Case Digest (G.R. No. 196276)
Facts:
Takata (Philippines) Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations and Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT), G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Takata (Philippines) Corporation filed on July 7, 2009 a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Union Registration with the DOLE Regional Office alleging that respondent SALAMAT secured registration through misrepresentation, false statements and fraud. Petitioner argued that only 68 employees attended the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting (constituting about 17% of the 396 allegedly rank-and-file employees), that the list titled Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon bore no signatures, that the Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi was not submitted with the registration application, that two names were duplicated (making actual membership 117, not 119), and that the true workforce was 470 not 396. Petitioner thus claimed SALAMAT failed the 20% membership requirement in Article 234(c) of the Labor Code.Respondent denied fraud, produced a Sama-Samang Pahayag showing 119 members, and argued petitioner was estopped from attacking the union after participating in certification-election procedures; it also asserted the 68 attendees formed a quorum of the 119 members who adopted the constitution and by-laws. On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr. granted the cancellation petition, finding the 68 attendees were less than 20% of the 396 employees and that the attendance sheet contradicted the list of members; he revoked Certificate No. RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG pursuant to Department Order No. 40-03.
Respondent filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal to the BLR through Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) paralegal Domingo Mole, and separately filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance through counsel (Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty. Jehn Louie W. Velandrez) to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which the Secretary referred to the BLR. Petitioner opposed on grounds of forum shopping and other procedural defects. On December 9, 2009, the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Regional Director, finding petitioner had not proven deliberate misrepresentation and that the list of meeting attendees is a distinct requirement from the list of members; BLR held no signatures were required on the member list and there was no evidence members repudiated their inclusion. BLR denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 8, 2010.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; the CA denied the petition in a Decision dated December 22, 2010 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 29, 2011. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit forum shopping by filing two appeals in different venues?
- Was SALAMAT’s certificate of registration properly cancelled for misrepresentation, false statement or fraud because it allegedly lacked the minimum 20% membership required for u...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)