The Supreme Court affirmed the registration of NAMAWU Local 188-Dong Seung Workers Union, holding that the union had sufficiently complied with the requirements for registration under the Labor Code. This decision clarified the interpretation of Article 235 concerning the certification of union documents and addressed claims of misrepresentation in obtaining member signatures. The ruling ensures that unions are not unfairly deregistered based on technicalities, protecting the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain.

Can a Union’s Registration Be Voided by a Disgruntled Employer?

This case arose from a petition filed by Dong Seung Incorporated (the employer) seeking to cancel the registration of NAMAWU Local 188-Dong Seung Workers Union (the union). The employer argued that the union failed to properly authenticate its registration documents, specifically pointing to the union secretary’s certification not being under oath, and alleging that the union had misrepresented facts to obtain member signatures. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) initially sided with the employer, but the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) reversed this decision, reinstating the union’s registration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the BLR’s ruling, leading the employer to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Article 235 of the Labor Code, which requires that “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.” The employer contended that the union secretary’s certification had to be explicitly sworn before a notary public for each document submitted. The BLR, however, referenced its own advisory, which interpreted this requirement more flexibly, allowing for either separate notarization of supporting documents or a comprehensive notarization of the entire application, including the certification.

Art. 235. 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.

The Supreme Court sided with the BLR’s interpretation, emphasizing the agency’s expertise in implementing labor laws. The Court found that the BLR’s interpretation was reasonable and served the purpose of Article 235, which is to prevent fraud and misrepresentation in union registration. The Court highlighted that the entire application had been notarized, thus validating the secretary’s certification and fulfilling the requirement of being “under oath.” This shows the SC’s appreciation for compliance and substantive merit over mere formal technicalities.

Additionally, the employer accused the union of misrepresentation, claiming that 148 employees had signed a petition denouncing the union for obtaining signatures under false pretenses. These employees claimed that they were told they were simply requesting a dialogue with the company president. The CA and BLR dismissed this claim, noting that the Sinumpaang Petisyon was a mere photocopy of dubious authenticity. The Court agreed with the CA and BLR that it has reason to be wary of such recantations because these petitions were procured through coercion or for a valuable consideration. More importantly, the employer failed to show details of where and when the union defrauded the member employees.

The Court emphasized that for a cancellation of union registration to be valid based on fraud or misrepresentation, it must be proven that the specific act or omission of the union deprived the complaining employees-members of their right to choose their representation. This demonstrates the high standard required to invalidate a union’s registration and safeguards the employees’ right to organize. The High Court did not find sufficient evidence that the union deliberately deceived the complaining employees when they requested for a meeting with the president. The allegations of misrepresentation fell short and the petition was eventually denied.

Therefore, the Court found that the union’s registration was valid, upholding the workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. The Court reiterated that any questions regarding the timeliness of appeals cannot be raised under Rule 45, since this requires evaluation of evidence which the SC cannot perform.

FAQs

What was the main legal issue in this case?	The central question was whether the union registration was properly authenticated and whether there was evidence of misrepresentation in securing member signatures. The Court interpreted Article 235 of the Labor Code and the BLR’s guidelines on union registration.
What does Article 235 of the Labor Code require for union registration?	Article 235 requires that all documents for union registration be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the president. This provision aims to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the registration documents.
What was the employer’s argument against the union’s registration?	The employer, Dong Seung Incorporated, argued that the union secretary’s certification was not properly sworn and that the union misrepresented facts to obtain member signatures. The company insisted that such defect and deception warranted a cancellation of union registration.
How did the Supreme Court interpret the “under oath” requirement?	The Supreme Court deferred to the BLR’s interpretation, which allows for either separate notarization of supporting documents or a comprehensive notarization of the entire application, including the secretary’s certification. The main concern is that the application is duly notarized, which proves that everything stated in the application is sworn to before a notary public.
What evidence did the employer present to support its claim of misrepresentation?	The employer presented a Sinumpaang Petisyon, allegedly signed by 148 employees, claiming they were misled into signing blank sheets that were later used to form the union. This piece of evidence was fatal for the employer as it was dismissed for being a mere photocopy of dubious origin.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the employer’s claim of misrepresentation?	The Court rejected the claim due to the lack of credible evidence, including the questionable authenticity of the petition and the absence of specific details regarding the alleged fraud. As previously mentioned, recantations of employees were met with suspicion by the courts due to external factors pressuring them.
What is the significance of the BLR’s interpretation in this case?	The BLR’s interpretation was given significant weight by the Court due to the agency’s expertise in implementing labor laws. It ensures that union registrations are not unfairly invalidated on technicalities, promoting the workers’ right to self-organization and concerted activities.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for unions?	This ruling affirms the importance of due process in union registration and cancellation proceedings. It clarifies the requirements for authenticating registration documents and the standard of evidence needed to prove misrepresentation in securing member signatures.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the rights of workers to organize and form unions, safeguarding against arbitrary deregistration based on technicalities or unsubstantiated claims. This ruling promotes a stable labor environment by ensuring unions can effectively represent their members’ interests.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Dong Seung Incorporated vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. 162356, April 14, 2008