G.R. No. 172693 - People vs. Solangon

On February 16, 2010, Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard (“Samahan”), through its president Alfie F. Alipio, filed with DOLE Region III an application for registration as a workers’ association under Article 243 of the Labor Code, attaching its constitution and by-laws, officers’ list, and signatures of 120 members.
On February 26, 2010, DOLE-Pampanga issued Certificate of Registration No. R0300-1002-WA-009 in favor of Samahan.

On March 15, 2010, Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. (Hanjin) filed a petition with DOLE-Pampanga to cancel Samahan’s registration, arguing that one-third of its members had definite employers and thus should form a union, and that registration would prejudice the company’s goodwill.
On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a supplemental petition alleging misrepresentation by Samahan in its membership list and ratification documents.

A conference was held on March 26, 2010. Samahan requested ten days to file a responsive pleading but instead filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2010.
On April 20, 2010, Regional Director Ernesto Bihis granted Hanjin’s petition, finding (a) Samahan’s preamble admitted all members were Hanjin employees; (b) misrepresentation in the application; and (c) those with definite employers must form a union. Certificate of Registration was cancelled.

Samahan appealed to the BLR, contending Hanjin had no right to petition and that “Hanjin Shipyard” referred to place, not employer; Hanjin opposed.
On September 6, 2010, BLR reversed the Regional Director, ruling no legal prohibition on workers with definite employers forming associations and no misrepresentation in Samahan’s documents.
On November 28, 2011, BLR affirmed its decision but directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name to protect the company’s goodwill.

Samahan filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA (CA-G.R. SP 123397); initial dismissal for failure to move for reconsideration; reinstated on October 22, 2012. Hanjin filed comments; Samahan filed reply and memorandum.
On July 4, 2013, the CA held Samahan’s registration violated Article 243, affirmed cancellation and name-removal directive, and reinstated the DOLE Regional Director’s April 20, 2010 decision.

Samahan filed a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 211145), raising two issues: (a) its right to form an association despite having definite-employer members; and (b) propriety of removing “Hanjin” from its name.
On October 14, 2015, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision.

Whether workers with definite employers (e.g., Hanjin employees) may form or join a workers’ association for mutual aid and protection, or whether they are limited to forming unions for collective bargaining.
Whether directing Samahan to remove the words “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name infringes on its right to self-organization or improperly interferes with Hanjin’s property right over its trade name.