-laws, with a list of the officers;
b. Sworn statement of officers – that they are not members of the
Communist Party, or those which seek to overthrow the government by
force or unconstitutional method;
c. Copy of last financial report – if they are in existence for one or more
years
4. The DOLE has the right to cancel their registration if they do not meet the
requirements, or fail to submit financial reports, or fail to submit the list of
its officers
a. The determination is administrative in nature and not judicial. Thus
courts will not determine the validity of the cancellation.
b. The action is premature, the union must exhaust all administrative
remedies available to them.
b. Requirements
LC, Art. 240 – Requirements of registration. Any applicant labor
organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal
personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration
based on the following requirements.
1. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
2. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
3. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%)
of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
4. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
5. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.
Art. 241 – Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. - A duly registered
federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a
charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter
shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for
certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate.
The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate
labor organization only upon the submission of the following documents in
addition to its charter certificate:
4
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office
of the chapter; and
(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's
constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national
union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.
The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the
secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by its president."
Art. 244 – Additional requirements for federations or national
unions. Subject to Article 238, if the applicant for registration is a federation or
a national union, it shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding
Articles, submit the following:
1. Proof of the affiliation of at least ten (10) locals or chapters, each of
which must be a duly recognized collective bargaining agent in the
establishment or industry in which it operates, supporting the
registration of such applicant federation or national union; and
2. The names and addresses of the companies where the locals or
chapters operate and the list of all the members in each company
involved.
Art. 249 – Equity of the incumbent. All existing federations and national
unions which meet the qualifications of a legitimate labor organization and
none of the grounds for cancellation shall continue to maintain their existing
affiliates regardless of the nature of the industry and the location of the
affiliates.
IR, Book V, Rule III, Sec. 2 – REPEALED NA DAW TO
32 San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. SM Packing Products Union
G.R. No. 171153. September 12, 2007
TOPIC: Union Registration; Requirements
DISCLAIMER: LONG CASE; I only put the ruling as regards the requirements of
union registration.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, SMCEU, is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit
comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of the 3
divisions of San Miguel Corp: SMC Staffing Unit (SMCSU), SM Brewing Phil
(SMBP), SM Packaging Products (SMPP)
2. Respondent, San Mig. Packaging Products Employees Union, is registered as
a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP)
3. In compliance with registration requirements, respondent submitted the
requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal
personality
a. Respondent was issued certificate of creation of local or chapter
PETITIONER: filed before DOLE a petition seeking to cancel respondent’s
registration and to drop it from the roll of legitimate labor organizations
a. accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-
compliance with registration requirements in obtaining its certificate of
registration
i. claims that respondent is required to submit a list of members
comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit
before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234(c) of the LC
b. claimed that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a trade union
center, hence, it cannot directly create a local or chapter.
c. insists that Department Order No. 9, violated Article 234 of the Labor Code
when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a
chapter or local
DOLE-NCR Regional Director: found that respondent did not comply with the
20% membership requirement and ordered the cancellation of its certificate of
registration and removal from the roll of legitimate labor organizations
BLR: reversed RD and ruled that the – respondent is a chartered local union,
hence it is not required to submit the number of employees and names of all its
5
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION

members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit national union, this
where it seeks to operate. fact shall be
indicated
CA: affirmed BLR
accordingly.
ISSUE/HELD:
(1) Whether the requirements under the DO No. 9 violated Art. 234 of LC -- NO  the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently

(2) Whether the respondent is required to submit the number and names of all  SC held in the case of Progressive Dev. Corp v. Sec of Labor that the 20%
its members comprising of at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining requirement is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter
unit where it seeks to operate. – YES  The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch
HELD: or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the
affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to
ISSUE No. 1: DO No 9 vs. LC Art 234 increase the local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and
D.O No. 9 LC Art. 234 conditions of labor.
Applies to charter or local Applies to independent labor ISSUE No. 2: Number and names of employees is required
organizations
 A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR
REQUIREMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: as a “local” or “chapter” of PDMP. Hence, respondent was directly chartered
1. A charter certificate 1. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration by PDMP.
issued by the fee;
federation or 2. The names of its officers, their  The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is
national union addresses, the principal address provided in Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, as
indicating the of the labor organization, the amended by Department Order No. 9 which enunciates a two fold
creation or minutes of the organizational procedure for the creation of a local or chapter through process of
establishment of meetings and the list of the chartering:
the local/chapter; workers who participated in such 1. First, involves the affiliation of an independent union with a
2. The names of the meetings; federation or national union or industry union
local/chapter’s 3. The names of all its members
officers, their comprising at least twenty 2. second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the
addresses and the percent (20%) of all the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of
principal office of employees in the bargaining unit chartering.
the local/chapter; where it seeks to operate;  The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly
and 4. If the applicant union has been in created by a federation or national union.
3. The local/chapter’s existence for one or more years,
constitution and copies of its annual financial  The issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or the DOLE
by-laws; Provided, reports; and Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a
That where the 5. Four (4) copies of the local or a chapter under Department Order No. 9.
local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws of the
 Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete
constitution and applicant union, minutes of its
documentary requirements
by-laws is the same adoption or ratification, and the
as that of the list of the members who  HOWEVER: PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization,
federation or participated in it.” has no power to directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP
6
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
cannot be created under the more lenient requirements for chartering, but
must have complied with the more stringent rules for creation and
registration of an independent union, including the 20% membership
requirement.
 “Trade union center” was never mentioned in the Labor Code. It
first appeared only in the Implementing Rules of Department Order
No. 9 which defined a trade union center as any group of registered
national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and
protection of its members; for assisting such members in collective
bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and
employment policies, standards, and programs, and is duly
registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of
the Implementing Rules.
 The Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order
No. 9, provide that only "a duly registered federation or
national union" may directly create a local or chapter.
 Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable
implementing rules, the power granted to labor organizations to
directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a
federation or national union, then a trade union center is without
authority to charter directly.
 LOGICAL CONCUSION: the 20% requirement is applicable when the
respondent applies as an independent labor organization – since it cannot
apply as a charter of PDMP.
33 Progressive Development Corp. (PDC) v. Sec. of DOLE and KILUSAN-
TUCP
G.R. No. 96425. Feb. 4, 1992. Gutierrez, Jr.
FACTS:
1. Kilusan filed with the DOLE a petition for certification among the rank-
and-file employees of PDC.
2. In the petition, it was alleged that it is a legitimate labor federation and
its local chapter and its local chapter Progressive Development
Employees Union, was issued a charter certificate.
3. PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that local union failed to
submit the requirements as provided by Rule II, Sec. 3 Book V of the
Rules Implementing the LC, such as: (a) constitution and by-laws; (b)
names, address and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of
accounts.
4. Kilusan submitted a rejoinder, claiming that it had submitted all the
necessary requirements, except the the books of accounts, since the
local union was only recently organized.
5. In its “supplemental position paper,” PDC insisted that the failed to
substantially comply with the registration requirement, since the list of
member was not signed and that the constitution and by-laws was not
duly subscribed.
6. Med-Arbiter Dela Cruz held that there was substantial compliance and
further stated that mere issuance of the charter certificate was
sufficient compliance. Considering that the establishment is
unorganized, he maintained that a certification election shoul be
conducted to resolved the question of representation.
7. Treating the MR filed by PDC as an appeal, Usec Ledesma held that the
same was merely a reiteration of the issues. PDC’s MR from the said
ruling was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.
8. In an order, the SC resolved to issue a TRO enjoining the public
respondents from carrying the orders or from the certification election.
PDC’s contention:
 a labor organization (such as the Kilusan) may not validly invest the
status of legitimacy upon a local or chapter through the mere expedient
of issuing a charter certificate;
7
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION

 that such local or chapter must at the same time comply with the We observe that, as borne out by the facts in this case, the formation of a local or
requirement of submission of duly subscribed constitution and by-laws, chapter becomes a handy tool for the circumvention of union registration
list of officers and books of accounts; requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards, it becomes a convenient
device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or
 that the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted were not union on unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted
duly subscribed; voluntariness which is basic to free unionism.
 that the mere filing of the aforementioned documents is insufficient; The records show that on June 16, 1990, Kilusan met with several employees of
 that there must be due recognition or acknowledgment accorded to the the petitioner. Kilusan took the initiative and encouraged the formation of a
local or chapter by BLR through a certificate of registration or any union which automatically became its chapter. On June 18, 1990, Kilusan issued
communication emanating from it. a charter certificate in favor of PDEU-KILUSAN It can be seen that Kilusan was
moving very fast.
OSG’s contention:
It is important to clarify the relationship between the mother union and the
 there was a substantial compliance with the requirements for the local union. In the case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton
formation of a chapter. Also, Art. 257 (LC ) mandates the automatic Mills, Inc., the Court held that the mother union, acting for and in behalf of its
conduct by the Med-Arbiter of a certification election in any affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit
establishment where there is no certified bargaining agreement. of the association, free to serve the common interest of all its members subject
ISSUE: When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a legitimate only to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the
labor organization? association. Thus, where as in this case the petition for certification election was
filed by the federation which is merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be
HELD: filed by the chapter, the principal, which must be a legitimate labor organization.
When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, The chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the mother union
some of the requirements for registration are no longer required. Whereas an
application for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit,
among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members
comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks
to operate as provided under Art. 234 (LC) and Sec. 2 Rule III, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch or chapter.
A local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon
submission of the following to the BLR:
1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation
or national union, and
2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books
of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as
the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.
Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter
does not become a legitimate labor organization.
In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the
required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
8
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION

34 TAKATA v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS c. “Sama-Samang Pahayag…” was not attached to the application for
MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT) registration as it was only submitted at a later date.
1. Takata filed with DOLE a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union d. Proceedings in the cancellation of registration and certification
Registration of SALAMAT because the latter is guilty of misrepresentation, elections are 2 different and entire separate proceedings,
false statement and fraud with respect to the number of those who independent of each other.
participated in the:
5. The Union 2 appeals. One before the BLR and another before the DOLE
a. Organizational meeting which was eventually referred to the BLR.
b. Adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws 6. Takata opposed. Certificate of registration was tainted with fraud,
misrepresentation, and falsification.
c. Election of its officers
7. BLR: The Decision of DOLE Regional Director is reversed and set aside.
2. As regards the organizational meeting, Takata contends:
a. Takata failed to prove that the Union deliberately and maliciously
a. Only 68 attendees signed with is 17% of the total number of
misrepresented the number of employees.
employees that the Union seeks to represent.
b. Takata’s basis for the noncompliance of the minimum membership
b. 20% is the minimum membership requirement.
requirement was the attendance of only 68 members. However, the
c. The “Pagalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon” bore no signature of the list of employees who participated in the organizational meeting
alleged 119 union members. was a separate and distinct requirement from the list of the names
of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the
d. The “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted at the
bargaining unit.
time of the filing of the Unuon’s application for registration.
c. No requirement for signatures in the list of union members.
e. Total employees were 470, not 396.
d. No evidence showing that the employees assailed their inclusion
3. SALAMAT: 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement.
from the list.
a. Takata was estopped from questioning its legal personality as it
8. CA: Affirmed BLR’s decision.
agreed to a certification election and actively participated in the
preelection conference. ISSUE: Whether the Union’s registration should be cancelled because it did not
meet the requirements.
b. The 68 attendees were informed of the documents they signed and
constituted more than 50% of the total union membership. Hence, RELEVANT LAWS:
quorum existed.
ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. A federation, national union or
4. DOLE Regional Director: Granted the cancellation of the Union’s certificate industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire legal
of registration. personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration
a. The 68 employees were less than 20% of the total number of 396
based on the following requirements:
regular rank and file employees, hence, short of the union
registration requirement a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
b. Attendance sheet and the “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon” b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
contained contradicting names. labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

9
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
c. In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
e. Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.
ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration.·The certificate of registration of any
legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, may be cancelled by the
Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.
ART. 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.
 After the issuance of the certificate of registration, the labor organization’s
registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration
proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code.
 Petitioner’s allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim
that during the organizational meeting, only 68 employees attended, while
respondent claimed that it has 119 members as shown in the document
denominated as “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon”; hence, SALAMAT
misrepresented on the 20% requirement of the law as to its membership.
 SC: We do not agree.
 It does not appear in Article 234(b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in
the organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the
bargaining unit. In fact, even the IRR does not so provide.
 It is only under Article 234(c) that requires the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.
o Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’
membership in the union and not to the list of workers who
participated in the organizational meeting.
 Indeed, Article 234(b) and (c) provide for separate requirements, which
must be submitted for the union’s registration, and which respondent did
submit.
o Here, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit was
396, and 20% of which was about 79. Respondent submitted a
document entitled “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” showing the
names of 119 employees as union members. Thus, SALAMAT
sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum requirement.
 SALAMAT also submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting which contained the names and signatures of the 68 union
members who attended the meeting. Considering that there are 119 union
members which are more than 20% of all the employees of the bargaining
unit, and since the law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting, the 68 attendees which
comprised at least the majority of the 119 union members would already
constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the
Constitution and By-laws of the union.
 No basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation of
respondent’s union registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239 of 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.
 As to petitioner’s argument that the total number of its employees as of May
1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed, still the 117 union
members comprised more than the 20% membership requirement for
respondentEÊ s registration.
 For the purpose of decertifying 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
10
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the
newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.
c. Action on Application
LC, Arts. 242 – Action on application. The Bureau shall act on all applications
for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the
secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested
to by its president.
Art. 243 – Denial of registration; appeal. The decision of the Labor Relations
Division in the regional office denying registration may be appealed by the
applicant union to the Bureau within ten (10) days from receipt of notice
thereof.
IR, Book V, Rule IV, Secs. 4-7 – REPEALED NA YAN BOI
d. Effect of Registration
IR, Book V, Rule IV, Sec. 8 – REPEALED
Rule III, Sec. 2, par. E – REPEALED
35 Legend International Resorts v KML-INDEPENDENT
FACTS:
1. KML filed with DOLE a petition for certification election. It also claimed
it was issued a certificate of registration.
2. 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, and it committed acts of fraud
and misrepresentation when it made it appear that certain employees
attended its general meeting, when in reality they were at
work/resigned/abroad.
3. KML claimed that the certification election could still proceed because
the required number of the total rank and file employees necessary is
still sustained. As to the alleged acts of misrepresentation, KML
asserted that legend failed to substantiate its claim. Further, it claimed
that its legitimacy as a labor union cannot be collaterally attacked
in the certification election proceedings but only through a
separate and independent action for cancellation of union
registration.
4. Med-Arbiter: dismissed petition for certification election. KML was
found to have fraudulently procured its registration certificate by
misrepresenting that 70 employees were among those who attended
the organizational meeting when they were at work or elsewhere.
5. SOLE: reversed. Art. 245 of the LC prohibits managerial employees to
form or join a union and the ineligibility of supervisors to join the union
of rank and file employees. It declared that any violation does not
automatically render illegal the existence of the labor organization.
Moreover, mixed membership in a union is not a ground for the
dismissal of a petition for certification election.
6. SOLE upon MR: denied. DO 9 requires a final order of cancellation
before a petition for certification election may be dismissed on the
ground of lack of legal personality (Legend filed a petition for
cancellation which was granted by the regional office but reversed by
BLR)
7. CA: issue on legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has already been
settled with finality. Thus, it could properly file a petition for
certification election.
8. Legend filed an MR: BLR decision upholding legitimacy of KML has not
attained finality as it was timely appealed before the CA and is still
pending resolution.
9. CA upon MR: denied.
10. In a separate proceeding (appeal of BLR decision to CA then to SC), the
decision cancelling the certificate of registration of KML as a labor
organization has become final and executory.
ISSUES:
1. WON the cancellation of KML’s certificate of registration should retroact
to the time of its issuance.- NO
2. WON the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML can be collaterally
attacked un a petition for certification election.- NO
RULING:
11
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
1. An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency
of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of KML. The
rationale is that at the time KML filed its petition, it still had the legal
personality to perform such act absent an order directing the
cancellation.
Also, the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not
preclude collective bargaining.
a. There is therefore no basis for Legend’s assertion that the
cancellation of KML’s certificate of registration should retroact
to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of
KML’s activities, including its filing of the petition for
certification election and its demand to collectively bargain.
2. Sec. 5 Rule 5 of the Implementing Rules of Book 5 states that a labor
organization or worker’s association shall be deemed registered and
vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of
registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to
collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation in accordance with the Rules.
a. 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.
b. Since KML is listed in the registry of legitimate labor
organizations, and its legitimacy has not been revoked or
cancelled with finality, the granting of its petition for
certification election is proper.
e. Acquisition of Legal Personality
LC, Art. 240 – Requirements of registration. Any applicant labor organization,
association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and
shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the
following requirements.
1. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
2. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
3. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%)
of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
4. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
5. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.
Art. 241 – Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. - A duly registered
federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a
charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter
shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for
certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate.
The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate
labor organization only upon the submission of the following documents in
addition to its charter certificate:
(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office
of the chapter; and
(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's
constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national
union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.
The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the
secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by its president."
IR, Book V, Rule III, Sec. 2 E. – REPEALED
f. Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization
LC, Art. 251 – Rights of legitimate labor organizations. A legitimate labor
organization shall have the right:
a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective
bargaining;
b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;
c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual
audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit
and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the
12
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty
(60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective
bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation;
d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor
organization and its members;
e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and
f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization
and its members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other
projects not contrary to law.
Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the
income and the properties of legitimate labor organizations, including grants,
endowments, gifts, donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal
and similar organizations, local or foreign, which are actually, directly and
exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and
other assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by
a special law expressly repealing this provision
36 ACEDERA v. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.
(ICTSI), NLRC, & CA (2003)
DOCTRINE: For a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a
representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the
representative must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record. Mere
assertions, as in this case, do not suffice.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners Acedera et al. are EEs of ICTSI and are members/officers of
Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-ICTSI (the union).
2. When ICTSI started its operations in 1988, it determined the rate of pay of
its employees by using 304 days as divisor.
3. ICTSI entered into a 5-year CBA w/ the union, which was renewed for
another 5 yrs. Article IX of both states:
 “Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be 5 days on any
day from Monday to Sunday, as may be scheduled by the company,
upon 7 days prior notice unless any of this day is declared a special
holiday.”
4. Hence, the EEs’ work week was reduced to 5 days or a total of 250 days a
year. ICTSI, however, continued using the 304-day divisor in computing the
wages.
5. RTWPB subsequently declared a P17 daily wage increase for all workers
and EEs receiving P125/day or lower.
6. Thus, the then president of the union, w/ some union members, requested
ICTSI to compute the actual monthly increase in the EEs’ wages by
multiplying the RTWPB mandated increase by 365 days and dividing the
product by 12 months.
7. Hence, ICTSI stopped using 304 days and started using 365 days, even if the
EEs’ work week consisted of only 5 days as agreed upon in the CBA.
8. Yrs later, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its on-call
EEs, prompting the union to file a notice of strike, which included as cause
of action: (1)retrenchment; (2)use of 365 days as divisor.
9. As to retrenchment: resolved by a compromise settlement; As to
computation of wages: referred to the LA
13
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
10. The union filed with the LA a complaint against ICTSI. Dismissed for union’s
failure to file its position paper. The union filed a motion to revive the case.
Granted. Union filed its position paper.
11. Petitioners Acedera et al. filed a Complaint-in-Intervention w/ Motion to
Intervene w/ the LA. They maintain:
a. Should the union succeed in getting a favorable reward, it is
actually they that would benefit from the decision.
b. Conversely, should the union fail to prove its case, or to prosecute
the case diligently, the individual workers or members of the union
would suffer great and immeasurable loss. They wanted to insure
by their intervention that the case would thereafter be prosecuted
with all due diligence and would not again be dismissed for lack of
interest to prosecute on the part of the union.
12. LA: The correct divisor is 250 days. ICTSI ordered to pay the EEs concerned
the differentials for underpayment of salaries and other benefits. DENIED
Acedera et al.’s Complaint-in-Intervention upon a finding that they are
already well represented by the union.
13. NLRC: Reversed LA decision. Dismissed the union’s complaint for lack of
merit. BUT denial of Acedera’s intervention was AFFIRMED. The union
and Acedera et al. separately filed their PetCerts w/ the CA.
14. CA: AFFIRMED.
a. Acedera et al. are already well represented by the union in the
other petition. The present petition is, therefore a superfluity that
must be dismissed.
b. Only Acedera signed the Certificate of non-forum shopping. On this
score alone, this petition should likewise be dismissed.
c. Considering that herein Acedera et al. themselves requested that
365 days be used as divisor and later did not raise or object to the
same during the negotiations of the new CBA, they are estopped to
now complain only because they no longer benefit from it. Indeed,
the 365 divisor for the past 7 years has already become practice
and law between the company and its EEs.
15. Hence, the present PetRev on certiorari where Acedera et al. stress that they
have complied with the requisites for intervention pursuant to Rule 19,
Section 1 of the ROC.
ISSUE: W/N Acedera et al. have a legal right to intervene in and pursue this
case.
RULING: NO. While Acedera et al. may have complied with the requisites for
intervention, they failed to consider the rule on representation.
R 3, Secion 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized
by law or these Rules.
A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Art.
242(a) of the LC, which provides that a union may act as the representative of
its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority includes
the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the
provisions of the CBA.
 That the herein union acted in a representative capacity for and in behalf of
its Union members and other employees similarly situated, is shown in the
title of the case filed by it at the LA.
While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union, may be
permitted to intervene in a case, ordinarily, a person whose interests are
already represented will not be permitted to do the same EXCEPT when
there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will
not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him.
 The dismissal of the case by the LA & the CA does not by itself show the
existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of the
union. Acedera et al. failed to show clear and convincing evidence of fraud
or collusion or lack of good faith independently of the dismissal.
There is nothing on record to support Acedera et al.’s contention that of the
union’s “sweetheart relationship” w/ ICTSI – mere afterthought because it was
never raised early on.
(If Atty. Anonuevo asks: A sweetheart contract is a contract made through
collusion between management and labor representatives which contains terms
beneficial to management and unfavorable to union workers.)
14
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
g. Effects on Non-Registration
IR, Book V, Rule IV, Sec. 8 – REPEALED
37 Tropical Hut Employees' Union-CGW vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc.
G.R. Nos. 43495-99. January 20, 1990.
Topic: Effects of Non-Registration
PETITION for certiorari to review the decisions of the Secretary of Labor and
National Labor Relations Commission.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
FACTS
 Rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market, Incorporated,
organized a local union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union
(THEU) and immediately sought affiliation with the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted the THEU
application for affiliation and a Registration Certificate was issued by
the Department of Labor in the name of the THEU—NATU. It appears,
however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not registered with
the Department of Labor.
 After several negotiations were conducted between THEU-NATU, a CBA
was concluded between the company and the union. Said agreement
contained the following terms:
o The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining agent.
o Employees who are already members of the UNION or who
become so thereafter shall be required to maintain their
membership as a condition of continued employment.
o Any employee who is expelled from the UNION shall, upon
written request of the UNION, be discharged by the COMPANY.
 Dilag, incumbent President of THEU-NATU, was appointed by the
respondent company as Assistant Unit Manager. For reason of his
present position, he resigned as President of the THEU-NATU and his
Vice-President, Encinas, assumed and discharged the duties of the
presidency.
 NATU then received a letter that THEU was disaffiliating from NATU.
Now THEU-CGW, the same demanded from the company the remittance
of the union dues collected but this was refused.
 NATU returned the letter of disaffiliation and requested the company to
suspended Encinas pending the application for clearance with the
Department of Labor to dismiss him. It was Encinas’ suspension along
with several other members that caused the filing of NLRC Cases
against the company for unfair labor practice.
 After an election was conducted within the remaining THEU-NATU
members, Dilag was elected acting THEU-NATU President. The entire
rank and file employees of the company were then given a notice to
answer and affirm their membership with THEU-NATU. When the
petitioner employees failed to reply, Dilag advised them that the THEU-
NATU shall enforce the union security clause set forth in the CBA, and
that he had requested the company to dismiss them. As a consequence
thereof, several cases were filed by petitioners against Tropical Hut
Food Market, Incorporated.
 Labor Arbiter: issues raised by the parties became moot and academic
with the issuance of NLRC Order directing the holding of a certification
election among the rank-and-file workers between the THEU-NATU and
THEU-CGW. He also ordered the reinstatement of all complainants.
 NLRC: reversed the LA ruling, the individual complainants are deemed
to have lost their status as employees of the company. However, it
ordered the company, under pain of being cited for contempt for failure
to do so, to give the individual complainants a second chance by
reemploying them upon their voluntary reaffirmation of membership
and loyalty to the THEU-NATU in the event it hires additional personnel.
 Secretary of Labor: rendered a decision affirming the findings of the
NLRC. However, instead of ordering the company to reemploy the
workers, it ordered the same to grant financial assistance equivalent to
one (1) month salary for every year of service to all individual
complainants.
ISSUE
 Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from
their union’s disaffiliation from the mother federation was illegal and
constituted unfair labor practice on the part of respondent company
and federation. – YES.
15
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
HELD
 The validity of the dismissals pursuant to the union security clause in
the collective bargaining agreement hinges on the validity of the
disaffiliation of the local union from the federation. The right of a local
union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A local
union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the
interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when
circumstances warrant.
 When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new
federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to labor
organization for the effective enhancement and protection of common
interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation’s
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever
its relationship with its parent.
 There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution
of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate
from the federation. The alleged non-compliance of the local union with
the provision in the NATU Constitution requiring the service of three
months notice of intention to withdraw did not produce the effect of
nullifying the disaffiliation for the following grounds: firstly, NATU was
not even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not
registered at that time with the Department of Labor, and therefore did
not possess and acquire, in the first place, the legal personality to
enforce its constitution and laws, and secondly, the act of non-
compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely
technical grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right of
self-organization.
Other Matters
 Union security clause
o When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the
former did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union
under the CBA. The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an
employee is expelled from the union for joining another
federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses
to maintain membership therein.
 Irregularity in Dilag’s assumption as president
o Records show that Arturo Dilag had resigned in the past as
President of THEU-NATU because of his promotion to a
managerial or supervisory position as Assistant Unit Manager
of respondent Company. It is therefore improper and contrary
to law for Dilag to reassume the leadership of the remaining
group because managers and supervisors are prohibited from
joining a rank and file union.
 Alleged retraction of disaffiliation
o Public respondents further submit that several employees who
disaffiliate their union from the NATU subsequently retracted
and reaffirmed their membership with the THEU-NATU.
However, there is no use in saying that the retractions
obliterated the act of disaffiliation as there are doubts that they
were freely and voluntarily done especially during such time
when their own union officers and co-workers were already
suspended pending their dismissal.
 Dismissal hasty and without due process
o The company sent a letter to petitioners herein, advising them
of NATU’s recommendation of their dismissal and when
petitioners failed to do so, the company immediately
suspended them and thereafter effected their dismissal. This is
certainly not in fulfillment of the mandate of due process,
which is to afford the employee to be dismissed an opportunity
to be heard.
o The prerogative of the employer to dismiss or lay-off an
employee should be done without abuse of discretion or
arbitrariness, for what is at stake is not only the employee’s
name or position but also his means of livelihood. Thus, the
discharge of an employee from his employment is null and void
where the employee was not formally investigated and given
the opportunity to refute the alleged findings made by the
company.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision of
respondent Secretary of Labor is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the respondent
company is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate all the petitioner
employees within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision.
16
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
2. CANCELLATION OF UNION CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
LC, Arts. 245 – Conditions for registration of federations or national
unions. No federation or national union shall be registered to engage in any
organization activity in more than one industry in any area or region, and no
federation or national union shall be registered to engage in any organizational
activity in more than one industry all over the country.
The federation or national union which meets the requirements and conditions
herein prescribed may organize and affiliate locals and chapters without
registering such locals or chapters with the Bureau.
Locals or chapters shall have the same rights and privileges as if they were
registered in the Bureau, provided that such federation or national union
organizes such locals or chapters within its assigned organizational field of
activity as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
The Bureau shall see to it that federations and national unions shall only
organize locals and chapters within a specific industry or union.] (Repealed by
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)
Art. 246 – Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. - A petition for
cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings for
certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification
election.
In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek
just and equitable remedies in the appropriate courts."
Art. 247 – Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following
shall 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.
Art. 250. – Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization. The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a
labor organization
(j) – Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by
a record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be
evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made,
which shall state the date, place and purpose of such payment. Such
record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.
Any action involving the funds of the organization shall prescribe after
three (3) years from the date of submission of the annual financial
report to the Department of Labor and Employment or from the date
the same should have been submitted as required by law, whichever
comes earlier: Provided, That this provision shall apply only to a
legitimate labor organization which has submitted the financial report
requirements under this Code: Provided, further, that failure of any
labor organization to comply with the periodic financial reports
required by law and such rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act shall
automatically result in the cancellation of union registration of such
labor organization
xxx
[Last 2 pars.]
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be
a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers
from office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of
the members of a union or any member or members specially
concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall
have the power to hear and decide any reported violation to mete the
appropriate penalty.
Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and
conditions of membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts.
Art. 248 – Voluntary Cancellation of Registration. - The registration of a
legitimate labor organization may be cancelled by the organization
itself. Provided, That at least two-thirds of its general membership votes, in a
meeting duly called for that purpose to dissolve the organization: Provided,
further, That an application to cancel registration is thereafter submitted by the
board of the organization, attested to by the president thereof."
17
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION

IR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(g) – "Labor Organization" means any union or SECTION 8. Period to decide. — Cases involving the dismissal of a worker shall
association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of be decided by the Labor Arbiter within 20 working days from the date of
collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and submission of such cases for decision.
conditions of employment.
SECTION 9. Reinstatement pending hearing. — The Secretary may suspend the
Rule XIV – Termination of Employment effects of the termination pending resolution of the case in the event of a prima
facie finding that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in
SECTION 1. Security of tenure and due process. — No workers shall be
implementation of a mass lay-off.
dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due
process. SECTION 10. Certification of employment. — A dismissed worker shall be
entitled to receive, on request, a certificate from the employer specifying the
SECTION 2. Notice of dismissal. — Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker
dates of his engagement and termination of his employment and the type or
shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or omission
types of work on which he is employed.
constituting the grounds for his dismissal. In cases of abandonment of work, the
notice shall be served at the worker's last known address. SECTION 11. Report of dismissal. — The employer shall submit a monthly
report to the Regional Office having jurisdiction over the place of work all
SECTION 3. Preventive suspension. — The employer may place the worker
dismissals effected by him during the month, specifying therein the names of the
concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a
dismissed workers, the reasons for their dismissal, the date of commencement
serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his
and termination of employment, the positions last held by them and such other
coworkers.
information as may be required by the Department for policy guidance and
SECTION 4. Period of suspension. — No preventive suspension shall last longer statistical purposes
than 30 days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former
or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period
of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages
and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be
bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the
employer decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss the worker.
SECTION 5. Answer and hearing. — The worker may answer the allegations
stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable period from
receipt of such notice. The employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity
to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he
so desires.
SECTION 6. Decision to dismiss. — The employer shall immediately notify a
worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons
therefor.
SECTION 7. Right to contest dismissal. — Any decision taken by the employer
shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or
legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the Regional Branch of the
Commission.

18
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
38 IN RE: Petition for cancellation of the union registration of Air Phil.
Flight attendants assoc. (APFLAA), Air Phil. Corp. (APC) v. BLR and APFLAA
facts:
1. APFLAA was certificate of registration by DOLE. APFLAA filed certification
election as CB representative
2. Med-Arb: allowed the election. Election was held, majority of votes were
cast in favor of APFLAA
3. APC filed Petition for De-Certification and Cancellation of Union
Registration with DOLE
a. That APFLAA was a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file flight
attendants; among them were Lead Cabin Attendants, supervisory
in character
4. DOLE dismissed the petition. LC which states that supervisory employees
are not eligible for membership in labor organization of rank and file
employees, does not provide a ground for cancellation
5. BLR affirmed DOLE
6. APC filed Pet Cert with CA – dismissed
ISSUE: Whether union registration may be cancelled considering that the union
is allegedly composed of a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
NO.
RATIO:
 Article 24512 of the Labor Code, the legal basis for the petition for
cancellation, merely prescribed the requirements for eligibility in joining a
union and did not prescribe the grounds for cancellation of union
registration
 Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO
o "the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the
grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 23915
of the Labor Code."
 Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to
establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible employees in its
membership
 Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, 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, 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
 There may be remedies available to enforce the proscription set forth in
Article 245 of the Labor Code on supervisory employees joining the union
of rank-and-file employees. But consistent with jurisprudence, the rule
under Article 245 barring supervisory employees from joining the union of
rank-and-file employees is not a ground for cancellation of union
registration
39 SS Ventures vs SS Ventures Union
1. SS Ventures is a PEZA export firm in Bataan. It manufactures sport shoes
2. SS Ventures Union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the
rank and file employees
a. Of the 542 signatures it submitted, 72 belong to terminated emeployees
3. SS Ventures then filed a petition to cancel the registration of the union
because it maliciously included the names of terminated employees, and
forged their signatures to make it appear they took part in the meeting and
adoption of the constitution; several people were entered twice; there was
really no meeting and ratification
a. The union denied committing fraud and forgery- that there was really a
meeting; the terminated employees still has 1 year before the
prescriptive period to question their termination expires; 20%
membership was complied with
b. DOLE Region 3 cancelled the union’s certificate. Bureau of Labor
Relations reversed.
WON the Union’s certificate must be cancelled
19
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
1. Art. 3, Sec 8 and Art. 13, Sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees the right to
form, join or assist a union
a. After registration, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization
with rights and privileges granted by law
b. A certificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy to
participate and ask for certification in a bargaining unit.
i. However, said certificate may be cancelled – one of the grounds is
fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the union constitution
2. There was no fraud and misrepresentation in this case
a. There were handwritten statements of 82 employees saying that there
were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the
organizational meeting
b. The court made a distinction as to when an employee’s withdrawal is
filed:
i. If it is filed before a petition for cancellation – it is deemed voluntary
ii. If filed after – deemed as involuntary and has no effect
iii. In this case, since the withdrawal / statements of the employees
were submitted after the petition for cancellation, such cannot
nullify the registration of the union.
3. Moreover, once the requirements are submitted by the labor organization, it
becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if such complies with Art. 234 of
the LC. It is not merely a ministerial duty on the part of BLR.
a. In case of falsification or serious irregularities, esp. those appearing on
the face of the application and attachments, the application must be
denied
b. The issuance in this case of a certificate of registration is prima facie
evidence that the documents are free from any vitiating irregularities
4. The assailed inclusion of the 82 terminated employees is not fatal.
a. Falsification is without basis; the procedure for acquiring union
membership is an internal matter to the union.
b. Even if they were not included, the union would sill meet the 20%
requirement
c. The signatures appearing twice is not valid reason to cancel the
certificate – it was a mere human error, in the absence of malice
5. The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing
dimension on the right of labor to self-organization.
a. For fraud and misrepresentation [to be grounds for] cancellation of
union registration under Article 239 [of 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
40 Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. The Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment, et al.,
G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2009;
TOPIC: Cancellation of Union registration
FACTS:
1. Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor
organization.
2. Petitioner Mariwasa filed a petition for cancellation of union registration
against the respondent, claimed that:
a. It violated Art. 234 of the LC for not complying with the 20%
requirements
b. It committed fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Art. 239 of
LC
Regional Director of DOLE: granted the petition and revoked respondent’s
registration
BLR: revered RD
CA: denied pet cert of petitioner
PETITIONER: insists that 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.
ISSUE: Whether the registration of the union should be cancelled for allegedly
failing to comply with requirements of the LC
20
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
HELD:
 SC held that it cannot give credence to the affidavits of recantation since
they were submitted to DOLE after the the identities of the union members
became public since the names of the members were attached to the
petition for certificate of registration
o SC held that logical conclusion is that the employees are under the
pressure of the employer when these affidavits of recantation of
membership were executed
 Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the
legitimacy of respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed.
o While it is true that the withdrawal of support may be considered
as a resignation from the union, the fact remains that at the time of
the unions 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.
o 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.
 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 respondents certificate of registration.
o For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of
union 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.
 In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not
have possibly committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements.
 The alleged failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical precision
the total number of employees in the bargaining unit is of no moment,
especially as it was able to comply with the 20% minimum membership
requirement.
 Even if the total number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is 528,
while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be
denied that the latter would have more than complied with the registration
requirement.
41 The Heritage Hotel Manila v. National Union of Workers in the Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors
Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
G.R. No. 178296. Jan. 12, 2001. Nachura, J.
TOPIC: Labor organization; Cancellation of Union Certificate
FACTS:
1. The petition for certification election of National Union was granted
and the holding of a preelection conference was scheduled. However,
the preelection conference was not held as initially scheduled.
2. Because of the repeated non-appearance of National Union, Heritage
move to archive/dismiss the petition. The union agreed to suspend the
proceedings until further notice.
3. Subsequently, Heritage discovered that National Union had failed to
submit to the BLR its annual financial report for several years and list of
members since it filed its registration papers.
4. Consequently, Heritage filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration
of National Union, on the ground of non submission of the said
documents. It was also prayed that the Union’s Certificate of Creation of
Local/Chapter be canceled. Heritage further requested for the
suspension of the certification of election proceeding.
5. Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through and National
Union emerged as the winner.
6. Heritage filed a protest with Motion to Defer Certification of Election
Results and Winner, stating that the election was an exercise in futility
because, once the registration is cancelled, it would no longer be
entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisory employees.
7. National Union filed it Answer, it averred that petition was filed to
primarily delay the conduct of the certification of election. It also cited
National Union of Banking Employees v. Minister of Labor, wherein the
Med-arbiter held that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of
registration is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.
21
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
8. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition of Heritage and certified
National Union as the sole exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory
employees.
9. Heritage appealed to the Sec. of DOLE, but the appeal was dismissed.
The MR was likewise denied.
10. In the meantime, the Regional Director (RD) finally resolved the
petition for cancellation of registration. The petition was denied despite
the failure to file the necessary document. The RD considered the fact
that fact that National Union won the certification election and that it
had already been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisory employees. time.
11. The decision of the RD was appealed to the BLR, but the BLR Director
inhibited himself.
12. In view of the inhibition, DOLE Secretary took cognizance of the appeal.
13. The Secretary dismissed the appeal: the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization
outweighed National Union’s noncompliance with the statutory
requirements to maintain its status as a legitimate labor organization.
Heritage: Upon determination of the presence of the grounds enumerated in
Art. 239, cancellation of registration should follow. The Duty of the RD becomes
ministerial.
ISSUE: Whether the certificate of registration should be cancelled. –NO
HELD:
 Art. 239 (Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration) gives 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. 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.
 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.
 ILO Convention No. 87, which we have ratified in 1953, provides that
workers and employers organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved
or suspended by administrative authority.
 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. It has, therefore, deemed it 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.
34/42 TAKATA v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS
MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT)
1. Takata filed with DOLE a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union
Registration of SALAMAT because the latter is guilty of misrepresentation,
false statement and fraud with respect to the number of those who
participated in the:
a. Organizational meeting
b. Adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws
c. Election of its officers
2. As regards the organizational meeting, Takata contends:
a. Only 68 attendees signed with is 17% of the total number of
employees that the Union seeks to represent.
b. 20% is the minimum membership requirement.
c. The “Pagalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon” bore no signature of the
alleged 119 union members.
22
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
d. The “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted at the
time of the filing of the Unuon’s application for registration.
e. Total employees were 470, not 396.
3. SALAMAT: 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement.
a. Takata was estopped from questioning its legal personality as it
agreed to a certification election and actively participated in the
preelection conference.
b. The 68 attendees were informed of the documents they signed and
constituted more than 50% of the total union membership. Hence,
quorum existed.
4. DOLE Regional Director: Granted the cancellation of the Union’s certificate
of registration.
a. The 68 employees were less than 20% of the total number of 396
regular rank and file employees, hence, short of the union
registration requirement
b. Attendance sheet and the “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon”
contained contradicting names.
c. “Sama-Samang Pahayag…” was not attached to the application for
registration as it was only submitted at a later date.
d. Proceedings in the cancellation of registration and certification
elections are 2 different and entire separate proceedings,
independent of each other.
5. The Union 2 appeals. One before the BLR and another before the DOLE
which was eventually referred to the BLR.
6. Takata opposed. Certificate of registration was tainted with fraud,
misrepresentation, and falsification.
7. BLR: The Decision of DOLE Regional Director is reversed and set aside.
a. Takata failed to prove that the Union deliberately and maliciously
misrepresented the number of employees.
b. Takata’s basis for the noncompliance of the minimum membership
requirement was the attendance of only 68 members. However, the
list of employees who participated in the organizational meeting
was a separate and distinct requirement from the list of the names
of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the
bargaining unit.
c. No requirement for signatures in the list of union members.
d. No evidence showing that the employees assailed their inclusion
from the list.
8. CA: Affirmed BLR’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether the Union’s registration should be cancelled because it did not
meet the requirements.
RELEVANT LAWS:
ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. A federation, national union or industry
or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality
and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate
labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the
following requirements:
a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
c. In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
e. Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.
ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration.·The certificate of registration of any
legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, may be cancelled by the
Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.
ART. 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
23
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION
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.
 After the issuance of the certificate of registration, the labor organization’s
registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration
proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code.
 Petitioner’s allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim
that during the organizational meeting, only 68 employees attended, while
respondent claimed that it has 119 members as shown in the document
denominated as “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon”; hence, SALAMAT
misrepresented on the 20% requirement of the law as to its membership.
 SC: We do not agree.
 It does not appear in Article 234(b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in
the organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the
bargaining unit. In fact, even the IRR does not so provide.
 It is only under Article 234(c) that requires the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.
o Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the employees’
membership in the union and not to the list of workers who
participated in the organizational meeting.
 Indeed, Article 234(b) and (c) provide for separate requirements, which
must be submitted for the union’s registration, and which respondent did
submit.
o Here, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit was
396, and 20% of which was about 79. Respondent submitted a
document entitled “Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon” showing the
names of 119 employees as union members. Thus, SALAMAT
sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum requirement.
 SALAMAT also submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting which contained the names and signatures of the 68 union
members who attended the meeting. Considering that there are 119 union
members which are more than 20% of all the employees of the bargaining
unit, and since the law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting, the 68 attendees which
comprised at least the majority of the 119 union members would already
constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the
Constitution and By-laws of the union.
 No basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation of
respondent’s union registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239 of 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.
 As to petitioner’s argument that the total number of its employees as of May
1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed, still the 117 union
members comprised more than the 20% membership requirement for
respondentEÊ s registration.
 For the purpose of decertifying 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.
E. International Activities of Union
LC, Art. 284 – Prohibition against aliens; exceptions. All aliens, natural or
juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from engaging
directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without prejudice to
normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized international
labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens working in the country with valid
permits issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, may exercise the
right to self-organization and join or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining: Provided, further, That said
aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to
Filipino workers.
Art. 285 – Regulation of foreign assistance.
a) No foreign individual, organization or entity may give any donations,
grants or other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or
indirectly, to any labor organization, group of workers or any auxiliary
thereof, such as cooperatives, credit unions and institutions engaged in
24
PART III – LABOR ORGANIZATION

research, education or communication, in relation to trade union

activities, without prior permission by the Secretary of Labor.
"Trade union activities" shall mean:
1) organization, formation and administration of labor
organization;
2) negotiation and administration of collective bargaining
agreements;
3) all forms of concerted union action;
4) organizing, managing, or assisting union conventions,
meetings, rallies, referenda, teach-ins, seminars, conferences
and institutes;
5) any form of participation or involvement in representation
proceedings, representation elections, consent elections, union
elections; and
6) other activities or actions analogous to the foregoing.
b) This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations, grants or
other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, given directly or indirectly
to any employer or employer’s organization to support any activity or
activities affecting trade unions.
c) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to
regulate and control the giving and receiving of such donations, grants,
or other forms of assistance, including the mandatory reporting of the
amounts of the donations or grants, the specific recipients thereof, the
projects or activities proposed to be supported, and their duration.
Art. 286 – Applicability to farm tenants and rural workers. The provisions of
this Title pertaining to foreign organizations and activities shall be deemed
applicable likewise to all organizations of farm tenants, rural workers, and the
like: Provided, That in appropriate cases, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform shall
exercise the powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in the Secretary of
Labor.

25