CASE DIGESTS ON LABOR02

UNION

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. Bureau of Labor Relations

G.R. No. 211145. October 14, 2015

FACTS:

 A petition for review on certiorari was filed before this court, seeking to reverse,
and set aside the decision of CA, which reversed the decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations and affirmed the decision of DOLE Regional Director.
 On February 16, 2010, Samahan, through its authorized representative, Alfie F.
Alipio, filed an application for registration of its name “Samahan ng Mga
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” with the DOLE. Attached to the application
were the list of names of the association’s officers and members, signatures of
the attendees of the meeting, copies of their Constitution and By-Laws. The
application stated that the association had a total of 120 members.
 On February 26, 2010, the DOLE Regional Office No. 3, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga (DOLE-Pampanga), issued the corresponding certificate of
registration in favor of Samahan. But on March 15, 2010, respondent Hanjin
Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines (Hanjin), with offices at
Greenbeach 1, Renondo Peninsula, Sitio Agustin, Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay
Freeport Zone, filed a petition with DOLE-Pampanga praying for the
cancellation of registration of Samahan’s association on the ground that its
members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the
second sentence of Article 243 (now 249).
 Hanjin opined that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-
employed, and those without definite employers may form a workers’
association. It further posited that one-third (1/3) of the members of the
association had definite employers and the continued existence and registration
of the association would prejudice the company’s goodwill.
 On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a supplemental petition, adding the alternative
ground that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection with the
list of members and/or voters who took part in the ratification of their
constitution and bylaws in its application for registration. Hanjin claimed that
Samahan made it appear that its members were all qualified to become members
of the workers’ association.
 On March 26, 2010, DOLE-Pampanga called for a conference, wherein Samahan
requested for a 10-day period to file a responsive pleading. No pleading,
 however, was submitted. Instead, Samahan filed a motion to dismiss on April 14,
2010.
 Ruling of DOLE Regional Director = DOLE Regional Director ruled in favor of
Hanjin. Rationale: The preamble as stated in the Constitution and By-Laws of
Samahan was an admission on its part that all of its members were employees of
Hanjin. Same claim was made by Samahan in its motion to dismiss, but it failed
to adduce evidence that the remaining 63 members were also employees of
Hanjin. Its admission bolstered Hanjin’s claim that Samahan committed
misrepresentation in its application for registration as it made an express
representation that all of its members were employees of the former. Having a
definite employer, these 57 members should have formed a labor union for
collective bargaining.
 Ruling of Bureau of Labor Relations = BLR granted Samahan’s appeal and
reversed the ruling of the Regional Director. Rationale: The law clearly afforded
the right to self-organization to all workers including those without definite
employers. As an expression of the right to self-organization, industrial,
commercial, and self-employed workers could form a workers’ association if
they so desired but subject to the limitation that it was only for mutual aid and
protection. Nowhere could it be found that to form a workers’ association was
prohibited or that the exercise of a workers’ right to self-organization was limited
to collective bargaining. The BLR was of the opinion that there was no
misrepresentation on the part of Samahan. According to the BLR, the most
equitable relief that would strike a balance between the contending interests of
Samahan and Hanjin was to direct Samahan to drop the name “Hanjin Shipyard”
without delisting it from the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
 Ruling of CA = On July 4, 2013, the CA rendered its decision, holding that the
registration of Samahan as a legitimate workers’ association was contrary to the
provisions of Article 243 of the Labor Code and ordering removal of Hanjin
Shipyard from Petitioner-association’s name. Rationale: Only 57 out of the 120
members were actually working in Hanjin while the phrase in the preamble of
Samahan’s Constitution and By-Laws, created an impression that all its members
were employees of HHIC. Such unqualified manifestation which was used in its
application for registration, was a clear proof of misrepresentation which
warranted the cancellation of Samahan’s registration. The members of Samahan
could not register it as a legitimate worker’s association because the place where
Hanjin’s industry was located was not a rural area. Neither was there any
evidence to show that the members of the association were ambulant,
intermittent or itinerant workers.
ISSUE/S:

1. WoN Court of Appeals erred in finding that Samahan cannot form a workers’
Association of Employees in Hanjin and should have formed a union instead,
Hence, their registration as Worker’s Association should be cancelled.
2. WoN Court of Appeals erred in ordering removal of Hanjin in the name of the
Union by reason of company’s property right over the company name Hanjin.

HELD:

1. Yes. The right to self-organization connotes unionism. Workers, however, can

also form and join a workers’ association as well as labor-management councils
(LMC). Expressed in the highest law of the land is the right of all workers to self-
organization. As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides, the right to
self-organization includes the right to form, join or assist labor organizations for
the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for
their mutual aid and protection.

A labor organization is defined as “any union or association or employees which

exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing
with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.” A labor
organization has two broad rights: (1) to bargain collectively and (2) to deal with
the employer concerning terms and conditions of employment. To bargain
collectively is a right given to a union once it registers itself with the DOLE.
Dealing with the employer, on the other hand, is a generic description of
interaction between employer and employees concerning grievances, wages,
work hours and other terms and conditions of employment, even if the
employees’ group is not registered with the DOLE.

Any labor organization which may or may not be a union may deal with the
employer. This explains why a workers’ association or organization does not
always have to be a labor union and why employer-employee collective
interactions are not always collective bargaining. What the law simply requires is
that the members of the workers’ association, at the very least, share the same
interest. The very definition of a workers’ association speaks of “mutual aid and
protection. A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector
organized for collective bargaining and for other legitimate purpose, while a
workers’ association is an organization of workers formed for the mutual aid and
protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
 bargaining. While every labor union is a labor organization, not every labor
organization is a labor union. The difference is one of organization, composition
and operation.

Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing implementing rules which provides

that workers, with definite employers, cannot form or join a workers’ association
for mutual aid and protection. Section 2 thereof even broadens the coverage of
workers who can form or join a workers’ association. The court agrees with
Samahan’s argument that the right to form a workers’ association is not exclusive
to ambulant, intermittent, and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a
union or a workers’ association lies with the workers themselves, and whether
they have definite employers or not.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that misrepresentation, to be a

ground for the cancellation of the certificate of registration, must be done
maliciously and deliberately. Further, the mistakes appearing in the application
or attachments must be grave or refer to significant matters. The details as to
how the alleged fraud was committed must also be indubitably shown. The
records of this case reveal no deliberate or malicious intent to commit
misrepresentation on the part of Samahan. Neither was there any showing that
the alleged misrepresentation was serious in character. Misrepresentation is a
devious charge that cannot simply be entertained by mere surmises and
conjectures.

2. Yes. The Court agrees with the BLR that “Hanjin Shipyard” must be removed in
the name of the association. A legitimate workers’ association refers to an
association of workers organized for mutual aid and protection of its members or
for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining registered with the
DOLE. Having been granted a certificate of registration, Samahan’s association is
now recognized by law as a legitimate workers’ association.

As there is no provision under our labor laws which speak of the use of name by
a workers’ association, the Court refers to the Corporation Code, which governs
the names of juridical persons. The policy underlying the prohibition in Section
18 against the registration of a corporate name which is “identical or deceptively
or confusingly similar” to that of any existing corporation or which is “patently
deceptive” or “patently confusing” or “contrary to existing laws,” is the
avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to deal with the
entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of
difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. it would be
misleading for the members of Samahan to use “Hanjin Shipyard” in its name as
it could give the wrong impression that all of its members are employed by
Hanjin.