GR 177024; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177024; October 30, 2009
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner, vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE), Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila opposed the registration and subsequent petition for certification election filed by respondent union, PIGLAS-Heritage. The company alleged that PIGLAS-Heritage committed fatal misrepresentation in its application for registration. It pointed to discrepancies in the union’s supporting documents: the list of members showed 100 members, the organizational minutes stated 90 attendees, yet the attendance sheet had 127 signatures, and the signature sheet had 128. The company argued these inconsistencies constituted a deliberate misrepresentation of the union’s true membership.
The company further contended that the formation of PIGLAS-Heritage was a scheme to circumvent a final Court of Appeals injunction against a certification election sought by a previous union, the HHE union. It alleged that 33 members of the new union were from the dissolved HHE union, constituting “dual unionism” and proving PIGLAS-Heritage was merely an alter ego of the old union. The DOLE-NCR and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) dismissed the petition for cancellation, ruling the discrepancies were not material misrepresentations and that dual unionism is not a ground for cancellation.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the alleged discrepancies in the union’s registration documents constitute fatal misrepresentation warranting cancellation of its certificate of registration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the union’s registration. The discrepancies in the documents were not considered fatal misrepresentations. The Court accepted the BLR’s finding that the organizational meeting lasted 12 hours, allowing for the number of attendees to increase from 90 to 128. More critically, the law requires only that the application includes the names of members comprising at least twenty percent of the bargaining unit. With 250 employees in the unit, the required minimum was 50 members. The union’s submitted list of 100 members far exceeded this threshold. The variance in the other documents did not affect the union’s compliance with this substantive legal requirement for registration.
Regarding dual unionism, the Court affirmed it is not a ground for cancellation of registration under Article 234 of the Labor Code. Any issue of dual membership is an internal matter for the union to resolve, not a basis for the employer to challenge the union’s legitimacy. The dissolution of the former HHE union rendered any such concern moot. The right of employees to self-organization includes the freedom to dissolve one union and form another. The Court found no evidence that PIGLAS-Heritage was formed to commit fraud; it was a legitimate exercise of constitutional rights.