G.R. No. 211145 October 14, 2015
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD rep. by its President, ALFIE ALIPIO, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. (HHIC-PIDL.), Respondents.

FACTS

On February 16, 2010, Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard (Samahan) filed an application for registration as a worker’s association with the DOLE, stating it had 120 members. It was issued a certificate of registration on February 26, 2010. On March 15, 2010, Hanjin filed a petition for cancellation of Samahan’s registration, arguing that its members, having a definite employer, could not form a workers’ association under Article 243 (now 249) of the Labor Code, which it opined was limited to ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural, self-employed workers, and those without definite employers. Hanjin also alleged misrepresentation, as Samahan’s Constitution’s preamble stated “KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard,” creating the impression all members were Hanjin employees, while only 57 were confirmed as such. The DOLE Regional Director granted Hanjin’s petition and cancelled Samahan’s registration. The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) reversed this, holding that the right to self-organization is not limited to collective bargaining and that workers with definite employers may form an association for mutual aid and protection. The BLR found no misrepresentation, interpreting “sa Hanjin Shipyard” to mean “at” (a place) rather than “of,” but directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name. The Court of Appeals reversed the BLR, reinstating the Regional Director’s cancellation order, holding that registration as a workers’ association was contrary to Article 243 and that Samahan committed misrepresentation. Samahan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether employees with a definite employer can validly form and register a workers’ association under the Labor Code, or if they are restricted to forming a labor union for collective bargaining.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the removal of “Hanjin” from the association’s name.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the November 28, 2011 Resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations, with the directive for Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that employees with a definite employer CAN form a workers’ association. The right to self-organization is not confined to unionism for collective bargaining. Article 243 (now 249) of the Labor Code guarantees all workers, including those with definite employers, the right to self-organization for purposes of mutual aid and protection. The provision’s second sentence, which mentions “ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural and self-employed workers,” is illustrative, not restrictive. The law does not prohibit workers with definite employers from forming an association. Such an association, however, is distinct from a labor union; its purpose is mutual aid and protection, not collective bargaining. The BLR correctly held that Samahan’s registration as a workers’ association was valid. The alleged misrepresentation was not substantiated, as the phrase “mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” was reasonably interpreted to refer to workers at a location (the shipyard), not exclusively employees of the company Hanjin.
2. On the second issue, the Court AFFIRMED the directive to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from the association’s name. While workers have the right to choose their association’s name, this right is not absolute and must yield to laws against unfair competition and infringement of intellectual property rights. The name “Hanjin” is a registered trade name and trademark of the respondent company. Allowing Samahan to use “Hanjin Shipyard” would likely cause confusion, mistake, or deception, making it appear that the association is affiliated with or sponsored by the company. The most equitable relief is to require a name change to avoid infringement while preserving the association’s legitimate existence.