G.R. No. 196276, June 4, 2014
TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT), Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Takata (Philippines) Corporation filed a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration of respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT) with the DOLE Regional Office on July 7, 2009. The grounds alleged were misrepresentation, false statement, and fraud regarding: (1) the number of attendees (only 68, or 17% of the 396 regular rank-and-file employees) at the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting, which failed to meet the 20% minimum membership requirement; (2) the lack of signatures on the “Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon”; (3) insufficient information given to employees about the documents they signed; (4) the “Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi” was not submitted during the union registration application; (5) the actual union members were 117, not 119; and (6) the total number of employees was 470, not 396.
The DOLE Regional Director granted the petition and revoked SALAMAT’s certificate of registration on August 27, 2009. SALAMAT, through its authorized counsels (Attys. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie W. Velandrez), filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which was referred to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). Earlier, a paralegal officer from Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Domingo P. Mole, had filed a separate Notice and Memorandum of Appeal with the BLR on behalf of SALAMAT, but his authority had been terminated by SALAMAT prior to the filing.
Petitioner opposed the appeals, alleging forum shopping due to the two separate appeals. The BLR, in its Decision dated December 9, 2009, reversed the Regional Director’s order, finding that petitioner failed to prove deliberate misrepresentation and that SALAMAT complied with the 20% membership requirement. The BLR denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which affirmed the BLR’s decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether respondent SALAMAT committed forum shopping by filing two separate appeals.
2. Whether SALAMAT’s application for union registration was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation, and falsification for non-compliance with the 20% minimum membership requirement.
RULING
1. No forum shopping was committed. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the appeal filed by BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was unauthorized, as SALAMAT had terminated BMP’s services and revoked Mole’s representation prior to the filing. An unauthorized complaint produces no legal effect. Thus, only the Appeal Memorandum filed by SALAMAT’s authorized counsels (Banzuela and Velandrez) was valid. The Labor Secretary’s referral of this appeal to the BLR was proper, and there was no multiplicity of suits.
2. SALAMAT’s union registration was valid and not tainted with fraud. The Court upheld the BLR and CA’s findings that SALAMAT complied with the 20% minimum membership requirement. The list of attendees at the organizational meeting is distinct from the list of union members required for registration. The alleged discrepancy in the total number of employees (whether 396, 455, or 528) was immaterial, as SALAMAT’s membership of 119 satisfied the 20% threshold regardless. Petitioner failed to substantiate claims of deliberate misrepresentation or fraud.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.