G.R. No. 161690 ; July 23, 2008
S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, vs. S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU) and DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, in His capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures) is a PEZA-registered export firm manufacturing sports shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union) is a registered labor organization. On March 21, 2000, the Union filed a petition for certification election supported by 542 signatures, 82 of which belonged to terminated Ventures employees. On August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration under Article 239(a) of the Labor Code, alleging: (1) the Union deliberately included 82 former employees in its list of members for the organizational meeting and forged their signatures; (2) the Union maliciously entered the signatures of three persons twice; (3) no organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and (4) the Union’s application was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees, as the 82 invalid signatures left only 418 valid ones, short of the required 439 (20% of 2,197 employees). The Union denied the allegations, asserting the meeting occurred, the 82 employees were qualified members as the prescriptive period to question their dismissal had not lapsed, it had 542 members complying with the 20% requirement, and the “double” signatures were inadvertent error. In a supplemental reply, Ventures submitted “affidavits” from 82 alleged members stating they were deceived or harassed into signing or denying attendance. The Regional Director granted Ventures’ petition and canceled the Union’s registration. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration, which the BLR treated as an appeal despite Ventures’ motion to expunge it for being filed late. The BLR Director reversed the Regional Director’s decision, reinstating the Union’s legitimacy. Ventures’ motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed Ventures’ subsequent petition for certiorari. Ventures then filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the Union sufficient to justify the cancellation of its certificate of registration, and in giving due course to the Union’s belated motion for reconsideration/appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the decisions of the BLR and the CA. The Court held:
1. On the Merits (Fraud and Misrepresentation): The written statements/affidavits from the 82 employees, submitted months after the petition for cancellation was filed, partook of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union filed its petition for certification election. Following precedent, withdrawal from union membership made after a petition for certification election has been filed is considered involuntary and does not affect the petition. By logical extension, such withdrawal cannot nullify the union’s registration. The inclusion of the 82 employees (whose dismissal was still subject to contest) in the list of attendees and members was an internal union matter falling within the workers’ constitutional right to self-organization. The Union substantially complied with the registration requirements under Article 234 of the Labor Code by submitting the necessary documents, including a list of members comprising at least 20% of the bargaining unit. The alleged defects were not of a grave nature warranting the drastic penalty of cancellation. The constitutional and statutory policy of encouraging unionization and affording full protection to labor militates against a strict application of technical rules that would undermine a union’s legitimacy.
2. On Procedure (Belated Appeal): The BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Union’s motion for reconsideration, which it treated as an appeal. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor cases. The BLR acted within its jurisdiction and discretion to resolve the appeal on its merits to serve the interests of justice and substantial fairness.
3. On Forum Shopping: The Court found no forum shopping in the appeal filed by the Union’s counsel, as the issues raised were distinct from those in another related case.
The Union’s certificate of registration was upheld.