Republic of thePhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONS.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL,G.R. No. 161690INC.,Petitioner,Present:QUISUMBING,J., Chairperson,- versus -YNARES-SANTIAGO,*CARPIO MORALES,TINGA, andVELASCO, JR.,JJ.S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION(SSVLU) and DIR. HANS LEOPromulgated:CACDAC, in His capacity asDirector of the Bureau of LaborJuly 23, 2008Relations (BLR),Respondents.x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xD E C I S I O NVELASCO, JR.,J.:Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA-registered export firm with principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA-Bataan Export Zone, Mariveles,Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes.Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union), on the other hand, is a labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) under Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003.OnMarch 21, 2000, theUnionfiled with DOLE-Region III a petition forcertificationelectioninbehalfoftherank-and-fileemployeesof Ventures.Fivehundredfortytwo(542)signatures, 82 of which belong to______________________* Additional member as per Special Order No. 509 datedJuly 1, 2008.terminated Ventures employees, appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition.OnAugust 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition[1]to cancel theUnions certificate of registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article 239(a) of the Labor Code.[2]Docketed as Case No. RO300-0008-CP-002 of the same DOLE regional office, the petition alleged the following:(1) The Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or less 82 former employees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws held on January 9, 2000 in Mariveles, Bataan; and the Union forged the signatures of these 82 former employees to make it appear they took part in the organizational meeting and adoption and ratification of the constitution;(2) TheUnionmaliciously twice entered the signatures of three persons namely: Mara Santos, Raymond Balangbang, and Karen Agunos;(3) No organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and(4) TheUnions application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures, or 418 of the total 2,197-employee complement.Since more or less 82 of the 500[3]signatures were forged or invalid, then the remaining valid signatures would only be418, which is very much short of the439 minimum (2197 total employees x 20% = 439.4) required by the Labor Code.[4]In itsAnswer with Motion to Dismiss,[5]the Union denied committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery and allegedthat: (1) the organizational meeting actually took place on January 9, 2000 at the Shoe City basketball court in Mariveles; (2) the 82 employees adverted to in Ventures petitionwere qualified Union members for, although they have been ordered dismissed, the one-year prescriptive period to question their dismissal had not yet lapsed; (3) it had complied with the 20%-member registration requirement since it had 542 members; and (4) the double signatures were inadvertent human error.In its supplemental reply memorandum[6]filed onMarch 20, 2001, with attachments, Ventures cited other instances of fraud and misrepresentation, claiming that the affidavits executed by 82 alleged Union members show that they were deceived into signing paper minutes or were harassed to signing their attendance in the organizational meeting. Ventures added that some employees signed the affidavits denying having attended such meeting.In a Decision datedApril 6, 2001, Regional Director Ana C. Dione of DOLE-Region III found for Ventures, the dispositive portion of which reads:Viewed in the light of all the foregoing, this office hereby grants the petition.WHEREFORE, this office resolved to CANCEL Certificate of Registration No. [RO300-00-02-UR-0003] dated28 February 2000of respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union-Independent.So Ordered.[7]Aggrieved, theUnioninterposed a motion for reconsideration, a recourse which appeared to have been forwarded to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).Although it would later find this motion to have been belatedly filed, the BLR, over the objection of Ventures which filed aMotion to Expunge, gave it due course and treated it as an appeal.Despite Venturesmotion to expunge the appeal,[8]the BLR Director rendered onOctober 11, 2002a decision[9]in BLR-A-C-60-6-11-01, granting theUnions appeal and reversing the decision of Dione.Thefalloof the BLRs decision reads:WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of Director Ana C. Dione dated6 April 2001is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.S.S. Ventures Labor Union-Independent shall remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.SO ORDERED.[10]Ventures sought reconsideration of the above decision but was denied by the BLR.Ventures then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74749. OnOctober 20, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision,[11]dismissing Ventures petition.Ventures motion for reconsideration met a similar fate.[12]Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45, petitioner Ventures raising the following grounds:I.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN DISREGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT UNION PERPETRATED FRAUD, FORGERY, MISREPRESENTATION AND MISSTATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION AND RATIFICATION OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS, AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS WHO TOOK PART IN THE ALLEGED ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING BY HOLDING THAT:A.THE 87 AFFIDAVITS OF ALLEGED UNION MEMBERS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT.B.THE INCLUSION OF THE 82 EMPLOYEES IN THE LIST OF ATTENDEES TO THE JANUARY 9, 2000 MEETING IS AN INTERNAL MATTER WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORKERS RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (OF) THIS OFFICE (PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE) AND THE PETITIONER.II.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN IGNORING AND DISREGARDING THE BLATANT PROCEDURAL LAPSES OF THE RESPONDENT UNION IN THE FILING OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL.A.BY GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTUNIONDESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD.B.BY ADMITTING THE APPEAL FILED BY ATTY. ERNESTO R. ARELLANO AND HOLDING THAT THE SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FORUM SHOPPING UNDER SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 28-91.III.PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND IMPRUDENTLY, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN INVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND ILO CONVENTION NO. 87 TO JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE FRAUD,MISREPRESENTATION, MISSTATEMENTS AND FORGERY COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTUNION.[13]The petition lacks merit.The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3[14]of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization.[15]Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a)[16]of the Labor Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the unions constitution and like documents.The Court, has in previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership.It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents.[17]Essentially, Ventures faults both the BLR and the CA in finding that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of theUnionsufficient to justify cancellation of its registration.In this regard, Ventures makes much of,first, the separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who, in gist, alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting.We are not persuaded.As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA,these mostly undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or seven months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration, partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Unions filing of a petition for certification election on March 21, 2000.We have in precedent cases[18]said that the employees withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union?Upon this light, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary weight.It cannot be over-emphasized that the registration or the recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the BLR. Far from it.After a labor organization has filed the necessary registration documents, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234[19]of the Labor Code have been sedulously complied with.[20]If the unions application is infected by falsification and like serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and its attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization.Prescinding from these considerations, the issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003 necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof areprima faciefree from any vitiating irregularities.Second, Ventures draws attention to the inclusion of 82 individuals to the list of participants in theJanuary 9, 2000organizational meeting. Ventures submits that the 82, being no longer connected with the company, should not have been counted as attendees in the meeting and the ratification proceedings immediately afterwards.The assailed inclusion of the said 82 individuals to the meeting and proceedings adverted to is not really fatal to theUnions cause for, as determined by the BLR, the allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation with respect to these individuals are without basis.[21]The Court need not delve into the question of whether these 82 dismissed individuals were still Union members qualified to vote and affix their signature on its application for registration and supporting documents. Suffice it to say that, as aptly observed by the CA, the procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and the determination of who are qualified or disqualified to be members are matters internal to the union and flow from its right to self-organization.To our mind, the relevancy of the 82 individuals active participation in theUnions organizational meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of determining whether or not theUnion, even without the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires to be submitted, to wit:Art. 234.Requirements of Registration.Any applicant labor organization x x x 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:x x x x(c) 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.The BLR, based on its official records, answered the poser in the affirmative. Wrote the BLR:It is imperative to look into the records of respondent union with this Bureau pursuant to our role as a central registry of union and CBA records under Article 231 of the Labor Code and Rule XVII of the rules implementing Book V of the Labor Code, as amended x x x.In its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of [542] members x x x.This number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the establishment.Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees.Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference x x x.The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration. (Emphasis added.)The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003. As theUniontenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures, the double entries are no more than normal human error, effected without malice.Even the labor arbiter who found for Ventures sided with theUnionin its explanation on the absence of malice.[22]The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. Accordingly, we can accord concurrence to the following apt observation of the BLR: [F]or 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.[23]In its Comment, the Union points out that for almost seven (7) years following the filing of its petition, no certification election has yet been conducted among the rank-and-file employees.If this be the case,the delay has gone far enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. The CA is right when it said that Ventures should not interfere in the certification election by actively and persistently opposing the certification election of theUnion.A certification election is exclusively the concern of employees and the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge it.[24]In fact, jurisprudence frowns on the employers interference in a certification election for such interference unduly creates the impression that it intends to establish a company union.[25]Ventures allegations on forum shopping and the procedural lapse supposedly committed by the BLR in allowing a belatedly filed motion for reconsideration need not detain us long.Suffice it to state that this Court has consistently ruled that the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice.[26]So it must be in this case.WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. The Decision and Resolution datedOctober 20, 2003andJanuary 19, 2004, respectively, of the CA areAFFIRMED.S.S. Ventures Labor Union shall remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations, unless it has in the meantime lost its legitimacy for causes set forth in the Labor Code.Costs against petitioner.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 196276 June 4, 2014TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION,Petitioner,vs.BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT),Respondents.D E C I S I O NPERALTA,J.:Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner TAKATA Philippines Corporation assailing the Decision1dated December 22, 2010 and the Resolution2dated March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406.On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office a Petition3for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMA1) on the ground that the latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect to the number of those who participated in the organizational meeting, the adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election of its officers. It contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of respondent, only 68 attendees signed the attendance sheet, and which number comprised only 17% of the total number of the 396 regular rank- and-file employees which respondent sought to represent, and hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Petitioner insisted that the document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and that employees were not given sufficient information on the documents they signed; that the document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not submitted at the time of the filing of respondent's application for union registration; that the 119 union members were actually only 117; and, that the total number of petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed.4Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119 union members were more than the 20% requirement for union registration. The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon" which it presented in its petition for certification election5supported their claim of 119 members. Respondent also contended that petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal personality as it agreed to a certification election and actively participated in the pre-election conference of the certification election proceedings.6Respondent argued that the union members were informed of the contents of the documents they signed and that the 68 attendees to the organizational meeting constituted more than 50% of the total union membership, hence, a quo rumexisted for the conduct of the said meeting.7On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director, Atty. Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., issued a Decision8granting the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the respondent Union Certificate of Registration No. RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG, dated May 19, 2009 is hereby REVOCKED (sic) and /or CANCELLED pursuant to paragraph (a) & (b), Section 3, Rule XIV of Department Order No. 40-03 and the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng TAKATA (SALAMAT) is hereby delisted from the roll of legitimate labor organization of this office.9In revoking respondent's certificate of registration, the Regional Director found that the 68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was obviously less than 20% of the total number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration requirement; that the attendance sheet which contained the signatures and names of the union members totalling to 68 contradicted the list of names stated in the document denominated as "Pangalan ng mga Kasaping Unyon." The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not attached to the application for registration as it was only submitted in the petition for certification election filed by respondent at a later date. The Regional Director also found that the proceedings in the cancellation of registration and certification elections are two different and entirely separate and independent proceedings which were not dependent on each other.Dissatisfied, respondent, through Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Paralegal Officer, Domingo P. Mole, filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal10with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). However, on September 28,2009, respondent, through its counsels, Attys.Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie W. Velandrez, filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance11to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which the latter eventually referred to the BLR. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Appeals12praying for their dismissal on the ground of forum shopping as respondent filed two separate appeals in two separate venues; and for failing to avail of the correct remedy within the period; and that the certificate of registration was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and falsification.In its Answer,13respondent claimed that there was no forum shopping as BMP's Paralegal Officer was no longer authorized to file an appeal on behalf of respondent as the latter's link with BMP was already terminated and only the Union President was authorized to file the appeal; and that it complied with Department Order No. 40-03.On December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance and petitioner's Answer, the BLR rendered its Decision14reversing the Order of the Regional Director, the decretal portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., dated 27 August 2009, is hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng TAKATA (SALAMAT) shall remain in the roster of labor organizations.15In reversing, the BLR found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees. It pointed out petitioner's basis for the alleged noncompliance with the minimum membership requirement for registration was the attendance of 68 members to the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting supposedly comprising only 17% of the total 396 regular rank-and-file employees. However, the BLR found that 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; and that there was no requirement for signatures opposite the names of the union members; and there was no evidence showing that the employees assailed their inclusion in the list of union members.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the BLR in a Resolution16dated January 8, 2010.Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.After the submission of the parties' respective pleadings, the case was submitted for decision.On December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed decision which denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated March 29, 2011.Hence this petition for review filed by petitioner raising the following issues, to wit:THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR AND NOT FINDING ANY VIOLATION BY SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) OF THE RULE ON FORUM SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF TWO VERIFIED APPEALS FOR AND ITS BEHALF. BOTH OF THE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR, ON GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THE REGISTRATION OF SALAMAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS TAINTED WITH FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSIFICATION. SALAMAT DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIREDNUMBER OF MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, HENCE, IT SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY OF MISREPRESENTATION, AND FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.17Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that respondent had filed two separate appeals with two different representations at two different venues, in violation of the rule on multiplicity of suits and forum shopping, and instead of dismissing both appeals, the appeal erroneously filed before the Labor Secretary was the one held validly filed, entertained and even granted; that it is not within the discretion of BLR to choose which between the two appeals should be entertained, as it is the fact of the filing of the two appeals that is being prohibited and not who among the representatives therein possessed the authority.We are not persuaded.We find no error committed by the CA in finding that respondent committed no forum shopping. As the CA correctly concluded, to wit:It is undisputed that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no longer authorized to file an appeal on behalf of union SALAMAT and that BMP was duly informed that its services was already terminated. SALAMAT even submitted before the BLR its "Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009" terminating the services of BMP and revoking the representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any of the pending cases being handled by him on behalf of the union. So, considering that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no longer authorized to file an appeal when it filed the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal to DOLE Regional Office No. IV-A, the same can no longer be treated as an appeal filed by union SALAMAT. Hence, there is no forum shopping to speak of in this case as only the Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance filed by Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty. Jehn Louie W. Velandrez is sanctioned by SALAMAT.18Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically authorized by respondent, such appeal is considered to have not been filed at all. It has been held that "if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed.An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect."19Respondent through its authorized representative filed its Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance before the Labor Secretary, and not with the BLR. As the appeal emanated from the petition for cancellation of certificate of registration filed with the Regional Office, the decision canceling the registration is appealable to the BLR, and not with the Labor Secretary. However, since the Labor Secretary motu propio referred the appeal with the BLR, the latter can now act on it. Considering that Mole's appeal with the BLR was not deemed filed, respondents appeal, through Banzuela and Associates, which the Labor Secretary referred to the BLR was the only existing appeal with the BLR for resolution. There is, therefore, no merit to petitioner's claim that BLR chose the appeal of Banzuela and Associates over Mole's appeal.The case of Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories Employees Union20cited by petitioner is not at all applicable in this case as the issue therein is the authority of the Labor Secretary to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over decision of the Regional Director in cases involving cancellations of certificate of registration of labor unions. We found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Secretary of Labor in not acting on therein petitioner's appeal. The decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations on cases brought before it on appeal from the Regional Director are final and executory. Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and the Rules of Court. In this case, after the Labor Secretary motu propio referred respondent's appeal filed with it to the BLR which rendered its decision reversing the Regional Director, petitioner went directly to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.As to the second issue, petitioner seeks the cancellation of respondent's registration on grounds offraud and misrepresentation bearing on the minimum requirement of the law as to its membership, considering the big disparity in numbers, between the organizational meeting and the list of members, and so misleading the BLR that it obtained the minimum required number of employees for purposes of organization and registration.We find no merit in the arguments.Art. 234 of the Labor Code provides: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."And 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. And the cancellation of union certificate of registration and the grounds thereof are as follows: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.Petitioner's charge that respondent committed misrepresentation and fraud in securing its certificate of registration is a serious charge and must be carefully evaluated. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence.21We find no evidence on record to support petitioner's accusation.Petitioner's allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim that during the organizational meeting on May 1, 2009, 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, respondent misrepresented on the 20% requirement of the law as to its membership.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 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code 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. 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. 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 respondent sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum membership requirement. Respondent 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. There is, therefore, 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.22Petitioner's claim that the alleged union members signed documents without adequate information is not persuasive. The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.23In fact, we note that not one of those listed in the document denominated as "Pangalan ng Mga Kasaping Unyon" had come forward to deny their membership with respondent. Notably, it had not been rebutted that the same union members had signed the document entitled "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi," thus, strengtheningtheir desire to be members of the respondent union.Petitioner claims that in the list of members, there was an employee whose name appeared twice and another employee who was merely a project employee. Such could not be considered a misrepresentation in the absence of showing that respondent deliberately did so for the purpose of increasing their union membership. In fact, even if those two names were not included in the list of union members, there would still be 117 members which was still more than 20% of the 396 rank-and-file employees.As to petitioner's argument that the total number of its employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not396 as respondent claimed, still the 117 union members comprised more than the 20% membership requirement for respondent's registration.In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,24we said:For the purpose of de-certifying 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.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. The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. 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.1wphi1In 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.25WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated December 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 169717 March 16, 2011SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO-Union President,Petitioner,vs.CHARTER CHEMICAL and COATING CORPORATION,Respondent.D E C I S I O NDEL CASTILLO,J.:The right to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor organization provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. We apply these principles to this case.This Petition for Review onCertiorariseeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals March 15, 2005 Decision1in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203, which annulled and set aside the January 13, 2000 Decision2of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) and the September 16, 2005 Resolution3denying petitioner unions motion for reconsideration.Factual AntecedentsOn February 19, 1999, Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National Capital Region.On April 14, 1999, respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss4on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.5Med-Arbiters RulingOn April 30, 1999, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued a Decision6dismissing the petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certificate, "Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization," and "Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas" were not executed under oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code7in relation to Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, series of 1997. The union registration was, thus, fatally defective.The Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner union consisted of 12 batchman, mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory functions. Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, said supervisory employees are prohibited from joining petitioner union which seeks to represent the rank-and-file employees of respondent company.As a result, not being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.Department of Labor and Employments RulingOn July 16, 1999, the DOLE initially issued a Decision8in favor of respondent company dismissing petitioner unions appeal on the ground that the latters petition for certification election was filed out of time. Although the DOLE ruled, contrary to the findings of the Med-Arbiter, that the charter certificate need not be verified and that there was no independent evidence presented to establish respondent companys claim that some members of petitioner union were holding supervisory positions, the DOLE sustained the dismissal of the petition for certification after it took judicial notice that another union,i.e.,Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation, previously filed a petition for certification election on January 16, 1998. The Decision granting the said petition became final and executory on September 16, 1998 and was remanded for immediate implementation. Under Section 7, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, a motion for intervention involving a certification election in an unorganized establishment should be filed prior to the finality of the decision calling for a certification election. Considering that petitioner union filed its petition only on February 14, 1999, the same was filed out of time.On motion for reconsideration, however, the DOLE reversed its earlier ruling. In its January 13, 2000 Decision, the DOLE found that a review of the records indicates that no certification election was previously conducted in respondent company. On the contrary, the prior certification election filed by Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation was, likewise, denied by the Med-Arbiter and, on appeal, was dismissed by the DOLE for being filed out of time. Hence, there was no obstacle to the grant of petitioner unions petition for certification election,viz:WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is herebyGRANTEDand the decision of this Office dated 16 July 1999 isMODIFIEDto allow the certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation with the following choices:1. Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical-Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER); and2. No Union.Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of a certification election, subject to the usual pre-election conference.SO DECIDED.9Court of Appeals RulingOn March 15, 2005, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, viz:WHEREFORE,the petition is herebyGRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated January 13, 2000 and February 17, 2000 are hereby [ANNULLED]andSET ASIDE.SO ORDERED.10In nullifying the decision of the DOLE, the appellate court gave credence to the findings of the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union failed to comply with the documentation requirements under the Labor Code. It, likewise, upheld the Med-Arbiters finding that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. Moreover, the CA held that the issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked collaterally in a petition for certification election and the infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a pre-election conference pursuant to the ruling inToyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union.11Thus, considering that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization, it has no legal right to file a petition for certification election.IssuesIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in granting the respondent [companys] petition forcertiorari(CA G.R. No. SP No. 58203) in spite of the fact that the issues subject of the respondent company[s] petition was already settled with finality and barred from being re-litigated.IIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employee[s] of petitioner [unions] membership is [a] ground for the cancellation of petitioner [unions] legal personality and dismissal of [the] petition for certification election.IIIWhether x x x the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged failure to certify under oath the local charter certificate issued by its mother federation and list of the union membership attending the organizational meeting [is a ground] for the cancellation of petitioner [unions] legal personality as a labor organization and for the dismissal of the petition for certification election.12Petitioner Unions ArgumentsPetitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election is barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE. In this decision, the DOLE ruled that petitioner union complied with all the documentation requirements and that there was no independent evidence presented to prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in petitioner union. After the promulgation of this Decision, respondent company did not move for reconsideration, thus, this issue must be deemed settled.Petitioner union further argues that the lack of verification of its charter certificate and the alleged illegal composition of its membership are not grounds for the dismissal of a petition for certification election under Section 11, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, as amended, nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a unions registration under Section 3, Rule VIII of said issuance. It contends that what is required to be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local unions president are limited to the unions constitution and by-laws, statement of the set of officers, and the books of accounts.Finally, the legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to Section 5, Rule V, Book IV of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the doctrine enunciated inTagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incoprorated v. Tagaytay Highlands Empoyees Union-PTGWO.13Respondent Companys ArgumentsRespondent company asserts that it cannot be precluded from challenging the July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE. The said decision did not attain finality because the DOLE subsequently reversed its earlier ruling and, from this decision, respondent company timely filed its motion for reconsideration.On the issue of lack of verification of the charter certificate, respondent company notes that Article 235 of the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, expressly requires that the charter certificate be certified under oath.It also contends that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because its composition is a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code. Respondent company maintains that the ruling inToyota Motor Philippines vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor Union14continues to be good case law. Thus, the illegal composition of petitioner union nullifies its legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election and its legal personality may be collaterally attacked in the proceedings for a petition for certification election as was done here.Our RulingThe petition is meritorious.The issue as to the legal personality of petitioner union is not barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE.A review of the records indicates that the issue as to petitioner unions legal personality has been timely and consistently raised by respondent company before the Med-Arbiter, DOLE, CA and now this Court. In its July 16, 1999 Decision, the DOLE found that petitioner union complied with the documentation requirements of the Labor Code and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership. Nonetheless, the petition for certification election was dismissed on the ground that another union had previously filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the same bargaining unit in respondent company.Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner union on January 13, 2000, the DOLE reversed its previous ruling. It upheld the right of petitioner union to file the subject petition for certification election because its previous decision was based on a mistaken appreciation of facts.15From this adverse decision, respondent company timely moved for reconsideration by reiterating its previous arguments before the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union has no legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election.The July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE, therefore, never attained finality because the parties timely moved for reconsideration. The issue then as to the legal personality of petitioner union to file the certification election was properly raised before the DOLE, the appellate court and now this Court.The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president.Preliminarily, we must note that Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 948116which took effect on June 14, 2007.17This law introduced substantial amendments to the Labor Code. However, since the operative facts in this case occurred in 1999, we shall decide the issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force (i.e., R.A. No. 6715,18amending Book V of the Labor Code, and the rules and regulations19implementing R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9,20series of 1997) pursuant to our ruling inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.21In the main, the CA ruled that petitioner union failed to comply with the requisite documents for registration under Article 235 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. It agreed with the Med-Arbiter that the Charter Certificate, Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization, and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas were not executed under oath. Thus, petitioner union cannot be accorded the status of a legitimate labor organization.We disagree.The then prevailing Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, provides:Section 1.Chartering and creation of a local chapter A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following:(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;(b) The names of the local/chapters officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and(c) The local/chapters constitution and by-laws provided that where the local/chapters constitution and by-laws [are] the same as [those] of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.As readily seen, the Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas are not among the documents that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor organization. As to the charter certificate, the above-quoted rule indicates that it should be executed under oath. Petitioner union concedes and the records confirm that its charter certificate was not executed under oath. However, inSan Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW),22which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we ruled InSan Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 356 (1996), the Court ruled that it wasnot necessaryfor the charter certificate to be certified and attested by the local/chapter officers.Id.While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the previous Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments, we believe thatthe same doctrine obtains in this case. Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union and not the local/chapter,it does not make sense to have the local/chapters officersx x xcertify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of.23(Emphasis supplied)In accordance with this ruling, petitioner unions charter certificate need not be executed under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate,24(2) the names of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office,25and (3) its constitution and by-laws26 the last two requirements having been executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the records.The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization.The CA found that petitioner union has for its membership both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. However, petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit consisting of rank-and-file employees. Under Article 24527of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees. Thus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a legitimate labor organization pursuant toToyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union28(hereinafterToyota).Preliminarily, we note that petitioner union questions the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that 12 of its members, consisting of batchman, mill operator and leadman, are supervisory employees. However, petitioner union failed to present any rebuttal evidence in the proceedings below after respondent company submitted in evidence the job descriptions29of the aforesaid employees. The job descriptions indicate that the aforesaid employees exercise recommendatory managerial actions which are not merely routinary but require the use of independent judgment, hence, falling within the definition of supervisory employees under Article 212(m)30of the Labor Code. For this reason, we are constrained to agree with the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees.Nonetheless, the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory employees in petitioner union does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. The appellate courts reliance onToyotais misplaced in view of this Courts subsequent ruling inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.31(hereinafterKawashima). InKawashima, we explained at length how and why theToyotadoctrine no longer holds sway under the altered state of the law and rules applicable to this case,viz:R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition [on the co-mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees] would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.It was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) which supplied the deficiency by introducing the following amendment to Rule II (Registration of Unions):"Sec. 1.Who may join unions.- x x xSupervisory employees and security guards shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own; Provided, that those supervisory employees who are included in an existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x x. (Emphasis supplied) and Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules,viz:"Sec. 1.Where to file. - A petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.Sec. 2.Who may file. - Any legitimate labor organization or the employer, when requested to bargain collectively, may file the petition.The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among others:x x x x(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise require; and provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory employees and/or security guards.(Emphasis supplied)By that provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election.Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore inToyota,the Court, citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, held:"Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one,an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.It becomes necessary, therefore,anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.x x x xIn the case at bar, as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election." (Emphasis supplied)InDunlop, in which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees, the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members.It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved inToyotaandDunlopwere filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively; hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases.But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules that the petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit, thus:Rule XICertification Electionsx x x xSec. 4.Forms and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain, among others, the following: x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.InPagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano,the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved therein was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, to wit:"Section. 1.Chartering and creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter; (b) the names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and (c) the local/ chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President."which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list of its members.Then cameTagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWOin which the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court abandoned the view inToyotaandDunlopand reverted to its pronouncement inLopezthat while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.InSan Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW,the Court explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide a list of its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual members.More to the point isAir Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations,which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated its ruling inTagaytay Highlandsthat 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 239 of the Labor Code.All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481,the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, as interpreted by the Court inTagaytay Highlands,San MiguelandAir Philippines,had already set the tone for it.ToyotaandDunlopno longer hold swayin the present altered state of the law and the rules.32[Underline supplied]The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those inKawashimabecause the present petition for certification election was filed in 1999 when D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, was still in effect. Hence,Kawashimaapplies with equal force here. As a result, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor organization even if some of its members were supervisory employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for certification election.The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked by respondent company in the certification election proceedings.Petitioner union correctly argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in the certification election proceedings. As we explained inKawashima:Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy even more.33WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED. The March 15, 2005 Decision and September 16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203 areREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The January 13, 2000 Decision of the Department of Labor and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) isREINSTATED.No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 179146 July 23, 2013HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL,Petitioner,vs.HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, and PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS),Respondents.D E C I S I O NPERALTA,J.:Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure are the April 18, 2007 Decision1and July 31, 2007 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76175, which affirmed the December 27, 2002 Decision3and February 13, 2003 Resolution4of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (SOLE) that set aside the August 10, 2002 Decision5of the Med-Arbiter denying private respondents petition for certification election.The factual antecedents are as follows:On May 31, 2002, a petition for certification election was filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS), alleging that: PIGLAS is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) representing HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS; HCCS is a private educational institution duly registered and operating under Philippine laws; there are approximately one hundred twenty (120) teachers and employees comprising the proposed appropriate bargaining unit; and HCCS is unorganized, there is no collective bargaining agreement or a duly certified bargaining agent or a labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the proposed bargaining unit within one year prior to the filing of the petition.6Among the documents attached to the petition were the certificate of affiliation with Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis Kristiyanong Alyansa ng Makabayang Obrero (PIGLAS-KAMAO) issued by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), charter certificate issued by PIGLASKAMAO, and certificate of registration of HCCS-TELU as a legitimate labor organization issued by the DOLE.7In its Comment8and Position Paper,9petitioner HCCS consistently noted that it is a parochial school with a total of 156 employees as of June 28, 2002, broken down as follows: ninety-eight (98) teaching personnel, twenty-five (25) non-teaching academic employees, and thirty-three (33) non-teaching non-academic workers. It averred that of the employees who signed to support the petition, fourteen (14) already resigned and six (6) signed twice. Petitioner raised that members of private respondent do not belong to the same class; it is not only a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees as three (3) are vice-principals, one (1) is a department head/supervisor, and eleven (11) are coordinators but also a combination of teaching and non-teaching personnel as twenty-seven (27) are non-teaching personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord with Article 24510of the Labor Code, private respondent is an illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition for certification election, as held in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union;11and an inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community or mutuality of interest, as ruled in Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment12and De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine v. Laguesma.13Private respondent, however, countered that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that some of the employees included in the petition for certification election holds managerial and supervisory positions.14Assuming it to be true, it argued that Section 11 (II),15Rule XI of DOLE Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, Series of 1997, provided for specific instances in which a petition filed by a legitimate organization shall be dismissed by the Med-Arbiter and that "mixture of employees" is not one of those enumerated. Private respondent pointed out that questions pertaining to qualifications of employees may be threshed out in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings prior to the conduct of the certification election, pursuant to Section 2,16Rule XII of D.O. No. 9. Lastly, similar to the ruling in In Re: Globe Machine and Stamping Company,17it contended that the will of petitioners employees should be respected as they had manifested their desire to be represented by only one bargaining unit. To back up the formation of a single employer unit, private respondent asserted that even if the teachers may receive additional pay for an advisory class and for holding additional loads, petitioners academic and non-academic personnel have similar working conditions. It cited Laguna College v. Court of Industrial Relations,18as well as the case of a union in West Negros College in Bacolod City, which allegedly represented both academic and non-academic employees.On August 10, 2002, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the unit which private respondent sought to represent is inappropriate. She resolved:A certification election proceeding directly involves two (2) issues namely: (a) the proper composition and constituency of the bargaining unit; and (b) the validity of majority representation claims. It is therefore incumbent upon the Med-Arbiter to rule on the appropriateness of the bargaining unit once its composition and constituency is questioned.Section 1 (q), Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules defines a "bargaining unit" as a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping within such employer unit. This definition has provided the "community or mutuality of interest" test as the standard in determining the constituency of a collective bargaining unit. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. The application of this test may either result in the formation of an employer unit or in the fragmentation of an employer unit.In the case at bar, the employees of petitioner, may, as already suggested, quite easily be categorized into (2) general classes: one, the teaching staff; and two, the non-teaching-staff. Not much reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality of interest is wanting between the teaching and the non-teaching staff. It would seem obvious that the teaching staff would find very little in common with the non-teaching staff as regards responsibilities and function, working conditions, compensation rates, social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, etc. These are plain and patent realities which cannot be ignored. These dictate the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. (University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451)19Private respondent appealed before the SOLE, who, on December 27, 2002, ruled against the dismissal of the petition and directed the conduct of two separate certification elections for the teaching and the non-teaching personnel, thus:We agree with the Med-Arbiter that there are differences in the nature of work, hours and conditions of work and salary determination between the teaching and non-teaching personnel of petitioner. These differences were pointed out by petitioner in its position paper. We do not, however, agree with the Med-Arbiter that these differences are substantial enough to warrant the dismissal of the petition. First, as pointed out by private respondent, "inappropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented is not a ground for the dismissal of the petition." In fact, in the cited case of University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra, the Supreme Court did not order the dismissal of the petition but ordered the conduct of a certification election, limiting the same among the non-academic personnel of the University of the Philippines.It will be recalled that in the U.P. case, there were two contending unions, the Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of U.P. (ONAPUP) and All U.P. Workers Union composed of both academic and nonacademic personnel of U.P. ONAPUP sought the conduct of certification election among the rank-and-file non-academic personnel only while the all U.P. Workers Union sought the conduct of certification election among all of U.P.s rank-and-file employees covering academic and nonacademic personnel. While the Supreme Court ordered a separate bargaining unit for the U.P. academic personnel, the Court, however, did not order them to organize a separate labor organization among themselves. The All U.P. Workers Union was not directed to divest itself of its academic personnel members and in fact, we take administrative notice that the All U.P. Workers Union continue to exist with a combined membership of U.P. academic and non-academic personnel although separate bargaining agreements is sought for the two bargaining units. Corollary, private respondent can continue to exist as a legitimate labor organization with the combined teaching and non-teaching personnel in its membership and representing both classes of employees in separate bargaining negotiations and agreements.WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Med-Arbiter dated 10 August 2002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, a new order is hereby issued directing the conduct of two certification elections, one among the non-teaching personnel of Holy Child Catholic School, and the other, among the teaching personnel of the same school, subject to the usual pre-election conferences and inclusion-exclusion proceedings, with the following choices:A. Certification Election Among Petitioners Teaching Personnel:1. Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union; and2. No Union.B. Certification Election Among Petitioners Non-Teaching Personnel:1. Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union; and2. No Union.Petitioner is hereby directed to submit to the Regional Office of origin within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision, a certified separate list of its teaching and non-teaching personnel or when necessary a separate copy of their payroll for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of this Decision.20Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration21which, per Resolution dated February 13, 2003, was denied. Consequently, petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.22The CA resolved to defer action on the prayer for TRO pending the filing of private respondents Comment.23Later, private respondent and petitioner filed their Comment24and Reply,25respectively.On July 23, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for immediate issuance of a TRO, alleging that Hon. Helen F. Dacanay of the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE was set to implement the SOLE Decision when it received a summons and was directed to submit a certified list of teaching and non-teaching personnel for the last three months prior to the issuance of the assailed Decision.26Acting thereon, on August 5, 2003, the CA issued the TRO and ordered private respondent to show cause why the writ of preliminary injunction should not be granted.27Subsequently, a Manifestation and Motion28was filed by private respondent, stating that it repleads by reference the arguments raised in its Comment and that it prays for the immediate lifting of the TRO and the denial of the preliminary injunction. The CA, however, denied the manifestation and motion on November 21, 200329and, upon motion of petitioner,30granted the preliminary injunction on April 21, 2005.31Thereafter, both parties filed their respective Memorandum.32On April 18, 2007, the CA eventually dismissed the petition. As to the purported commingling of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees in private respondents membership, it held that the Toyota ruling is inapplicable because the vice-principals, department head, and coordinators are neither supervisory nor managerial employees. It reasoned:x x x While it may be true that they wield power over other subordinate employees of the petitioner, it must be stressed, however, that their functions are not confined with policy-determining such as hiring, firing, and disciplining of employees, salaries, teaching/working hours, other monetary and non-monetary benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. Further, while they may formulate policies or guidelines, nonetheless, such is merely recommendatory in nature, and still subject to review and evaluation by the higher executives, i.e., the principals or executive officers of the petitioner. It cannot also be denied that in institutions like the petitioner, company policies have already been pre-formulated by the higher executives and all that the mentioned employees have to do is carry out these company policies and standards. Such being the case, it is crystal clear that there is no improper commingling of members in the private respondent union as to preclude its petition for certification of (sic) election.33Anent the alleged mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel, the CA agreed with petitioner that the nature of the formers work does not coincide with that of the latter. Nevertheless, it ruled that the SOLE did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for certification election, since it directed the conduct of two separate certification elections based on Our ruling in University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja.34A motion for reconsideration35was filed by petitioner, but the CA denied the same;36hence, this petition assigning the alleged errors as follows:I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN THE CASE OF TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION (268 SCRA 573) DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE AT BAR DESPITE THE [COMMINGLING] OF BOTH SUPERVISORY OR MANAGERIAL AND RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES IN THE RESPONDENT UNION;IITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS CONFLICTING RULING ALLOWING THE CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION BY UPHOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT UNION REPRESENTED A BARGAINING UNIT DESPITE ITS OWN FINDINGS THAT THERE IS NO MUTUALITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT UNION APPLYING THE TEST LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FERRER-CALLEJA (211 SCRA 451).37We deny.Petitioner claims that the CA contradicted the very definition of managerial and supervisory employees under existing law and jurisprudence when it did not classify the vice-principals, department head, and coordinators as managerial or supervisory employees merely because the policies and guidelines they formulate are still subject to the review and evaluation of the principal or executive officers of petitioner. It points out that the duties of the vice-principals, department head, and coordinators include the evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness and capability of the teachers under them; that such evaluation and assessment is independently made without the participation of the higher Administration of petitioner; that the fact that their recommendation undergoes the approval of the higher Administration does not take away the independent nature of their judgment; and that it would be difficult for the vice-principals, department head, and coordinators to objectively assess and evaluate the performances of teachers under them if they would be allowed to be members of the same labor union.On the other hand, aside from reiterating its previous submissions, private respondent cites Sections 9 and 1238of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 to buttress its contention that petitioner has no standing to oppose the petition for certification election. On the basis of the statutory provisions, it reasons that an employer is not a party-in-interest in a certification election; thus, petitioner does not have the requisite right to protect even by way of restraining order or injunction.First off, We cannot agree with private respondents invocation of R.A. No. 9481. Said law took effect only on June 14, 2007; hence, its applicability is limited to labor representation cases filed on or after said date.39Instead, the law and rules in force at the time private respondent filed its petition for certification election on May 31, 2002 are R.A. No. 6715, which amended Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (the Labor Code), as amended, and the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9, which was dated May 1, 1997 but took effect on June 21, 1997.40However, note must be taken that even without the express provision of Section 12 of RA No. 9481, the "Bystander Rule" is already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been consistently held in a number of cases that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander.41The employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere at all therein.42This is so since any uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may give rise to the suspicion that it is batting for a company union.43Indeed, the demand of the law and policy for an employer to take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections is based on the rationale that the employees bargaining representative should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of the management; that, to be effective, the bargaining representative must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.44Now, going back to petitioners contention, the issue of whether a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the labor organizations membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees is actually not a novel one. In the 2008 case of Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.,45wherein the employer-company moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground inter alia that the union membership is a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees, this Court had conscientiously discussed the applicability of Toyota and Dunlop in the context of R.A. No. 6715 and D.O. No. 9, viz.:It was in R.A. No. 875, under Section 3, that such questioned mingling was first prohibited, to wit:Sec. 3. Employees' right to self-organization. - Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. (Emphasis supplied)Nothing in R.A. No. 875, however, tells of how the questioned mingling can affect the legitimacy of the labor organization. Under Section 15, the only instance when a labor organization loses its legitimacy is when it violates its duty to bargain collectively; but there is no word on whether such mingling would also result in loss of legitimacy. Thus, when the issue of whether the membership of two supervisory employees impairs the legitimacy of a rank-and-file labor organization came before the Court En Banc in Lopez v. Chronicle Publication Employees Association, the majority pronounced:It may be observed that nothing is said of the effect of such ineligibility upon the union itself or on the status of the other qualified members thereof should such prohibition be disregarded. Considering that the law is specific where it intends to divest a legitimate labor union of any of the rights and privileges granted to it by law, the absence of any provision on the effect of the disqualification of one of its organizers upon the legality of the union, may be construed to confine the effect of such ineligibility only upon the membership of the supervisor. In other words, the invalidity of membership of one of the organizers does not make the union illegal, where the requirements of the law for the organization thereof are, nevertheless, satisfied and met. (Emphasis supplied)Then the Labor Code was enacted in 1974 without reproducing Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875. The provision in the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is Article 290, which is deafeningly silent on the prohibition against supervisory employees mingling with rank-and-file employees in one labor organization. Even the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code (Omnibus Rules) merely provides in Section 11, Rule II, thus:Sec. 11. Supervisory unions and unions of security guards to cease operation. - All existing supervisory unions and unions of security guards shall, upon the effectivity of the Code, cease to operate as such and their registration certificates shall be deemed automatically cancelled. However, existing collective agreements with such unions, the life of which extends beyond the date of effectivity of the Code shall be respected until their expiry date insofar as the economic benefits granted therein are concerned.Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees shall become eligible to join or assist the rank and file organization. The determination of who are managerial employees and who are not shall be the subject of negotiation between representatives of supervisory union and the employer. If no agreement s reached between the parties, either or both of them may bring the issue to the nearest Regional Office for determination. (Emphasis supplied)The obvious repeal of the last clause of Sec. 3, R.A. No. 875 prompted the Court to declare in Bulletin v. Sanchez that supervisory employees who do not fall under the category of managerial employees may join or assist in the formation of a labor organization for rank-and-file employees, but they may not form their own labor organization.While amending certain provisions of Book V of the Labor Code, E.O. No. 111 and its implementing rules continued to recognize the right of supervisory employees, who do not fall under the category of managerial employees, to join a rank- and-file labor organization.Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the questioned mingling in one labor organization, viz.:Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own (Emphasis supplied)Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted s