- Noong ika-25 ng Hulyo 1999, kami ay dumalo sa isang pulong para sa pag-oorganisa ng aming Unyon at pagraratipika ng Saligang Batas at Alituntunin nito. x x x
x x x x
- Walang katotohanan ang alegasyon ng Yokohama na walang naganap na pagpupulong kaugnay ng pag-oorganisa o pagtatayo namin ng Unyon. Nakakatuwa ring isipin ang alegasyon ng kompanya na hindi namin lubos na naiintindihan ang aming kapasyahang magtayo at sumapi sa aming Unyon.
- Malinaw na ginagawa ng kompanya ang lahat ng paraan upang hadlangan ang aming karapatan sa pag-oorganisa at kilalanin bilang kinatawan ng lahat ng mga regular na manggagawa para sa sama-samang pakikipagtawaran.
- Sa kabila ng lahat ng ito, kami ay lubos pa ring naninindigan sa aming Unyon at patuloy na ipaglalaban ang aming karapatan sa pag-oorganisa at sa sama-samang pakikipagtawaran;10
Anent whether an election of officers was conducted or not, the petitioner relied largely on the affidavit of Pineda to substantiate its claim that no election of officers was held by the union. However, respondent BLR Director accorded greater credence to Pineda's handwritten statement, wherein he made references to at least 2 meetings he had attended during which he had signed the organizational documents, than to Pineda's later affidavit, whereby he denied any knowledge of the holding of an election. A perusal of the affirmative handwritten statement easily explains why the public respondent preferred it to the negating affidavit, to wit:Noong unang araw na pumirma ako galing ako sa graveyard. Pagkatapos yung pangalawang meeting graveyard din ako, pinapirma ako doon sa siyam (9) na pirasong papel noong umagang pag-uwi namin. x x xJuly 25, 99 - Unang Pirmahan
July 26, 99 - Pinirmahan ko ang siyam na piraso
July 27, 99 - Pinatatanggal ko ang aking pangalan sa listahan
The petitioner also relied on the affidavit of Ma. Rachelle Gonzales attesting that there was no election of officers, but respondent BLR Director dismissed the affidavit as nothing but the petitioner's belated attempt to establish its claim about the election being held considering that Gonzales did not even intimate such matter in her handwritten resignation letter to YEU.
Another affidavit, that of Arthur Calma, stated that no election was held, but, again, respondent BLR Director gave Calma's affidavit scant consideration because the affiant admittedly remained in the YEU office for only 20 minutes. In contrast, the public respondent accorded more weight to the sama-samang pahayag executed by 50 YEU members who averred about the holding of an organizational meeting. The public respondent justifiably favored the latter, deeming the meeting to include the holding of an election of officers, for, after all, Art. 234, (b), Labor Code, does not itself distinguish between the two.
Respondent BLR Director is further assailed for not taking into consideration the affidavit asserting that no election of officers was ever conducted, which Bernardino David, YEU's second vice president, executed. The omission is not serious enough, however, because the affidavit was submitted only when the petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the questioned decision, and because the affidavit was even inconsistent with David's earlier sinumpaang salaysay, whereby he attested to his attendance at the organizational meeting and to his election thereat as vice president.
As to the inclusion of Pineda's signature in the organizational documents, the BLR Director correctly ruled that evidence to prove the participation of YEU in the failure to delete Pineda's signature from the organizational documents was wanting. It is not deniable that Pineda never approached any officer of YEU; and that Pineda approached a certain Tonton whom he knew to be a union organizer but who was not an officer of the union nor an employee of the company.
If the petitioner was [sic] sincere and intent on this imputed error, its effort to show so does not [sic] appear in the record. What appears is its abject failure to establish Tonton's actual identity. The petitioner seemed content in making the insinuation in the petition for certiorari that Tonton was widely recognized as the organizer behind the creation of YEU. That was not enough.
In sum, the BLR Director was neither capricious nor whimsical in his exercise of judgment, and, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For certiorari to lie, more than mere abuse of discretion is required to be established by the petitioner. Herein, no degree of abuse of discretion was attendant.15
There was evidence that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation in its failure to omit the name of Ronald Pineda prior to the filing of the respondents organizational documents with the Department of Labor and Employment. On the other hand, the Regional Director held that there was no election of officers that had taken place during respondent's alleged organizational meeting as there was no proof of such election.16 (Emphasis in the original)
The cancellation of union registration at the employer's instance, while permitted, must be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong to a legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such membership will not be denied to the employees. As the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation. The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers, or with the minutes of the election of officers, or in the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c), Labor Code. But, as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, and We fully agree with him, the petitioner simply failed to discharge its burden.20
5.5 In the Decision dated 16 January 2004, the Honorable Court of Appeals upheld the BLR Director's ruling that the petitioner had the burden of proving that subject election of officers never took place.
5.6 However, the petitioner does not have the burden of proof vis-á -vis whether or not the said elections took place. The respondent has the burden of proof in showing that an election of officers took place.21 (Emphasis in the original)
Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that it did not. Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the union's application for registration, petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents.
The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.23 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 9-31.
2 Id. at 38-46. Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Elvi John S. Asuncion concurring.
3 Id. at 48.
4 Id. at 139-149. Penned by Director IV Hans Leo J. Cacdac.
5 Id. at 150-153.
6 Id. at 131-138. Penned by Regional Director Ana C. Dione.
7 Id. at 92-98.
8 Article 239(a) of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 239. 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.
9 Rollo, pp. 120-130.
10 Id. at 120.
11 The last paragraph of Article 241 of the Labor Code provides that:
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officer from office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of all 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.
12]Rollo, pp. 154-174.
13 Id. at 49-85.
14 Id. at 180-195.
15 Id. at 42-44.
16 Id. at 17-18.
17 Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, 4 June 2009, 588 SCRA 249, 256.
18 Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101292, 8 June 1993, 223 SCRA 279, 282.
19 Id. at 284.
20 Rollo, p. 45.
21 Id. at 19.
22 G.R. No. 177024, 30 October 2009.
23 Id.